Author Archive for Paolo Berrino
An unusual event happened in Brussels over last weekend. I am talking about the launch of the first European Wind Day, a Europe-wide campaign to promote wind energy and bring it closer to people.
It was a fancy act - first, a spectacular exhibition took place right on the Schuman roundabout, right between the headquarters of the European Commission and the European Council building. In the centre of the exhibition was a real wind turbine, 25 meters of height and with a diameter of 20 meters. This 100 kW model is nothing in comparison with the typical modern turbines, usually 20 times more powerful and up to four times bigger. Yet, in the middle of a city, this 40 tonnes white rotating device cut an impressive figure.
The event was unavoidably combined with a press conference attended by EU Commissioner for Energy Andris Piebalgs. “Today we see that the technology is there and we can master whatever is necessary to achieve climate change and security of supply goals,” he said. The association which organised the event pushed the point further, providing data about the current and potential development of wind energy. After the adoption of the 20% binding targets of energy that has to come from renewables by 2020, wind has the possibility to provide in between 12% and 16% of EU electricity. Now, it is at 3%. A lot of work to do.
The press conference ended on a jolly note with Piebalgs breaking a bottle of champagne on the turbine. Maybe symbolically, the bottle broke only at the fourth attempt, when two kids from the audience came to help the commissioner. But this solemn event was not the end of it all - in the evening a party took place in front of the Commission’s Berlaymont building. Steady wind and techno music fuelled several hundred dancers, some of whom flew kites. Yet others, among whom your correspondent, ended up dancing on the stage.
Two recent events in Italy merit our attention. The first is the commemoration on the 15th anniversary of the murder of judges Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino, committed in the fight against the Italian mafia. The second, in a totally different setting, is the annual conference “crescere tra le righe” (growing between the lines), that tackled the issue of communication in modern society. Despite the geographical distance and the dissimilar intents, these two occasions show something about young Italians, what they want to communicate to policy makers, and how they want to do it.
The Capaci bloodshed owns its name to the trait of highway in Sicily where Giovanni Falcone was murdered with a bomb, together with his wife and three policemen escorting them, on 23 May 1992. Two months later, his friend and colleague Paolo Borsellino was killed in front of his house by means of a car-bomb parked nearby. On the anniversary of these shameful events in Italy’s recent history, the Falcone Foundation decided to organise a boat trip to Palermo. The “legality boat”, as it was called, brought together 15,000 youngsters from all over Italy, who set in the Sicilian capital dancing, listening to music, and debating with representatives of national and regional authorities that attended the event.
The debate wasn’t thrilling. As one might expect, all public figures called for the respect of legality and praised the memory of the two judges. Much more striking was the fact that, 15 years after the murders, young Italians were still moved by the case and by the wave of a historical memory. This is a particularly remarkable outcome when recalling the complex, radicalising, century-long relationship between
Italian society and the mafia
A recent article of Foreign Policy, which analyses the status of several mafia groups in the world, assesses the future of the Italian mafia as “a fight for survival”, especially since the arrest of Bernardo Provenzano, “il capo di tutti i capi”, and 24 other Godfathers. This was possible because of the commitment of the police, of course, but also because society, finally, is withdrawing its support and protection for members of mafia families. The celebrations in Palermo showed that the new generations are not willing to tolerate and support illegality as much as the previous ones.
The event also showed young people’s increasing interest in local problems and their wish to be involved and express their opinion. This was highlighted at the conference “growing between the lines”, organised by the Watchdog of Young Editorialists in La Bagnaia, Tuscany. At the event, attended by members of all relevant public authorities, Walter Veltroni, Rome’s mayor, pointed out that we live in a
very fast society, with a very slow press
The media do not understand societal trends or do not want to understand them. Blogging and the concept of new media is youngsters’ reply to the vacuity of content in the everyday news. The net is the place where news, comment and opinions can be exchanged at high speed, and where the most active participation is reserved for the young- who jump at the occasion. This clearly shows they are concerned in local issues.
At the conference in Tuscany the political elite was represented by Gianfranco Fini, Former Vice-Prime Minister, and Franco Frattini, Vice-President of the European Commission. Hardly discovering the wheel, the former stated the necessity to get closer to the young generations. Questioned about the rather too-mature age of his political coalition leader, Fini struck back with the name of Giorgia Meloni, the 30-year-old President of the Chamber of Deputies. Frattini, unsurprisingly, stressed on the
need for the young to talk more about the EU
to follow its policies and to be more engaged in the debate about its future. From environmental to immigration issues, he said, “not having it [the EU] would come at a high cost, while having it is strategically crucial”.
All in all, the two events described here underline a fresh and dynamic trend of communication in a society that is changing slowly but surely. This is the case in Italy, but the situation is similar in the rest of the EU. The young generations are not apathetic, bored and disinterested - on the contrary, they seem keen to follow and participate in political debates; they have a historical memory to refer to when dealing with present day’s issues, and they fight against the lack of information and channels for representation by using new technologies on the internet.
Policy makers should adapt quickly
It has never been easier for them to know what the young voters think and want - their opinions are only a click away. But while national politicians may be quick to jump on the new wave, the European ones may take longer to start surfing on it. The European Union is still missing in young people’s hearts and minds despite its increasing relevance in their lives. This might be a good occasion for the ‘regular’ media to provide the right platform for future political debates, and for politicians to be more accountable, and to engage the future more in the making of the present.
..especially with refreshing drinks!
I know I had promised to get a grip on myself and go back to talk about politics, but the Brussels’ working life is so appealing that I can’t help blabbing a bit more about it. So, after the post on the multi-faceted psyche of the intern-type, I would like to address the mono-mandatory goals of the lobbyists – also called “the bitches of the industry”.
That’s right, it is crucial not to confuse lobbies with the other organisations floating in the muddy waters of Brussels. As a dictionary puts it, the lobbyists are those who “conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials and especially members of a legislative body on legislation”. Usually, they are paid by the private sector to carry on these tasks. Thus one might find lobbies working to promote the interests of the industry of fruit juices, or various types of energy, or textiles, or metals. But never do their goals stem from a norm, such as the protection of Human Rights, or improving the quality of research in a specific field. Lobbies can be non-profit organisations, but they shouldn’t be confounded with NGOs and think-tanks.
Even in Brussels, many do not totally understand this distinction. However, it wouldn’t be possible to describe the life of a lobbyist without grasping the difference of working with the precise aim of protecting interests, with the aim of promoting values. The former gives you a legitimate representational power, which comes from the money the industry pays you to do your job. The latter, might be a laudable aim, but it is usually based on public funding or personal donations.
The conclusion of this briefing is that the lobbyist has to work to please the industry, whatever the sector is. This makes the job pretty much alike for all those who are involved in the game. Lots of stress, lots of talking, lots of meetings…and lots of drinking!!
In Brussels, the targets are obviously the EU institutions. Therefore you will always see lobbyists wondering around the Committees in the Parliament, struggling to get to talk with some Commission officials, and inviting representative of member states to VIP cocktails. You should watch out when you are in a pub or at a restaurant in the European area, as a lobbyist may be lurching in the bushes around the corner.
I would say the life of a lobbyist is divided in three threads: the preparation, the battle, and the party. The preparation starts in the office, where experts of a sector have to analyse the legal situation and come up with position papers to “improve” current legislation. It is not an easy task, particularly at the EU level. The members of these associations are hundreds, and they all want to gain from the work they pay for. Often, in different countries there are different issues with some aspects of the legislation in place, or with the harmonisation of national laws with European law. The members are those who pay the salary, and the lobby do not want to lose them. So, it has to find a common interest, through a long and time consuming process of coordination, meetings, and to a certain extend diplomacy, with its own members. This common interest will define clear aims, and will provide the weapons for the battle.
The second part of the lobbyist’s life is the most stressful. They run back and forth the three main institutions striving for some attention. They have to make their voice heard in an ocean of voices, they have to find the right timing to address the policy makers in an ordeal of fully booked agendas, and they have to carry along a big deal of positive attitudes. Most importantly, they need networking skills, both mentally and physically.
The third aspect of a lobbyist’s life, constantly overlapping with the others two, involves lunches, dinners, parties, cocktails, receptions and the like. Probably, the very moment the defences of their targets are low is exactly after working time, which makes the lobbyist a night bird. But this is not the end of it. When organising meetings and social events for its own members, the lobby does not go about with low-class stuff. The best places, the best food and the best treatment. What’s better than a refreshing drink, in a fancy place, with nice company, to feed the industry?
Altogether, it’s a lot of fun, if you can handle it!
Instead of the usual entry on how well or bad the EU is doing in this and that policy, this time I will write about those like-minded people who want to live the European Union. These are the job seekers in Brussels. A bunch of men and women from all the 27 countries of the EU and beyond, gather in the so-called capital of Europe to participate closely in a project deemed by many as rather detached from anything that matters in citizens’ lives.
If there is one thing in common among the members of this random, colourful bunch, it is that every single one of them speaks, thinks and dreams primarily about how to get a job, how to change one’s job, how to improve one’s job, how networking is useful for this job, and how many ’stages’ [internships] you did before you actually got a job.
Working in Brussels means being part of a small multi-lingual hub, where people manage to communicate in some caricature of the English and French languages (one day I must write a piece about what I call the Euro-English – there are plenty of funny stories of this oft-violated language, especially by me). This “elite” includes about 40,000 officials working for the European Institutions, and an unknown number working for all the NGOs, lobbies, international organisations, think-tanks, consultancies and so forth, that like the moon, live off the deflected light of the Commission, the Parliament and the Council. But to be part of this world, first things first, one needs a job.
Now, there are several types of job seekers. The first is the trainee, also known as intern, or stagiaire. They say there is a difference between these three, but in reality they all boil down to the same thing: getting inexpert officials-to-be work for peanuts, or not even that much, doing the job of an expert secretary. Sometimes they are lucky and actually get to dip their fingers in real projects, so they learn something useful. In other cases, they are lucky enough to be paid, a luxury for their kind. Most of these blessed paid exeptions have mananged to get their hands onto one of the exclusive and famed Traineeships at the European institutions, which are as few as they are desired. Rarely does anyone get one of these on the first, second, or even third attempt. So, the most ambitious future administrators go to work somewhere else for a couple of years while periodically applying for a traineeship at the institutions. And when (if) fate finally smiles at them disguised as a bland e-mail from the Traineeships office, they gingerly toil out for far less money than what they’d be making elsewhere.
It’s tough for the trainees (yes, this is why they drink so much, and not occasionally in working hours - Ed.). I met people who went through several internships before getting a real job. This is definitely an unpleasant outcome of the Brussels system, because it favours those who can afford to live in Brussels without a salary, and not those who are best prepared. Few people fresh out of university have the means to live unpaid in a Western European capital, particularly those from the new member states.
However, the most determined will find their corner of European Union turf - after hundreds of applications, discouragement and the occasional “wanna drop it all and go home” feeling.
All aspiring interns go through the idealistic phase when they believe that perseverence will get them the internship of their dreams. Every time they send an application, they do it with the profound belief that they are perfect for that job, that they will surely get the telephone call… Soon enough, after many a day of silent phone and empty email, they change their minds and lower their standards.
Then there is the ”I came to Brussels to work for the Commission” kind of interns. These are a special brand of competitive, well-bred functionaries, who would do anything in their power to work for the Institutions. This implies studying as hard as they can to pass the competition, and networking as hard as they can to get one of the temporary contracts. Sometimes they are so obsessed with doing the job, that they become sad, petty people before even getting in – so they fit the bureaucratic profile. Why all this? Well, it is not without a reason that the Institutions are called golden cages. No matter how boring it gets, it is a secure and bloody well paid job. In other words, impossible to quit!toddmarrone.com/artwork/computer.htm
Networking is the word on everybody’s lips. There are experts for this too. You can spot them wandering around Place Luxemburg (a meeting area for EU officials), at the birthday party of somebody they probably don’t know, and at the club parties organised by some stagiaire, all at the same time! I still have to understand how they do it, but I tip my hat to such a dedication. The rationale is the conviction that the more people they meet, the more chances to get a nice job they have. Hardly - if everyone goes to a place looking for someone more important than himself, then networking becomes an exercise in futility. Thus, networking is primarily a matter of chance more than of crashing every cocktail party in town.
There are more psychological nuances of the Brussels job seekers. There are the experts in “interpretations of job ads”, then there are those who came just to continue the binge drinking they mastered during their Erasmus programme, the annoying ones who discuss endlessly the secrets of the perfect application letter, and those who simply make an appearance at the office they want to work and try to cajole the people there into letting them stay.
Brussels has a very dynamic job market, probably the biggest in Europe, for those interested in international and European politics. Although there are many cultural, linguistic, and job-seeking differences, the uniting factor for this city-within-a- city is indeed the EU. In between one job add and the next, Brussels-based Europeans live their lives discussing the past, the present, and the future of this one political body. In a sense, they are the citizens the EU does not have.
After last week protesta in Moscow, another rally of anti-Kremlin demonstrators in a central square of St. Petersburg ended up with fights between demonstrators and the police, and with the detention of several organisers. Among the arrested was Garry Kasparov, who was taken away with a rose in hand and the Russian Constitution tight under his arm. The 15-times world chess champion invented a new career by founding the United Civil Front with the aim, to put it in his words, not to win elections, but to have elections!
The terms of the game are clear and the chessboard is set. Kasparov said Russia “is no longer a country…where the government tries to pretend it is playing by letter and spirit of the law”. He accuses Putin of exploiting its vast natural resources for personal ends, of being too close to China and Iran, and of dining and wining Hamas with the goal of bring up oil prices (very much linked with those of gas). But most notably, Kasparov demands fair elections and respect for the basic rights that Constitution should grant – including the impossibility for Putin to run for a third mandate.
To reply, the Russian President banned the march organised by the Other Russia Coalition, stating that it would undermine Russia’s stability, and thus provoked the riots. Riot police officers detain Russian opposition leader Garry KasparovAs for the chess player, the government considers him a friend of the Orange Ukrainians, of rich circles of American billionaires, and of George Soros-sponsored movement Otpor, which helped topple the late dictator Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia.
Kasparov loves challenges. He has learned the meaning of big battles when competing against the crowned king of chess Anatolij Karpov in 1984, at the age of 22. This was the longest chess match in history, spanning over 6 months. Kasparov had to fight against a political system that did not feel the need to have two chess champions. They tied, and that was already a victory.
This time around, his genius may not be enough to calculate all the possibilities in the match. The playfield is all but even. The black king is well protected in his territory. So far, his defence has not been breached neither by internal nor by external political forces. Putin’s petrol, gas, and weapons of mass destruction have more weight than 1500 protesters beaten up and dispelled by a police force twice as numerous. Furthermore, his past as the chief of KGB provides him with some skillful horses, bishops, and towers to attack the dissidents. The murder of Anna Politkovskaia and the detention of businessmen Khodorkovsky and Trepaskin are well-known recent examples. The queen, Mother Russia, knees before Putin’s will.
On the other side of the chessboard the white king might find himself a bit lonely. His best piece, the European Union, is powerful but disarmed in its stativity. Despite the most enchanting rhetoric, the queen of Europe is not, and probably will not, make a move to protect what it claims to stand for – democracy and Human Rights. And this is not a matter of ethic as such, because the prevention of the revival of an autocratic system, where the only law is that of its king and his forces, right at the doors of Europe, is all but about mere principles.
In the meantime, the white attack loses important pieces such as Paris, London, Berlin and Rome, all swallowed by the black king. European decision-makers have given up the battle, either for economic and political opportunism, or for lack of alternatives. In Germany, the former chancellor Gerhard Schroeder sold his principles for a fat paycheck by Gazprom, while the new government is not too bothered to cut off its Eastern neighbours from the trajectory of a new pipeline from Russia. In France, president Jacques Chirac is about to retire with no trace of regret for giving Putin the prestigious Legion of Honour. Italy’s Romano Prodi turns his eye in another direction, and his predecessor Sylvio Berlusconi is a buddy of Russia’s President – recent photos show the two cosying up a fight match in the company of Jean Claude Van Damme.
If he does not have support from abroad, Kasparov has few chances to build up a solid defence at home as well. Few people have answered his United Civil Front call to show up at the rally. Even though released after few hours and a 40-dollar fine, the famous chess player might be brought to court. It looks like he is just running toward one of the few chess mates of his life.
Yet, this could be what the strategist wanted. Aware of the impossibility to win a match with so few pieces, Kasparov might have adopted the strategy of the “own chess mate”. This planned suicide has attracted a considerable attention in the media, and has showed that, to certain extent, in Russia there are still white spawns willing to fight for democracy.
This is not a victory yet, and the battle could become the longest in history, but Kasparov is used to it.
In the wake of the 50th anniversary of the European Union, media across the world ran numerous pieces of journalists, experts, and politicians, who analysed the five past decades of EU integration and cast an eye to its future. I was surprised to see that, at least for this occasion, most reports focused on the positive impact of the “EU system”. I agree - we often read (and write) negatively about Europe. But this time, I would like to offer a positive picture - a practical example of a good outcome from EU decision-making.
I refer to the consensus reached by the European leaders at their summit on March 9, to adopt 20 percent overall European binding targets for renewable energies, and to commit to the reduction of CO2 emissions by 20 percent (from 1990 standards) by 2020. This decision should be cheered for at least three reasons, which are linked to the environment, the markets, but most importantly to the very essence of the Union’s existence – effective multilateralism.
By all means, it is hardly conceivable to deny the necessity of more renewable energy. The disastrous impact of climate change has been evidenced by reputable scientists at the global level. A significant cut in the use of polluting agents for production of electricity, fuels, heating and cooling, is not politically and practically sustainable at the moment. The only alternative is to hoist the share of renewable energy in our energy mix.
The 20 percent binding targets will obviously not solve our climate change problem if they are implemented by the EU alone. Action at global level is needed. Yet, for the first time a major international political body has set such ambitious goals. In typically optimistic EU-style, the conclusions of the March Council mentioned the possibility to bring the CO2 cut emissions at 30 percent, if other countries would follow Europe’s example. This is an open call to the US, China and India. The EU is using its international visibility to set global standards, in the smoothest way, and hopefully its call will be answered.
However, the Council’s conclusions were meant to tackle the issue of energy security as well. Recent data clearly show that if EU countries continue with the current trends, their dependency on gas and oil imports will increase to up to 80 percent by 2030. Scarcity, combined with the mounting demand of energy resources, will further increase international competition in the coming decades. Most likely, this will cause an escalation of fossil fuels costs.
The adoption of the binding targets is part of a strategy to deal with these problems by developing indigenous energy sources. At present, the costs of renewable energy are higher than fossil fuels’ - this is why the industry needs political backing. The binding targets provided for a legal framework which will boost the industry’s investments in the sector. Much work has still to be done to find out how much each country will contribute to the 20 percent overall EU target. Yet, with a much more stable legal framework markets acquire confidence, for the industry knows what to aim for, and on such scale benefit the whole economy. Moreover, the development of a home-made energy sources has the advantage that investments are inward-looking, and mostly coming from European industries, or European branches of global industries, which impacts positively on the labour market.
Seeing these constructive outcomes of the binding targets, a spontaneous question may arise: why we did not hear about Italy, France, Germany or Spain (a very “renewable country”) adopting binding targets for renewable energies? Why the EU has achieved, and thought of, something that its members did not?
This is one of the mysterious powers of the European Union. Apparently, the old expression “two minds are better than one” applies for the EU as well. 27 countries are better than one, or two, or three… For some mystic reasons, at the EU level the very same policy makers that at home are inactive or ineffective, sometimes manage to agree and take steps forward in tackling sensitive and crucial issues such as energy security and climate change.
It might take time, but when they put heads together, European leaders somehow realise the weight of the EU when acting as one. In the meantime, although they try to protect national interests, should they want to achieve practical results they have to find compromises. It is concessions and bargaining that shape European policies. And often, as the example in this article shows, in the right policies too.
But even more strikingly, Member States carry on negotiations, discussions, disagreements, and rows, in a real multilateral contest, where cooperation substituted conflict as the key word of European diplomacy. I am convinced no better example could have been chosen than energy. In consideration of the increase of energy competition for scarce resources, sometimes I ask myself: what would European States do, if the EU didn’t exist?
Last week’s visit of Vladimir Putin to Italy ratifies the plain powers of Russian President vis-a-vis recent Italian governments. Berlusconi was nationally and internationally criticised for his “friendship” with Putin, but apparently Prodi has picked up and fostered this dubiously honourable heritage.
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have repeatedly pointed out the evident violations of Human Rights in Russia: kidnappings, use of torture, disappearance of people, limitations of free speech.
This comes on top of the lack of transparency and democracy in the electoral and political system of the country, other than the autocratic attitudes of Putin toward the press and political opposition. Yet, these subjects were be taboo at the congenial meeting.
The main topic in discussion was, unsurprisingly, energy. The deal Gazprom-Enel is hot on the plate, waiting to be served. The stakes are palatable for both sides: entry to the Italian market for the Russian energy giant, and the possibility to research oilfields on Russian territory for the Italian company. Furthermore, the gas supplies are in the spotlight this time as ever.
This is the fourth time Prodi meets Putin in the few months since his election. The Italian Prime Minister has stated that Italy and Russia share the need to strengthen multilateralism through the United Nations, and listed where this cooperation is necessary. Namely, the Middle East, the Iranian nuclear dossier, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
This despite Russia selling missiles and nuclear technology to Iran - against any multilateral attempt to curb its nuclear programme - other than its lack of cooperation on the other issues at the Security Council. The truth is that Russia is exploiting again its favourite geopolitical weapon, the dependence of others on its natural resources.
When are the European countries going to understand that most likely Putin need us as much as we need him? The only revenue Russian President can count on to keep the unstable economy of his country alive comes from the gas he sells to European countries. Notwithstanding, most EU leaders act like an apprentice before his master, showing a mix of concern, deference, and submission.
Nobody is claiming all Russian problems can be solved, or just discussed, at one meeting with Prodi. Nevertheless, it is time to react to the blackmailing of Russia via its energy policy, and raise the voice for the protection of those values Italy, and Europe, are founded upon. Namely, democracy, rule of law, and protection of Human Rights.
Instead, what we witnessed again was the propagation of Putin influence in yet another country, Italy. One week after the death of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya, President Jacques Chirac gave Putin the Legion of Honour - the highest merit in France. Let us wait and see what will be the next prize for the new Tzar of Italy.
