Full executive list:

• President – Nicole Spiteri
• Vice President – Timon Nuernberger
• Secretary General – Julianne Vella
• Financial Officer – Francesca Giudice
• International Officer – Nikos Chircop
• Project Officers – Keaton Agius and Alexander Borg
• Civic Education Officer – Steven Bajada
• Social Media Officer – Luca Formosa
• Content Officer – Juanita Galea
• Policy Officer – Katrina Cassar
• Events Officer – Veronica Micallef
• IT & Logistics Officer – Liam Gatt

Presidential Comment

I am thrilled to have been chosen to lead JEF Malta as President for this term. In the past term, despite the huge challenge for organisations like JEF Malta to revive their activities and continue to engage youths, I can safely say that JEF Malta managed to successfully implement two Erasmus+ funded projects as well as a number of successful social events.

This term, along with the rest of the vibrant and talented executive board, I am looking forward to taking JEF Malta to new heights where we will be hosting the Spring FC in 2023 and working towards a new flagship project. We also want to especially focus on driving home the message of federalism, specifically that of working towards a more united and democratic Europe, by continuously engaging local youths and inspiring them to contribute to this perspective of the European Union.

Nicole Spiteri

The Third Eye congratulates the new executive and wishes them the best of luck for their upcoming term!

The post Nicole Spiteri elected as JEF President for 2022/23 appeared first on The Third Eye.

On the 10th July 1994, Alexander Lukashenko was elected President of Belarus after receiving 80.3% of the vote. This event set off a chain of reactions which has severely deteriorated the state of human rights and rule of law in Belarus, and as of 2017, presidential and parliamentary elections in Belarus are no longer considered to be free and fair by the OSCE, United Nations, the EU and the U.S. However, OSCE stopped recognising elections as fair in 1995, only one year after President Lukashenko’s first election.

Brave Belarusians have taken the streets to protest against these unfair elections for decades, and over the years international watchdogs have uncovered systematic abuse, torture and imprisonment of these activists who dare to question President Lukashenko’s authoritarian regime. These activists are not only fighting for democracy and free elections in their country, but they are inadvertently fighting for their own sovereignty under the weight of Russian interference.

But how did Belarus end up here?

Alexander Lukashenko began his political career at a young age, originally holding a post in the Soviet army and the communist youth organisation back when Belarus was still a part of the Soviet Union. In 1990, he was elected to the parliament in the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic and he was the only deputy who was against an agreement that led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In 1994, he was elected as President for the first time, and by 1996 he had persuaded Belarusian voters to approve constitutional amendments which expanded the authority of the presidency. Since then, he has received significant financial and political support from Russia, with many viewing President Lukashenko as a puppet of the Russian government.

In recent years, human rights violations in Belarus have hit international headlines. Particularly the protests held after President Lukashenko won his 6th term with 80% of the vote in 2020. Pro-democratic protesters embarked on the streets of Minsk and several Belarusian cities. The peaceful protest quickly turned violent, with Belarusian police and military targeting the protestors. Just a few months after the election, the United Nations Human Rights Office reported more than 450 documented cases of torture and mistreatment of activists and the Viana Human Rights centre documented 1,000 testimonies of torture victims. It is estimated that up to 35,000 people were arrested during these protests. President Lukashenko’s main opponent, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, fled the country in fear of her life. This effectively ended any real political opposition to President Lukashenko. The elections were criticised internationally, with the EU publishing a statement rejecting the legitimacy of the elections and condemning the repression of protestors. Shortly after, the EU, UK and Canada all imposed sanctions on Belarusian officials.

Just last year, President Lukashenko made headlines again after the Belarusian authorities forced a Ryanair passenger plane to land in Minsk due to an alleged bomb threat. Once landed, the authorities boarded the plane and arrested journalist Roman Protasevich, a vocal critic of President Lukashensko’s regime. Protasevich was in exile in Lithuania and had been actively organising protests through the messaging app Telegram. However, after the forced landing of the plane he was detained in Minsk and now stands accused of organising riots, facing up to 15 years in prison if convicted. Later that same year, Belarusian Olympic sprinter Krystina Tsimanouskaya refused to fly back to Belarus after the Olympic games in Tokyo. Tsimanouskaya criticised Belarusian Olympic officials for forcing her to race in the 4 x 400 metres relay without her consent; she later sought protection from Japanese airport police over fears for her safety. After receiving international attention, she was eventually granted a humanitarian visa in Poland where she still remains.

The violation of democracy on the EU’s border after 3 decades since the dissolution of the Soviet Union is a threat to the stability of Eastern Europe and causes serious doubts over the West’s handling of these regimes, particularly since Belarus falls under the European Neighbourhood Policy. The situation has since escalated further as Belarus assisted Russia in their invasion of Ukraine, allowing Russian troops to enter Ukraine through the Belarus border. Since the start of the invasion, an investigation into potential war crimes by Russian troops has been launched, once again associating Belarus with anti-democratic and illegal behaviour. The situation is desperately deteriorating and in the process Belarus slips further away from joining the rest of its former-Soviet neighbours in modern-day democracy. Although the West needs to address the real danger that comes from President Lukashensko’s rule, there has to be a harmonised response from the West to prevent Belarus from slipping into the isolationist future that Russia is headed for. While the West must do what they can to defend Ukraine, we must also ensure that the 9.4 million people of Belarus are not lost in an anti-democratic abyss in the process.

The Young European Federalist (JEF Europe) have been organising the “Free Belarus Action” since 2006 to raise awareness of President Lukashensko’s regime. In 2014, this was rebranded to the “Democracy under Pressure Action” with the intention of addressing numerous violations of democracy and human rights in Europe.

Here’s how you can get involved:

• Speak up for democracy on social media – Remember to use #DemocracyUnderPressure !
• Consider writing a letter to a prisoner in Bearus or if you did it already that and the prisoner is still imprisoned, write a follow-up letter to them!
• Organise an event covering topics of the campaign, such as reasons behind democratic values put under pressure, why people vote for parties that want to limit human rights, how the rule of law is under threat in the EU and beyond.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily be reflective of JEF as a whole

The post Democracy Under Pressure: Belarus | JEF appeared first on The Third Eye.

Ukraine, Russia, and neighbouring Belarus were born about 1,200 years ago on the banks of the Dnieper River, rooted as Kievan Rus, a mediaeval superpower that included a large portion of Eastern Europe. However, linguistically, historically, and, most crucially, politically, Russians and Ukrainians diverged.

Moreover, when Putin came to power, he has consistently stated that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people,” part of the “Russian civilization,” which also includes neighbouring Belarus. Ukrainians, on the other hand, are dismissive of his allegations.

Ukraine saw two revolutions in 2005 and 2014, both times refusing Russia’s supremacy and pursuing a path to membership in the European Union and NATO. Putin is particularly angered by the thought of NATO facilities on his borders, claiming that Ukraine joining the US-led transatlantic alliance would be a “red line” crossed.

Following Ukraine’s 2014 Revolution of Dignity, which saw months of protests eventually remove pro-Moscow Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, Putin took advantage of the power vacuum to invade Crimea and support separatists in the southern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The insurgents established two autocratic, economically weak “People’s Republics” in which the death penalty was reinstated. They oversaw a slew of concentration camps where activists were tortured and killed.

The struggle quickly escalated into Europe’s most ferocious conflict. More than 13,000 people have been murdered and millions have been displaced as a result of the disaster.

The Ukrainian military was under-equipped and demoralised in 2014, whereas the insurgents possessed Russian “consultants” and weapons.

However, Ukrainians are considerably stronger militarily and morally these days, and thousands of volunteers who assisted in repelling the separatists are ready to do it all over again.

‘Nothing has alienated Ukraine more in the last eight years than Kremlin policies, particularly Russia’s military invasion of Crimea in 2014 and its engagement in the Donbas conflict, which has taken over 13,000 lives’ – Steven Pifer (Standford Scholar)

According to government sources in Western Europe and the United States, Russia has gathered more than 100,000 Russian soldiers on the Ukrainian border and has occupied Crimea in recent weeks. This has raised fears in Kyiv that a new war with its neighbour and former province, which chose to break free from Moscow’s political orbit, is on the horizon.

Russia, on the other hand, rejects any plans for an invasion. Moscow claims that it has the ability to move Russian soldiers wherever it wants and that all of its actions are defensive.

Russian authorities, including President Vladimir Putin, have cautioned NATO not to expand eastward.

Ukraine purchased or acquired advanced equipment from the West and Turkey, including Javelin missiles, which proved fatal to separatist tanks, and Bayraktar drones, which played an important role in last year’s battle between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

The suspension of military aid and arms deliveries to Kyiv precipitated former US President Donald Trump’s first impeachment. In the following weeks, his successor, Joe Biden, may send lethal weaponry and advice.

Because of the modern weaponry being used—mostly nuclear—the horror of this war escalating is greater than that of any previous conflict in recent years. This is in addition to the comments exchanged by Putin and the other European leaders.

“If he launches another invasion, he will force the west to bring about much of what he seeks to prevent.” – Boris Johnson (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom). Wrote this in reference to Russia’s military targeting the border of Ukraine and their State.

Aside from ideological and political considerations, Putin had sorely sought Ukraine’s inclusion in a Moscow-dominated free-trade zone that had been established in 2000. The Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) brought together various ex-Soviet states and was largely regarded as a first step toward resurrecting the USSR.

Ukraine was planned to be the most important member of the EAEC after Russia, with a population of 43 million and a tremendous agricultural and industrial production, but Kyiv declined to join.

Ukraine’s economy sank after the country cut ties with Russia, its erstwhile primary economic partner. However, seven years into the conflict, the recession has ended, as international prices for Ukraine’s main exports, grain and steel, skyrocket, and Ukrainian businesses and labour migrants find new ways to the West.

Ukraine and Uzbekistan, with a combined population of 34 million, are expected to be included in order for this market to flourish and become self-sufficient. That is why these states are constantly embroiled in geopolitical conflicts with Russia. Further fueling the motivation and development of the current crisis that we are seeing in 2022 between the two Nations.

Putin’s favour ratings are falling as Russians oppose vaccinations and lament the economic hardships caused by the virus.

Following the annexation of Crimea and the emergence of a new war or escalation, it is considered that Putin has done so at an opportune time in order to divert public attention away from domestic concerns and improve Putin’s popularity. He also wants to reestablish contact with the West, particularly the United States, and amassing an army near Ukraine has already been effective.

“Dialogue is necessary because that’s the only thing that will help, in my view, to build a context of security and stability on the European Continent.” – President Macron (The President of France).

Russia’s illegal invasion of Crimea in 2014 was Europe’s largest land grab since World War II, and it violated many of Russia’s obligations to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The Kremlin then incited and supported the fighting in Donbas, in some cases with genuine Russian army formations. These activities had significant negative consequences for Russia’s relations with the West, and the West replied. For example, the US and Europe collaborated on sanctions aimed at the Russian economy. NATO, which had been reducing its military capability since the early 1990s, changed course; member states agreed to raise defence spending, with a target of 2% of GDP by 2024. Furthermore, NATO began deploying ground soldiers on its eastern flank in member states.

Moscow has attempted to portray this crisis as one between Russia and NATO, but still the Kremlin’s principal aim is Ukraine. This has something to do with geopolitics and Moscow’s aim for a sphere of influence in post-Soviet space. It is, nevertheless, very much about Russian domestic politics. A Ukraine that constructs its own path, consolidates its democracy, and implements reforms that unleash the full potential of its economy is a nightmare for the Kremlin: Such a Ukraine would prompt Russians to question why they do not have the same political voice as Ukrainian citizens – and perhaps even contest Putin’s authoritarianism.

The Third Eye stands with and supports Ukraine during this difficult time

The post Russia’s refusal to recognise Ukraine as an independent state has resulted in a huge strategic defeat appeared first on The Third Eye.

“You are a monument” said European Council President Charles Michel in his speech dedicated to the Chancellor, he expressed her role as a “compass” and “shining light” of the European project. The speech was concluded by a standing ovation from the heads of governments and further warm remarks expressing her lasting influence as a peacemaker and as a “great European”. Infamous for her self-effacing approach, Angela Merkel took the floor with a meek smile and a gentle step, and in a very fitting manner, she thanked the attending journalists for their long nights at the summit.

Merkel’s Childhood

Angela Merkel was born in 1954 in West Germany, however her childhood consisted of a frugal and conservative Christian life beyond the Iron Curtain. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Merkel took her first step into politics after spending a number of years working as a Research Assistant with a doctorate in quantum chemistry. She joined the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and remained as a member ever since. Her childhood is often credited with the mild and cooperative approach that she took in debates, and has led to her generally being seen as a stable figure.

She ran two ministries, served as the CDU Secretary General, leader of the opposition, and eventually led her party to victory in 2005.  As her counterparts across Europe came and went, Merkel remained a leading figure who navigated crisis after crisis. Although Merkel became the unofficial crisis manager of the EU, her faith in the European project never wilted. Certainly, her unique experience as young woman in in a divided country gave her a rare insight into the importance of European cooperation, and ultimately, unification.

Career Highlights

Some remarkable events during her years at the Chancellory include the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent Eurozone crisis. Germany paid the largest amount of the EU’s first bailout to Greece in 2010 and throughout the rest of the crisis. However, she staunchly pushed for tough measures alongside the bailout and continued to advocate for strong reforms in Greece and Portugal. Her actions and directions caused great criticism and controversy, but Merkel continued to hold her ground, firmly believing that her stance would be key in keeping the union together in a time of doubt.

Later, the migration crisis of 2015 caused increased tension between Member States as Italy and Greece were particularly hit by an influx of refugees. Merkel stepped in to find a compromise, with Germany itself taking in over one million refugees and defended the further relocation of refugees across Europe. During this time, she also led tense negotiations with Turkey to curb the influx of refugees into the EU.

Of course, Merkel’s 16 years were not a perfect leadership. Her support for the Nord Stream 2 oil pipeline has been criticised for bringing Germany closer to Putin’s Russia, which undermines any action taken by the West against Russia in regards to their human rights violations. Her mild approach has at times been a weakness rather than a strength, particularly by causing delayed decisions in the EU in an attempt to allow for cooperation and compromise rather than firm action. Many argue that Merkel purposely dragged out discussions in order to see in which direction the wind was blowing, only then to step in with her input. Some critics say this resulted in the deterioration of the rule of law in Hungary and Poland since the EU lost the advantage of responding to the situation as fast as they should have.

How Merkel Made Her Way To The Top

Merkel owes a large part of her success to her controlled media image. Prior to her success in her party, Merkel was underestimated and often publicly undermined by her colleagues and mentor. However, a financial scandal during the 1990s and 2000s involving senior members of her party gave Merkel the upper hand to push her way up, eventually going as far as denouncing her own mentor, and crushing the glass ceiling. This move appears to be an accurate representation of her approach in politics, her subtle persona seems to shield her from the scandals often affecting charismatic and media-hungry politicians. 

As a person who is simultaneously popular and controversial, Angela Merkel undoubtedly finds a fitting place in the gallery of monumental European figures. Her manner ultimately became a symbol of Western neoliberalism, one that often fights for values and unity, but not quite enough to venture outside the definition of a ‘moderate’.

The post The End of an Era: 16 Years of Angela Merkel | JEF appeared first on The Third Eye.

Written by Katrina Cassar for JEF on internet governance

Ah, the internet: the invention that changed our lives, revolutionised communication and gave us access to mountains of data at our very fingertips.

What is Internet Governance?

Although you’re probably familiar with the internet, the term ‘Internet Governance’ might not necessarily ring a bell. Internet Governance is the development and application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the internet.

There are various approaches to Internet Governance. One such approach is that of multistakeholderism. Complex problems could be more efficiently tackled by drawing on diverse expertise and involving different stakeholders in the decision-making process. A multistakeholder framework allows for the involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society, and citizens in said process. This approach is one that aligns with JEF’s values as it promotes subsidiarity and participation.

Goal of Internet Governance

An important underlying goal of Internet Governance is that of protecting fundamental rights online. One such right is online freedom of expression. Nowadays, various parts of the internet can be considered a public forum. Today, someone without access to the internet will have little to no idea of the current events and goings-on of the world around us. Nor would they be able to reach out and make their voices heard to the voters and constituents of society. And so, an important question is put forward: is barring access to such sites a violation of freedom of expression?

Case Study

One particularly interesting case study is that of Knight v. Trump. This was a lawsuit brought forward by a group of Twitter users blocked by former U.S. President Donald Trump’s personal @realDonaldTrump account. They alleged that this account constituted a public forum, and that blocking access to it is a violation of their First Amendment rights. The court ruled that the Twitter account was a presidential account as opposed to a personal account, and that blocking people from it violates their rights to participate in a designated public forum. After this ruling, the 7 Twitter users that were a part of the lawsuit were unblocked.

The right to information

Furthermore, the right to information is one worth mentioning. This right is being challenged by a principle known as content curation. Content curation algorithms gather information relevant to a particular internet user, and show them the content that the algorithm considers to be of interest to that user. This is a particularly dangerous practice as it creates an echo-chamber of content. It harms democratic principles such as pluralism and diversity, and narrows the access to information.

There are a number of digital rights that have been challenged mostly in the past year and a half due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The right to disconnect is a proposed human right regarding the ability of people to disconnect from work and not to engage in work-related electronic communications such as e-mails or messages during non-work hours. The concept of working from home has blurred the lines regarding when work “ends”. In fact, Portugal has recently brought in new laws which ban employers from contacting their employees outside of working hours.

Personal Experience

As a student myself, I remember that in the early stages of Covid when both students and teachers were struggling with the transition to online learning, I was receiving school-related e-mails all day every day, even as late as 10 o’clock at night. When the new scholastic year began, administration made it a point to inform lecturers not to send us any e-mails past 5pm, which is the end of the school day.

In order to disconnect, one must be able to connect in the first place. Some might argue that internet access should be categorized as a privilege rather than a right, however, accessing the internet has become integral to human life in this day and age. Moving classes online has increased inequalities for students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, who have limited or no access to a stable internet connection or to a computer. Even before Covid, the United Nations declared access to the internet a human right, and condemned any efforts to hinder people from getting online.

Of course, with rights come responsibilities, and sometimes that means regulation. Several proposals have been announced by the European Commission in order to regulate digital giants and companies. For example, the Digital Services Act will enact new legislation regarding illegal content, transparent advertising and disinformation. Furthermore, the Digital Markets Act intends to ensure a higher degree of competition in the European digital markets by preventing large companies from abusing their market power and allowing new players to enter the market.

In short, there are various approaches to Internet Governance, and some approaches benefit certain parties more than others. It is for this reason that we must find a compromise that works for everyone, respecting the rights of users and regulating tech giants accordingly.

Event Details

Join us on Saturday the 27th November at AX The Palace Hotel to discuss Internet Governance and its importance in the ever-changing digital sphere we are living in. Explore what youths’ role is in Internet Governance as well as the relationship between internet governance and democracy. Don’t forget to register using this link: https://forms.gle/L5nkcHHVyksxejxv6

This event is funded by the Council of Europe, the European Youth Foundation, and co-funded by the Europe for Citizens Programme of the European Union.

For further article published by JEF click Here!

The post Internet Governance: What is it and how can it be tackled? appeared first on The Third Eye.

BY JEF PRESS SUBCOM MEMBER AND UNIVERISTY OF OXFORD STUDENT JACOB GRECH

This Europe day, May 9th, a long-awaited component of a programme for European Union will begin: the Conference on the Future of Europe. Initially the brainchild of a number of national leaders, notably France’s Emmanuel Macron, COVID-19 has delayed the conference, which was due to start in mid-2020. Now, however, this is set to go ahead as a discussion form with the aim of encouraging EU citizens and residents to articulate their visions for the future trajectory of the European project over the next years and decades. The end date has been tentatively placed as the spring of 2022.

Last month, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, together with Parliament President Sassoli and Portugal’s Socialist Prime Minister António Costa, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the Council, addressed the Parliament to lay out why the conference is necessary and how they envisage it working.

A ‘Post-Covid’ Europe

A common feature of their respective remarks was the argument that the COVID-19 pandemic offers both an opportunity and a challenge to instigate a different approach to pan-European politics. Sassoli spoke in terms of a need to effect a “renewal of the democratic pact” and forge a “new European social contract”. Costa declared the conference to be a “sign of hope” in the midst of multiple crises. He was unambiguous in illustrating the scope of these: from the thousands of companies facing bankruptcy due to uncertainty to climate change. Health, public indebtedness, youth unemployment, migration, terrorism: the issues that, according to Eurobarometer studies, Europeans most care about, are rightly to be front and centre.

Diversifying Europe

Secondly, there was a shared conviction that this project must entail a bottom-up approach that involves as many stakeholders across the breadth and diversity of the European Union as is possible. Von der Leyen frankly acknowledged the limitations of previous attempts to reach out to the hundreds of millions of Europeans alienated from the institutions, that the conference had to “go beyond Brussels” and reach “the silent majority.” These turns of phrase are employed so frequently – one could easily imagine someone like Marine le Pen using them in a speech – that it is often wise to remain wary of them. What von der Leyen seems to have in mind is a Europe that embraces the full “creativity and diversity” of its citizens. A Europe that leaves no one behind. Naturally easier said than done. How can a project achieve both coherence and dynamism, such as a grassroots-led project would entail?

What Will the Conference on the Future of Europe look like?

To launch this conference in 2021 offers one clear advantage: the recently-approved €1.8 trillion EU budget for the next six years presents a framework through which the debate may be structured. Indeed, as it stands, the plan is for eight categories – climate change, health, jobs and economy, EU in the world, freedom and rights, digital, EU democracy – with leeway for other topics proposed by citizens along the way. So, what will the Conference on the Future of Europe look like? The released joint statement outlined that there will be a “multitude of conference-events,” panels and debates on the range of issues mentioned above.

There is certainly reason for federalists to be optimistic. As Prime Minister Costa pointed out, surveys demonstrate that levels of support for EU membership amongst the populations of the 27 states are higher than ever. However, there are multiple sceptical voices out there, and the conference has not gone without criticism from any quarter.

A group of 12 member states, including Malta, have joined together to draft a position paper ahead of the conference’s commencement. They stress the common significance of topics such as the rule of law, the digital transition, the economic recovery, climate and migration. However, they make it clear that the conference “should not create legal obligations” for member-states above and beyond those of existing legislative processes.

How to Make it Work?

A lot rests on the commitment to a bottom-up, grassroots-led approach being translated into reality. The model of successful citizen’s assemblies as utilised in France and Ireland in the last few years to tackle a range of contentious policy questions has demonstrated that this is not a pipe dream in the 21st century. There are fora that may yet create the incentives that lead participants to appreciate their common interests and work to solve problems.

Beyond the structure of the debate, it is essential that there is clear and prompt follow-up from European institutions and national governments. If the Conference fails to deliver in this regard, it could just as easily contribute further to the erosion of citizen’s faith in institutionalised politics to deliver solutions.

Who Will be Leading the Conference?

The conference’s intended scope of combating hierarchies and inequalities between politicians and citizens is an admirable one. That is not to say that it will not require organisational leadership. So far, the plan is for a “joint presidency” consisting of von der Leyen, Sassoli and a representative of the incumbent Council presidency, together with an “Executive Board” with three representatives from each institution and additional observers. Disputes have arisen as to who should form part of this leadership team, exposing the fault lines between European parties and member-states.

Indeed, perhaps as significant a division as that between professional politicians and citizens is a perceived inequality of treatment between member-states. There have long been complaints that the EU possesses a tiered system and provides some countries undue advantages, whether in economic oversight or personnel allocation. The Greek financial crisis brought these arguments to fore in the last decade, and since, albeit for different reasons, the governing politicians of Poland and Hungary in particular have built their careers on resistance to domination and imposition by Brussels.

At a Crossroad…

The European project in 2021 finds itself at a crossroads. On the one hand, the first stage of Brexit has finally been concluded – although on questions ranging from Irish unity to the future trade relationship, much remains to be discussed – and support for membership across the remaining 27 countries is the highest it has ever been. On the other, the divisions between and within member-states are clear for all to see. From migration to taxation policies to vaccine procurement, national governments have rejected attempts to craft a common framework in recent times.

The challenge for federalists is to find a way to overcome the individualism and nationalism that has rendered politics at a European level more often than not a forum in which purely national-focused politicians are able to claim legitimacy or rile up their bases against globalists. On the face of it, the von der Leyen presidency itself did not begin on the brightest of notes – the spitzenkandidat system that brought Jean-Claude Juncker to the Berlaymont in 2014 was repudiated and the archetypal image of backroom deals between national leaders was reintroduced.

Since then, however, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought a fundamentally new character to politics in Europe, one fraught with dangers (increased state surveillance, the erosion of civil liberties, increasing economic inequality) but also marked by a broader awareness than before that structural change is required. Picking up, at least rhetorically, on the policy proposals of U.S. progressives such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, von der Leyen has committed to the development of a European Green Deal.

” Europe Must Democratise if it is to Survive”

Beyond the institutions, Pan-European politics is changing. From the left, former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis and Croation philosopher Srećko Horvat have launched DiEM25, a pan-European political movement to push for a radical transformation of the EU institutions, with a particular focus on reform of the Eurozone and fiscal regulation. ‘Europe must democratise if it is to survive’ is their slogan. Just last month, the federalist Volt party entered its first national parliament in the Dutch general election, having won a seat in the European Parliament in 2019. Beyond the European Union, newly-reinstated Kosovar Prime Minister Albin Kurti has called for a ‘European Marshall Plan’ to redress historic inequalities and accelerate the integration of the Western Balkans.

A lot is at stake in the Conference on the Future of Europe. Many questions remain. Can the institutions demonstrate that they really are open-minded? Will citizens disenfranchised from European politics take any notice to the overtures made to them? Will proposals from the grassroots be taken seriously, and will at least some of them be implemented? Nevertheless, it remains an initiative that federalists should follow closely and engage with – the challenge is to render it not a conclusion, but a beginning.

What Lies Beyond the Pandemic for Europe? Find out here!

The post The Conference on the Future of Europe: A Special Europe Day Analysis | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.

Written by Nikos Chircop

Given the fact that we are in the midst of pandemic- the crises with COVID-19 cases, vaccine supply, and the economic fallout, it may be difficult to imagine the 2020s as anything but a decade of post-pandemic stagnation for the West. But there is plenty of pinnacle events going on around the world and actions to be taken that prove otherwise!

If we take a quick glance at the sentiments rumbling from the American election results and ground breaking American Rescue Plan. Or on our side of the pond with the European Green Deal, the launching of a new Conference on the Future of Europe, not to mention the strong performance of progressive voices in the German lander elections in the Rhineland, and Baden-Württemberg. The twenties have the potential to be a decade of immeasurable progress characterised by a new consensus of social wellbeing with an environmentalist core.

Post-Pandemic Interventions

If the pandemic has not thought us anything, it has proven the fact that when push comes to shove it was not ‘free’ market that prevented what could have been the most cataclysmic plunge in living standards, but determined, decisive government intervention that cushioned and protected citizens from the brunt of the virus’ fallout. Had we left things to the ‘invisible hand’ so many people would have died in a way John Maynard Keynes would have never foreseen at the time of his writing. We have come to a point where even the British Tory Government has scrapped the Cameron era reforms of the National Health Service, in favour of direct accountability for political representatives.

In recognition of government’s key role in the coordination and spearheading of societal goals and the maintenance and strengthening of human security, the time is now for citizens to engage and pressure government to wield its power for the benefit of all. If we can create not just one, but a number of different vaccines in less than a year, then look what we can do to fight climate change! Determined, accountable government can spearhead efforts with its partners in academia, civil society, and the private sector to reboot the system that works; liberal democracy – with heightened personal liberty, and bolstered democracy.

For a Greener Future

To live in liberty means to have the right to a voice through direct channels of expression and to be truly represented through systems of proportional representation. But these grander goals are frivolous without having the right to a dignified life; a roof over your head, a welfare system that makes plight impossible, the right to breath clean air and live in a pleasant green community. This societal mission is not one that can just be financed by post-pandemic stimulus promised to date, but can indeed be possible with the fruits of the determined mission towards building a robust green economy. A green economy which will give businesses unprecedented space for growth and innovation to reach carbon neutrality. Not to mention the end of an unpredictable energy market thanks to the eventual ushering in of an era of stable, consistent, renewable energy generation and storage.

Conference on the Future of Europe

On the 5^th of March, the Council of Ministers declared that the Conference on the Future of Europe will soon be commencing. They claim that it shall be “a citizens-focused, bottom-up exercise for Europeans to have their say on what they expect from the European Union”. It is up to us to make sure that that pledge is kept. It is up to us to aspire for a society that truly offers dignity for all. To offer a fighting chance for every child in the Union to live a life in pursuit of their own happiness, in spite of their socio-economic circumstance. We can be the makers of the Roaring Twenties in a United Europe.

Here’s another piece by JEF’S Nikos Chircop!

The post 2020’s: Is There More Beyond the Pandemic? | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.

Written by Alexia Manduca

Modern day EU is often quoted as being; ‘the epitome of democracy and international liberalism in action’ and ‘a model to other states‘. However, this does not imply that the EU is perfect or without flaws. In analyzing the EU’s relations with Russia, we can begin to question this perception of the EU. Is the European Union living behind a façade of peace and democracy only to be hiding a darker reality?

Europe’s History

Europe was characterised by a mess of dynasties, short-lived alliances and war, for millenia. The accumulation of Europe’s violence in WWI and subsequently WWII which led to millions of deaths shows this. However, contemporary Europe has proven to be much more peaceful and stable as a region. Arguably, the stimulus for this was the assertion of liberal democracies and the creation of the European Union. In fact, the original aim for the creation of the EU was for states to collaborate in industrial sectors of coal and steel to make even the mere possibility of war, impossible. Therefore, the original aims of the founding fathers of the union were successful.

Russia’s History

Russia has a long-standing history of insecurity. Covering 11 % of the world’s total landmass, it is the largest country in the world. Therefore, it’s no surprise that geopolitics plays such an important role in Russia’s international relations. Prior to the creation of the EU, relations between European states and Russia fluctuated. The relationship was often hostile as rising European powers have invaded Russia on several occasions. Due to this, Russia has often dominated the nations on its borders to seek protection. This can be seen in the creation of the Eastern bloc during the Cold War.

Putin, as many Russian leaders before him, claims that Russia has a so-called ‘historic right’ to dominate this ‘buffer zone’. Why is this mentality still prevalent? At face value, the EU hasn’t shown an ounce of aggression in comparison to the past. Reviewing the unique relationship between Russia and the European Union might answer this question.

Relationship Dynamics: Russia and The EU

Since 1997 the EU’s political and economic relations with Russia have been based on the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. This agreement has made the EU Russia’s most important economic partner. It has also made Russia the EU’s fifth largest trading partner as well. The EU is also the largest collective investor in Russia, owning ~75% of stocks in 2018. On paper EU-Russian relations seem to be stable and prospering, however these strong economic ties hide a more unstable reality.

Russian leaders view the very creation and existence of the EU and the admission of Russia’s border states into the union in an extremely negative light. Despite good initial relations, the rise of Putin has led to some stark changes in the Kremlin’s attitude towards the EU. This boils down to Russia’s historic claim over a ‘sphere of influence’ over Eastern Europe; a region now populated by numerous EU member states. Russian-EU bilateral relations are largely shaped by the fact that the EU is increasingly encroaching on Russia’s border and challenging this historic claim.

Is Russia acting out of instinctive paranoia or is the EU actually posing a threat to Russian security and interests?

Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine are not dissimilar to Soviet Russia’s invasion of its periphery in the second half of the 20th century. Were these initiatives simply Russia’s reaction to the overarching policies of the EU in this area? It is arguable that Putin was simply defending Russia from European states as so many Russian leaders did before him.

What about the Economic Ties?

Even economic ties between the two are somewhat ambiguous . Russia’s economic interests were being viewed as increasingly threatened by The EU’s Eastern Partnership. A clear example is that following the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009. Russia could no longer develop bilateral trade agreements with EU states as it did previously and had to negotiate through the European Commission. Increased authority over trade policies was also given to The European Parliament. This negatively impacted Russian economic policies. The Kremlin prefers to negotiate directly with individual member states, where Russia would have more leverage in any negotiation.

The EU’s Third Energy package also negatively affected Russia’s economic interests. It aimed at diversifying EU sources of natural gas which reduced Russian profits from its gas exports. The current debacle going over the NordStream 2 gas pipeline connecting Russia to Germany exemplifies this geopolitical tension.

Concluding Words

The relationship between Russia and the EU is a complicated one. It is full of contradictions making it difficult to interpret the stances taken by both sides. The basis of Russian foreign policy towards the EU is largely shaped by its historical memory and a sense of paranoia towards the region. Despite having largely positive economic relations, the sphere of security in the Russian government views the enlargement of the EU towards the East as threatening. They believe it’s threatening the very makeup of Russian defense and also challenging Russia’s historical interests in the region. Is the EU being inconsiderate towards Russian strategic interests or is the Russian government simply being paranoid?

Check this piece we had written a while back on European Youth- Why Don’t We Care?

The post ANALYSIS: Is EU Expansion a Catalyst for Russian Aggression? | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.

Written by Michaela Pia Camilleri

Today marks the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery. It is important to remember humanity’s history- of cruelty that is slavery which our ancestors contributed to so senselessly. It seems that this cruelty however, is a recurring phenomenon. Particularly seeing the xenophobia certain people so proudly endorse.

Why was Slavery Justified?

The Americans, Europeans and us Maltese are the reason why Africans travel miles and endure the most precarious conditions. We have decided to erase our horrendous and cruel deeds and push them underneath the carpet. Slave trade in Africa started with the Europeans. The horrible deeds the British, Portuguese, Spanish, Belgians (who everyone seems to forget) and other powers have done to maintain such power are often overlooked.

La Mission Civillisatrice was a civilizing mission that posed the following argument, which justified the horrors of colonialism;

“We made them more civilized than they could ever make themselves become.”

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Africa thrived before exploitation (dressed as colonization) began. Before colonisers arrived, it had its own forms of commerce, science, art, and measures of what is considered civilised. Imperialists failed to recognise, and actively distorted, the notion of civilisation and successful ways of living different to theirs. Shocking . The exploitation of Africa started with wars inspired to procure slaves and export them to the West. The International Slave Trade continued well into the 19th century. Needless to say, these slaves were treated cruelly as if less than human.

Slavery in Malta?

If you think that the Maltese had nothing to do with this, think again. Schools leave out the fact that: in the 18th century Malta was deemed one of the four most prominent Mediterranean countries to practiced slave trade . It was only abolished with the arrival of Napoleon in Malta. Historian Godfrey Wettinger discussed this in his scholarly article Black African Slaves in Malta. The Maltese contributed to these disgusting inhumane crimes for the sake of wealth, while obliterating that of these other countries. Europe underdeveloped Africa, so Africa could develop Europe.

Colonisation: The act of settling and establishing control over the indigenous people in the area

Colonisation pushed these African communities under the tyranny of Europeans. Their main intention was the exploitation of the mineral and agricultural wealth taken at the lowest prices. A search on the Belgians in Congo should be clear enough. Clearly, the economic and societal improvement of these countries was not the aim, as the African enterprise was rejected by the Europeans’ greed. The work Africans could do was that of serving these tyrannical superpowers. Africans were made to feel inferior, that their skin, customs and way of life were not right. This internalised racism festered into a perceived inferiority. They felt that they could not improve their situation, let alone take control of their country, since their dignity and self-respect
was quashed.

Consequently, these countries have not yet managed to recover. Their situation hasn’t been improved by their mineral wealth. On the contrary, Westerners, be them imperialists or modern day multinationals, skew the configuration to benefit the corrupt elite and themselves, thus allowing this practice to carry on.

Act of Exploitation

The assassination of Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba in 1961 by the USA and Belgium is a quintessential example of outside intereference. Lumumba believed in the need to free Africa from the Europeans’ and Americans’ iron fist, yet the US had not yet finished exploiting Congo’s mineral wealth. The USA paid billions of dollars to Mobutu Sese Seko and Joseph Kasa-Vubu, who were also given weapons directly from the CIA, to kill Lumumba and suppress any attempt by Africans to stop this exploitation.

Conclusion

These tyrants who seek self-profit still control these minerally wealthy but impoverished countries, indulging in their wealth, leaving the impoverished people’s hands tied. How can these people be blamed for seeking better lives? The system of global inequality has ruined any chance of it. The irregular migration Europe has been facing is far less than what is deserved. We should feel ashamed of our past. Africa had so much potential, probably being the richest continent of natural resources. Yet a history of exploitation has left them too unstable to actualise their potential.

Is this how we treat our brothers and sisters who are no less but maybe more human than us?
How do we have the decency to ignore their calls for help to escape the very same societies we ruined?

Check this article out to learn 40 Ways to Fight Racism

The post Lest We Forget: Commemorating International Day for the Abolition of Slavery | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.

By Alexander Borg

Few in history have had as influential a mark on the bond between the British Isles and the European Continent as the illustrious Winston Churchill;

“If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy […] We must build a kind of United States of Europe.”

These words sealed Churchill’s symbolic role in founding the European family of nations. This being very different from the powerful forty-two years on when another wartime Conservative premier once again contributed towards a paradigm shift in the European political landscape:

“We have not successfully rolled back on the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.”

Margret Thatcher’s notorious Bruges Speech of 1988 arguably set the U.K. on the road to Brexit. By establishing Euroscepticism as a serious movement in British and European politics, a movement that ultimately culminated in the monumental referendum of 2016.

Today, Britain has yet another Conservative premier in a tug-of-war with the European question; Boris Johnson, a relatively recent convert to Euroscepticism. This government’s actions with regards to Europe will undoubtedly be under scrutiny for years to come. One comes to understand the present, and even the future of Anglo-European relations, by analysing its past.

Decline of the Age of Imperialism

In 1957, the colonial empires of Britain and France were quelled with a single, bloody strike by an emboldened Egypt. Egypt was being led by the Pan-Arab Nationalist Gamal Abdel Nasser. The defeat of Paris and London at the hands of Nasser’s Egypt uprooted decades of Franco-British control over North Africa and the Middle East. It effectively terminated the imperial powers’ era of colonial hegemony over the region.

Between 1958 and 1969, the French Republic was effectively governed by one man: Charles de Gaulle. The wartime leader of Free France turned the first President of the Fifth Republic. He is who controversially wielded emergency powers in Paris as a consequence of the Algerian War, while concurrently taking advantage of his newfound strength to assert French leadership in Europe.

French Leadership and British Stagnation

De Gaulle employed France’s effective leadership of the European Economic Community (EEC) to explicitly block British accession requests from the Labour government under Harold Wilson on two grounds. Firstly, that Britain would not be as committed to European unity and integration as France or any of the other EEC members at that stage. Secondly, that Britain would serve as a lobby for US influence over Western Europe. For these reasons, de Gaulle was passionate about his opposition to British accession.

In 1969, de Gaulle was succeeded by his former Prime Minister, Georges Pompidou, who finally lifted the French veto to allow Britain. It is now under Edward Heath’s pro-European Conservative government, to accede to the EEC in 1973. In the following years, the Elysée was inherited by Giscard-d’Estaing and Mitterrand. They are both loyal pro-European presidents who worked to ally the French political consensus with European integration and close cooperation with the West. They later also re-unified, Germany.

On the other side of the English Channel, Britain’s relationship with Europe was still undecided and would face countless bumps on the road to the present. The 1975 referendum being one example. Wilson’s second premiership in 1974 and succession by James Callaghan in 1976 saw a period of stagnation in the British economy, infamously epitomised by the ‘Winter of Discontent’.

From Neo-Liberal Thatcherism to New Labour to Now

In 1979, came what was meant to be the Tory Spring to Labour’s Winter as Margaret Thatcher was swept to power with a landslide victory for the Conservatives. Thatcher’s optimistic views towards Europe soured as economic and political integration hastened, standing in direct contrast to Thatcher’s laissez-faire capitalist views at home. The usurpation of Thatcher by John Major in 1990 as Conservative leader and Prime Minister signalled a significant change in the Conservative government’s view of Europe; in 1992, Major avidly signed the Treaty of Maastricht which established the EU as the more politically integrated successor to the EEC.

In 1997, the Conservatives were replaced by Tony Blair, who led the Labour Party to its first ever major landslide in recent years, having re-branded the socialist movement into ‘New Labour’, a socially progressive and broadly pro-European party that went as far as to even adopt a lot of the Conservatives’ economic policies.

With the onset of deepening public disapproval of New Labour, Tony Blair resigned in 2007, handing over the Labour leadership to Gordon Brown. In spite of his efforts in grappling with the fallout of crises inherited under Blair, Brown was voted out after just 3 years, being replaced by another Conservative premier, the fence-straddling David Cameron. During this time, one can properly evaluate why and how things came to a grinding halt after 2016, leading to the current turbulence of trade negotiations.

Getting to Grips with it all

The idea of splendid isolation stuck for as long as Westminster politicians were preoccupied with an empire upon which the Sun never set. Following the unparalleled political upheaval of the World Wars in the 20th century, the British Empire declined and faded into the annals of history. While France, following Suez, did face significant internal upheaval, leaders in the Elysée have always found confidence in consolidating the strength and influence of France in Europe. Britain, on the other hand, simply never found its own place in the World after 1957. Instead, British leaders have been desperate to wear an American leash in international affairs, as a junior partner beholden to a former colony.

Of course, the UK could always look to Europe, making use of its closest European partners as a means for British leadership to shadow Germany’s. To act as a leader in, or of, Europe however, would certainly mean concessions, just as other nations have conceded for the sake of integration, something the UK has never intended to do. It is for that reason that one may come to the saddening conclusion that maybe General de Gaulle was right after all, in that Britain never deserved to form part of a united Europe on account of Britons’ refusal to do so.

Perhaps, a glimmer of hope for the UK, one that is both near Europe, yet far from the Union. However, this does not mean that Britain ought to be antagonized by today’s European Union.

Europe must acknowledge Britain as a separate state. A separate state which while alongside a greater, more powerful and united European family of nations, will never serve as a father, mother, uncle or aunt, but as a neighbour upon whom Europe can always rely on as an ally and friend. Bound by the common and unbreakable virtues of democracy, freedom, the entrepreneurial spirit, international peace and security, opposition to terrorism, hatred and tyranny. Britain and the EU, both with the common goal of preserving peace, security and stability both on the European continent, as well as on the international stage as a whole.

The post Brexit In-depth: A Longtime Coming? | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.