By Risto Karajkov

The tension caused by the revealing of the rising numbers of Macedonian citizens who have sought asylum in E.U. countries since the beginning of the year seems to be calming down. Recently the first buses of unsuccessful would-be émigrés returned from Brussels. Belgium was the prime destination for the wave of migrants who thought they could get a better life in the rich European Union by filing for asylum. The buses also carried Serbian citizens.

Paid by the Belgium government and escorted by Belgium migration officials, they brought the first group of disillusioned refugees back to their homes. More buses are to follow from Belgium, and likely from other European countries as well. This seems to appease the political tension inflamed in past weeks by the media reports of an alleged massive flight of mostly Macedonian and Serbian citizens seeking asylum in the European Union.

In early March, at an urging by the Belgium government, the European Commission (EC) informed the public of the increased number of citizens from Macedonia, Serbia, and Montenegro filing asylum claims in Belgium’s capital Brussels. In a sharp reaction, the EC reminded the governments of the countries that recently benefited from visa liberalization to inform their citizens of the entitlements and obligations arising from the visa-free regime. EC spokesperson from DG Justice, Freedom, and Security Michele Cercone assessed the phenomenon as migratory pressure motivated by economic reasons, underlining that the chances of actually getting an asylum are very small for most seekers.

Since the beginning of the year, migration authorities in Brussels have noticed the increased numbers of asylum claims mostly by citizens from Macedonia and Serbia. Numbers quoted by the media differed, but by some estimates, around 400 Macedonians citizens claimed asylum in Belgium since the beginning of the year, a number substantially higher compared to previous years. Another media source has reported over 300 asylum applications from Serbian citizens, mostly Albanians and Roma from the south of the country, in February alone. The numbers have risen in other countries too. Reportedly, there were around 160 asylum requests by Macedonian citizens in Switzerland in February, three times more than in the whole of 2009. Similarly, according to Macedonian media reports of Swedish migration authorities’ estimates, around 1,000 Roma from the region, mostly from Serbia, but also from Macedonia and Montenegro, have entered Sweden by buses. Many of them thought they could get asylum and government assistance.

Media investigation in Macedonia soon started to unravel the puzzle. Something did not make sense. With the visas gone, “regular” illegal migrants could enter the European Union as tourists and simply stay there unnoticed for years–behavior typical of illegal migrants. The hopeful refugees would load off the bus in Brussels, and first thing they would go to the migration office to declare their presence and ask for asylum–action very unbecoming of an economic clandestine.

Journalists quickly got the core of the matter. These people, usually the poorest of the poor, people of low education, were lured by swindlers into thinking they could actually get government social support in E.U. countries if they asked for asylum. In such a case, they were told, the rich E.U. government would give them apartments to live in and a monthly check. The investigation led journalists to several travel agencies, usually without licenses, which charged the desperate around 100 euros for a ticket to Brussels. For many of these people 100 euros was likely their life savings. Following reactions from the E.U. and media reports, the government quickly reacted and cracked down on the illegal “travel agents.”

Belgium’s Prime Minister Ives Leterme arrived in Macedonia on March 8 to help personally in dispersing the untruths over his country’s asylum policies. He said Belgium did not give political asylum on economic grounds. He also asked Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski to help convey the message to Macedonian citizens. The next day Belgian officials, led by Secretary of State for Immigration Melchior Wathelet, visited the region of Lipkovo, in the north of the country, from whence many of the asylum seekers originated.

The Macedonian government also took on a media campaign to avert citizens from false promises. For several days, government ministers sent appeals through the media. The combined action yielded fruit, and the asylum bus tours to the European Union stopped. The first bus of returnees is to be followed by others. Authorities have launched an investigation, and hopefully charges will be brought against frauds who sought quick profits by deceiving the poorest of the poor.

Governments in the region and in the European Union have been fighting professional migrant smugglers and human traffickers for years. It is a difficult struggle against skilled and organized opponents. This was amateur night. From this point of view, all the political drama and the strong statements made in Brussels about the possible political repercussions that could be brought on the Balkan countries in response to this major abuse seem a bit exaggerated.

Media got the credit for revealing the scheme, finding the organizers and dispelling the lies that misled the poor. However, Alexandra Stiglmayer, part of a Berlin-based think tank, pointed out that some media were over-blowing the situation. “There has been abuse of visas in the past, and it is clear that there will be abuse of visa-free travel. What is unfortunate is that some media are exaggerating this,” said Ms. Stiglmayer. She said that some media were inflating the number of asylum applications.

“This is an administrative problem, not political”, said Pavel Gantar, chairman of the Slovenian Parliament. Slovenia was a strong proponent of visa liberalization for the Balkan countries.

This was the first big public test for the visa-free regime for Macedonia, Serbia, and Montenegro, which started on December 19, 2009. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania are expected to soon follow suit and be allowed visa-free travel as early as 2010. Some commentators indicated that the asylum-seekers episode might reflect negatively on these countries’ hopes to get their visas dropped.

This article was published in Italian by Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso: http://www.balcanicaucaso.org/ita

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

[eminimal]

BBC: Close your eyes and try to imagine the scenes of jubilation across Africa if a team from the continent were to win the 2010 World Cup.

A celebration like no other, one billion people reveling in one of the greatest sporting and cultural achievements.

For the first time in its 80-year history, football’s blue riband competition is coming to the world’s poorest and most underdeveloped land.

How better to mark the occasion than with a first African champion?

“Winning the World Cup would be one of the proudest moments in the history of that country and our continent as a whole,” former South Africa striker Shaun Bartlett told BBC Sport.

“Every African nation has its internal problems but football can do wonders for people and nations, which is a huge incentive.”

Nobody is saying it is going to happen but the groundswell of opinion suggests South Africa 2010 is the best opportunity yet. [ READ MORE ]

The Genius of Pele

The 2010 Draw:

Group A: South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, France

Group B: Argentina, Nigeria, Korea Republic, Greece

Group C: England, USA, Algeria, Slovenia

Group D: Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana

Group E: Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon

Group F: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia

Group G: Brazil, Korea DPR, Côte d’Ivoire, Portugal

Group H: Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile

[ READ MORE ]

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

by Risto Karajkov

Twenty years after the fall of the Wall, the controversial lustration process – the epuration of those who cooperated with the police of Communist regimes – is still in deep waters. And many wonder whether rummaging archives still makes sense.

As the summer ended, the Macedonian lustration commission finally opened its doors for politicians who rushed in to submit their statements swearing they had not collaborated with the communist secret services. The commission, the chief instrument created to implement the law on lustration, has to verify these statements against the old secret police files.

A year and half after the Macedonian lustration law was passed, and 18 years since the beginning of transition, lustration has finally commenced.

Time is still needed to see the actual effect on Macedonian society. Some experts argued that a loud bang is out of the question; perhaps even a hushed whimper would be too much to expect. Some believe that after all these years the powerful politicians have found ways to get their names out of the dusty files.

Even the initial steps, however, hinge on the constitutional court’s assessment of the lustration law. The court recently agreed to review several petitions made by citizens and NGOs that challenged the legitimacy of parts of the legislation. Some people would be surprised if the court finds the law to be in accord with the constitution. Throughout eastern Europe, constitutional courts have regularly reviewed lustration laws.

The start of lustration makes Macedonia a leader in the western Balkans region. Albania’s lustration law adopted in early 2009 was repealed by the Albanian constitutional court just months later. The court’s decision was preceded by strong criticism by the international community, which found the bill to be a potentially serious threat to human rights in the country.

Lustration laws regularly have difficulties withstanding constitutional scrutiny. Some of their features, such as retroactive effect, broad and ill-defined categories of offenders; and problems in differentiating between the public and the private sphere, have provided reasons for constitutional courts to repeal the law. In Bulgaria, the constitutional court annulled an early lustration attempts in 1992. (Sofia enacted its last lustration instrument at the very end of 2006, two weeks before it joined the European Union. Similarly, the constitutional court in the former Czechoslovakia ruled in November 1992 to reduce the scope of the law by restricting the category of “lustrati“. More recently (May 2007), the constitutional court in Poland rescinded most key provisions of the Kaczynski brothers’ mega-lustration bill. The Polish court had also reacted similarly with the bill in 2000, which expanded the scope of previous phases of lustration.

In view of this history, the Macedonian constitutional court may also follow suit. The Macedonian law is also broad in scope, both in categories of “lustrati”, as well as the period it covers.

However, Albania and Macedonia are not the only countries in the Balkans finding it difficult to start their lustrations.

The first country in the region to actually adopt lustration legislation was Serbia. Belgrade passed its law back in 2003. However, lustration has still not effectively begun, nor is there indication that it would begin anywhere in the near future. The 2003 legislation was “born dead”. The commission that was supposed to begin work by lustrating candidates for the 2003 snap elections, never started working, and later it simply dissolved. Commentators say the lustration law had no power because supplementary legislation on opening of secret police files, which was supposed to ensue within two months, never took place.

The other countries in the region are even further behind in the process. Croatia, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina do not even have legislation.

Croatia had several attempts to enact lustration legislation. Lustration bills were on the agenda of parliament in 1998 and 1999, and they were voted down both times. Neither Montenegro nor Bosnia has a law, although Podgorica at least has a draft bill.

Twenty years after the end of communism, lustration is still an issue, and it has not even effectively commenced. Perhaps countries in the Balkans should really rethink if they want to “forgive and forget”. In 2000, Adam Michnik advocated the abandoning of lustration in Poland and said that states cannot move forward without having reconciled with the past, but that the challenge is how to achieve this and maintain balance between justice and stability. In 2007, Serbian President Boris Tadic said it was too late for lustration in Serbia. He probably (and rightfully) feared it would further antagonise the already polarised country.

In the Balkans, the overall problem is the delay. If 18 years after the beginning of transition, countries have not even started the lustration, when will they be able to complete it? The experience of the central and east European countries has shown that immediate and quick lustration was the best and least painful way. Subsequent waves of late lustration tended to broaden, protract, and become overly politicised processes. Both the theoretical and the expert community share the consensus that timeliness was a primary factor of effectiveness in the lustration process.

How meaningful can lustration be almost two decades later? Some answers to this dilemma should perhaps be expected from the Macedonian lustration commission members. As small, busy mice, they will be sniffing the dusty police files during the coming winter.

Osservatorio Balcani
www.osservatoriobalcani.org

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

By Risto Karajkov

A “historic day,” the “fall of the wall,” the “end of visas” — these were some of the headlines in the Balkan media in response to the European Commission (E.C.) proposing visa liberalization for Macedonia, Serbia, and Montenegro. The visa-free travel could ideally be possible by the beginning of January 2010. Macedonia has already fulfilled all the technical conditions, while some benchmarks still remain to be met by Serbia and Montenegro.

The E.C. proposal would next be discussed in the European Parliament, and the final decision would be made by the European Council later in the year. “I trust that this proposal should be adopted by the E.U. member states by the end of this year after we have also consulted the European Parliament,” Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn said at the announcement of the Commission’s proposal yesterday in Brussels. Visa liberalization will bring an end to a costly, unpleasant, and sometimes humiliating ritual for people who need to travel abroad. “For the citizens of the Western Balkans, visa-free travel means no more queuing at embassies, no more visa fees, and no more collecting of supporting documents such as invitation letters, tickets and paying for their translation,” Rehn said. “In a nutshell,” he added, “this will mean a further Europeanization of the civil societies in the Western Balkans and it is an example that European integration is not only a matter of integrating nations, but also peoples and citizens.” The news was greeted with undivided enthusiasm in the three countries.

The issue of painful visa regime has made headlines and topped political agendas for some years. “Our citizens deserved this, and this is success of the European idea in Macedonia,” said Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, welcoming the news in Skopje. Montenegrin Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic received the news in Kotor where he was in a meeting with E.U.’s H.F.S.P. chief Javier Solana. Djukanovic said that Montenegro will meet the remaining conditions by October and expressed confidence that his country will be visa free on January 1, 2010. “We have fulfilled most of the conditions from the roadmap for visa liberalization and now we have a few more things to do,” Djukanovic said. “There is no doubt that our partners will be satisfied with our results.”

In response to the motion from Brussels, Serbian President Boris Tadic said that the Commission’s recommendation is an important thing for the citizens of Serbia. He added it was good that other countries in the region would also be visa free because that would improve the quality of life in the region overall. “Serbia is not responsible only for itself, but also for the cooperation in the region, given that it is the central country in Southeast Europe,” President Tadic said. Serbian Prime Minister Mirko Cvetkovic added that visa liberalization would restore people’s dignity. “From January 1, the citizens of Serbia will be able to travel without visas to Europe, and this will give them back their dignity,” Cvetkovic said. Serbian Deputy Prime Minister for European Integration Bozidar Djelic also welcomed the move but underscored that work had to continue. “The visa darkness has been lifted from the citizens of Serbia, but there is no time for relaxation. We have to continue the reforms.” Djelic was cited by Serbian media comparing the fall of the visa barrier with the national holiday celebrated by the French, the fall of the Bastille in 1789.

Some of the reactions in Serbia expressed concern over the fact that the visa liberalization will divide Serbs in Serbia from Serbs living in Kosovo. The visa-free travel will be a possibility for Serbian citizens with biometric passports, but because of security concerns, even with new biometric passports, residents of Kosovo will still need visas. Kosovo authorities accepted the decision as a further recognition of their separate independent status from Serbia. In addition to Kosovo, Bosnia, Herzegovina and Albania were excluded from the recommendation because they did not make sufficient progress with the needed reforms. Mr. Rehn, however, left the door open. “The ‘roadmaps’ that the E.U. gave them last year are still valid, and they are still perfectly doable if the authorities in these two countries put their full will into delivering now,” Rehn said. “If Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina keep up the pace of reforms and thus meet the conditions, the Commission could envisage making a new proposal by mid-2010.” Bosnia greeted the news with expected disappointment, but Minister of Civilian Affairs Sredoje Novic said that the government could start issuing new biometric passports by mid-October. B.I.H. officials hope that could allow the country to join the first three countries by mid-2010.

Reactions in Albania also showed optimism. Albanian Interior Minister Bujar Nishani said that Albania needs only to meet a few technical conditions in to join the visa liberalization process, and that the country would come on target by the end of 2009. After a longer period of time, Brussels sent an encouraging message to the Balkans. For most people in the Balkans the European idea is by and large associated with the freedom of movement. This article was originally published at www.osservatoriobalcani.org

———————————————————————————————————————————-

———————————————————————————————————————————-

By Sam Vaknin — Author of “Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited“

“I came here to see a country, but what I find is a theater … In appearances, everything happens as it does everywhere else. There is no difference except in the very foundation of things.” (de Custine, writing about Russia in the mid-19th century)

Four decades ago, the Polish-American-Jewish author, Jerzy Kosinski, wrote the book “Being There.” It describes the election to the presidency of the United States of a simpleton, a gardener, whose vapid and trite pronouncements are taken to be sagacious and penetrating insights into human affairs. The “Being There Syndrome” is now manifest throughout the world: from Russia (Putin) to the United States (Obama).

Given a high enough level of frustration, triggered by recurrent, endemic, and systemic failures in all spheres of policy, even the most resilient democracy develops a predilection to “strong men,” leaders whose self-confidence, sangfroid, and apparent omniscience all but “guarantee” a change of course for the better.

These are usually people with a thin resume, having accomplished little prior to their ascendance. They appear to have erupted on the scene from nowhere. They are received as providential messiahs precisely because they are unencumbered with a discernible past and, thus, are ostensibly unburdened by prior affiliations and commitments. Their only duty is to the future. They are a-historical: they have no history and they are above history.

Indeed, it is precisely this apparent lack of a biography that qualifies these leaders to represent and bring about a fantastic and grandiose future. They act as a blank screen upon which the multitudes project their own traits, wishes, personal biographies, needs, and yearnings.

The more these leaders deviate from their initial promises and the more they fail, the dearer they are to the hearts of their constituents: like them, their new-chosen leader is struggling, coping, trying, and failing and, like them, he has his shortcomings and vices. This affinity is endearing and captivating. It helps to form a shared psychosis (follies-a-pleusieurs) between ruler and people and fosters the emergence of an hagiography.

The propensity to elevate narcissistic or even psychopathic personalities to power is most pronounced in countries that lack a democratic tradition (such as China, Russia, or the nations that inhabit the territories that once belonged to Byzantium or the Ottoman Empire).

Cultures and civilizations which frown upon individualism and have a collectivist tradition, prefer to install “strong collective leaderships” rather than “strong men.” Yet, all these polities maintain a theatre of democracy, or a theatre of “democratically-reached consensus” (Putin calls it: “sovereign democracy”). Such charades are devoid of essence and proper function and are replete and concurrent with a personality cult or the adoration of the party in power.

In most developing countries and nations in transition, “democracy” is an empty word. Granted, the hallmarks of democracy are there: candidate lists, parties, election propaganda, a plurality of media, and voting. But its quiddity is absent. The democratic principles are institutions are being consistently hollowed out and rendered mock by election fraud, exclusionary policies, cronyism, corruption, intimidation, and collusion with Western interests, both commercial and political.

The new “democracies” are thinly-disguised and criminalized plutocracies (recall the Russian oligarchs), authoritarian regimes (Central Asia and the Caucasus), or puppeteered heterarchies (Macedonia, Bosnia, and Iraq, to mention three recent examples).

The new “democracies” suffer from many of the same ills that afflict their veteran role models: murky campaign finances; venal revolving doors between state administration and private enterprise; endemic corruption, nepotism, and cronyism; self-censoring media; socially, economically, and politically excluded minorities; and so on. But while this malaise does not threaten the foundations of the United States and France – it does imperil the stability and future of the likes of Ukraine, Serbia, and Moldova, Indonesia, Mexico, and Bolivia.

Many nations have chosen prosperity over democracy. Yes, the denizens of these realms can’t speak their mind or protest or criticize or even joke lest they be arrested or worse – but, in exchange for giving up these trivial freedoms, they have food on the table, they are fully employed, they receive ample health care and proper education, they save and spend to their hearts’ content.

In return for all these worldly and intangible goods (popularity of the leadership which yields political stability; prosperity; security; prestige abroad; authority at home; a renewed sense of nationalism, collective and community), the citizens of these countries forgo the right to be able to criticize the regime or change it once every four years. Many insist that they have struck a good bargain – not a Faustian one.

———————————————————————————

Also Read:

• Narcissistic Leaders

• Resources regarding Leadership Styles

———————————————————————————

———————————————————————————