Once upon a time in California...

Slightly modified from Flickr CC/D A P
Posted in response to this

The French ban of the burqa is a good thing

The French ban of the burqa has received a lot of attention and a lot of criticism. The European Citizen says that a ban is disproportional and paramount to a publicly imposed dresscode. And the Council of Europe sees an infringement of the right to personal identity and freedom of religion as they are stipulated in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR, articles 8 and 9) and threatens to go to the European Court of Human Rights.

But I think that it is a good thing that the sovereigns in several European countries forbid the full-body veil by law. I agree with the European Citizen that official programs to integrate Muslim women into Western societies are absolutely necessary. But I also believe that the European sovereign may give himself the right to ban a full-body veil from European streets by law.

Personally, I would feel awkward and nervous asking a completely veiled women for directions in the street, probably just as much as if she was completely nude. The burqa threatens the openness to look somebody in the face, to see their reactions, to allow them interactions with others on an equal level. As little as I would walk through the streets dressed as General Grievous, I want to be subjected to a person that speaks to me through a veil. I see the freedom of peaceful coexistence and interaction in a multicultural city threatened by the fact that I have to speak through a veil and interpret my interlocutor's words via their intonation.

Viewing the case from another perspective, the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe believes that the prohibition of the burqa is "alien to European values". I completely agree that tolerance of religion has to be guaranteed and the ban of the burqa should in no way be interpreted as a discrimination of Islam. Instead, everything should be done to integrate Muslims into European society where this has not already been successfully achieved (let's not forget that most Muslims are perfectly integrated).

But on the other hand, a commitment to multiculturalism and tolerance must not turn into a European carte blanche for every conceivable bit of cultural influx. A lot of cultural influx into Europe is not harmful, and it would be ridiculous to ban Americanization by law. But Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Muslim and an passionate fighter for women's rights in Islam, asserts for example that the Dutch government closed its eyes to Muslim honor killings on its own soil for too long due to a commitment to a tolerant, multicultural society. European society cannot close its eyes before this; and I believe the European sovereign has a right and a duty to set clear borders to the tolerance that it extends to others and that it enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

As a last remark, in Iran it is absolutely inconceivable that a women dresses in shorts and a t-shirt. In Vatican City, shorts are forbidden because they dishonor the Holy See. I don't mean to say that the European sovereign should give himself the right to install a European dresscode. But in my view, it must be possible to forbid the fact that on certain streets in Paris or London, it is only possible to speak to a piece of cloth where you try to make a conversation.

Update: An interesting round up of different voices can be found here

Maastricht, NL: An example of cultural integration gone wrong

On the verge of leaving beautiful Maastricht after three years of study, it is interesting to look back at life in this mini-Europe on the border between the Netherlands, Germany, Flanders and Wallonia, because it shows interesting implications for European togetherness in general.

In my first year in Maastricht, 12,080 students were enrolled here, 37% of which were non-Dutch (most of them were actually German). In the English-language programs, the share of international students already exceeded 50% in 2007. In 2008, 39% of all UM students were non-Dutch; the share of foreigners in the English language tracks crept further upwards. The current figures are not out yet but I'm sure they show another surge as the university continues its publicity campaigns to get more of the esteemed German Abiturienten.

In my understanding, cultural integration runs along simple lines. You come to a country, learn the language, meet locals and curiously let them introduce you into the culture. Meanwhile, the locals play the host, are happy to share some of their culture with you and help you a bit in your language efforts.
And now imagine you're a 17-year-old Dutch high school graduate in a group of 100 fellow countrymen (and women), and 250 19-year-old Germans parachute into your city, speaking German all over the place. Kind of turns my understanding of cultural integration upside down, doesn't it?

In practice, many Dutch students fled into the Maastricht student fraternities and sororities which are a defining factor for college life in the Netherlands. From what I've been told, Maastricht has the highest enrollment figures in the Netherlands.

Those Dutch students brave enough to make German friends soon find themselves in a need to make a step towards their new friends, rather than drawing German curiosity for Dutch culture. One of my best friends (a Dutchman) learned to speak German without accent - by living in Maastricht for three years.

We even conducted a survey among our fellow students once and proved that "cultural integration happens not from the side of the guest culture, but from the side of the host culture". For example, 50 % of the Dutch and 66 % of the Belgians we questioned had signed up in the German community StudiVZ; not a single German participant had decided to enter the Dutch community Hyves, even though it is also offered in English while StudiVZ is completely in German.

Criticism on all sides has risen as the student community drifted farther apart over the years. My program European Studies is rather progressive, at least from what our research said. There are many intercultural friendships and non-Dutch students also read the Dutch-language University Newspaper Observant (10 pages in Dutch, 2 in English). But in the programs "International Business" and "International Economic Studies" with a German share of - apparently - close to 80%, integration has been difficult to bring about.


As many Germans turn their back on Maastricht and spend their summer vacation at home, the Observant this week published an edition written by the chairs of the four Maastricht fraternities. The four "pillars" of Dutch student life enjoy broad coverage while the dialogue between Dutch and non-Dutch student groups is limited to an English language interview about the clichés of Dutch fraternities that echoes the old confrontational lines: "German students have a different mind-set. They only come here to study, whereas Dutch students also want to enjoy life as a student. They need to be more open. Why don’t they try it just once?"

Leaving mini-Europe after three years of study, it is clear that much remains to be done to bring these groups closer together. Of course, Maastricht student life is far from the cultural clashes of Belgium/Belgium, Slovakia/Hungary, Estonia/Russia (getting better), Croatia/Slovenia (also getting better), Northern-Ireland and Bosnia, but it clashes nonetheless.

Finally, after a lot of criticism from student representatives and critical coverage in the media, the university established a project group for the improvement of student relations. I really hope that this will help to create closer bonds between the students at the university. The beautiful educated city between the Netherlands, Germany, Flanders and Wallonia does not deserve to be the place where cultural integration fails.

Accountability through the media - what is the value of science?

Two publications of political science that I recently had on my desk made me wonder where science stops and where investigative journalism begins - or vice versa.

In the first article "The Quint", Catherine Gegout investigates the secretive decision-making of Germany, France, the UK, Italy and the US in an informal working group before 2002. The group took decisions and more or less imposed them on the other Member States in the Council of Ministers without the possibility of them participating. Gegout interviewed multiple members of national bureaucracies under cover of anonymity and could slowly make sense of the informal body that Germany, France and the UK did not acknowledge at all and Italy and the US only mentioned in passing on the national websites.

The second article is Gijs Jan Brandsma's PhD thesis "Backstage Europe" in which the Dutch researcher brings light into the secretive comitology system of the European Union. National representatives are often not held accountable for decisions and yet they have a wide discretion in their actions:

(W)ithin only a few minutes the committee rushes through five official votes related to the points discussed before lunch, and the meeting closes instantly. Then Van Veen [name replaced] turns to me and smiles: ‘You saw that? We just spent 50 million here’ (p. 29).

Like Gegout, Brandsma based his research on personal interviews with decision-makers in national bureaucracies - under the cover of anonymity.

For me, these two papers provide a check on decision-makers in the way in which investigative journalism puts a check on them. But they are published in a scientific journal and will only reach the academic community and a few students. In consequence, this check is confined to an elite community. Will any policy changes result from these articles? Is that the intention of the scientist? Does he intend to saw the chair of a decision-maker, or does he see himself as the person providing the saw? And if he wants to actively saw, do policy-makers feel more threatened by revolting scientists than by revolting masses (i.e. classical journalism)?

You could argue that an important function of the European blogosphere is to find the little flaws in European policy-making which slip through the filter of the MSM, thereby providing an additional check on policy-makers. Science has the resources to provide the same.

But it is not enough to debate hot scientific findings in the scientific community. In the interest of public accountability, I would like those discussions to reach the media and the blogging community as well.


Update (30 January 2011): Don't miss the interesting take on the topic by Kosmopolito. And his add-on published here (3 March 2011).

Challenging internship for an international employer

Are you looking for a challenge and want to prove yourself in an international environment? Do you want to make a contribution to make the world better? Do you have a working mentality and approach administrative and practical problems with equal thrust? Can you work at an outstanding academic and organizational level throughout a week of 65-70 hours (excluding occasional overwork, i.e. for special occasions and conferences)?

Then we are looking for you. Ideally you:

• have a Masters' degree at a renowned European or international university in economics, political sciences, law, social sciences or related subjects with outstanding grades
  
• have six years work experience in international environments, at least two of which in a developing country and at least two of which in a leading position
  
• are socially active and have founded or at least contributed significantly to several NGOs, social initiatives or emergency funds
  
• have outstanding soft skills, allowing you to organize a team even under high time pressure and can present references to prove this
  
• speak English, French, German, Russian, Chinese and Spanish like your mother tongue and are fluent in Japanese, Indonesian, Arabic and Farsi, while you have a good working level knowledge in the remaining languages of the European Union as well as most known dialects in Africa and India
  
• are 20 years of age or younger
  
• consent to postponing the foundation of a family at least until your 45th birthday
• bring your own car and consent to paying your travel expenses
• bring your own computer (newest model, newest hard- and software is an asset)
  
• bring in a statement from your parents testifying their willingness to back you up with up to 10,000 EUR per month in case of intensive financial demand for travel and other expenses related to the position you hold
  
• are still enrolled as a student at your university, eligible for an Erasmus grant and can make the European Union pay for you so we don't have to do it

France and Germany are again playing old power game in climate change

The refusal of France and Germany to back Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard's proposal of curbing emissions by 30% until 2020 stems from a backward logic and is detrimental to the EU's soft power. "The European Union is ready to adopt the 30 percent figure if other major economies make comparable undertakings," French industry minister Christian Estrosi is quoted by EUObserver after a joint press conference with German economy minister Rainer Brüderle.

Estrosi and Brüderle want to play the old power game that led to the failure of Copenhagen: "We don't budge if you don't budge." Yet, it was apparent already at Copenhagen and also after Copenhagen that China was really not impressed by the EU's power play, to put it politely. The EU lost its multilateral negotiation power in Copenhagen and playing power games now does not get it back. Those of you who are familiar with game theory will understand that after a look at the rudimentary game tree below:



It is clear from the game tree that China wins if it chooses not to regulate its emissions, regardless of what the rest of the world does. It is also clear that "(m)ost of China's policy initiatives that affect climate change have come about without any direct reference to international frameworks, but have been driven by domestic policy needs" (Freeman and Holslag). Meaning that power games are rather useless.

There is only one thing that China wants and doesn't have. Technology. European comparative advantage is in technology. And if Freeman and Holslag are right that "the EU considers the combat against climate change . . . as a source of soft power", policy-makers are well-advised to start leading by example. The North-Sea Grid and the Desertec Initiative (which btw also extends to China, the US and Australia), for example, have not been paralleled by comparable projects initiated in the States or China, and progress in these projects can lead to more soft power for the EU.

Leading by example means leading by successful implementation of ambitious programmes at home. An ambitious target of 30% emission reduction entails a lot of research into best practices, consumption habits, carbon capture and storage, market mechanisms in environmental protection and other fields. An ambitious target is therefore a significant factor contributing to development of technology and thereby soft power.

Let alone that refusing an additional 10 base point emission cut where it is technically possible is not a particular sign of respect toward the population. It is true that developing countries face a trade-off between economic development and environmental protection (i.e. one declines as the other grows), but developed countries with a high degree of technology are less subjected to this trade-off and can prioritize economic development AND environmental protection.

And it is not a sign of particularly intelligent government communication that Chancellor Merkel is currently wandering through the eco-city "Masdar City" learning all about intelligent sustainable development while her economy minister rejects a stronger engagement of the EU in favor of old power games.

All in all, this makes me feel like we are far away from using the resources we have, and far away from making sustainable development a source of soft power.

Jean Quatremer: Barack Obama is the new president of the European Council

We thought that for once Europe had taken bold measures. We thought that for once Europeans had pulled themselves out of the swamp by their own hair. We thought that for once our leaders had taken far-sighted and wise decisions. But nobody has ever pulled himself out of a swamp by his own hair.

Now the Coulisses de Bruxelles revealed that the American president temporarily took over the job of the European Council President by personally convincing Merkel and Sarkozy to provide funds (and Zapatero to cut the Spanish budget). What is the purpose of paying a Herman Van Rompuy more salary than Barack Obama, if Barack Obama himself has to do Rompuy's job?

Angela Merkel just called the Euro-crisis the potentially greatest challenge since the signing of the Rome treaties in 1957. But even 60 years after the inception of European integration, Europe still cannot stand on its own feet. To quote Jean Quatremer: "Obama's intervention in European affairs shows to what degree the Union is defunct, due to the absence of powerful leaders who advance the common interest and not only their national interest" (my translation).

What a humiliation that is.