Obama: “The best has yet to come”

Barack Obama is once again the President of the United States of America after an overwhelming victory that underlines once again what we declared many times during this campaign: Mitt Romney has been considered by Americans simply unfit. The night had begun with many of the swing states too close to call but finally Obama held seven of the nine battlegrounds upon which his presidency had been founded: Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and Wisconsin.

During the victory speech, Obama used a bipartisan approach to politics and returned once again to his theme of hope. The President told the enthusiastic supporters: “Tonight in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back. And we know in our hearts that for the United States of America the best is yet to come.”

Obama will face soon the negotiations with the GOP-oriented Congress but he made clear he had an agenda in mind for his second term: reforming the tax code, tackling climate change and facing immigration. On this last point, it is important to remind how effective was the Dream Act in order to get the support of the Hispanic communities and how coherent was the strategy of opening US society to minorities. Also, the Obamacare revealed itself crucial for 40 millions of Americans and for an improvement of the welfare system. And now, the President will preside the economic recovery by investing on education, small businesses and new businesses.

The campaign has been a referendum on Obama. Although there was some disillusionment Americans decided to stick with the incumbent. He will secure a stronger America in a safer world. He will definitely support European integration process, supervise the peace-process in Middle East and install a cooperation with new Chinese leadership. With the essential support of Bill Clinton (still the most appreciated political figure in USA), Michelle and Joe Biden, Obama accomplished the mission and will drive the USA for four more years. On the other side, a new generation of Republicans such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio will try to enlarge the GOP welcoming women, Hispanics and other minorities.

Congratulations Mr. President. Young Democrats for Europe are glad that the global democratic leader is still there. At the White House.

Cappa @Charlotte for Obama

Charlotte – “We have been witnessing the history” this is what Marco Cappa, President of Young Democrats for Europe, stated from Charlotte, NC, the city that hosted the DNC 2012. Mr. Cappa has been invited by Madeleine Albright, former Us Secretary of State, for the International Leaders Forum to celebrate Mr. Obama’s presidential nomination for the second term.

“After tough years of economic crisis and social turmoil, this is a key time not just for Democrats and Liberals but also for the global scenario. Barack Obama is strongly facing these difficult dossiers investing on innovation and research” – continues Cappa – “The world will re-start from here. We all need the American leadership: either our Europe which still misses an effective governance or the Asiatic giants owning a huge amount of US public debt. This perspective involves also the merging countries, the Middle East in order to reach stability and all the people fighting for freedom and democracy throughout the world.”

“Romney and his theory about the creative distruction of finance would only worsen the situation. Everyone here agrees that we need to cut public spending though we believe that austerity and solidarity can walk together” – concludes 27-year old Cappa – “Our generation, Millennials Generation, trusted and will continue trusting Obama’s vision. So far he won Bin Laden’s terror threat, he helped to spread democracy in the Mediterranean and improved the American welfare system. In the next four years, Barack Obama will lead the exit-strategy from the economic crisis, will fight for freedom and human rights and will drive the planet towards environmental sustainability. On the road to November 6th as on Twitter, we’ll be following him enthusiastically.”

In EU we trust

 

After these crucial days for the future of Europe and Eurozone, account needs to be taken of the fact that time is almost over and the political Europe cannot wait any longer. The crisis was mismanaged from the start either by those who considered it a short-term problem or the ones who didn’t want to speed up the integration process within EU. The United States of America faced a very similar crisis but the public funds (almost the same amount spent so far in EU) were used to create the Capital Purchase Program and the Financial Stability Trust that worked much better than our European Financial Stability Facility (and of the coming soon, hopefully, European Stability Mechanism) in solving the economic problems. Only when the evolution of the financial turmoil alerted the markets did the leaders start discussing the possible solutions. After more than thirty Councils and Summits, not much has been done and the architecture of the European Institutions showed to the world their slow and unefficient governance

While considering the complicated puzzle of ambitions and desires of the different nations, we should keep in mind that following Greece, Ireland and Spain, we don’t know who is going to be the next. Also, the possible effects of default in one state are unpredictable for the others. So, what is the answer? What can we do to give a sense to the project of Adenauer, De Gasperi, Schumann, Delors and Spinelli? Who if not our generation, the Erasmus generation, can understand the importance of a stronger Europe in a more and more competitive world? How can we face the global challenges coming from China, India, USA and Arab countries if we are unable to consolidate a stable and effective economic coordination?

One solution to win completely the attacks and speculations, could arrive from the proposal of a European Debt Agency. It would issue European sovereign debt securities worth up to 60% of the EMU’s GDP, so that its liabilities do not infringe the parameters of the European Stability and Growth Pact. These securities are fully and jointly guaranteed by all the EMU member states. With the full and joint guarantors including the countries that have a triple-A rating (Germany first and foremost), the EDA, unlike the EFSF, can attain its maximum issuance potential since it does not have to resort to over-collaterlisation in order to place its securities at market conditions in line with those of the ‘strongest’ EMU countries.
In 2011 the debt/GDP ratio of the EMU countries averaged about 84%. Therefore, the potential demand for member states’ securities from the EDA, whose ceiling in value is 60% of the EMU’s GDP, is lower than the maximum potential supply. On the other hand, for the reasons already given, the EDA is able to place its own securities on far better market terms than the weaker EMU countries. This is an ideal situation for organising the transactions between the EDA and the member states through the mechanism of the “non-uniform price reverse auction”.This implies that, in principle, all the peripheral countries could sell the entire stock of their sovereign debt to the EDA at prices not too squeezed by competition. In particular, each of the member states with illiquidity problems or on the brink of insolvency would apply that discount to the supply price of its securities, which narrows the current spreads of its public bond yields over those of Germany but, at the same time, minimizes the probability of being (even partially) left out of the reverse auction. If combined with suitably reformed European governance, the EDA could give Germany ( that so far looked almost doubtful) a decisive say in setting the new rules for the EMU and EU.
With these economic tools, European Union could finally step forward and establish the conditions for a political and federalist Europe. Dear leaders, enjoy the vacations but please come back soon with determination towards these challenging and ambitious projects. Our eyes will be on you because in EU we trust!

Christians in Syria: A Precious Minority

Syria, an important crossroads for at least five millennia, is a country in possession of a very complex ethnic and religious character. 

Despite the widespread and well-characterized Arab-Muslim society, Syria is also very important for the history of Christianity. It’s from here that the Apostles began to evangelize Europe, firstly with Saint Paul, and some of the most important monasteries such as St. George, St. Thecla, the convent of our Lady of Saidnaya and the Church of St.Hanania in Damascus are located in Syria.

Out of 20 million inhabitants, Christians in Syria (mainly Greek Orthodox, Maronites, Syrian Orthodox, Melkites, Latin Catholics, etc…), while representing  almost 30% of the population until 1967, today make up only about 8-9% of the total number of inhabitants.

With the exception of a small minority that has still preserved the Aramaic language, the language of Christ, the Christian majority speaks Arabic and has lived in a predominantly Muslim land for nearly thirteen centuries. It has steadily promoted dialogue and has contributed to the progress of local society. Religious freedom, however, has found its place in the space provided by the Arab nationalist Party Ba’aht. The unifying strength of the system was not the Koran, but the adhesion en masse towards other slogans like their independence from and national dignity vis-à-vis the West, the struggle against Israel (especially for matters related to the Golan Heights) and the defense of the Palestinian cause.

Along with the majority of Syrians, Christians have thus suffered from the elimination of free political thought, the fight against the enemy and are continuously subjected to a barrage of propaganda. In the crisis in which Syria has plummeted, Christians find themselves in an extremely delicate position.

The Islamic fundamentalist Salafite matrix has so far been marginal. It has recently been increasing and, at the same time, the clash between the Sunni and the Alawite components is bringing more extremists to the fore.

So, while on one hand the Sunni population has not hesitated to take to the streets and trigger a revolt that has turned into a civil war, on the other hand, the other minority communities, including Christians, have found themselves faced with the dilemma of the strong opposition to Bashar Al Assad and at the same time the fear of Islamic extremism.

Christians, in order to resume dialogue and to stop the violence, have sought to pursue a policy of non-violent reforms along with other minorities (such as the Druze).

In this context, the Syrian Christians are divided into two groups, similarly to what transpired in neighboring Lebanon: the regime’s tacit supporters that want radical reform policies and the detractors, who are mostly young people demanding a regime change.

Many members of this group are active in opposition politics and are located in some regions like Bayrud and Arbi in the region of Damascus and in some areas around Hamh, Homs and Idlib.

The hope is, with continued violence and repression, the peaceful nature of the Christians will cause them to break this silence and concentrate all their efforts in opposition politics. Middle Eastern Christians, instead of giving in to resignation, could therefore play an important role by participating, with moderate Muslims, in the rebirth of their country and thus not interrupting relations of solidarity with the majority of their fellow citizens. Certainly, the outcome of this scenario will depend on many unknown internal and external factors.  

 

Nicola Censini LLM

Turkish-Syrian relations and the Syrian Spring: New Prospects for the Middle East

Of all Turkey’s neighboring states, Syria is considered to have the most complex and difficult relationship with it. The historical mistrust and territorial disputes, which originated in the early years of the tenth century as a result of the Arab struggle against the Ottoman Empire and continued in the French Mandate of Syria, worsened during the Cold War. In the 50s opposition was mainly ideological and it caused suspicions and hostility between the two countries that considered themselves the antithesis of a bipolar world. Turkey was the bastion of Western interests in the Near East and it maintained close relations with Israel while Syria aligned itself with Nasser and the Soviet-bloc. In the 80s and 90s the problem of exploitation of the waters of the Euphrates river caused another source of friction which, together with the various attacks and the territorial claims (such as the province of Hatay, formerly Sanjak of Alexandretta), stiffened the already difficult bilateral relationships.

An opening in relations between the two countries took place in 2004 following the outbreak of the Iraq war with the official visit in Turkey of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. During the same visit, in addition to signing a series of economic agreements on tax issues, investment and tourism, the territorial integrity and unity of Iraq was reaffirmed. After the Iraq war and the loss of Syrian control of Lebanon, the Syrian-Turkish relations increased also because Damascus was trying to overcome isolation and regional impasse. The common interests between the two countries were linked to the Iraq conflict and to the fear of the formation of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Furthermore, between the summer of 2007 and that of 2008, Turkish diplomacy, in addition to having made possible the implementation of important agreements in various subjects, took numerous actions to promote the signing of a real peace agreement between Syria and the State of Israel. For Israel, the core business of the peace process was based on the return of the Golan Heights to Syria, while it would have to suspend all support for Hezbollah and Hamas and to expel from Damascus the Hamas political leader, Khaled Mashaal. In addition, Syria would promise Israel an easing of diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The insertion of Turkey within the peace process, inspired by the policy inaugurated by Ahmet Davutoglu, the “zero problems with neighbors” was severely compromised, between December 2008 and January 2009, following the launch of the Military Operation Cast Lead by the Israeli government against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Those actions taken by the Israeli government and the subsequent sanctions against the occupied territories caused a strain in the diplomatic relations between Turkey and Israel that not even the inauguration of Barack Obama at the White House in January 2009 was able to relieve. In Autumn of 2010, Syria asked Turkey to vigorously resume the process interrupted in summer 2008. However, the first uprising in Dara’a in February / March 2011 were now close and the harsh repression perpetrated by the regime of Bashar al-Asad in tackling street protests of the Syrian spring has rapidly deteriorated Turkish-Syrian diplomatic relations to the point that Turkey has openly criticized the actions of the Alawite regime and has disrupted diplomatic relations between Ankara and Damascus.

Between May and June 2011, the Turkish government offered the Syrian people and the opposition of the Syrian Alawite regime the possibility of providing international resonance to its dissent, hosting in Antalya the Syria for Change conference, which subsequently facilitated the establishment of the Syrian National Council, or rather the main platform of opposition to the Ba’athist regime of Bashar al-Assad. This gradual rapprochement of Turkey to the forces of opposition to the Syrian regime and the parallel disruption of diplomatic relations with Ba’athist Syria has inevitably provoked tensions between Ankara and Tehran. The response was swift. In October 2011, the former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Rahim Safani, harshly criticized the Turkish government, its projection of regional power, the weight of its relations with NATO forces and particularly the process of secularization promoted by Ankara towards Islam. The actions that Damascus decides to take towards Turkey will certainly be influenced by the position the latter will assume in relation to a hypothetical scenario of an armed intervention in Syria.

As is known, despite the recent condemnation of the massacre in the town of Hula by the UN Security Council and the incessant demands to Syrian authorities to stop the violence and to respect its commitments under the ceasefire, the use of military force in Syria does not seem to be a viable option because of the vetoes by the Russian Federation and the Republic of China. In recent weeks it seems rather more feasible that the prospect suggested by U.S. President Obama, following “the Yemeni model”, could open the way toward a “soft landing” which provides, in agreement with the Russian Federation, the exile of Bashar al-Assad, leaving a part of his government in power.

In addition to supporting the efforts of the Syrian opposition, it is evident that in this transitional scenario, Turkey could stimulate a dialogue with the various ethnic and religious groups of the country.

Among the alternatives to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, in fact, there is a direction towards an Islamic Syria, and from this point of view on several occasions, the Muslim Brotherhood said they were enthusiastic admirers of the Turkish model or a model able to overcome the secular authoritarian military creating a traditional and conservative system in terms of values, but distinctly liberal in terms of economic reforms.

A “new” Syria that is able to rise from the ashes of the regime of Bashar al-Assad will probably hasten to restore diplomatic relations with Turkey which were abruptly interrupted, could facilitate dialogue with Israel and would be forced to review their relations to the internal Iranian-led Shiite axis.

 

 

Nicola Censini LLM

Young Democrats for Europe (YDE)
Jeunes Democrates Europeens (JDE)
YDE is the youth wing of the European Party.We embrace the key role of democratic principles, underlined in the Lisbon Treaty and shrined in our political belief: democracy, freedom, equality, participation, sustainability and solidarity.

Contact us

    OUR PARTNERS