Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt will lead the European Union during Sweden’s six-month presidency.

On Wednesday, the Czech Republic handed over the presidency of the European Union to Sweden. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has called for a more aggressive approach to the problems currently facing the E.U. as it tries to settle on a new charter and gain influence on the global stage.

The recent Czech presidency has been deeply criticized for a lack of leadership on key issues like the world financial crisis. An art exhibition commemorating the Czech presidency stirred anger across the region for its depiction of Bulgaria as a toilet, among other caricatures. Many see the Swedish presidency as a departure from the Czech style of leadership, though the last Swedish presidency was markedly quiet.

Bloggers had their say about the future and past of the European Union — including Swedish Minister for European Affairs Cecilia Malmström, who will chronicle Sweden’s presidency in her blog. She writes of her ambitions:

I’m looking forward to some challenging and exciting six months, that will require a lot of hard work and creative leadership.

It’s no secret that Sweden will be leading Europe in a difficult time. The European Union is facing a number of challenges, and the presidency will work under very specific conditions. But we are not afraid of taking up the challenge. The presidency’s ambition is to achieve results on a range of issues where citizens expect the Union to deliver. While working to create better conditions for growth and jobs, we will also need to unite the world in the struggle against climate change.

Blogger Julien Frisch shares his cautious enthusiasm:

As a realist, I know that the change [Sweden] can bring in practice is limited. But knowing that the spirit behind their actions is different to the previous presidencies, I have the hope that they will make a positive difference.

“Philippe,” a Swedish blogger, feels particularly dismayed over the failures of the previous leadership:

The past months have been marked by a rudderless feeling as the domestically strife-ridden Czechs failed to stamp their authority on the bloc, and member states freely bickered over how to tackle the devastating economic crisis.

Honor Mahony of euobserver.com writes that the Swedes are in for a difficult time:

Now prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt is in the hot seat. Every word he utters will be treated as the EU’s approach to that issue. His predictions on the economic crisis and a climate change deal will be headlines in themselves. [...] Each presidency brings with it its own particular traditions – the Swedes are pushy on transparency and have relatively good green credentials.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user shapeshift under a Creative Commons license.

A BNP poster.

Britain’s left-wing Labour party, led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, suffered major losses in European parliamentary elections, fueled by anger over the economic crisis and the recent scandal over expenses claims.

Labour’s loss was the British National Party’s gain, to some extent. The BNP, a far-right, whites-only party, won some 8 percent of the vote and its first seats in the European parliament. Several mainstream politicians in Britain have condemned the BNP’s victory, and some staged a walkout during BNP leader Nick Griffin’s victory speech.

Marko Hoare is a senior research fellow at Kingston University specializing in the history of Europe. He writes at “Greater Surbitron” to argue against the BNP’s vision of his country.

We must defend our Britain and our immigrants

Today is a day of national shame for Britain: the fascist ‘British National Party’ (BNP) has won two seats in the European parliament, and 6.6 percent of the national vote. Led by the Holocaust-denying Nazi sympathiser Nick Griffin, who won one of the two seats, the BNP is an all-white party that calls for an immediate halt to all immigration to the UK and the repatriation of existing legal immigrants through ‘a system of voluntary resettlement’. It claims to be defending the British nation and the culture and interests of the ‘indigenous population’.

Of couse, the BNP vision of Britain is [u]nrecognisable to any civilised British person. It is a vision of [those] who still live fifty years or more in the past and are incapable of coming to terms with the reality of the twenty-first century multiethnic Britain that most of us are at home in and comfortable with. I grew up in London, and went to school in an inner-city comprehensive, where the children spoke 51 different first languages. In my first year at school, as far as I can remember, roughly three-quarters of the children were from partially or wholly non-white or immigrant families. And the proportion only increased. For the most part, the difference between a native and an immigrant in London is blurred or non-existent, and for most of us Londoners, almost everyone we know and love is at least party immigrant in their origins. A foreigner arrives here and, within a year or less, becomes a Londoner. It is the great, constantly changing ethnic mix of London, with new ethnic groups and individuals arriving continuously from all over the world, that makes this such an exciting, dynamic city to live in. An all-white Britain would be an alien world for Londoners, or for the inhabitants of any town or city in the country.

So when the fascists or their fellow-travellers say that immigration is ‘destroying traditional British culture’, they are lying. As a Londoner born and bred, I think I would know if my traditional culture were being destroyed by immigrants. And guess what ? It isn’t. The British culture that I grew up with is a culture that is inseparable from multiethicity, constantly rejuvenated by new waves of immigrants. What a joy it is, to discover the Nigerian community in Peckham, or the South Asian community in Alperton; to hear regularly Russian and Polish in the streets; to eat Somali and Eritrean food ! The Notting Hill Carnival takes place every summer in Notting Hill, the traditional centre of West Indian life in London, where I grew up, and has been running for fifty years. Inspired by the annual carnival in Trinidad and launched in response to the Notting Hill race riots of 1958 – themselves incited by an earlier generation of fascists – it is an integral part of London’s cultural life. Without immigration, we would not have it. Ending immigration – were it possible – would prevent the emergence of other such cultural phenomena in the future.

This is not to agree with those ‘politically correct’ types who, in their cultural relativism, embrace a form of self-hating anti-white racism that is not much better than the racism of the BNP. There is not a ‘white culture’, ‘black culture’, ‘Asian culture’. etc.; there is our single, great British culture, in all its glorious, constantly evolving diversity. The cultural synthesis between ‘indigenous’ Britons and immigrants works both ways. It is not just a question of indigenous Britons benefiting culturally from immigration, but also of immigrants benefiting from contact with our great British culture. Every time a woman from Pakistan or Turkey, for example, takes advantage of British freedom to escape from an unwanted arranged marriage or oppressive and sexist parents and pursue her life as a free individual; every time Tamil, Tibetan or Chechen dissidents demonstrate here against regimes that persecutes their people back home, that is a triumph for Britain and something of which we should be proud. Immigrants are fuel for Britain’s economic and cultural growth; and Britain is a place of personal and political liberation for immigrants from less free societies.

The fascists would like to destroy our London and our Britain, and to substitute for them a London and a Britain based on uniformity; a uniformity based on the most retrograde and primitive elements of our ‘indigenous’ society. Such a Britain would be impossible to create, of couse, and the very attempt would necessarily involved pogroms and bloodshed on a scale never witnessed here before. To destroy London’s Arab Bayswater, Portuguese Golborne Road, Bengali Brick Lane, Soho Chinatown and so on, would be to destroy the whole city; an experiment in totalitarian violence of the kind practised by the Nazis and Communists. Nor would it stop there. Keeping ‘British culture’ uncontaminated by foreign influences would presumably mean keeping the British people hermetically sealed from the rest of the world: no pizzas or curries for us; no American music or films; no French or Italian clothes; no Japanese electronic goods. British culture cannot be separated from global culture, and only the most medieval of barbarians would try to do so.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user mia under a Creative Commons license.

After months of growing tension, the war began in August of last year when Georgia sent troops to retake the disputed region of South Ossetia. Russia responded with a counterstrike in South Ossetia and moved further into Georgia, a reaction the U.S. called “disproportionate” at the time. The conflict came to a conclusion by the end of the month with a cease-fire.

The action movie, set to air on Sunday, is shot in the style of the Bourne trilogy and tells the tale of an American entomologist and a Russian journalist who “unintentionally capture evidence that Georgia started the conflict using a special camera night lens as they attempt to film rare night butterflies,” Reuters reports.

Watch a trailer of the film below:

Blogger Sean at “Sean’s Russia Blog” reacts to the trailer:

Judging from the trailer, I doubt it’s really a “work of art” and certainly can’t be compared to Apocalypse Now but more a way to keep the Russian public’s political passions alive via shaky cameras, big explosions, and sappy melodrama. I won’t be tuning in of course, but I am curious about viewers reactions, if any.

Nathan Hodge at Wired’s “Danger Room” blog argues that Russian film propaganda is a far cry from what it once was:

This kind of clunky propaganda shows how far things have gone in Russia. Compare “Olympus Inferno” with, say, “Prisoner of the Mountains,” a phenomenal movie made during the first Chechen War. As legend has it, this powerful film helped persuade Russian President Boris Yeltsin to sign a peace treaty with the Chechens in 1996.

The “South Ossetia War” blog writes that the film will have political implications as Russians and Georgians try to pinpoint blame:

The political message of the film is obviously going to be quite important. The repercussions of last summer’s war are still being felt in both Russia and Georgia. The Russian media have been carrying reports that Russian draftee soldiers were not paid for their time serving in South Ossetia. Meanwhile, protests coming up on April 9 in Georgia are clearly going to be very dangerous for Mikheil Saakashvili’s government, and some highly suspicious arrests of the opposition have been going on in recent days that might seem more suited to neighbouring countries like Azerbaijan.

[...]While the Russians go ahead with the propaganda film (and the episode in the trailer where a wild-eyed Georgian soldier is running with a cocked pistol and screaming madly suggests it will certainly be propaganda), and the Georgians continue to cry about their scary imperialist neighbour and claim that last year’s war was a brave defensive response to invasion of their territory, sensible outside observers will surely continue to ignore both dodgy versions of events. As so often in international relations, the truth is surely that both sides behaved appallingly.

Indeed, the European Union has launched an inquiry into the outbreak of war, as Judah Grunstein at “World Politics Review” explains:

The more the EU digs into the outbreak of last August’s Russia-Georgia War, the worse things look for Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. According to Der Spiegel, the paper trail seems to be leading back to Order No. 2, from Aug. 7, which the Russians claim to have intercepted, and which allegedly spoke of re-establishing “constitutional order” in the region. The formula was repeated word for word by a Georgian general, also on Aug. 7. Georgia, meanwhile, refuses to turn over the document in question, calling it a “state secret.”

Blogger Matthew Collin in Georgia compares that country’s media to Russia’s:

While a lot of television reporting in Georgia is pro-government, it’s clear that there is much more open criticism of the authorities on national television than is ever allowed in Russia, or in most other former Soviet states. But the idea of a genuinely free and independent media has been slow to take root here. Georgia’s radical opposition, for example, seems to believe that free media simply means more airtime for their opinions (they recently demanded that an entire channel be handed over to them), rather than any kind of independent scrutiny of politicians on all sides. Meanwhile, investigative reporting has been marginalised. Two independent studios do produce documentaries examining official corruption and miscarriages of justice, but they are not shown on national TV.

The U.S. has witnessed frustration over the government’s huge bailout of American International Group (AIG) — whereas France saw a wave of protests and strikes aimed at getting the government to do more to ease the deepening crisis.

John Authers, the investment editor of the Financial Times, joins Martin Savidge to discuss growing anger, next month’s G-20 talks and if the European Union will be able to come up with a unified position.

European leaders are working towards economic cooperation.

As the financial crisis has spread throughout the globe, leaders in Asia and Europe have increased efforts to band together, coordinating economic action.  

Over the past few weeks, several regional meetings have taken place, bringing together leaders from a number of countries with vastly different economic systems. Ten member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as well as China, Japan and Korea agreed to work together to maintain stable currency values. In Europe, several leaders agreed to double the resources of the International Monetary Fund to $500 billion.

These multilateral agreements come ahead of the scheduled G20 summit in April, featuring both advanced and developing economies.

Peter A. Petri is a senior fellow at the East-West Center in Honolulu and former dean of the International Business School at Brandeis University. He writes at the “East Asia Forum” blog that this level of global cooperation is unprecedented, and will change the face of the world’s economic order. 

Global response to economy in works

What do Berlin, Germany and Hua Hin, Thailand, have in common? Not winter weather, for sure. But this week, briefly, both offer a little sunshine for the world economy. European and Asian leaders meeting in these cities are pledging hundreds of billions of dollars for international financial rescue plans.

The bad news is that their actions reflect a rapidly deepening global crisis. The “other shoe dropping” in the downturn could be collapsing currencies and bankruptcy in several countries. This happened in Iceland, and it could happen soon in Hungary, the Baltic countries, Pakistan and others.

The good news is that leaders are beginning to fashion a global response to the crisis. This still faces many obstacles, but a “yes, we can” attitude is starting to emerge. It could bring benefits not just in stemming the meltdown, but also on other global decisions, like trade and climate change.

In Berlin, European leaders agreed to double the lending capacity of the International Monetary Fund to $500 billion. In Hua Hin this weekend, Asian leaders agreed to improve the structure of the Chiang Mai Initiative, the region’s emergency lending pool, and increase its size to $120 billion.

This is a sea change. A year ago, the IMF looked headed for extinction. Turkey was its only client and one-quarter of its staff opted for early retirement. The CMI, created after the 1997-98 Asian crisis, had never lent any money, and stood instead as a silent reminder of the difficulties of Asian cooperation. Now both are springing back to life.

It’s high time for global cooperation — but it has been hard to find a leader. The world’s economies need to work together to stop the “adverse feedback loop” that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke highlighted in his Senate testimony on Tuesday. Every economy in recession buys less from others, and every bank that collapses puts others at greater risk.

China was one of the first countries to act, with a stimulus package of nearly $600 billion. The U.S. has now joined with its $800 billion package, and other countries are moving, too.

But most countries have stimulus packages well below 2 percent of GDP, much smaller than those of China and the U.S. Many still hope a world recovery will save them. Unless they act together, it won’t.

[...]In the ashes of the old economic order, a new one is taking shape. It will be based on a coalition of countries perhaps led, but not dominated, by the United States. It will require joint policies inconceivable in simpler times. With luck — and time — these could help to turn the global economy around and lead to more effective ways to govern our incredibly complex world.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user viZZZual.com under a Creative Commons license.

Warning that a new economic “iron curtain” could descend across the continent, leaders from Eastern Europe came to Brussels asking for nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars to bail them out. The European Union rejected such a bailout.

Roben Farzad, a senior writer and columnist for BusinessWeek magazine, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss the rapidly deteriorating economic situation in Eastern Europe. They discuss what people in Eastern Europe will face in coming months as well as the broader implications for Western Europe and the world.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana called Guantánamo “an American problem.”

Though members of the European Union have expressed support for Barack Obama’s decision to close the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay, few are eager to accommodate its roughly 245 detainees.

Concern has grown since it emerged that a former detainee is now an al-Qaeda leader in Yemen.

Ahto Lobjakas writes at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty about the positions of many E.U. member states and varying reasons for their reluctance to accept detainees.

For more on Obama’s future with Guantánamo and Cuba, tune into our blogtalkradio show tomorrow at 7:30 p.m. EST.

In Brussels, EU Strains For Guantanamo Goodwill Gesture

EU foreign ministers are gathered in Brussels for the bloc’s first chance to extend a joint welcome to President Barack Obama’s administration, with widespread hopes that the new U.S. president will consult them more on issues of mutual interest.

Most observers in the EU agree the bloc has a narrow window of opportunity to prove to Obama that it deserves to be taken seriously.

Yet EU member states were struggling in the run-up to the meeting to reach a common position on the fate of Guantanamo and its 245 prisoners, an issue that, more than most, symbolizes the hopes associated with Obama.

[...]At one level, the issue has become a well-rehearsed squabble of jurisdiction. A proposal has emerged that envisions the EU accepting up to 60 former detainees. But despite attempts at EU-wide harmonization, asylum policy remains a national matter. For some, like Germany’s Christian Democrat minister of the interior, Wolfgang Schauble, safeguarding national prerogatives is a matter of principle.

Schauble has said Germany would only have agreed to accept prisoners if there had been any of German origin. But generally, he says, the Guantanamo detainees are the United States’ problem to deal with.

That is a sentiment echoed before the January 26 meeting by EU foreign-policy chief Javier Solana. “This is an American problem that they have to solve, but we will be ready to help if necessary,” Solana said.

Other countries, like Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands, decline for ideological reasons, saying accepting Guantanamo prisoners would legitimate the more dubious detention and interrogation practices of the U.S. “war on terror.”

They stress that the Guantanamo camp was set up in violation of international law and remains a U.S. responsibility. “We did not set up or support Guantanamo Bay. We did not make these mistakes,” the Dutch foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, told the country’s parliament two months ago.

Still others fear the potential security risks the terrorist suspects may pose once they are released. Some EU countries argue their legislation limits asylum rights to refugees — a status for which Guantanamo inmates do not qualify. Many of Washington’s close allies in Eastern Europe fall into this category, meaning their natural inclination to give the United States a hand could be undone by their restrictive immigration laws.

The governments of France and Britain appear prepared, in principle, to host people freed from Guantanamo, but have argued for a joint European response that would leave member states free to make their own individual decisions.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Bertelsmann Stiftung under a Creative Commons license.

The “BABY” sculpture by Czech artist David Cerny in Prague. Another piece by Cerny has generated controversy across Europe for its depiction of E.U. member countries.

An art exhibition in Brussels commemorating the Czech presidency of the European Union has become embroiled in controversy.

The sculpture “Entropa” by Czech artist David Cerny features symbols meant to represent E.U. member countries — but Romania is represented as a vampiric theme park, Bulgaria is portrayed as a Turkish toilet system and The Netherlands is shown completely underwater.

The sculpture, commissioned by the Czech government, was supposed to feature the work of 27 different artists from across Europe, but Cerny admitted that he had completed the entire piece on his own and faked the names of the 26 other artists.

David Cerny writes about his motivations for the hoax on his Web site, saying that the depictions “show how difficult and fragmented Europe as a whole can seem.”

Radio Free Europe’s “Transmission” blog writes that reactions to the piece have been mixed, but that the Czech government is to blame given Cerny’s history of “subversive” pranks.

Blogger “Alexander” writes from London that the sculpture is “wonderful” and sheds light on the Czech perspective.

Another English blogger says that Britain was omitted entirely from the piece, and writes that media coverage has ranged from the amused to the indignant.

The “Fistful of Euros” blog writes that the piece is a funny collection of European stereotypes.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user ankatank under a Creative Commons license.

The U.N. marked the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 10. Photo: United Nations

Sixty-six of the 192 United Nations member countries signed a nonbinding declaration to decriminalize homosexuality. It was the first time that the issue of gay and lesbian rights has been considered by the U.N. General Assembly.

Another 60 nations supported a rival statement introduced by Syria. 

The U.S. refused to sign the declaration – the only major Western nation to do so. Spokespeople expressed concern about confusing federal and state jurisdiction on laws relating to sexual orientation.

Armenian blogger “Artmika” calls his country’s support of the decriminalization declaration “historic,” writing that it is the first time Armenia has set such an example.

Michael Jones of the “Gay Rights” blog writes that the U.S. should show leadership on the issue, although the fact that the resolution is nonbinding limits its importance. 

France did not have sufficient support for an official resolution, so instead put forth the nonbinding declaration (co-sponsored by the Netherlands). All 27 European Union members supported the decriminalization declaration.

Kate Sheill of Amnesty International writes that even Syria’s statement of rejection, which “deplore[d] all forms of stereotyping” while arguing that domestic laws should be followed, reflected a greater degree of non-discrimination than has previously been seen. 

Blogger William Crawley of the BBC writes about the Vatican’s opposition to the declaration. The Vatican has voiced support of gay decriminalization but argues that the declaration goes too far. 

The “Leaning Straight Up” blog writes that media reports unfairly single out Muslim opposition to the declaration.

The Web site of independent Belarusian newspaper Nasha Niva.

The government of Belarus agreed to nationally distribute two independent newspapers that had previously been dropped from circulation after criticizing the government, according to Reporters Without Borders.

Reporters Without Borders sees the move as “tentative sign of liberalism” on the part of the government. Previously, the organization ranked Belarus 154th out of 173 countries in terms of press freedom this year.

In the past, the government has funneled money to state-run media, like the government daily Sovetskaya Belorussiya, while opposition and independent media outlets have been forced to pay fees, close down or publish abroad.

Andrei Khrapavitski is a student in Lithuania and the editor-in-chief of Westki.info, a citizen journalism project for northwestern Belarus and Vilnius. He writes at the “Belarusan American” blog about the reasons for shifts in the country’s media industry.

How to tame a Belarusian wolf?

The big news of the past few weeks was the return of two Belarusian independent newspapers to the state-run system of distribution (newsstands and subscription catalogs). The Belarusian regime, pressured by the West, disagreements with Kremlin, and the grim economic data, has made a half-step towards what we might consider liberalization. But how far is the Belarusian regime ready to let in, and how determined is the West to keep the pressure on?

Until recently, nearly all Belarusian independent newspapers daring to touch political topics had been deprived of a possibility to be distributed through a state-controlled network of newsstands. Belarusians had not had a possibility to subscribe to independent newspapers through the state monopoly distributor Belposhta.

About three weeks ago, the state ruled to allow two newspapers – Nasha Niva and Narodnaya Volya – to return to the state-run distribution system. The editors say that the regime did not ask for anything in return. There were no political demands. However, the contracts the editors signed with the state monopolies Belposhta, Belsayuzpechat left the editors unsure of the longevity of this meltdown. The contracts can be canceled at any point; monopolies also rip off two newspapers economically. The distribution terms are absolutely unfair if compared to the terms according to which these companies distribute the state-run press.

It is also important to ask the authorities why they ushered in just two newspapers. How about the rest? How about the regional independent newspapers which were stronger and more popular than the state-run local newspapers? Letting in just two and filtering others is a vivid example of the Belarusian authoritarianism – the president ordered, the bureaucrats fulfilled. Forget about the rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances… The decision-making is unilateral, one-sided, uncontrolled and unquestioned.

Of course, it is great this half-step was made. I am very glad for my colleagues. However, I think it is important to keep the pressure on the Belarusian government so as to push it to make further steps forward. Let us not forget the repressive media law we have in Belarus. Let us not forget it was even toughened recently. The Internet media are gonna be in trouble after the new repressive amendments take effect this January.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Following his victory, Obama’s online presence has only increased. Obama will provide a weekly address via YouTube, the first of which appeared on Saturday. A new Web site, change.gov, also invites participation and input from citizens.

But as the “Think Macro” blog points out, “Obama was not the first.” Russian president Dmitry Medvedev is one of many leaders who have taken to the Internet, creating a video blog.

In one, Medvedev discusses the world financial crisis (English subtitles):

Other European governments have embraced online communication. The European Commission’s “Debate Europe” Web site encourages citizen debate about challenges facing Europe, which the Commission uses to “gage public opinion.”

In the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Justice started a program called “CivicSurf” aimed at teaching local leaders to blog — like Mike Sanderson, a councillor in Fleetwood.

Jeremy Gould, a civil servant working for the British government, writes about and encourages government use of digital media at his blog, “Whitehall Webby.”

The Australian government recently received attention for creating a Twitter account for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The leader’s Twitter page crashed after receiving too many hits. Rudd and opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull have unleashed extensive online campaigns as they compete for votes, with a presence on Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and YouTube. The “eGov AU” blog tracks further e-government developments in Australia.

Singapore’s “eCitizen” portal launched in 1999 provides a range of online services to users as well as mobile alerts and information.

Dubai’s eGovernment site has grown from 14 online services in 2001 to over 2,000 today.

Despite the benefits of transitioning online — from improved communication to expanded information — there are some dangers. The official Web site of Estonia, a paperless government, was besieged by hackers last year.

Nonetheless, for countries like Macedonia — which before recently faced mobs of people angry at license processing delays — moving operations online can be transformational.

For more, read the United Nations “E-Government Survey 2008” [PDF].

Barack Obama’s victory was called the “first election the Internet won” because of his integration of technology and social networking tools. But governments around the world are also heading online. /files/2008/11/th_russia_egov.jpg /files/2008/11/th_russia_egov.jpg ]]> http://worldfocus.org/blog/2008/11/17/leaders-log-on-as-e-governments-grow/2731/feed/ http://worldfocus.org/blog/2008/10/24/eu-%e2%80%9cblue-card%e2%80%9d-visa-to-attract-skilled-migrants/2091/ http://worldfocus.org/blog/2008/10/24/eu-%e2%80%9cblue-card%e2%80%9d-visa-to-attract-skilled-migrants/2091/#comments Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:15:01 +0000 Worldfocus http://worldfocus.org/?p=2091

German documentation to obtain a residence permit.

On Wednesday, European Union officials agreed to develop a “blue card” visa to attract skilled migrant workers from Africa and Asia. Currently, skilled workers make up only 1.7 percent of migrants in the EU.

The card is expected to go into effect in 2010 and will be given to workers who have already obtained a job contract in an EU state.

An Irish blogger at the “Irish National Unity” blog hopes that an increase of skilled migrants will coincide with a decrease in unskilled migrants.

Peter Ngatia writes at the African Medical and Research Foundation Web site that the blue card may pose a threat to African governments already facing a shortage of skilled health workers. He worries that the implementation may cause further brain drain in Africa.

A Spanish-language blogger at “PaQueSepas” writes about the advantages of the blue card, including “immunity” from currency fluctuations and the ability to bring one’s family with them.

The “EU Blue Card News and Views” blog writes that the blue card may threaten the U.S. supply of skilled workers, particularly given the shorter application process.

The “European Union Blue Card” blog outlines differences between the EU blue card and U.S. green card.

Photos courtesy of Flickr user Farruska under a Creative Commons license.

Richard Gowan, an expert on international peacekeeping missions with the Center of International Cooperation, speaks with Martin Savidge about the latest development in Georgia.

David Braunschvig of the Council on Foreign Relations speaks with Martin Savidge about the role of French and German leaders on imposing stricter European market regulation.