Amidst growing criticism over biofuels, over the weekend EU energy ministers discovered that they had misread a policy document from last March that outlined Europe’s targets for the controversial energy source. As it turns out, the target - previously understood to have 10 percent of the fuel for cars and trucks coming from biofuels by 2020 - actually only demands that the 10 percent come from renewable energy sources in general (including anything from hydrogen fuel cells to electric cars powered by clean electrical sources).

The new interpretation comes in the wake of growing protest and second thoughts regarding biofuels (see earlier post from May 13). Once seen as the green panacea for transportation emissions, biofuels have come under attack for releasing as many greenhouse gases as fossil fuels and for encouraging farmers to grow crops for fuel, not food, thereby contributing to the current food crisis. Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, directed a statement to the leaders currently at the G8 summit, “The US and Europe also need to take action to reduce mandates, subsidies and tariffs benefiting grain and oil seed biofuels that take food off the table for millions.”

Following this reinterpretation of the policy, on Monday the Environment Committee of the European Parliament recommended that the EU lower its biofuels target and instead work to emphasize other renewable energy sources for transport fuels. Coincidentally, Portugal will announce, later today, its plans to create a national network of charging stations for zero-emission electric cars, due to arrive from France in 2011.

See Also:

“Biofuel for thought,” Financial Times, 8 July 2008

“EU biofuels target ‘probably a mistake,’ France says,” EU Observer, 30 June 2008

“Slowing the biofuel bonanza,” BBC News, 7 July 2008

The twenty-first century has proved to be a rude awakening for European higher education. Despite the EU’s pledge to make Europe “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy by 2010,” only two European universities (Cambridge and Oxford) managed to crack the top 20 in a list of the world’s top universities that the University of Shanghai published in 2007 (the U.S. landed seventeen).

In light of the rankings, European officials, at both the national and EU levels, are being forced to reevaluate the structure, financing and objectives of post-secondary education. As recently reported in Le Monde, President Sarkozy has charged his Minister of Education, Valérie Pecresse, with the goal of placing two French universities into the top 20 of the Shanghai list and twenty into the top 1,000. France also hopes to use its EU presidency to establish a “European Shanghai” system of rankings that would be more relevant to European universities.

In the latest edition of European Affairs, news editor Pascal Riché sat down with Richard Descoings, head of Sciences Po in Paris and an active proponent of educational reform, to discuss the rankings and the problems facing higher education in Europe (and France in particular). In the piece, Descoings states that the poor European showing in the world rankings stems from three failures:

“First, the lack of decent funding in continental Europe makes it very difficult to attract very good researchers and to produce sound scientific or technological research; second, the lack of autonomy [for individual universities], which means freedom to set your own strategy; third, late awareness of the intensity of the international competition.”

Evidence for Descoings’ statement about underfunding lies in a recent spotlight by the EU Observer on education. Philippa Runner points out that Europe invests far less money per capita in higher education than America does - in the EU, an average of €8,700 is spent per student, compared to €36,500 per student in the U.S. The difference between America and Europe is even more prominent in France where every high school graduate is guaranteed a spot at a university and the state pays the vast majority (if not all) of the tuition. As Descoings explains, it is due to this public stake in education that the French government has had the power to set the salaries of professors, (mis)allocate research funds and dictate the schools’ directions.

Another critique of European higher education has been that its structure and qualifications vary too greatly between countries, making it difficult for students and teachers to move between them; Critics complain that this should not happen within a supposedly “integrated” EU. And beyond their bureaucratic flaws, some European universities have been faulted for preaching an anti-market bias in their classrooms (in France and Germany in particular) and for not making the employability of their students a sufficiently high priority. EU Education Commissioner Jan Figel recently complained that Europe’s problem is that it has a “200-year-long tradition of Humboldt system where the academic world is quite isolated from the outside world.”

The good news for Europe is that efforts to reform higher education are now underway. In 1999, nearly all of the Member States voluntarily agreed to the Bologna Process, an initiative with three goals:

• Develop a common system of academic credit,
• Design a common degree structure,
• Gradually converge toward a European Area of Higher Education.

Signatory states - which now include many outside of the EU - have already made substantial progress on the first two goals, creating the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and agreeing to adopt the 3-cycle (BA, MA, PhD) Anglo-American system of degrees by 2012.

And in order to diversify and internationalize its universities, the EU increased its efforts to encourage students to study under the ERASMUS program (European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students) and established an international counterpart - Erasmus Mundus - that creates the opportunity for joint post-graduate degrees at linked universities.

But problems and criticism remain. Some complain that efforts to internationalize schools will merely result in “scholarship tourism” - that is, students attending a foreign university, using its educational resources and then returning to his/her home, thus not “giving back” to the host country. And students at the Helsinki University of Technology claim that the Bologna Process turns universities into nothing more than “diploma factories” that encourage students to value credits over academic discussion and experience.

Commissioner Figel points out that educational reform will remain difficult because education lies firmly under national - not EU - sovereignty. He plans to work to persuade both governments and students to make university studies more “relevant” and to establish better links between campuses and science and business. With these initiatives, he hopes that European universities will be better able to prepare EU citizens for an increasingly global and competitive society.

The European Parliament approved new EU-wide regulations with tougher measures against illegal immigrants – a population thought to number eight million (compared to an estimated 12 million in the US). The EU law, a “return directive,’ is intended to harmonize laws and policies on the politically explosive issue in all 27 member states by providing a common framework for each country’s national laws. A central point in the directive is a provision in which illegals that refuse to go home can be detained for up to 18 months and then deported – with a ban on them from reentering the EU for five years.

Parliamentary assent marked the final step in instituting the new set of regulations.

The rules in the return directive exempt asylum-seekers. But they apply to foreigners who have overstayed their visas.

Critics of the new measure brand it as an abuse of migrants’ human rights, arguing that the length of detention is disproportionate and unwarranted. But proponents retort that the directive will actually improve immigrants’ protection in EU countries where the laws currently allow indefinite detention of illegal immigrants. In a statement issued, the European Parliament said that “member states will be banned from applying harsher rules to illegal immigrants, but allowed to keep or adopt more generous rules.” It adopted the legislation as a step forward in EU integration that will help governments cope with the threat of a rising tide of illegal immigrants, notably from Africa. Human-rights activists warned that the new law will be exploited by some EU countries alarmed by inter-ethnic tensions as Europe’s demographic make-up shifts as Muslims arrive from the Middle East and Africa, and Eastern Europeans move west.

Flak has also come from Latin America about the new directive. Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, threatened to disrupt oil exports to Europe over the issue. Some Latin American countries apparently are afraid they might lose remittances from their emigrants to Europe. The EU Observer notes, “last year immigrants in Europe, the US and Japan sent money back to their families in Latin America and the Caribbean amounting to just under €43 billion, more than the region receives from foreign direct investment or development assistance combined.”

The US is wrestling with similar problems of immigration without yet finding a national consensus. Many American business sectors depend heavily on immigrants, some of them illegal.

Analysts predict that immigrant labor will be increasingly important to Europe given the pejorative economic effect of its aging indigenous populations. Additionally, it has become increasingly evident that the EU lacks the skilled migrant labor it needs in order to stay competitive in the global economy. Europe needs help filling the void left by the highly educated workforce that has emigrated – primarily to the US. Using Census data on education and income, French economist Gilles Saint-Paul of Toulouse University explained to The Wall Street Journal that “a disproportionate number of European immigrants in the US were among the brightest prospects in their fields…the people who are most important for innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Parliament’s Marek Siwiec does Q&A with European Affairs

Marek Siwiec, 53, is a Polish politician who is a vice-president of the European Parliament, where he belongs to the European Socialists faction. Between 1997 and 2004, he was the chief of the Polish National Security Office under President Aleksander Kwasniewski, a key international policy post in the presidency. Siwiec visited Washington in May with a delegation of the European Parliament and spoke with European Affairs during a brief Q&A session.

Q: How well does Washington understand trends in the European Union?

A: Like any superpower, the United States has a tendency of over-simplify foreign problems. It tends to ignore trends that emerge quietly, without dramatic developments that compel attention among U.S. policy-making elites. This applies to the EU, which is still not well understood in Washington.

Q: What do U.S. policy-makers grasp?

A: Americans understand the Schengen accord and our customs union because they are familiar with free travel and free trade. But they often don’t understand our approach to juridical issues or internal-security problems. The EU cannot really be understood by comparisons with any other system.

Q: Is this damaging?

A: U.S. policy-makers still tend to operate with the cold war era’s reflex of preferring to build bilateral policies with each individual European country. Take the visa-waiver question: the regime should be the same for all EU member states in the EU but it isn’t. Of course, it doesn’t help that we in the EU have not managed to develop a cohesive foreign policy of our own yet.

Q: Do you see any positive trend?

A: Transatlantic trade and direct investment are spectacularly large, so the EU and U.S. have a responsibility to work together on a broad range of global policies. I counted eight or nine European Commissioners who have given speeches in Washington in the last few months talking about cooperation on a whole list of subjects: justice, anti-trust, accounting standards, economy, environment, open skies and so on. Very slowly, the EU is gaining credibility in Washington.

Q: How is the Parliament evolving?

A: It is not yet the legislative body it is supposed to be, but it is changing. It started as little more than “democratic window-dressing.” Many parliamentarians were people who had not been very successful politically in their own countries. That’s changed: now there is two-way traffic between being an MEP and a foreign minister or vice-premier in a national government.

Q: Is this change affecting your role?

A: The parliament has a dramatically more energetic role, and it is actively looking for policy areas where it can make an effective difference. Right now, we’re involved in roughly 40 areas of EU policy, but once the Lisbon treaty takes effect, that number will more than double, to about 90.

Q: What about your impact?

A: We are getting more powers. Recently, we forced multinational phone companies to reduce roaming charges for their mobile-phone subscribers in Europe – a change that affected several hundred million people in their daily lives. There was no other institutional set-up ready to tackle this problem, so we did. Looking ahead, I expect to see the parliament doing more and more of this sort to thing, in being responsible to the voters who now put us into office by direct elections.

Q: What sort of issues do you have in mind?

A: Look for us to be increasingly active on questions that interest the European electorate: human rights, environment, consumer issues – a whole range of these questions. Take the example of the U.S. program to operate secret “rendition” flights through airfields in Europe. No government involved in this practice has acknowledged publicly what happened. We took it on with parliamentary methods. In trying to push into such an area protected with high-level laws and secrecy, we had only limited success. But something important happened. I am convinced that as a result of our efforts such things will not happen again in the future.

Q: What did the matter tell us about the parliament?

A: It showed we had enough courage to tackle such a sensitive issue, and it was an important sign of our special role. The European Commission gets its mandate from the EU’s Council of Ministers, which represents the governments of the member states. That set-up implies some limits on what those bodies are going to do. In contrast, the parliament can operate outside that mandate of governments because we are the voice of the people. It was a milestone when the parliament succeeded in putting enough pressure on the Commission to block the appointment of an Italian nominated to be a Commissioner and get him replaced. (Incidentally, the successor, Franco Frattini, has just gone back to Italy as a cabinet minister in the new government.)

Q: What is the biggest change you think the parliament should push?

A: The Parliament has enough status to help bring about constructive discussion about big changes in the Common Agricultural Policy. The time has come. Those subsidies usefully maintained our agriculture when crop prices were low. Now food prices have risen enough for farmers to stay in business, comfortably, on a free-market basis. We need to start making the point that the money spent on price supports should go on other forms of help to farmers. Right now. There is a big “civilization gap” between rural and urban areas in many of our countries – for example, in Poland. We have large populations living far away from access to culture, health care and many other benefits. So I would say, “dear farmer, let’s talk about spending the money not on your potatoes but on other things that can benefit you in other ways.”

Q: Looking outside the EU’s borders, what foreign issues are on the front burner in the parliament?

A: Like other EU institutions, we’re trying to assess some broad international geopolitical issues such as the Middle East problem. One of the reasons for my visit here to Washington is to address the American Jewish Congress on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s foundation. Right now, Washington is trying to establish a balance sheet for its eight years in office, and it’s a complicated question in the Middle East. But taken from the angle of Israel’s security, I think the outcome has been negative. Many new phenomena have emerged: Hama’s control in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah gains in Lebanon. This cannot be blamed entirely on Washington, I think, but things are moving in a bad direction and the lame-duck administration cannot do much. So the question is: Where was the mistake? What policy changes are needed? Can the EU change its future role? It is not the right time – and should not be the time – for Washington to try any spectacular action, so the EU should try to be present in a way that encourages positive trends in the region (precisely the trends that are not dominant right now). I think we can see that our approach to exporting democracy can backfire by bringing to power factions – like Hamas – that gain a mandate for their dangerous regime. Above all, the EU has to have ambitions to become not just a payer but a player.

Q: How can the EU ever have political leverage in an area where one side of the conflict, Israel, mistrusts you?

A: We have to get beyond a situation where our policy is being set by CNN and other television networks that constantly focus on showing violence and often violence shown as attacks on Palestinian civilians. We have to think more carefully about defining our long-term vision for this part of the world. We need to convince our societies to focus on the need for long-term stable peace in the region. I think a particularly helpful contribution is coming from the so-called “new Europe,” where countries, particularly Poland, are friendly toward Israel. It’s time for Europe to stop thinking of Israel just as a troublemaker and start to recognize Israel as a democracy that can be an attractive partner for us in many ways. For this, we need to move beyond a pattern that consists only of commemorating the holocaust and the rest of the past and move toward a vision of Israel and Europe in the 21st century. When Poland got back its freedom 20 years ago, we discovered some ugly truths about our past and Polish people’s relations with Jews. We faced these difficult facts and had tough discussions among ourselves coming to terms with them. We had the freedom to do it, and the truth we now come to hold has reinforced our authentic freedom. This new situation could give us a new attitude in the Middle East.

 ______________________

* Answers have been edited for clarity.

Another coordinated cyber attack - this time on the websites operated by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) - was launched over the weekend that marked the one-year anniversary of the “cyber war” offensive against Estonia. That three-week internet barrage on Estonia’s civil electronic portals occurred amid ire in Moscow about Estonia’s decision to move a Soviet war memorial out of the city center in the Estonian capital, Tallinn. Labeled the world’s first “cyber war” by some observers, the episode is recounted and analyzed in depth in Kertu Ruus’s article in the newest issue of European Affairs.

This time, the principal targets were RFE/RL’s sites in Belarus, which were put out of action for several days until the attacks were publicly reported - and then abruptly ceased. April 26, the day the attacks began, was the 22nd anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, and RFE/RL had been planning live internet coverage of a large rally that day protesting the plight of uncompensated Chernobyl victims - many of whom lived in Belarus and were in the zone of heavy radioactive fallout from the reactor that suffered a meltdown in neighboring Ukraine. At the time, in 1986, both those countries were part of the Soviet Union and ruled from Moscow.

The recent cyber attacks came just days after the so-called “Hackers Panel” convened in London at the annual InfoSecurity Europe conference. The panel includes “white hat” hackers, who help companies tighten up their digital security by searching for flaws in their defenses. This year the hackers, who for the first time broke their usual custom of anonymity, warned that major nationwide British shopping chains were likely prime targets for future cyber attacks. “If someone wants to have a pop at the UK, they are unlikely to go for the government web servers,” said Steve Armstrong, an expert in hacking and a member of the panel. “They will go for the lower hanging fruit - companies which are seen as good representatives of the country.”

Related Post:
Lessons from Estonia: Homeland Security Chief Says Cyber Threat “on par with 9/11″, 18 April 2008

See Also:
RFE/RL Websites Hit By Mass Cyberattack, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 28 April 2008
Radio Free Europe says it’s under cyber attack, Associated Press, 28 April 2008
Hackers warn High Street chains, BBC News, 25 April 2008

Germans are emigrating at a record pace despite their country’s strengthening economy. In 2006, roughly 155,000 Germans left the country, apparently drawn by economic hopes. It marks a new peak of emigration since the postwar wave in the 1950’s. (The net balance of influx and outflow turned “negative” again in 2005 when departures outnumbered returns and immigrants.)

Germany, like other countries in the European Union, is experiencing the effect of EU encouragement for mobility among member states. Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands, are also seeing record-breaking emigration figures. (Some of their emigrants go to Germany.)

For German officials, the trend increases concerns about a looming shortage of highly-skilled workers: the government is working on measures to attract qualified immigrants to fill this gap. The new pattern also aggravates the problem of an ageing German population and shrinking work force that is liable to poses problems for retirement financing.

When Juergen Schupp, of the German Institute of Economic Research, surveyed 2,000 Germans in the 16-year-old category, he found that about two percent of them were considering leaving the country, many of them within a year. Some of them cited the tax burden, together with obstacles to small-scale entrepreneurship, as reasons for considering emigration from Germany. Of course, this does not mean all of them will actually leave. Simultaneously, German academics are showing more mobility, but many of them leave only temporarily.

In the meantime, even Germans who stay can leave vicariously — by watching reality shows (such as “My New Life” or “My New Job”) about their countrymen emigrating.

A survey by Germany’s Federal Statistics Office listed the top destinations for German emigrants in 2005:

Switzerland: 14,000
United States: 13,000
Austria: 10,000
Poland: 9,000

Via NPR, March 28, 2008; Deutsche Welle July 2006; German Institute for Economic Research.

The Bush administration pushed ahead this week in its face-off with Russia over independence for Kosovo - and Russia pushed back in the Caucasus.

Since warning that recognition of Kosovars’ demands could trigger similar separatist ambitions in Abkhasia and elsewhere in Georgia, Moscow has announced plans to move more Russian “peacekeepers” into the breakaway province of Georgia - a step that alarmed Georgian leaders as a possible step toward full recognition threatening to partially dismember Georgia.

President Mikhail Saakashvili of the Republic of Georgia was on an official visit to Washington, where he obtained President George W. Bush’s backing for NATO, at its forthcoming summit, to offer to open a negotiating process that could ultimately bring Georgia into the Western alliance. Bush also announced that he was approving Kosovo as a candidate to receive U.S. military assistance.

This escalation between Washington and Moscow marks the outbreak of a new Cold War, according to Stratfor, an on-line geopolitical think-tank. Of course, the United States outweighs Russia and it is geographically remote from the theater of conflict. That leaves the Europeans in the front line. For the moment, they are trying to keep out of the way, but they will end up having to play major roles as independent actors in this new Cold War, Stratfor’s analyst said.

The current diplomatic inertness in the European Union can be seen in the three main governments: Germany, France and the United Kingdom are not interested in confronting Russia.

“Berlin made this very clear when it expressed a lack of interest in NATO expansion, the independence of Kosovo and the Ukraine gas issue. This is not surprising, given that the Germans are dependent upon Moscow for energy. Beyond energy, Germany’s wider economic relationship with and its proximity to Russia inform its lack of appetite for confrontation with the Kremlin,” Stratfor said.

France has its international ambitions targeted elsewhere, mainly in re-asserting its stature in Europe and emerging as a more credible player in the Middle East. “It wants no part of this new West-versus-Russia competition,” Stratfor says. Britain is preoccupied domestically.

But this will change, Stratfor predicts. Germany is re-emerging on its own again as an international power player; Britain ultimately cannot detach itself from any major U.S. geopolitical commitment; and France will ultimately find it untenable to ignore this clash. “Europe’s geography - and the fact that, unlike during the original Cold War, there isn’t an iron curtain in place - will force the Europeans to jump in or at least choose sides.”

Related Article: “The Start of Cold War II?” Stratfor’s Political Diary, 21 March 2008

The presumptive Republican Presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, has started telling Europeans that his White House will want effective teamwork with its European allies - a marked change from the way in which the Bush administration often seems to brush them off.

In his concept, the key word of a stronger transatlantic partnership is “together” - with a new emphasis on U.S. readiness to be “willing to be persuaded by” European allies in order to get united action by democracies in Europe and the rest of the world.

A key U.S.-European cleavage - over Iraq - is unlikely to be healed by a McCain presidency. He has consistently supported the war in Iraq and argued for deeper, longer American involvement, not less. Even now in calling for more powerful U.S.-EU cooperation, McCain may dismay some Europeans with his emphasis on hard military power over the soft power options that many allies feel were scandalously neglected by the current Republican incumbent in the White House. (more…)

European foreign ministries feel “preoccupation and anxiety” over the possibility that Russia is preparing to extend official recognition to Abkhazia, the breakaway province of Georgia, the European Commission’s top official for external relations, Benita Ferrero-Waldner said this week. Her comment was published Monday by the EU Observer, an on-line news service, as EU foreign ministers gathered for a meeting in Slovenia, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency.

Her sense of alarm echoed calls by Sweden and Poland for the EU to take a stronger stance in support of Georgia in the wake of Moscow’s action last Thursday in opening free trade with the territory. Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner stressed European support for Georgia and cited spreading alarm in Europe that “Russia may be paving the way for recognition of Abkhazia.” This territory on the Black Sea has set up its own government and is protected by Russian peacekeepers, but it has not been recognized by anyone.

Moscow, in improving ties with Abkhazia, seems to be intent on fulfilling its own dire warning that Western-backed independence for Kosovo last month could create a precedent for further “Balkanizing” splits in the Caucasus. Moscow has not cited Kosovo in its statements about Abkhazia, but Slovenia’s foreign minister, Dimitrij Rupel, who chaired the EU meeting, was quoted saying that “Russia and [the rest of] the Confederation of Independent States have decided to draw certain parallels with Kosovo.”

Officials in Georgia lashed out at Russia’s attitude. The speaker of the country’s parliament, Nino Burjanadze, called Russia’s recent actions “really bad news” for Georgia. He predicted that the Russians’ abandoning the international embargo on direct trade with Abkhazia “means that they are going, step by step, in the direction of the annexation of this territory.”

Related Posts:
Kosovo’s Independence Boosts Copycat Separatists in Georgia, 7 March 2008
Kosovo: A Real Geopolitical Precedent, 14 February 2008

See Also:
EU foreign ministers concerned Russia to recognize Abkhazia (EU Observer, 11 March 2008)

Separatist ambitions in the Caucasus region have received their first tangible boost from the example of Kosovo’s independence. The breakaway Abkhazia region in Georgia appealed to international bodies for recognition of its independence in messages sent March 7, the day after Russia announced that it was lifting its trade restrictions on the territory.

The move came two days after a similar move by South Ossetia, another region of Georgia that is in revolt against the central government in Tbilisi. In their appeal, the political leaders of South Ossetia, also heavily pro-Russian, said that “the Kosovo precedent presents a convincing argument” for recognition of the province’s independent because – as with Kosovo in Serbia – “co-existence” had become demonstrably impossible with Georgia. The friction between Georgia and Russia is aggravated, too, by the former’s efforts to join the NATO alliance.

(more…)