JAI IN THE NEWS

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Enlargement............................................................................................................. 2

EU frets over Turkey crisis, ties under threat............................................................. 2

Fight Against Drugs................................................................................................ 4

Top drugs adviser quits over cannabis plans................................................................ 4

Why drugs policy is a mind-bending substance.............................................................. 5

Fraud............................................................................................................................ 8

Enquêtes au sein d'Eurostat sur la passation de contrats privés.................................. 8

Gibraltar................................................................................................................... 8

La prensa británica vincula el relevo de Piqué con el 'parón' de las negociaciones sobre Gibraltar.................................................................................................................... 8

Sacking blow to Straw plans for Gibraltar................................................................ 9

Spain says no decision yet on Gibraltar talks............................................................ 10

Immigration............................................................................................................. 11

Council looks for flexibility on immigrant’s work permits........................................ 11

'Hay que dirigir y limitar la inmigración'................................................................... 12

L'inaccessible «paradis autrichien»............................................................................ 15

Das Fremdenpaket wird zugestellt............................................................... 16

Das Fremdenpaket im Nationalrat............................................................................. 16

International Criminal Court.......................................................................... 17

Jo Leinen demande à l'UE de parler d'une seule voix - Chris Patten réaffirme que l'attitude américaine menace la stabilité internationale......................................... 17

Kaliningrad.............................................................................................................. 17

Kaliningrad: "Pas question d'un corridor" réclamé par les Russes, selon l'UE........... 17

Prisons....................................................................................................................... 18

Cherie Blair hits out at state of crowded prisons...................................................... 18

Enlargement.

EU frets over Turkey crisis, ties under threat

BRUSSELS, July 10 (Reuters)

Turkey's political turmoil could put new strains on its sensitive relationship with the European Union, making a crisis over Cyprus's bid to join the EU more likely, diplomats and political analysts say.

Bulent Ecevit's three-party government was teetering on the brink of collapse on Wednesday after several ministers resigned and his party mutinied amid growing concern over the premier's health and the fate of desperately needed economic reforms.

Turkey has been a formal candidate for EU membership since December 1999 but has yet to open accession negotiations because of continued concerns in Brussels over human rights abuses.

The European Commission, the executive body overseeing the enlargement of the Union to the east and south, is worried about the government crisis in Ankara but has no wish to be seen to be meddling in Turkey's internal affairs. "We are following the situation very closely. This is obviously a matter for Turkey but we are sure that Turkish institutions will work to ensure political stability and to maintain the momentum of reforms," Commission spokesman Jean-Christophe Filori told Reuters.

Privately, EU diplomats say the crisis, which coincides with the crucial, final stage of enlargement talks with 10 candidates including the divided island of Cyprus, has the potential to damage EU-Turkey relations, possibly quite badly.

CYPRUS FACTOR

The EU wants Ankara to pressure the Turkish Cypriot statelet in northern Cyprus into cutting a deal with the Greek Cypriots who run the internationally recognised government that would let Cyprus enter the EU, probably in 2004, as a reunited island.

An agreement would also facilitate Turkey's own bid to open accession talks, although it is also required to scrap the death penalty, ensure civilian control of the armed forces, guarantee freedom of speech and grant cultural rights to minority Kurds.

Prolonged political turmoil in Ankara would reduce the chances of a Cyprus settlement before a summit in Copenhagen in December when the EU expects to conclude enlargement talks with the Greek Cypriot government, among numerous other candidates.

"It also means Turkey is unlikely to pass the reforms it needs to if it wants the EU in Copenhagen to announce a date for launching its own accession negotiations," said one diplomat.

In the past, Ecevit has suggested Turkey might formally annex northern Cyprus if the EU effectively admitted only the Greek Cypriot part. That would sink Turkey's own EU ambitions.

The EU would prefer a peace settlement but has said it would admit a divided island if there is no deal. Greece has threatened to block the whole historic EU enlargement project into eastern Europe if Cyprus is not included in the first wave.

Scouring the storm clouds for the glint of a silver lining, some diplomats say an early Turkish election -- Ecevit does not in theory have to call a vote until 2004 -- might produce a new political dynamic in Ankara and, hopefully, more clarity.

Ecevit's coalition includes a right-wing nationalist party hostile to the EU and to the reforms needed to join it.

"Polls suggest the Islamists could come to power and they have been making some quite pro-EU noises. After all, the EU means democracy and openness and protects them from the army," said one diplomat. The powerful Turkish military establishment sees itself as the guardian of Turkey's secular constitution and forced out the last Islamist-led government, five years ago. Another diplomat said an early Turkish election might not be good for a Cyprus settlement but neither was today's confusion. Some are hoping pro-Europe Economy Minister Kemal Dervis and Foreign Minister Ismail Cem could gain sway in a new government.

STRATEGY NEEDED

Political analysts say the EU can do little to shape events in Turkey but urgently needs to develop a more coherent strategy towards its big Muslim neighbour.

"Turkey is the litmus test for whether the EU can build a strong and viable common foreign policy," said Heather Grabbe of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based think-tank.

She said the EU needed to speak to Turkey with a single and consistent voice. It should not bend the rules to let Turkey in but should show it is serious about Ankara's candidacy.

Turkish politicians have often complained that the EU does not really want to admit their large, overwhelmingly Muslim country of 65 million which borders Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Reinforcing their suspicions, German conservative Edmund Stoiber has said publicly he does not believe Turkey should be admitted. Stoiber could become chancellor of the EU's biggest country -- which is home to more than two million Turks -- after a September 22 general election.

Diplomats say that some inside the EU may secretly hope that the Turkish crisis leads to some kind of bust-up that would put paid to Ankara's 40-year dream of joining the Union.

But Grabbe said: "Anybody with a strategic view of Europe's prospects cannot afford to write off Turkey."

Somewhat ironically, one country that would certainly not welcome Turkey's exclusion from Europe is historic rival Greece.

"The crisis in Turkey creates fears in Greece. Isolation from the EU would increase its aggressiveness and Greece would be the first to feel the heat," said one diplomat.

Greece, which takes over the bloc's presidency from Denmark in January, wants the EU in Copenhagen to offer Turkey, if not a start date, then at least a clearer road-map to accession talks.

"Such a strategy could be blown off course by this crisis," said the European diplomat.

Fight Against Drugs.

Top drugs adviser quits over cannabis plans

Wednesday July 10, 2002, The Guardian.

Government drugs adviser Keith Hellawell today announced his resignation in protest at the home secretary's proposal to reclassify cannabis from class B to class C.

Mr Hellawell, the former drug tsar who is now a part-time adviser, also attacked as "spin" the government's relaunching of its 10-year drugs strategy.

He said he had written to David Blunkett to inform him of his resignation.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It's moving further towards decriminalisation than any other country in the world.

"I have resigned over this issue and over the issue of spin."

Mr Hellawell, who was a chief constable before the prime minister, Tony Blair, appointed him to address international drugs issues, added: "I'm against it because of the message it gives. It's actually a technical adjustment which in the reality of the law doesn't make a great deal of difference.

"But it's been bandied about by people as a softening of the law. It is a softening of the law and it's giving the wrong message.

"It's a personal initiative of David Blunkett. I don't know where he got his advice from, he certainly didn't get it from me.

He added: "But there is no evidence at all to indicate that there is any change in the system.

"Even his own committee says that cannabis is a dangerous substance, there's an increase in use among young people, there's an increase in people who are seeking treatment for the drug, and even in that report it does recognise that there is a link between cannabis and harder drugs.

"So why on earth, when there are these problems, we change our message and give a softer message, I do not know."

A spokesman for the home secretary hit back at Mr Hellawell's criticism, claiming his stance on cannabis appeared to have changed since a meeting last year.

"Keith Hellawell said to the home secretary in a meeting last autumn that he was fully supportive of the home secretary's proposal to reclassify cannabis," said the spokesman.

"This was a meeting before the home secretary made his announcement to the home affairs select committee [revealing he planned to reclassify the drug].

"He tendered his resignation last month to take effect in August but the Home Office kept this private at his request.

"The home secretary's drug strategy to be announced this afternoon is not an alternative strategy but one that will build on the achievements of the first term while focusing on the challenges ahead," he added.

Also criticising what he called government spin, Mr Hellawell said: "Also today I understand, although I've been kept out of the discussions on this, there's going to be a re-launch of the [drugs] strategy."

He said he had become more concerned that the government was not addressing the strategy, adding: "There is just a sort of a re-packaging, a re-spinning of the issue to appear as if something has been done, and this is causing a great deal of problems on the streets, it's causing a great deal of problems for parents who just don't know where they are.

"Drugs are so important to all our families in this country, the politicians should not make political play out of it and should not take advantage by making political statements."

Why drugs policy is a mind-bending substance

10-07-2002, The Times.

Soldiers of common sense are rarely summoned from the fields to support David Blunkett in an hour of need. Normally we must seize our pitchforks to defend liberty against that same Home Secretary’s Dark Riders of Control. Many is the son of freedom found dead in a ditch with a Blunkett spear in his back.

Yet today the great man beams the smile of reason. He is demoting the drug cannabis from Class B to Class C. He is not legalising or decriminalising it. He is just reclassifying it as “non-arrestable” on first offence. Yet even this modest change has Mr Blunkett shaking at the knees. The Prime Minister and his predecessor, Jack Straw, swore that they would tolerate no such change. The “Tory press” is watching from Alastair Campbell’s office at No 12 Downing Street. No signal is permitted that might attract the hated adjective, liberal.

Then there is Mr Blunkett’s own dark side. This week he has been struggling to refashion Britain’s local police forces into his personal gendarmerie. Only the House of Lords stops him. Then his factotum, Hilary Benn, is refusing homecurfew releases to 850 non-violent prisoners, for fear of the Daily Mail. To this is the once-liberal House of Benn reduced.

In addition, to reassure The Daily Telegraph that he has not completely joined the 21st century, Mr Blunkett will announce that maximum prison sentences for selling cannabis (as opposed to consuming it) will be lengthened from five to ten years. Cannabis may overnight be less dangerous, but selling it is overnight twice as dangerous. Such are the sinuous threads of reason that hold in thrall the brains of rulers.

The reclassification of cannabis is overdue, if only to give back some credibility to classification as such. Only Mr Blunkett’s terror of the “message” lobby stops him tidying up the whole drugs list and moving Ecstasy from Class A to Class B. Mr Blunkett’s message to millions of weekend Ecstasy users, that their drug is still as dangerous as heroin, is on a criminological par with retaining capital punishment for the seduction of the monarch.

Mr Blunkett’s real problem has been down in Lambeth. The so-called Lambeth Experiment, under the enlightened Commander Brian Paddick, has left cannabis users free of arrest and persecution. This was intended, with good reason, to release police time to fight more serious crime, of which Lambeth has plenty. It was widely supported by police chiefs across the country, all of whom know that Home Office policy is crass.

Introducing such an experiment only in Lambeth, as opposed to throughout London, was like liberalising Prohibition only in Al Capone territory. No one was likely to notice. Only the Tories fell with dreary predictability into the trap. Down to Lambeth went their leader, Iain Duncan Smith, desperate for cheap votes by opposing reclassification. Since Britain’s drugs mess is largely the Tories’ fault and since the party’s appeal to the young is near to zero, he would surely have been better advised to support Mr Blunkett’s change.

During the experiment it would be astonishing if Lambeth’s drugs market were not more rather than less visible. Why deal at home if you can deal in the street? We can assume that the rest of London is less active, though no figures exist on all of this. Mr Blunkett should know about the displacement effect. The biggest drugs market in London is inside Her Majesty’s prisons, under his direct control. When he says he wants charge of every police force in the land to stamp out drugs, British parents should quake for their loved ones.

Cannabis consumption has now been removed from criminal sanction across most of Europe. This is no big deal because “illegality” is unenforceable. But the manner of any change is full of danger. Cannabis is mostly supplied by small domestic and continental growers. Mr Blunkett’s decision to double the penalty for cannabis supply to ten years puts it on a par with aggravated rape and manslaughter. Since almost all users are sometime suppliers, this change is madness. What it offers with one hand it withdraws with the other.

It is hard to convey the full, counter-productive idiocy of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. This law has been the source of the greatest social menace and personal tragedy in modern Britain. Seventy per cent of the prison population is there for a drug-related crime. More than half of property crime is carried out to pay for drugs, a supertax imposed by government policy on private property. Were it not for drugs, we could empty Britain’s jail of women. So high are drug profits that imprisonment has no deterrent effect that any penologist can show.

There is only one test for any change in the drugs law. Does it raise or lower “the wall”? That wall is between casual and now ubiquitous use of cannabis and Ecstasy and the dark tunnel of heroin and crack cocaine. Go to any prison, talk to any drug therapist, consult any parent, and they know this wall. Cannabis can do young people harm, as can Ecstasy. Wrongly used, these drugs can mess up a few people’s lives. But a confident society should be able to handle that few with regulation and education, as it tries to handle far more lethal alcohol and nicotine abuse. Whitehall “sending messages on drugs” is beyond ridicule.

On the other side of the wall lies serious harm. It is heroin and the cocaine derivatives now so profitable as to cause armed mayhem in Britain’s inner cities. Ninety per cent of the inmates of drug rehabilitation centres are seeking a cure for heroin. Consumption of this drug is soaring. With the British and American Governments tolerating resumed Afghan exports, opium prices are tumbling. The cannabis dealer is the natural salesman for this stuff. A market left unregulated as now is a gift to the heroin supplier. Cannabis and heroin are different drugs from different producers. But if there is no “wall” at the point of sale, the gateway between them is open.

By increasing the “risk premium” on cannabis sales, Mr Blunkett is likely to bring these markets closer together. Dealers will be more likely to push heroin than cannabis to equate profit more closely to risk. Likewise under Prohibition, it made more sense to trade in whisky than beer. By banning heroin clinics and seeking to equate cannabis and heroin distribution, Mr Blunkett is taking a reckless risk with the nation’s youth. And all for a weekend of spin.

There are many things wrong with how other countries control drugs. I know of none that looks to Britain with admiration. One motive alone guides policy in The Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, Spain and elsewhere. It is to achieve “market separation” between cannabis and heroin, to erect that wall. Britain has rightly indicated that cannabis is a less dangerous substance. It has widened the image gap between cannabis and hard drugs, but it has narrowed the commercial gap.

The only sensible way to regulate the market in cannabis is to license outlets and seek to restrict supply to licensed growers. That is the only way to re-erect the wall. Equally the sensible way of regulating the market in heroin is to license clinics, to prescribe and undercut the big importers, as happened before the 1971 Act. The Government will not do either. Indeed it is pushing policy in the other direction, towards rewarding the bigger crooks who are more able to bear risk and buy off the police. Drugs are by far Britain’s biggest illegal business. Ministers seem putty in the hands of its proprietors.

Two years ago, the then Home Secretary, Mr Straw, announced a liberalisation of pub and club licensing laws for alcohol. Brushing aside the anti-alcoholism lobby, he said it was time that licensing laws “grew up”. Drunkenness was a personal responsibility. He never explained why he wanted to take this risk with alcohol, from which thousands die each year, and not with heroin, from which hundreds die, or cannabis from which none dies. He was numb with unreason.

The real answer is that Britain’s drugs policy is driven not by reason or “the right thing to do”. It is driven by fear of the media, fear of a minority of public opinion, fear of message, image and spin. Such is the slow strangulation of liberal Britain under Mr Blair.

Mr Blunkett appears to have conquered this fear. He has emerged from his Home Office bunker. But his policy is incoherent. If he is not afraid, why is he shaking like a leaf?

Fraud.

Enquêtes au sein d'Eurostat sur la passation de contrats privés

Bruxelles, 09/07/2002 (Agence Europe)

L'Office de lutte anti-fraude (OLAF) a fait savoir, lundi soir, qu'il avait transmis au procureur de l'Etat du Grand-Duché du Luxembourg des informations concernant des « fraudes possibles » sur des contrats conclus entre Eurostat et des compagnies privées.

L'Olaf précise dans un communiqué que les informations transmises au parquet du Luxembourg (où est installé Eurostat) ont été obtenues lors de deux enquêtes menées sur des faits « susceptibles de poursuites pénales ». Un porte-parole de l'Olaf a tenu à préciser que les enquêtes « ne concernent pas la question de la fiabilité des données d'Eurostat ». Du côté de la Commission, on indique seulement que sur les 663 affaires conclues par l'Olaf en 2001, seules 13 ont concerné des affaires internes à la Commission (soit 2%). Les enquêtes internes auraient porté sur un montant total de 21 millions d'euros, soit 3,7% du montant total des cas traités cette année.

Ces enquêtes pourraient être liés à l'affaire d'un contrat passé entre Eurostat et la société privée « Eurogramme ». Il était ressorti d'un rapport de l'auditeur interne d'Eurostat réalisé en 2000 qu'il existait une différence entre la qualité des travaux réalisés par Eurogramme et le prix qui était prévu dans le contrat. La direction d'Eurostat avait décidé finalement de payer un peu plus que ce que recommandait le rapport de l'auditeur, compte tenu des conditions difficiles de travail auxquelles était confrontée la société privée.

Gibraltar.

La prensa británica vincula el relevo de Piqué con el 'parón' de las negociaciones sobre Gibraltar

10-07-2002, El Mundo.

LONDRES.- El relevo de Josep Piqué al frente de Exteriores no ha pasado desapercibido para la prensa británica, que lo relaciona con el “parón” de las negociaciones entre España y el Reino Unido sobre Gibraltar. Algunos diarios incluso aseguran que el nombramiento de Ana de Palacio supone el fin de las conversaciones.

El diario conservador 'The Times' recuerda que las negociaciones mantenidas entre Piqué y su colega británico Jack Straw habían sufrido un parón en los últimos meses debido al espinoso tema de la soberanía y las aspiraciones españolas sobre el Peñón, por lo que, a su juicio, la sustitución de Piqué podría significar que las autoridades españolas no conceden gran importancia a la continuidad de las conversaciones al considerarlas bloqueadas.

Agrega que aunque los diplomáticos británicos consideran que aún es pronto para conocer el impacto que puede tener la llegada de Ana de Palacio al Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, "no parece probable que resulte una ayuda para el proceso de negociaciones".

'The Times' subraya además que De Palacio tiene una "experiencia limitada" en asuntos exteriores, así como que los únicos que acogerán satisfactoriamente estos cambios son los gibraltareños, que se han opuesto de forma continuada al diálogo entre Londres y Madrid.

Por su parte, y también sobre la nueva ministra de Asuntos Exteriores, el diario 'The Guardian', ligado a los laboristas, apunta que, dado que las negociaciones no estaban dando los frutos deseados, sería menos embarazoso para una nueva ministra darlas por concluidas que a Piqué, "que en un momento llegó a anunciar la firma de un acuerdo con Straw para este mismo verano".

Destaca también este rotativo que el Foreign Office británico no sabe aún si finalmente se celebrará la reunión que tenían previsto mantener este mismo viernes Piqué y Straw en Madrid. Agrega que una fuente de ese Ministerio ha señalado que el nuevo nombramiento "sólo puede incrementar la tendencia hacia un menor optimismo" que reinaba actualmente en las negociaciones sobre Gibraltar.

Sacking blow to Straw plans for Gibraltar

Wednesday July 10, 2002, The Guardian

Foreign secretary Jack Straw's faltering plans for a deal with Spain over Gibraltar suffered a blow yesterday when the Spanish prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, sacked the foreign minister, Josep Pique.

Mr Pique, seen by the Foreign Office as the keenest supporter within a conservative cabinet of a deal based on shared sovereignty, was due to meet Mr Straw in Madrid on Friday for talks. He had said he expected "substantial advances".

In an extensive cabinet reshuffle last night, Mr Pique was replaced by a relatively unknown MEP, Ana de Palacio. Last night the Foreign Office was trying to find if Mr Straw's meeting was still on with the new minister.

Diplomats said Ms De Palacio lacked the clout to force a deal like the one Mr Straw and Mr Pique had been working over 12 months of difficult negotiating. A Foreign Office source said: "If the tendency was towards less optimism, this can only increase that."

Mr Pique's demotion was the biggest shock in a reshuffle that saw Mr Aznar dump almost half of his cabinet. However, diplomats pointed out it would be less embarrassing for a new minister to put an end to the talks than Mr Pique, who at one stage announced that he planned to sign an agreement with Mr Straw this summer.

It was not clear yesterday whether the Gibraltar question had influenced Mr Aznar, but there had been signs both Spain and Britain were backing away from a deal.

Mr Straw had problems persuading Gibraltarians, while Spain has been worrying about its effects on Basque separatism: allowing Gibraltarians a referendum over being part of Spain would set a precedent for separatists, who also demand a referendum.

Mr Aznar has always insisted that, whatever co-sovereignty deal might be signed, Spain would never give up its historic claim to absolute sovereignty over the land ceded to Britain in 1713.

Spain says no decision yet on Gibraltar talks

MADRID, July 10 (Reuters)

Spain's new foreign minister said on Wednesday she did not know whether negotiations with Britain on the sovereignty of Gibraltar would go ahead as scheduled on Friday, but Britain said it hoped they would.

Ana Palacio, who replaced Josep Pique in a major Spanish cabinet reshuffle on Tuesday, cast doubt on Friday's planned talks on the disputed British colony on Spain's southern coast.

"I need to sit down in my office," said Palacio, who was sworn in on Wednesday.

Known as "The Rock", Gibraltar has been the source of 300 years of dispute between London and Madrid. Pique had planned to meet British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on Friday for negotiations that had been viewed as a last-ditch effort to keep the latest initiative to solve the issue on track.

A diplomatic source said Straw had spoken by telephone to both Pique and Palacio after news of the Spanish cabinet shake-up late on Tuesday, but no decision had been taken on whether to go ahead with the talks.

In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said the appointment of Palacio meant any negotiations, if they did go ahead this week, would be a more general 'meet and greet' session rather than specifically focused on Gibraltar.

"Given that we now have a new Spanish Foreign Minister I think you can expect there to be a pause in the current negotiations," Blair's spokesman said.

"We hope there will be a meeting on Friday and we are in touch with the Spanish government about that."

"Should there be a meeting on Friday...it may be a more rounded meeting with a new foreign minister, that is why I am saying there may be a pause (in Gibraltar talks)," he added.

The two governments say there is now "a considerable degree of consensus" over the colony. Even so, any political agreement will need the approval of Gibraltar's 30,000 people who vehemently oppose a Spanish role in their affairs.

Immigration.

Council looks for flexibility on immigrant’s work permits.

10-07-2002, European Report.

The EU Member States have given a qualified welcome to a draft Directive aimed at cutting red tape for third country nationals applying for work permits in the EU. During recent talks at working group level, most felt the European Commission proposal was worthwhile, yet were reluctant to fully harmonise their divergent national systems. The Commission has meanwhile been trying to reassure them that the Directive will not interfere with their internal administrative structures. If the proposal is adopted, it will mean that immigrants will face a single procedure across the Union when applying for a residence-work permit.
(BB)

The Commission tabled this draft Directive in July 2001, but it has not yet been debated in a Ministerial Council, where it will need unanimous backing, after the European Parliament gives its opinion. The suggested one-stop shop procedure is intended to prevent “immigration shopping”, where applicants go to whichever Member State requires the least paperwork. It should be stressed the Member States will still be able to decide how many work permits to issue and to whom. The Commission believes it is still too early to make proposals on the politically sensitive subjects of quotas and selection criteria.

Desire for flexibility. Germany and Austria have questioned the Directive's legal base (article 63 - immigration), arguing that it is in fact regulating access to the labour market, and is thus an employment issue. Several Member States back the initiative in principle, but would like it to give them more flexibility. For example, Ireland, Germany, Italy and Austria suggest amending the text to stress that granting a work permit is a concession, not an obligation. Spain, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Luxembourg are still examining the proposal, while Belgium has pointed to its constitutional problems, given that the issue falls within the remit of both federal and regional authorities. The United Kingdom has decided not to take part in accordance with its opt-in on EU visa, asylum and immigration policies, while Denmark has an obligatory opt-out.

The title of the draft Directive refers to “conditions for entry and residence”, which has led Spain, France and Italy to wonder if it will also affect visa policy. The Commission has insisted it is not visa-related because the work permit must have been granted before entering the EU, although it may be actually physically handed over on Union territory. Spain, Greece, the Netherlands and Austria argue that applicants should possess their work permit before being entitled to a residence permit. Belgium, Greece, France and Austria endorse this view, saying that a work permit and a residence permit are two separate things, which are not necessarily issued at the same time. The Commission counters that this goes against the whole philosophy of its proposal, which is to simplify procedures.

Scope of Directive. The proposal covers all employed and self-employed activities, but some Member States want to more clearly define specific categories, such as au pairs and youth exchanges. Spain and Austria support changing the definition of cross-border workers to only include those who return to their home state every day, not once a week as the Commission suggests. Germany is sceptical about including cross-border workers at all. It also queries the inclusion of trainees, noting that the Commission has vowed to table a separate Directive for trainees and students. The Commission says that the current proposal relates to paid trainees while the future one will focus on unpaid ones, although admits a clear distinction cannot always be made. Other categories covered are seasonal workers and temporary intra-company transfers.

Refugees, asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, non-EU national family members of EU citizens, and those benefiting from “family re-union” status, are excluded from the draft Directive's scope. In most of these cases, EU instruments regulating their status are either on the table or have been adopted by the Council. It will not affect existing or future, bilateral or multilateral, Member State or EU agreements with third countries that offer more favourable terms to immigrants. Neither will it apply to those providing services within the Union for periods of less than three months.

Special treatment professions. The Commission has also put in a clause enabling Member States to treat certain types of worker more favourably. These are namely researchers, academics, religious orders, priests, artists, journalists and officials from charitable organisations. But some Member States feel such a list should not be exhaustive, as national legislation varies considerably as regards which professions get special treatment. For example, Dutch law provides a more extensive list, while in Sweden the terminology used for these categories is different. Finally, Austria has suggested replacing the word “journalist” with the more all-encompassing term “media workers”.

'Hay que dirigir y limitar la inmigración'

10-07-2002, El Pais.

Entre los conservadores alemanes, Angela Merkel fue la primera en distanciarse, en 1999, del patriarca Helmut Kohl y de sus turbios manejos financieros. Sobre esta ola de entusiasmo, en el año 2000 llegó hasta la presidencia de la Unión Cristiana Democrática (CDU). Pese a haber tenido que ceder la candidatura a canciller al bávaro Edmund Stoiber, su poder en las filas democristianas sigue intacto. Esta hija de un pastor protestante, próxima a cumplir 48 años, recibe a EL PAÍS y a otro periódico europeo en su luminosa oficina en la nueva sede de la CDU en Berlín. Al contrario de lo que sugieren muchas fotos, su mirada no es ni triste ni inofensiva. De maneras suaves y hablar pausado, es tan lúcida como cabe esperar de alguien que se ha doctorado en física cuántica.

Pregunta. Desde su punto de vista, ¿qué está en juego para Europa en las elecciones alemanas del 22 de septiembre?

Respuesta. Alemania es el país más poblado de la Unión Europea y por ello cuestiones como su crecimiento económico, su empleo y su eficiencia adquieren relevancia para toda Europa y su competitividad en el marco de la globalización. Además, es necesario reanimar campos de cooperación que en la actualidad pasan por un momento crítico, como la relación franco-alemana.

P. ¿Las elecciones son también importantes para las políticas europeas de inmigración?

R. Con el cambio en la relación de fuerzas políticas en muchos países europeos, en los últimos años se ha impuesto una posición bastante más realista. Alemania es un país muy atractivo para los inmigrantes y siempre ha contado con una política de inmigración restrictiva. Hoy día, nuestros socios comprenden mejor esta posición.

P. Sin embargo, es un hecho que Alemania y los demás países de la UE requieren de la inmigración por razones demográficas.

R. La respuesta al desarrollo demográfico no puede ser un aumento de la inmigración. Creo que, sobre todo, se requiere de un cambio de rumbo en la política familiar, en el trato de los jóvenes y de los niños, y en el tema de la compatibilidad entre profesión y familia. La capacidad de integración de los países europeos es limitada. La pregunta no es si necesitamos más inmigración, sino cómo podemos brindar oportunidades en el mercado laboral a la gente que vive con nosotros. Desde luego, también competimos por las mentes más brillantes y tenemos que abrirnos a este tipo de inmigración. Por eso decimos que hay que dirigir y limitar la inmigración.

P. La izquierda se ha debilitado en toda Europa, mientras se registra un avance de los partidos populistas de derecha. ¿Cuál es el estado de salud de los conservadores europeos?

R. Yo prefiero hablar de partidos europeos de centro. En mi opinión, el verdadero problema está en salvaguardar el tesoro que representan los grandes partidos populares. Hemos visto en Italia lo que significa la fragmentación de una agrupación como la Democracia Cristiana. Para nosotros, como también para el Partido Popular en España, es importante lograr un proceso de integración, lo más amplio posible, desde el centro hasta la derecha, y no permitir que este espacio político se fragmente en diversos partidos. Si esto sucede, como ha pasado en Dinamarca, donde no existen partidos de centro-derecha tan fuertes, las corrientes cada vez más divergentes permiten un fortalecimiento de la derecha populista.

P. ¿Qué significa hoy Helmut Kohl para la CDU?

R. Para Helmut Kohl, la CDU es su casa política, y para la gran mayoría de los miembros de la CDU, buena parte de su vida partidista está vinculada a Helmut Kohl. Él contribuyó a construir muchos de los fundamentos sobre los que hoy nos apoyamos: la reunificación alemana, la doble decisión de la OTAN, la integración europea. Intervendrá en esta campaña electoral en la medida de sus posibilidades.

P. ¿Superados, entonces, los escándalos?

R. Todo tiene que ser puesto en una relación razonable. Hemos sacado nuestras conclusiones de los fallos. Cuanto más avanza la historia, más palidecen los errores. Quedan los logros.

P. En 1998, sin embargo, la decepción de los electores con su partido no se originó en la contabilidad paralela, sino en la falta de reformas tras 16 años de gestión.

R. En nuestra última legislatura tardamos demasiado en hacer varias cosas. Es un hecho que en 1998 la gente ya no confiaba lo suficiente en nuestra capacidad de solucionar las tareas del futuro. Si esto sucede después de 16 años, forma parte del ritmo natural de la democracia. Pero no resta mérito a los éxitos: la lograda reunificación alemana o la introducción del euro, por ejemplo. Hoy día, en comparación con la coalición rojiverde, muchos tienen una perspectiva más realista de aquel Gobierno. Entre otras razones porque la mejora de la situación en el este del país, que entonces generó esperanzas, ha resultado ser una decepción.

P. Llegado el caso, ¿estaría dispuesta a una gran coalición con los socialdemócratas?

R. Una gran coalición no es una meta electoral. El cambio completo es la meta. Por lo demás, considero que las grandes coaliciones son mucho menos capaces de impulsar reformas de lo que piensa la gente. Fortalecen siempre los extremos, en la izquierda y en la derecha, y no hay interés en que esto suceda.

P. Cuesta hallar grandes diferencias entre los programas electorales del SPD y de la CDU.

R. De por sí, debido a las diferentes mayorías en ambas cámaras del Parlamento, muchas veces en Alemania existe una especie de gran coalición que obliga a aproximaciones. Pero entre el SPD y la CDU/CSU hay claras diferencias, aunque Schröder intente minimizarlas.

P. Schröder sería el primer canciller que entrega su cargo tras sólo cuatro años. ¿Qué le ha faltado a este Gobierno?

R. Con las muchas esperanzas que generó el canciller, ahora es una carga muy pesada haber prometido algo distinto a lo que ha logrado. A ello se suma que Schröder dirige un Gobierno en el que no figura ningún partido de centro. El canciller con mucha frecuencia tuvo que ceder ante los deseos del ala izquierda de la socialdemocracia y ante los aún más complicados de Los Verdes. No pudo poner en práctica la promesa que generó tanta ilusión en la campaña electoral: representar al nuevo centro, hombro a hombro con Tony Blair. Y Alemania es un país en el que mucho gira en torno al centro. Todavía hoy los socialdemócratas, como partido, mentalmente más bien respaldan al dimitido ministro de Finanzas, Oskar Lafontaine. Schröder nunca logró que su partido se alineara emocionalmente con él.

P. Aunque algo más jóven, usted pertenece a la misma generación de Schröder y Fischer. ¿En qué se distingue?

R. Desde luego, por el hecho de que crecí en la antigua República Democrática Alemana y sólo viviera desde fuera muchas de las batallas de la antigua República Federal. Durante 35 años viví en un Estado que se derrumbó por su ineficacia económica. Por ello, soy muy sensible a cómo se desarrolla en estos momentos el país. Con la globalización, no podemos descansar sobre los éxitos de Ludwig Erhard . No existe una garantía de seguir siendo un país industrial de primera línea; tenemos que trabajar duro para seguir viviendo con bienestar. La generación de socialdemócratas que creció en la RFA sigue ocupada en cómo organizar la redistribución de la riqueza. Pero esta lucha sólo tiene sentido si hay algo qué repartir. Caso contrario, es apenas un espectáculo.

L'inaccessible «paradis autrichien»

mercredi 10 juillet 2002, Libération.

La loi sur l'immigration, votée hier, a été élaborée par l'extrême droite.

C'est une grande victoire pour le parti de Jörg Haider (FPÖ). Hier, le Parlement autrichien a voté une loi sur les étrangers directement inspirée des revendications de l'extrême droite, qui participe au gouvernement de coalition formé avec les conservateurs en février 2000. A partir du 1er janvier 2003, tous les candidats à l'immigration - l'Autriche délivre environ 8 000 nouveaux permis de séjour et de travail par an - seront obligés d'apprendre l'allemand sous peine de se voir retirer leur autorisation de séjour.

Si les ressortissants de l'Union européenne ne sont pas concernés, la nouvelle loi s'applique aussi aux étrangers présents dans le pays depuis moins de cinq ans, ainsi qu'aux Suisses et aux Américains, furieux d'être mis dans le même panier que la main-d'oeuvre bon marché venue de l'Est. Elle touche aussi les membres des familles venues dans le pays au titre du regroupement familial. Seuls certains cadres d'entreprise peuvent espérer passer entre les mailles du filet, mais en aucun cas leurs conjoints.

Enseignement. Cent heures de cours sont prévues par personne (avec contrôle de présence), dont le coût est pris en charge à moitié par la collectivité et à moitié par l'«élève». A l'issue de cet enseignement, le candidat à l'immigration doit passer un test, lors duquel il doit aussi prouver sa bonne connaissance de la culture autrichienne. En cas d'échec, un nouveau quota d'heures lui est imposé, qu'il doit financer entièrement. S'il échoue à un second test, c'en est fini pour lui du «paradis autrichien».

Vendue par le gouvernement comme une généreuse méthode pour promouvoir la «parfaite intégration» des nouveaux arrivants, cette loi a soulevé de très vifs débats dans le pays. «C'est un scandale !», dénonce en coeur tout ce que l'Autriche compte d'associations de soutien aux immigrés. Et l'opposition sociale-démocrate de renchérir : «Derrière le discours hypocrite, un tel projet vise clairement à décourager toute personne désireuse de venir travailler en Autriche.» Plusieurs instituts de langue ont déjà fait remarquer que 100 heures représentaient bien peu pour acquérir ne serait-ce que les bases d'une langue aussi difficile que l'allemand.

Pénurie. A cela s'ajoute un paradoxe : comme de nombreux pays européens, l'Autriche souffre cruellement d'une pénurie de main-d'oeuvre qualifiée dans certains secteurs clés comme l'informatique, la technologie et le commerce. Selon l'institut de recherche Synthesis, ce manque s'élèverait à 17 600 pour la seule année prochaine. Et ce n'est pas avec une telle loi que les brillants informaticiens indiens vont affluer dans le pays.

La droite conservatrice, qui avait pourtant promis de «dompter» les élans xénophobes de son partenaire, a laissé carte blanche au FP÷ pour l'élaboration de la loi. En échange, elle a obtenu une mesure réclamée par les chambres patronales : l'augmentation des quotas de travailleurs saisonniers, auxquels sont accordés des permis de travail et de séjours de très courte durée. La liste des branches dans lesquelles ce type d'emploi peut s'appliquer est elle-même allongée, ce qui offre à de nombreuses entreprises une main-d'oeuvre très flexible en fonction des aléas des commandes.

Joli coup. Malgré la polémique que ces mesures suscitent au sein de la classe politique, le gouvernement de Wolfgang Schüssel n'a aucun souci à se faire : selon un récent sondage, 64 % des Autrichiens approuvent cette obligation de parler allemand comme condition sine qua non au droit de vivre dans leur pays. Le parti de Jörg Haider, en baisse dans les sondages, a réussi là un joli coup.

Das Fremdenpaket wird zugestellt

Das Fremdenpaket im Nationalrat

Kurier, 10/07/2002

„Modern und beispielhaft“ oder „völlig verunglückt und menschenverachtend“? Vor dem gestrigen Beschluss des Fremdenpakets im Nationalrat prallten die Standpunkte von Regierungs- und Oppositionsparteien erneut aufeinander.
„Wir machen Schluss mit der falschen Zuwanderungspolitik der SPÖ“, begründete FP-Klubobmann Peter Westenthaler die Verschärfungen. Damit werde der „hohen Ausländerarbeitslosigkeit und der relativ hohen Ausländerkriminalität“ beigekommen: „Wir räumen auch in diesem Bereich auf.“ Des Blauen Fazit und Versprechen: „Österreich ist kein Einwanderungsland und wird auch keines werden.“

ÖVP: „Wir sind kein Einwanderungsland“

„Wir sind kein Einwanderungsland“, wiederholte VP-Fraktionschef Andreas Khol, fügte aber an, dass an begründeten Asylanträgen auch nicht gerüttelt werde. Den umstrittenen Integrationsvertrag (verpflichtende Deutschkurse für Ausländer) malte der Schwarze in hellen Farben: „Dieser sanfte Druck ist ein Meilenstein in der Gesetzgebung.“ Weniger pathetisch formulierte es Innenminister Ernst Strasser (VP): Es sei wohl nicht zu viel verlangt, Grundkenntnisse der deutschen Sprache von jenen einzufordern, die länger hier leben und arbeiten wollen. „Auch unsere Kinder gehen ab dem sechsten Lebensjahr in die Schule, ab dem siebenten bekommen sie Noten.“ Rot und Grün überzeugten diese Argumente nicht. Österreich müsse Einwanderungsland bleiben – um die sozialen Standards halten zu können, konterte die Grüne Terezija Stoisits. Besonders widerstrebt ihr, dass Aufenthalts- und Arbeitsrecht nach wie vor nicht harmonisiert werden: „Wir sind weit davon entfernt, dass, wer hier legal lebt, auch arbeiten kann.“ Khol vertröstete auf die Zukunft: „Wir wollen, dass die Lücke geschlossen wird.“

SPÖ: „Schaurige Symbiose“

Die SPÖ besänftigte diese Absichtserklärung nicht. Das Paket entstamme einer „schaurigen Symbiose zwischen Blau und Schwarz“, befand Geschäftsführerin Andrea Kuntzl. Zuwanderer seien gewillt, Deutsch zu lernen. Doch: „Alles, was Ihnen dazu einfällt, ist Strafe, Zwang und Drohung.“
Was ihr ein „dümmlich“ von VP-Mandatar Paul Kiss einbrachte. Trotz Protests der Opposition unterließ der 2. Nationalratspräsident Thomas Prinzhorn einen Ordnungsruf: Kiss habe lediglich auf das vorherige „hirnlos“ von Kuntzl reagiert.
Heftig reagierten die Grünen am frühen Nachmittag auf die parlamentarischen Folgen der Causa Stadler: Sie boykottierten die restliche Sitzung.

Deutschkurs: Strafe für Verweigerer
Integrationsvertrag Verpflichtende Deutschkurse; wer sie nicht binnen vier Jahren absolviert, verliert die Aufenthaltsberechtigung.
Saisoniers Für alle Branchen (bisher Tourismus, Landwirtschaft), zwei Mal sechs Monate beim selben Arbeitgeber möglich. Quote (heuer 8000) darf im Jahresschnitt nicht überschritten werden.
Schlüsselkräfte Hochqualifizierte mit Gehalt von mind. 60 der Höchstbeitragsgrundlage (derzeit 1962 €)

International Criminal Court.

Jo Leinen demande à l'UE de parler d'une seule voix - Chris Patten réaffirme que l'attitude américaine menace la stabilité internationale

Bruxelles, 09/07/2002 (Agence Europe)

Le social-démocrate allemand Jo Leinen a demandé mardi à l'UE de "parler d'une seule voix" sur le contentieux diplomatique concernant la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) et qui oppose les Etats-Unis aux autres membres du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies (voir EUROPE du 3 juillet). "La crédibilité de la politique extérieure commune de l'UE est en jeu", a-t-il ajouté en espérant que les Etats membres "et en particulier le gouvernement britannique" n'abandonne pas la position commune défendue par l'UE sur le statut de la Cour. Rappelant que "la CPI est un jalon sur le chemin condamnant les crimes contre l'humanité et donc une amélioration substantielle de la législation internationale", Jo Leinen estime qu'"accorder des droits spéciaux aux Etats-Unis et à ses citoyens est tout simplement inacceptable" et que cela détruit l'idée même de la Cour. "Le comportement arrogant de la superpuissance américaine doit être fermement rejeté par la communauté internationale et en particulier par l'Union européenne", a-t-il conclu.

De son côté, le Commissaire Chris Patten a, dans une lettre publiée mardi par le Washington Post, "profondément regretté" l'attitude américaine estimant qu'elle "menace la stabilité internationale, car elle pose des problèmes pratiques pour le renouvellement des mandats des missions de maintien de la paix des Nations Unies à travers le monde. Ces effets se font déjà sentir en Bosnie".

Kaliningrad.

Kaliningrad: "Pas question d'un corridor" réclamé par les Russes, selon l'UE

COPENHAGUE, 9 juil (AFP)

Le ministre danois des Affaires étrangères, Per Stig Moeller, dont le pays assure la présidence de l'UE pour six mois, a rejeté "catégoriquement" la proposition russe d'un "couloir" reliant l'enclave de Kaliningrad au reste de la Russie, lors de l'entrée de la Lituanie et la Pologne, candidats à l'UE, dans l'espace Schengen.

"Les Russes sont conscients, je pense, qu'il n'y aura pas de corridor, et qu'il est inutile de continuer d'en parler. Et je l'ai encore dit récemment à Igor Ivanov, le chef de la diplomatie de Moscou", a-t-il estimé, au cours d'un point de presse à Copenhague.

"Cette région de l'Europe (de l'Est) a eu assez de corridors, et ne veut pas accepter de l'UE qu'on lui propose de nouveaux corridors", a-t-il noté.

"Il n'est pas question de la création de +couloir+ qui évoque surtout pour les anciens pays de l'Est des souvenirs douloureux du passé", a-t-il affirmé, faisant référence, sans le nommer à l'existence du "corridor de Dantzig" avant la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Kaliningrad est un territoire russe comptant environ 1 million d'habitants, enclavé entre la Pologne et la Lituanie. L'élargissement de l'UE à ces deux pays obligeraient les habitants russes de Kaliningrad à devoir demander un visa pour se rendre dans un autre point du territoire russe, ce que Moscou refuse jusqu'à présent.

"Nous devons trouver une solution équilibrée entre les exigences russes de dignité et le maintien de l'efficacité du système Schengen avant le sommet européen d'octobre" (à Bruxelles les 24 et 25 octobre), a-t-il ajouté, prônant "un régime de visas flexible, avec de nombreux consulats pour obtenir des visas à un prix bas ou gratuits".

Le ministre danois a indiqué qu'il était "en contact" avec son homologue russe, Igor Ivanov, notant que "l'UE va discuter de ce différend, dans le courant du mois de juillet à Bruxelles avec les responsables russes".

Mais M. Moeller a précisé qu'"une solution à ce problème ne se fera pas aux dépens de la Pologne et de la Lituanie, et doit être acceptée par ces deux pays".

"On n'ira nulle part si on viole la souveraineté de ces pays. Ils ont quitté l'ex-bloc soviétique et n'accepteront pas qu'on leur prenne une partie de leurs territoires pour un nouveau corridor", a-t-il observé.

"L'UE ne doit rien faire contre les Polonais et les Lituaniens", croyant "en un rejet de l'adhésion à l'Union européenne par la population de ces deux pays, si les Européens tentaient d'imposer une solution" de force, selon M. Moeller.

Prisons.

Cherie Blair hits out at state of crowded prisons

10 July 2002, The Independent.

Cherie Blair will declare tonight that many inmates of British jails should not be inside at all, after her own investigation of the prison system.

In a speech to be given in London, the Prime Minister's wife will describe how she has toured some of the country's most infamous jails and interviewed prisoners including drug dealers, inmates with mental health problems and young offenders.

She will tell her audience that the sheer scale of the jail population – revealed by Home Office ministers this week to be within 300 of the service's full capacity – is "crippling" the prison system in England and Wales.

"The huge increase in numbers and the prevalence of short-term sentences is crippling to any attempt at a constructive approach to prison," she says.

The comments in the inaugural Longford Lecture, which is in memory of the social and penal reformer Lord Longford and sponsored by The Independent and the Prison Reform Trust, will put Mrs Blair back in the political arena.

Her comments last month in which she said Palestinian suicide bombers had "no hope but to blow themselves up" prompted such an outcry that she issued a statement of regret.

But, speaking as a leading employment law and human rights barrister, Mrs Blair will express her deep concern that the prison population contains large numbers of unsentenced prisoners and many mothers of young children.

In a speech entitled "The Law, The Victims and The Vulnerable", she says: "It is particularly worrying that more than one in six of the current prison population is on remand – in other words they have yet to be tried or sentenced. In fact, the majority of this group doesn't ultimately go on to receive a prison sentence."

She calls on society in general, and the criminal justice system in particular, to take a more positive view of community-based sentences as an alternative to prison.

She also advocates the use of American-style "community courts" designed to help offenders and to make them repay a debt to their neighbourhood.

Mrs Blair highlights research that she says shows the "especially serious" impact of prison on women. "Not least because nearly half of all women prisoners have children living with them before coming to prison – an estimated 10,000 children are affected each year," she says. "A third of these children are under the age of five and two thirds are under the age of 10. A significant number of these families are permanently broken as a result of the mother's imprisonment, and as many as four out of 10 lose their homes."

Mrs Blair talks of her experiences during a recent tour of prisons in London and Liverpool, where she met inmates, prison officers and jail chaplains. At Holloway women's prison in north London, Mrs Blair was "shocked" by "the enormous number of women prisoners who report having suffered a history of violence and sexual abuse".

She said that a "drug pusher" at another jail had explained to her that a prison-based drugs counselling course had helped him to understand the damage caused by his criminal activities.

Mrs Blair called on drug addicts to be given better support upon their release from jail. "There is little point in drying out addicts in jail only to send them unsupported back into the community. Vulnerable people leaving prison must be helped to stay away from their old patterns of life," she said.

The prison population stands at a record 71,360 – just 293 short of its capacity.