Posts Tagged ‘Rumänien’

BRD: 32 Milliarden Euro für den “Verteidigungshaushalt” oder Kein Geld da!

Samstag, August 30th, 2014

“Viel Populismus, wenig Fakten bei der Debatte um den Sozialmissbrauch

Die Bundesregierung will den Zuwanderern aus EU-Staaten den Zugang zu Sozialleistungen erschweren. Aber die Daten zur Sachlage liefern keine Begründung für ein neues Gesetz

Von Peter Nowak 29.08.2014

Auf der ersten Kabinettsitzung nach der Sommerpause befasste sich die Bundesregierung wieder einmal mit dem Thema Sozialmissbrauch. Dieses Mal sind davon nicht Hartz IV-Empfänger im Allgemeinen betroffen, die in regelmäßigen Abständen von Politik und Boulevard mit dem Begriff des Sozialmissbrauchs bedacht werden, sondern Zuwanderer.

Am vergangenen Mittwoch wurde ein Gesetzentwurf auf dem Weg gebracht, der Zuwanderern aus EU-Staaten den Zugang zu Sozialleistungen und den Aufenthalt in Deutschland erschweren soll, wenn sie erwerbslos sind.

Künftig soll Migranten aus EU-Staaten nach sechs Monaten der sichere Aufenthaltsstatus entzogen werden, wenn sie erwerbslos sind. Bei “Missbrauch von Sozialleistungen” sollen zudem befristete Einreisesperren von bis zu fünf Jahren verhängt werden können. Außerdem will die Bundesregierung den Bezug von Kindergeld einschränken.

Es werde geprüft, ob es rechtlich möglich sei, die Höhe der Zahlungen an den üblichen Kindergeldbetrag der Aufenthaltsländer der Kinder anzupassen, so Innenminister de Maizière. Städte mit besonders hoher Zuwanderung aus EU-Mitgliedsstaaten sollen zudem eine Soforthilfe von zusätzlichen 25 Millionen Euro für Hartz-IV-Leistungen erhalten. Insgesamt sollen die Kommunen mehr als 200 Millionen Euro aus europäischen Förderprogrammen bekommen.

Keine Daten zum Sozialmissbrauch

Am Mittwoch wurde auch ein Abschlussbericht der zuständigen Staatssekretäre von Arbeitsministerin Andrea Nahles und Innenminister Thomas de Maizière vorgestellt. Dabei ist bemerkenswert, dass auch dort keine Zahlen über den angeblichen Sozialmissbrauch durch EU-Bürger vorgestellt wurden.

Schon die Antwort der Bundesregierung auf eine Kleine Anfrage der Linken schafft keine Aufklärung. Entweder wird auf andere Anfragen verwiesen oder es heißt dort: Aus der Tatsache, dass mit dem Beitritt von Staaten zur EU in der Regel eine verstärkte Zuwanderung aus diesen Staaten und der Anstieg der Zahl der Kindergeldberechtigten einhergehe, ließen sich keine Rückschlüsse auf einen “Missbrauch von Kindergeldbezug” ziehen.

Ähnlich nüchtern fiel die Antwort auf eine Kleine Anfrage der Grünen im bayerischen Landtag aus. Auch hier wurde entweder auf fehlende Zahlen verwiesen oder die Zahl der Verdachtsfälle war gering.

Auch das Ergebnis der Antwort auf eine Kleine Anfrage der Grünen im Bundestag weicht davon nicht ab. Dort wurde noch einmal betont, dass den ermittelnden Behörden nur wenige Fälle von Sozialhilfebetrugs bekannt sind. Die Grünen stellten auch Fragen zu Benachteiligungen und Diskriminierungen von zugewanderten EU-Bürgern auf dem Wohnungs- und Ausbildungsmarkt, wozu der Bundesregierung keine Daten vorlagen.

“Begriff der Armutszuwanderung diffamiert”

Angesichts dieser Daten ist die populistische Volte auffällig, mit der besonders die CSU unter dem Motto “Wer betrügt, fliegt” Töne anschlug, die sonst nur vom rechten Rand zu hören waren. Mit ähnlichen Tönen meldete sich auch der CDU-Bundestagsabgeordnete Steffen Kanitz zu Wort, der auf seiner Homepage mit Blick auf seinen Wahlkreis verlautbarte:

Härtere Regeln gegen Sozialmissbrauch und finanzielle Hilfen sind gut für Dortmund.

Für die Caritas und andere Sozialverbände ist schon der Begriff der Armutszuwanderung diffamierend.

“Die aktuelle Debatte um vermeintliche Armutszuwanderung und das betrügerische Erschleichen von Sozialleistungen durch EU-Zuwanderer macht Vorurteile und Diskriminierung salonfähig”, kritisiert Caritas-Präsident Peter Neher anlässlich des Gesetzentwurfs zur sogenannten Armutszuwanderung.

Annelie Buntenbach vom DGB-Vorstand moniert, dass bei der Diskussion über Sozialmissbrauch immer die Lohnabhängigen im Visier stehen und auch sanktioniert werden Die zahlreichen Unternehmer, die sich durch den “Missbrauch der Arbeitnehmerfreizügigkeit” zusätzliche Profite sichern, blieben meist unerwähnt.

“Sarrazin pur”

Grundsätzliche Kritik an der ganzen Debatte über die Armutszuwanderung und den Sozialmissbrauch kommt von dem AK Marginalisierte Gestern und Heute, der am Mittwochvormittag zu einer kleinen Protestaktion vor dem Bundeskanzleramt aufgerufen hatte. Gegenüber Telepolis erklärte Dirk Stegemann vom AK Marginalisierte:

Seit Monaten agiert die Bundesregierung entgegen anderslautenden Studien und Statistiken mit rechtspopulistischen Argumentationsmustern gegen Menschen vor allem aus Bulgarien und Rumänien, um politisch und wahlkampftaktisch motiviert über die Vortäuschung einer angeblichen “Masseneinwanderung in die Sozialsysteme” deren garantierte Freizügigkeit und Teilhabe einschränken zu können.

Besonders stark betroffen seien davon Roma aus Osteuropa. Stegemann verweist darauf, dass es sich dabei um eine Menschengruppe handelt, die seit Jahrhunderten diskriminiert und im Nationalsozialismus Opfer von Verfolgung und Vernichtung wurde.

Der AG Marginalisierte widmet sich seit mehreren Jahren der Verfolgung von Menschen, die arm waren, und als arbeitsscheu und sozial stigmatisiert wurden. Dabei spürt er Kontinuitäten von Ausgrenzung und Verfolgung bis in die Gegenwart auf. Die Debatte über Armutszuwanderung ist für Anne Allex ein aktuelles Beispiel.

Die langjährige Aktivistin der Erwerbslosenbewegung gehört zu den Mitbegründern des AK Marginalisierte. Sie verteilt vor dem Bundeskanzleramt Flyer gegen den geplanten Gesetzentwurf zum angeblichen Sozialmissbrauch. Gegenüber Telepolis sagt sie:

Damit schafft die Bundesregierung das Asylrecht faktisch ab, legt europäische Arbeitnehmerfreizügigkeit und das Europäische Fürsorgeabkommen selektiv nach ihren ökonomischen Interessen aus. Deutschland als die wirtschaftsstärkste Macht Europas zäunt sich als Machtzentrum in der Festung Europa ein, um sich Sonderrechte gegenüber den Ländern seines künftigen europäischen Hinterhofes zu verschaffen, die wiederum ökonomische Vorteile in der imperialistischen Konkurrenz begründen.

Dass der Kreis der Protestierenden am Mittwoch klein geblieben ist, wundert die wenigen Aktivisten nicht. Die Proteste werden wachsen, wenn der Gesetzesentwurf im Bundestag und dann im Bundesrat verhandelt wird, ist Stegemann überzeugt.

Auch den juristischen Weg hält er nicht für aussichtslos. Er könne sich nicht vorstellen, dass die geplanten Einreisesperren verfassungskonform sind.

Auch Susanne Wagner erwartet in den nächsten Wochen noch heftige Diskussionen und Proteste gegen die geplanten Regelungen. Sie erinnert an die Proteste gegen den Buchautor Thilo Sarrazin, der in den letzten Jahren mit Thesen gegen Sozialmissbrauch und Armutszuwanderung für Schlagzeilen sorgte.

Damals hätten sich in vielen Städten Bündnisse gegen Sozialchauvinismus gegründet. “Was die Bundesregierung jetzt plant, ist genau das was Sarrazin forderte“, betont Wagner. Sie befürchtet, dass von der Debatte Parteien rechts von der Union bei den Landtagswahlen in Sachsen profitieren können. Sie könnten sich bestätigt sehen, wenn die Kampagne gegen einen angeblichen Sozialmissbrauch, die sie seit Jahren führen, jetzt auch von der Bundesregierung aufgegriffen wird.”

 

(Quelle: Telepolis.)

Siehe auch:

“Armutszuwanderung”: Signale aus Deutschland

BRD: Aufklärung reloaded

Montag, Juli 2nd, 2012

„Zwangsheirat hat nichts mit Religion zu tun“

Von Lea Susemichel & Vina Yun | in an.schläge (02.07.2012)

Der Verein Orient Express unterstützt von Zwangsheirat bedrohte und betroffene Mädchen und Frauen. Die an.schläge fragten Selma Demir und Sevim Gedik nach ihren politischen Forderungen.

an.schläge: Wie definiert sich Zwangsheirat, und wie unterscheidet sie sich von anderen Formen der Eheschließung? Was ist etwa der Unterschied zur „arrangierten Ehe“?

Orient Express: Unter Zwang zu heiraten bedeutet, dass eine Person ohne freie Willenserklärung zu einer Heirat mit einem ihr oder ihm vorgeschriebenen Menschen gezwungen wird. Häufig ist es die Familie, die durch Ausübung psychischer und/oder physischer Gewalt die betroffene Person zu einer Eheschließung zwingt.
Für uns besteht der Unterschied zwischen einer Zwangsheirat und einer arrangierten Ehe darin, dass bei arrangierten Ehen die Person das Recht hat, zu bestimmen, ob sie einer Heirat mit dem/der vorgeschlagenen PartnerIn zustimmt oder nicht. Hat sie kein Zustimmungsrecht und wird sie zur Ehe genötigt, sprechen wir von einer Zwangsheirat.

Schon seit über zehn Jahren bietet Orient Express Beratung für Frauen, die von Zwangsheirat betroffen sind. Was sind die dringlichsten Probleme?

Während unserer jahrelangen Arbeit haben sich folgende Forderungen als besonders dringlich herauskristallisiert. Erstens: Es braucht geschützte Unterkunftsmöglichkeiten speziell für von Zwangsheirat bedrohte oder betroffene Mädchen und Frauen. Zweitens müssen genügend Beratungskapazitäten geschaffen werden, dazu braucht es eine finanzielle und personelle Aufstockung von Beratungseinrichtungen, muttersprachliche Beraterinnen, eine Verankerung in den Familienberatungsstellen bzw. eigene Anlaufstellen für Familien und muttersprachliche Elternarbeit. Und es braucht österreichweite Sensibilisierungskampagnen. Wir fordern zudem einen eigenständigen Aufenthaltstitel unabhängig von der Staatsbürgerschaft für betroffene Mädchen und junge Frauen sowie einenAnspruch auf Grundsicherung für von Zwangsheirat Betroffene und Bedrohte, die das Elternhaus verlassen müssen, ebenfalls unabhängig von der Staatsbürgerschaft. Und zuletzt: Es braucht auch eine eigene Beratungsstelle für männliche Jugendliche, speziell bei Bedrohung und Betroffenheit von Zwangsheirat.

Im Rahmen der internationalen Konferenz, die Orient Express im Mai organisiert hat, wurden Best-Practice-Beispiele aus u.a. Großbritannien, Bulgarien und Rumänien vorgestellt. Welche Vorbilder gibt es? Und welche politischen Forderungen stellt Ihr Verein?

In Großbritannien beispielsweise gibt es eine eigene staatliche Institution, die „Forced Marriage Unit“, die zwischen Außen- und Innenministerium angesiedelt ist. Sie bietet Unterstützung bei Fällen von Zwangsheirat. In Bezug auf Rückkehrmöglichkeiten bei drohender Zwangsverheiratung im Ausland – und auch in vielen anderen Bereichen – hat die „Forced Marriage Unit“ aufgrund ihrer Nähe zu den Ministerien einen größeren Einflussbereich als eine einfache Beratungsstelle.
Auch in Deutschland finden sich einige vorbildliche Beispiele: So leistet die Polizei bereits seit vielen Jahren Präventionsarbeit gegen Zwangsheirat in Zusammenarbeit mit NGOs, und die Bundesregierung hat eine Studie mit aktuellen bundesweiten Statistiken zu Zwangsheirat herausgebracht.
Was bei der Konferenz besonders deutlich wurde, ist, dass fast alle west- und mitteleuropäischen Länder seit vielen Jahren spezielle Unterbringungsmöglichkeiten für von Zwangsheirat Bedrohte/Betroffene haben. Eine solche Unterbringungsmöglichkeit auch in Österreich zu schaffen, ist schon seit langer Zeit eine unserer Forderungen. Ein Konzept dazu findet sich seit fünf Jahren im Regierungsprogramm.

„Zwangsheirat“ gehört wie „Ehrenmord“ zum Lieblingsvokabular derer, die vor einer „Islamisierung“ warnen. Der gesellschaftliche Diskurs zum Thema Zwangsheirat ist über weite Strecken rassistisch. Wie grenzt sich Orient Express gegen diese rechte Hetze ab?

Wir tun das, indem wir in unserer Öffentlichkeitsarbeit immer wieder betonen, dass…”

Weiterlesen…

 

(Quelle: Linksnet.)

USA: Regierung als Büttel der Gen-Industrie?

Donnerstag, September 8th, 2011

“Wikileaks: US Pushing GMOs Around the World

By Jill Richardson

About a week ago, Truthout published an article titled, “New WikiLeaks Cables Show US Diplomats Promote Genetically Engineered Crops Worldwide.” I’ve been waiting for something like this to come out.

One of the first cables I clicked on (from Morocco) mentioned something called Biotech Outreach Funds. Huh? More information please! 

It didn’t take long to Google a State Department presentation on the topic. It was presented by Jack A. Bobo, who was then the Deputy Chief Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. He is now the Chief of the Biotechnology and Textile Trade Policy Division, a job he was given in March of this year. He’s been working on biotech for the State Department since 2002, under both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Bobo’s presentation outlines which countries around the world allow and grow genetically engineered crops. He also shows a map of countries that fall into each of the following stages of GMO legalization: “Granting Production & Import Approvals, Conducting Pre-Commercial Field Trials, Granting Import Approvals, and Commercialization Delayed.”

The State Department’s role, he says, “Covers all trade issues related to biotechnology” and “Covers food aid/development issues involving biotechnology.” State coordinates with the USDA, FDA, EPA, President, USAID, and Dept of Commerce on these issues. (USAID, by the way, is an agency within the State Dept.) Their goals are to: “Promote science-based regulatory systems, Maintain flow of trade while ensuring health and environmental safety of products, [and] Reduce hunger and poverty and increase incomes in developing world.”

And, yes, the State Department had, at the time of this presentation (it has no date, but is from some time after 2004), $500,000 in “Biotech Outreach Funds” to spend on speakers, workshops, translation, and the U.S. website.

Another document I found, a job description for state department interns, says the following:

The Agriculture and Biotech Trade Affairs (ABT) division of the Office of Multilateral Trade and Agriculture Affairs (MTAA) seeks to open markets to U.S. agricultural products and to eliminate barriers to such trade. ABT works to advance the State Department’s critical global food security goals and policies that alleviate the problems associated with rising global food prices. The ABT team contributes to the development of effective food aid policies, and promotes rural development and increasing agricultural productivity through the application of appropriate technologies, including biotechnology. ABT oversees the distribution of the Department’s biotech outreach funds to promote international acceptance of biotechnology.

Interesting, huh? In one leaked memo from Romania, “DOS Senior Advisor for Biotechnology Jack Bobo visited Romania to meet with new Romanian government officials to advocate for the benefits of agricultural biotechnology.” 

During this trip:

Mr. Bobo also met with industry representatives from Monsanto and Syngenta (he had met with a Pioneer representative during his prior stop in Hungary). The industry officials noted that anti-biotech EU member states, particularly France, are lobbying the GOR [Govt of Romania] to change its position on biotechnology. The representatives agreed that organizing a group of pro-biotech supporters would be beneficial and could help support Romania and other newer EU member states to exchange experiences with more developed countries such as Spain, thereby banding their voices together in dealings with the Commission.

Another cable from Thailand describes the U.S. embassy in Thailand’s request for $20,000 in Biotech Outreach Funds in 2010 to “support a workshop on the intersection of biotechnology, food security, rice production and the four lower Mekong countries [Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam].” The memo goes on to say:

As insecticide use in rice fields is extensive in some lower Mekong areas, such as the Mekong delta, the environmental benefits of GMOs could bring important allies from environment officials. With rice and other crop production a key element for the four nations, and the great promise that GMOs hold for rice production in the face of climate change, an outreach event that draws together these four countries, food security, rice and the environment in the context of science and biotechnology is a natural fit.

The $20,000 in outreach funds would go for the following proposed two-day conference:

Embassy Bangkok, in collaboration with FAS, USAID/RDMA, Embassies Vientiane, Phnom Phen and Hanoi would hold a conference on “Agricultural Production, Climate Change and Biotechnology” for two days in the spring of 2010. The conference would review climate change predictions for rice and other crop production in the various aspects of rice farming – dry and wet season, rice paddy and dry land. Another presentation would relate rice and other crop production to food security for Asia. Another would review how manmade water management – irrigation diversions, canals, dykes and hydropower dams, will affect rice production. The conference would then move into the state of biotechnology for rice production in the U.S. and China, what biotech could offer for rice producers, and what the actual state of play is for rice biotech exports to, for example, Europe under WTO rules. Targeted participants would be a mix of scientists and government officials, the latter a mix of environment, water management, trade and agriculture officials.

This is not the only example of U.S. funds working to promote biotech. Another cable, from Mozambique, notes the use of “USDA Emerging Markets Program funding” to send “three Mozambicans in an agricultural biotechnology informational tour of the United States in November 2009.” Yet another cable from Mozambique discusses a proposal for Biotech Outreach Funds “to bring two experts in the subject matter to South Africa to meet with regulators, academia, consumers, and legislators on currently relevant topics such as regulation of stacked genes, low level presence and labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMO) on foods, and liability and redress.”

Another cable requesting Biotech Outreach Funds comes from Tunisia, proposing a workshop to address the following:

With growing population pressure and limited farm lands, Tunisia’s food security is increasingly threatened by irregularity of rainfall.  The proposed workshop would address the advantages of agricultural biotechnology in arid and semi-arid regions, including positive effects on crops yields, biotechnology’s impact on biodiversity and the environment, and direct socio-economic benefits to Tunisian farmers from the use of biotechnology in agriculture.

Lovely, huh?”

 

(Quelle: La Vida Locavore.)

USA: Versuche, Gentechnik in Europa zu erzwingen (2)

Samstag, Mai 14th, 2011

“WikiLeaks” – GM Food: Romania, Trojan horse for USA in Europe

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/biotechWeb.pdf

Source: Adevarul.ro
31/03/2011

According to Wikileaks, one of the toughest diplomatic battles fought in Bucharest involved a problem in which the United States and the European Union have very different positions: genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The US tried to use Romania as a wedge to relax the European policies regarding the use of biotechnology in agriculture. Romanian politicians played a duplicitous role.

Shortly after the DA alliance (Romanian National Liberal Party and the Romanian Democratic Party) gained power in December 2004, Americans started to investigate new investment perspectives in Romania. They were interested especially in three fields: IT, telecommunications and biotechnology. The last one, which involves the use of GMOs, gave birth to a strategy meant to transform Romania into a Trojan horse of America inside Europe.

While in the USA the use of GMOs is widespread and represents a huge business, in the EU several countries prohibit them. A cable sent on the 18th of January, 2005, signed by Thomas Delare, deputy of ambassador Jack Dyer Crouch states that: “A unique case in the region, Romania is a pioneer in biotechnology, it cultivates and promotes genetically modified soy, prohibited in the EU. The objective of the embassy is to help Romania enter the EU with a well-developed biotechnology sector and an educated population which understands the merits of biotechnology. Intensifying its efforts in Romania, the US will have a strong European ally, with common interests and beliefs in fighting against the anti-GMO position of the EU”.

Extreme emergency

The timing was critical, in the opinion of the embassy, because the countdown for Romania to adhere to EU regulations as well as pressure from anti-GMO lobby groups had already begun. Building on this idea, the embassy proposed the start of a large campaign for public education towards the benefits of biotechnology (price, health, etc), supplying information to the press and to consumers through workshops and forums, before the population became aware of other options.

Manipulation through figures

The cable shows that after discussions with the local partners, an informal consortium was made up to support the GMO trust-inducing program. The coalition was made up of the National Consumer Protection Agency, the Science and Education Department of the Romanian National Television station (TVR, who promised to offer airtime) and some NGOs.

The plan included seminars in important agricultural science university centers such Bucharest, Timisoara, Iasi, Cluj and Craiova. The participants would have been chosen from among academics with experience in this field, from the industry and the local media.

Thomas Delare also says that “by the end of the campaign, the embassy is estimating that 40 press articles will be published along with radio and TV spots. It is estimated that through this campaign that 70% of the population will be exposed to positive messages regarding GMOs”.

Romania, a manipulation barometer

Before the start and the end of the campaign, some studies were planned regarding the attitude of the population towards GM products. In this way, all effects of the campaign on consumer behavior could be accounted for. Furthermore, a cable states that these studies would be used as a barometer to measure the efficiency of similar campaigns developed in other countries. The cable also included a campaign cost plan.

Another cable, dated just before the Romanian EU adherence, states that Romanian farmers are great supporters of GMO seeds: “The farmers already expressed their intentions to ignore EU regulations and to continue the cultivation of these seeds”.

Restrictions without a scientific base

Things heated up in the spring of 2006, when Romania started to take measures in this field to prepare to adhere to the EU regulations. A cable from the 5th of April, 2006 warned Washington that harsh times were coming in the GMO war. “In January the Government restricted the cultivation of GM soy starting in 2007.

Soon it will decide if soy will be cultivated this year… The embassy is working with the supporters of biotechnology inside and outside the Government to obtain the cultivation approval for 2006, to modify the restrictions and to influence the public opinion in a positive way.”

Romania was going to find out in May, 2006, if it would be accepted in the EU in 2007 or 2008, thus the actions of “coming into line with the European legislation” were intensified at the last minute.

In any case, another cable states, the Romanian Executive imposed some restrictions during the winter. For example, GM soy cultivation was banned for a radius of 15 km around natural protected areas. “Not surprising at all, the restriction was not based on any scientific risk assessment”, explained the diplomats.

Biotech farmers, organised by the Embassy

Ambassador Nicholas Taubman stated through those cables that he was preparing to attack the limitations regarding GMOs in the Romanian Parliament with the help of “two influential pro-GMO parliamentarians which have a close relationship with the embassy.” The diplomats guaranteed that the Agriculture and Environment Ministries would not oppose the postponing of the restrictions until 2007.

Furthermore, the Biotech Farmers Association, established with the assistance of the embassy, would proceed with an active lobby near the Executive members. Asked about what would they do if GM soy cultivation would be prohibited in 2006, one of the farmers said that they would plant it anyway. In the next cable, from 16th of May, 2006, the embassy talked about the European Commission “which is worried that Romania will not rigorously apply the new EU regulations regarding GMOs”.

Saving Africa from hunger

. The US could not easily let go of the largest GMO grower in Europe. In August, 2008, Richard Lugar arrived in Romania to encourage Romanian officials to permit “the use of advanced agricultural methods, including biotechnology”.

The Senator had more meetings with Romanian officials and he presented the same speech to each one. First of all he spoke about his experience as a large scale farmer from the USA, and he affirmed, of course, that it’s more profitable to cultivate natural products, which are more expensive. However, he underlined that it is important to “fight hunger, especially in the African countries”, as he explained to the environment minister, Attila Korodi, on 28thof August, 2008.

This is why it is important that “farmers to be allowed the freedom to cultivate and export anything which could feed the hungry of the world”. Korodi was reluctant on this subject, and in his final comment Taubman mentioned that the Embassy had a difficult relationship with the minister, mainly because Korodi thinks that Romania and the USA have few things in common when it comes to biotechnology and climate change, Romania being a part of EU.

The “Enviropig”

During the discussions with the Americans, Marian Zlotea, the head of the Sanitary-Veterinary Authority showed interest in the “Enviropig”, a genetically modified pig developed in the USA. “They seemed interested in using such options in the future and they wanted more information and studies regarding GM animals and animal cloning.” The ambassadors noted: Romania is a large pork producer and consumer.

Biotechnology friends

Another cable states that: The Democratic Liberal Party (PDL) and the Social Democratic Party (PSD) are strong supporters of biotechnology. On the other hand, The National Liberal Party (PNL) and The Democratic Union of the Hungarians from Romania (UDMR) are much more opposed to this kind of agriculture. PNL’s position is based on electoral reasons, while UDMR follows Hungarian policy in this matter. Other possible allies are also mentioned:

Valeriu Tabara (at the time he was the vice-president of the Agricultural Commission in the Chamber of Deputies, now he is Minister of Agriculture): “he is one of the most sincere and most influential supporters”. Note: he had a passionate speech during an embassy organized conference in October, 2007.

Theodor Stolojan– He was elected MEP last autumn (2007), with a platform which contained a favorable position towards biotechnology.

Petre Daeafrom the Social Democratic Party (PSD), member of the Agriculture Commission of the Senate, vocal supporter of biotechnology used in agriculture.

Ilie Sarbu, Minister of Agriculture in the PDL – PSD Government, is a supporter of biotechnology. Vasile Bacila, his adviser, told the Americans in 2008, that Ilie Sarbu was lobbying in Bruxelles, at the Environment Commission, for the use of biotechnology in agriculture.

The following note mentions that his daughter, Daciana Sarbu, is a member of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Commission of the European Parliament. Also, she is very much against biotechnology, the cable shows.

Dacian Ciolos, ex liberal Minister of Agriculture, the present European Commissioner for Agriculture, is a natural opponent of this kind of agriculture.

However, being a technocrat and having a personal relationship with France, he showed interest to not oppose the GM soy embargo in 2008, mentioned Attila Korodi. “Nobody can tell which side he will take, but he is positioned in a manner that doesn’t permit a singular position,” shows a cable.

Calin wants votes, Korodi sells hints

On the 11th of February 2008, the embassy sent a cable to Washington containing many disclosures made by “Monsanto” and “Pioneer” representatives working in the agrobiotechnology field. They had a meeting with minister Attila Korodi on the 4th of February when he unofficially confessed that “he took preliminary measures, at the orders of Calin Popescu Tariceanu (prime-minister of the time) to activate the safeguard clause for the MON 810 genetically modified corn”.

The first measures were taken to ban this GM corn. The measure “coincides with the official visit of president Nicolas Sarkozy, who recently imposed a similar moratorium”. Tariceanu bragged that the new regulation would bring more votes for the National Liberal Party (PNL) from the young citizens and the urban electorate in the upcoming elections. Korodi warned biotech farmers that in March he would present an emergency ordinance draft for the Government which would ban the MON 810 GM corn.

“If the ordinance will pass, the temporary moratorium will be enforced immediately”, the minister warned the producers. If until then the minister seemed a “lost cause”, the meeting on the 4th of February showed that the minister was not that inflexible. A cable shows that “He revealed his plan to the biotech farmers and advised them off the record to distribute all GM seeds they have on stock as soon as possible, before the moratorium came into force”. “The industry representatives interpret this approach as a signal that the minister acts against biotechnologies because of political obligation not conviction”.

Advise for the senators

The embassy shows in the same cable that some problems have risen because of environmental activists. For example, some staff from the Environmental Ministry, which is in favor of biotechnology, are reluctant to meet “Monsanto” and “Pioneer” representatives, because NGOs would denounce them as friends of the industry. In another cable, from the 20th of August, 2008, which prepared Luger for his visit to Romania, Ambassador Taubman transmitted that “from a political view, there are a few ‘minefields’ which have to be passed at the meeting with prime-minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu”. “Nobody can accuse Romania of a quiet political scene”. A description followed demonstrating the turbulent relationship between the prime-minister and the president, who had completely different visions, but, according to Taubman “on subjects which are in our main interest, their differences are more illusory than real”.

Bobo the expert

“In your meeting (senator Richard Lugars’), Tariceanu will most likely focus on internal matters and will be more open to arguments in favor of biotechnology than minister Korodi”. Regarding Korodi, this cable offers another argument which could grab him: a scientific approach on this agricultural system would permit Romania, with its large but underdeveloped agricultural sector, to become European leader in this field. After the forming of the PDL-PSD Government, at the end of 2008, American hopes were raised.

At the beginning of April, 2009, the biotechnology expert Jack Bobo was brought to Romania. He had more meetings with second hand representatives of institutions involved in the GMO matter. Many names were mentioned as in favor of this type of agriculture. However, the decision-makers expressed their reserves regarding what can be done, Romania being a member of the EU.

One of the most important meetings was with Marian Zlotea, the president of the National Sanitar-Veterinary Agency. The state secretary, ex MEP declared himself a supporter of biotechnology, but his opinion was that the state should be a mediator in this debate, not a lawyer. Romania was pressed by Austria, Hungary and France to align with the European policy on this matter and could not adopt a singular position in the EU, Zlotea explained.



 

(Quelle: Progressive Radio Network.)

Dänemark: Sündenbock Roma

Montag, September 6th, 2010

ERRC CHALLENGES DANISH EXPULSION OF EU ROMA

BUDAPEST, 6 SEPTEMBER 2010: The European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) has filed appeals against deportation orders issued to 10 Romanian Roma by the Danish Immigration Service with the Danish Ministry of Refugees, Immigration and Integration Affairs. The appeals, filed on 3 September 2010, follow the arrest of the Roma concerned during police actions targeting 23 EU Roma in Copenhagen on 6 July 2010 and their collective deportation from Denmark to Romania the very next day.

The 6 July arrests and the deportations came in the wake of statements by high ranking public officials in Denmark calling for measures to rid Copenhagen of “criminal Roma,” including by Lord Mayor of Copenhagen Frank Jensen and Danish Minister of Justice Lars Barfoed.

In the appeals the ERRC argues that all 10 deportation orders violate EU law and international law. The EU’s Free Movement Directive guarantees all EU citizens the right to reside in any EU Member State for three months without any conditions other than holding a valid passport or ID card. It also sets stringent conditions for removing EU citizens for reasons of public health and public order. The ERRC argues that when considering the grounds for deportation in each of these cases, Danish authorities failed to undertake a proper, individual assessment. The ERRC also argues that the group treatment amounts to collective expulsions in violation of Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 19.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter).

The appeals also address discrimination on part of Danish police and immigration authorities in singling out Roma as targets for police actions, arrests and subsequent deportations – in violation of the ECHR, the Charter and the Free Movement Directive.

Robert Kushen, Executive Director of the ERRC, stated that “These illegal expulsions of EU citizens from Denmark bring to mind the recent actions of the government of France against EU citizens of Romani origin. We hope that the Danish justice system will send a strong message to France and the rest of the EU that racially based law enforcement and immigration policies will not be tolerated.”

Further information on the arrest and deportation of 23 Roma from Denmark in July is available on the ERRC website.

 

(Quelle: ERRC.)

Europa: Roma müssen schon wieder fliehen

Samstag, Juli 3rd, 2010

“BURNED GIRL A SYMBOL OF DISCRIMINATION FACING GYPSIES IN EUROPE

By Tristan Simoneau, Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe


(Photo Courtesy of White Watch)
Natalka, the three year old victim of the arson attack.

VITKOV, Czech Republic — Natalka Kudrikova, is a three year old girl recovering from severe burns she suffered last year after a Molotov cocktail was thrown through the window of her family home in Vitkov. Natalka is from the Roma or gypsy minority, and police believe that the alleged arson attack could have been racially motivated. Inside of the home was a Roma family of eight, several of whom were injured by the fire. Natalka lost 80% of her skin, three fingers, and spent months in an induced coma following the attack. After 14 major surgeries she is still recuperating and cannot walk without support. Her 27 year old mother suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns to 30% of her body.

In May, the four young men accused of attacking Natalka were charged with racially motivated attempted murder. Under cross examination, two of the men admitted to attending anti Roma demonstrations organized by right wing extremists. A photo of one of the men walking next to the leader of the far-right Workers’Party was recently published by an anti-fascist website. The leader of the now banned Workers’ Party, Tomas Vandas, denies any involvement in the incident. It is reported that the extreme-right seem to have a new confidence about them holding regular marches through Czech towns. In regions with high unemployment and poor social conditions the rise of extremism is popular with unemployed young men. In fear of persecution, hundreds of Romanies are now emigrating and many have been granted asylum in Canada.

According to a 2005 UNICEF report, 84% of Roma in Bulgaria, 88 % in Romania, and 91% in Hungary live below the poverty line. In many European nations Roma have limited access to jobs and education and often live in squalid conditions without basic public services. In eastern Slovakia the village of Ostrovany spent $16,000 to build a wall separating the Roma from their ‘white’ neighbors, because of fears of ‘alleged Roma crime.’ In Hungary over the last two years, nine Roma have been killed in unprovoked night time attacks according to the European Roma Rights Center. Last month in Italy several Roma camps were torched. According to Claudio Cordone, Amnesty International’s interim Secretary General, ‘EU leaders must adopt a concrete plan of action to address the human rights abuses faced by Romani communities. They must speak up against racist attacks and hate speech and provide concrete measures to end discrimination in access to housing, education, health, and employment.’

For more information, please see:

Amnesty International — Europe must break cycle of discrimination facing Roma — 7 April 2010

CNN World — Burned girl a symbol of Roma hate and hope — 25 June 2010

Reuters — FACTBOX: Facing discrimination: Roma around Europe — 30 July 2008

Czech Radio — Police hunt for attackers as two-year-old Roma girl severely burned in alleged arson — 20 April 2009″

 

(Quelle: Impunity Watch.)