EU-DIGEST - special edition

Members of Parliament from all political horizons have reacted with fury to a Commission proposal yesterday (28 May) to re-allow imports of poultry rinsed with chemicals, stemming mainly from the United States.MEPs, meeting in Parliament's Environment Committee, were incensed by the decision, which they say contradicts Community food production standards. "The chlorination of chicken intended for human consumption is not acceptable for the EU […] Such food production methods are at variance with the relevant Community standards, and threatening to the EU's entire set of food production standards and rules," states an EP press release. If approved, the proposal would effectively lift an 11-year ban on US poultry, which are generally treated with these processes.

The US has been pushing for the ban to be lifted for years but to no avail. However, the issue was recently pinpointed as a top priority in the new "Transatlantic Economic Council" process, which aims to remove remaining regulatory obstacles hampering trade and investment between the two economic giants.

France is leading the opposition to the plans, saying the move would frustrate efforts to reduce bacterial infection rates, such as salmonella, in Europe. Many other European governments are fiercely opposed to any form of compromise on food safety standards, which in the EU are among the highest in the world.

For the complete report and other reports related to Europe click on this link

Members of Parliament from all political horizons have reacted with fury to a Commission proposal yesterday (28 May) to re-allow imports of poultry rinsed with chemicals, stemming mainly from the United States.MEPs, meeting in Parliament's Environment Committee, were incensed by the decision, which they say contradicts Community food production standards. "The chlorination of chicken intended for human consumption is not acceptable for the EU […] Such food production methods are at variance with the relevant Community standards, and threatening to the EU's entire set of food production standards and rules," states an EP press release. If approved, the proposal would effectively lift an 11-year ban on US poultry, which are generally treated with these processes.

The US has been pushing for the ban to be lifted for years but to no avail. However, the issue was recently pinpointed as a top priority in the new "Transatlantic Economic Council" process, which aims to remove remaining regulatory obstacles hampering trade and investment between the two economic giants.

France is leading the opposition to the plans, saying the move would frustrate efforts to reduce bacterial infection rates, such as salmonella, in Europe. Many other European governments are fiercely opposed to any form of compromise on food safety standards, which in the EU are among the highest in the world.

For the complete report and other reports related to Europe click on this link

"There are no sellers without buyers". That's the first law of practical economics. Everyone knows this to be true, whether or not one has ever taken a course in Economics. Everyone except, apparently, a few Ph.D economists who seem to forget this rule when they are hired by the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, etc., from which they migrate, back and forth, between offices in Republican/conservative administrations and these right-wing think tanks.

For these worthies, the "first law" is replaced by the dogmas of deregulation, "trickle-down" and market fundamentalism: impoverish the masses, throw money at the rich who will then invest it, and then "the invisible hand" of the unregulated free market will bring forth a cornucopia of goods and services. Never mind that there will be few if any buyers for these consumer goodies. Henry Ford saw the fallacy of such a policy when he raised the wages of his workers. His competitors in the auto industry were aghast. "Why did you do that?," they asked. Ford is said to have replied, "If I don't pay them more, who will buy my cars?".

For the complete report and other stories related to Europe click on this link

As allied casualties mounted - more than 840 at last count - popular support for the war has waned in Europe, limiting the ability of government leaders to respond to urgent pleas for help from the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which leads the international force. Continued involvement hinges on a comprehensive plan for the country's reconstruction, which was the focus of an international conference in Paris last week. European leaders "want a new strategy that's more saleable at home," says Daniel Korski, author of "Afghanistan: Europe's Forgotten War" and a senior fellow at the London-based European Council on Foreign Relations. "It is part of an outreach to the domestic audience that there's more to this than the military component." When the war was started in late 2001 in response to the attacks of Sept. 11 against New York and Washington, the fight against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies had broad support in both the United States and Europe, in stark contrast to the more divisive, costlier and deadlier Iraq war that began two years later. Since then, Afghanistan has increasingly been caught in a spiral of violence and corruption, fueled by a booming opium trade that has put local officials in thrall to a criminal narcotics racket.

Heroin production in Afghanistan has tripled since 2001 and now accounts for 90 percent of the world supply, according to U.S. figures. Profit from the drug trade helps fund Taliban insurgents, who have stepped up attacks. In 2003, there were three suicide bombings. In 2007, there were 130.

For the complete report and related reports to Europe click on this link

As allied casualties mounted - more than 840 at last count - popular support for the war has waned in Europe, limiting the ability of government leaders to respond to urgent pleas for help from the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which leads the international force. Continued involvement hinges on a comprehensive plan for the country's reconstruction, which was the focus of an international conference in Paris last week. European leaders "want a new strategy that's more saleable at home," says Daniel Korski, author of "Afghanistan: Europe's Forgotten War" and a senior fellow at the London-based European Council on Foreign Relations. "It is part of an outreach to the domestic audience that there's more to this than the military component." When the war was started in late 2001 in response to the attacks of Sept. 11 against New York and Washington, the fight against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies had broad support in both the United States and Europe, in stark contrast to the more divisive, costlier and deadlier Iraq war that began two years later. Since then, Afghanistan has increasingly been caught in a spiral of violence and corruption, fueled by a booming opium trade that has put local officials in thrall to a criminal narcotics racket.

Heroin production in Afghanistan has tripled since 2001 and now accounts for 90 percent of the world supply, according to U.S. figures. Profit from the drug trade helps fund Taliban insurgents, who have stepped up attacks. In 2003, there were three suicide bombings. In 2007, there were 130.

For the complete report and related reports to Europe click on this link

Eurosceptics celebrate a triumph of the little people against the Euro juggernaut. Ireland's 'no' vote against the treaty on the European constitution is, in such minds, the brave assertion of democracy against bureaucracy. The European elite in Brussels, with its dark plans to hobble Europeans everywhere, deserves a good kicking for producing an unloved, incomprehensible set of reforms. It has got it. Ireland has stood up for Europe.

This is nonsense from top to bottom, a farrago of lies and disinformation. The European Union is a painfully constructed and fragile skein of compromises that allows 27 democratic states on our shared continent to come together and drive forward areas of common interest to further their citizens' well-being. The elite that plots this is a nonexistent phantom invented by populist demagogues. The beleaguered, unloved treaty would have improved Europe's effectiveness and tried to address its much talked about democratic weaknesses.

The reality is that Ireland's 'no' voters have trashed an EU that is precious but weak. Most 'no' voters, grabbing on to the worst fear rather than reasoned fact, have unknowingly set in train a political dynamic that, unless carefully handled, could lead not just to Ireland but Britain leaving the EU. Everybody will be the poorer.

Note EU-Digest: "if the Euro Sceptics in Britain and Ireland eventually get their way, the day might even come where Ireland and Britain will be replaced by Russia as a member of the EU. Russia in a way has far more to contribute to the EU as a whole than Ireland or Britain. If this happens it would finally get rid of two countries who have always been treating the EU with a certain amount of disdain and who look at their EU membership as "wanting to have their cake and eat it also."

For additional reports on Europe and the EU click on this link

Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty does not disqualify it and the EU will seek ways to enforce it, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday commenting Thursday's result of an Irish national referendum on the EU act. According to official partial results announced on Friday Lisbon Treaty opponents won the referendum in 27 of 43 Irish constituencies. Ireland was the only EU member to decide the matter in a national ballot. "The referendum results in Ireland do not disqualify the Treaty completely. We will continue seeking ways to bring it to life. Regardless of the referendum results I think we can be moderately optimistic about the EU finding a way to put it in force," Tusk told reporters in Polish parliament.

Note EU-Digest: "With Britain among the countries continuing to push the ratification process through their parliaments, Ireland is the odd one out. It has to explain how it finds common ground with 26 nations in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. An Irish "no" is being set against a "yes" from the parliaments of another 18 countries so far. The "no" from Ireland does not mean everything is wrecked. Ireland will feel the repercussions, not Europe, because the momentum can't be stopped. As to the strong EURO septics lobby and the Press in Britain let them be warned, the true fight is only beginning now."

For the complete report click on this link

If Barack Obama was taking on John McCain in a global election he would already be on his way to the White House. A recent worldwide poll showed him beating the Republican by more than three to one. In Europe, his margin of victory would be even greater: Mr McCain would get only 6 per cent of the vote in Germany, where a government spokesman has waxed publicly about the attraction of Mr Obama's “mixture of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy”. Just about the whole of France is backing Mr Obama. He is, in the words of Jack Lang, the former Socialist Culture Minister, “the America we love ... the youth and racial mix of an America under transformation and in movement”.

For the complete report from the TimesOnLine click on this link

This Sunday morning, while flipping around channels on my TV looking for a news channel, I ran into the Doha Debates, a news special from the BBC World News. It was featuring Dr. Mahmoud Al Zahar, a senior leader of Hamas. The presentation had just started and could certainly be classified as an open public debate, which is most unusual for the Middle East.

The Doha debates are modeled after Oxford Union debates where the the host Tim Sebastian usually presents a motion to the audience, two speakers argue for it, two argue against it, then Sebastian and the audience get the speakers to elaborate on their arguments by asking them questions. In the end, the audience votes to pass or defeat the motion. Over the last four academic years, the Doha Debates have brought academics, government officials, policy experts and religious and cultural figures to Doha the capital of Qatar to debate issues of relevance to the Arab and Islamic worlds.

This particular debate with Dr. Al Zahar was an open discussion whereby there was no initial motion presented to the audience.

For the first 20-odd minutes, Tim Sebastian, whose interview style, refered to by a newspaper as "a marriage of the dramatic pump-uppery of a fight announcer with the dogged persistence of a prosecutor cross-examining a stubborn witness", battered Zahar with a variety of accusations. These included: that rocket attacks by Hamas violate human rights, Hamas kills indiscriminately, Hamas tortures and executes hospital patients, Hamas smuggles weapons illegally, and questions like : "you don’t care who you kill, do you? Are you saying you’re not responsible for your actions? Are you serious about getting a truce? Will Hamas ever recognise Israel? Are you saying two wrongs make a right?"

However, the more interesting part of the discussion began when questioning was handed over to the audience. These questions were mainly in three broad categories: hagiographic pro-Hamas questions, specific policy-orientated questions and broad questions of theory and approach.

In this second part of the debate Dr. Mahmoud Al Zahar was continuously confronted by several members of the audience - including Palestinian students - who told him that violence against civilians was un-Islamic and that "an eye for an eye" was no way to achieve peace. Dr. Al Zahar, a surgeon and foreign minister in the short-lived Hamas government, who kept his composure remarkably well throughout the debate, replied that nobody in Hamas was happy at what was happening. He said that the group had offered "an open hand" to Fatah to sit down and negotiate a peace deal. He noted however that no peace agreement with Fatah or Israel was likely until George Bush leaves the White House. Dr. Al Zahar said: "I think under the present US Administration peace will not be achieved," he said. "They are not looking for peace." Dr. Al Zahar also added that Hamas is hoping that the new US Administration would be neutral and balanced.

"Point blank: what will it take for peace with Israel?", asked one young man, with frustration in his voice. "What exactly are you looking for? If they go back to the 1967 border, will that be it? I’m confused." This imaginary question should not be answered, replied Dr. Al Zahar. Moderator Tim Sebastian then cut in, and said annoyed. "How can anyone negotiate with you if you won’t say what you want?" "That’s what you should be asking the Israelis", shot back Dr. Al Zahar.

Asked if Hamas was a terrorist organization Dr. Al Zahar turned the question back to the audience by asking them if anyone could give him a proper definition of a terrorist or what the difference was between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. He noted that if Hamas was considered a terrorist organization Mr. Jimmy Carter would not be speaking to them.

Someone asked Dr. Al Zahar about the US presidential election. He expressed no preference, but expects that McCain will win because America will not vote for a black man or woman to be president. Another man asked moderator Tim Sebastian if he ever had been asking these same hard questions to Israelis as well and if he thought there is a bias towards Israel? "I don’t think so", replied Tim Sebastian, "at least not in our organization".

Dr. Al-Zahar was born in 1945. At the age of 26, he graduated from the Cairo University Faculty of Medicine and five years later he got his Masters Degree in General Surgery from Ain Shams University, Cairo. He then became the adviser to the Palestinian Health Minister, and helped create the Palestinian Medical Society and was one of the primary founders of the Islamic University in Gaza in 1978. Dr. Al-Zahar has four children with his wife Summaya, including their first son, Khaled born in 1974, and a daughter Rima born in 1983.

Instrumental to the creation of Hamas in 1987, Dr. Al Zahar has remained a senior official and spokesperson for the Group.

Dr. Al Zahar survived an Israeli assassination attempt in September 2003 when two US made F-16s dropped a bomb on his home in Gaza, killing his eldest son Khaled. Dr Al Zahar was in the garden at the time and escaped with a leg wound. Hussam, another son of Dr. Al Zahar was killed by Israeli airstrikes on January 15 of this year.

In December 1992, Dr. Al Zahhar, his brother Fadel and Rantissi were among more than 400 Islamic activists deported by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to South Lebanon. They were allowed to return to Gaza a year later while 18 activists, including his brother, remained in Lebanon.

The Doha debates are not only refreshing to watch, but also a prime example of how free speech works within the context of democracy. Compliments to Dr. Mahmoud Al Zahar for coming to the debate and staying cool while facing a pretty hostile crowd...and an aggressive moderator. Who knows, maybe one day the Doha Debates can also bring Ben Laden to the table for a debate. Dr. Benjamin Franklin once said, "the pen is mightier than the sword." In this case we can say, "dialog is mightier than the sword".

For more news with a European twist click on this link

The Irish can not be so ignorant that they can't see all the benefits the EU has brought them. They also better stop listening to those so-called "Euro skeptics" in Britain - a country which has never treated the Irish with much respect.

The British Euro Skeptics actually are very much like the old time British Imperialists. They are ultra conservative, nationalistic and believe Britain is superior to all nations.

Francis A. Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, wrote a report commissioned by the New York-based Irish Famine/Genocide Committee which concluded that "Clearly, during the years 1845 to 1850, the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnic and racial group commonly known as the Irish People.

EU membership for Ireland is not only a guarantee that this will never happen again, but it is also a source for long term economic prosperity. Voting yes on Thursday also means voting yes for an independent and strong Ireland.

For the complete report click on this link