Fifty years of European Health Legislation

Article published in Cafebabel

Fifty years of European Health legislation. GotCredit ©Flickr

In 1965, Europe saw its first piece of Health legislation on human medicines. This complex regulatory framework began with Council Directive 65/65, which has introduced rules on the authorisation and distribution of medicinal products. Fifty years later, how far have we come? 

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most vastly regulated industries in the world. As for the European Union and its Member States, they are responsible for an intricate web of legislation and regulation. There is a very long way between the development of a new drug and its legal introduction in the market. The executive agency operating on behalf of the European Commission is the European Medicines Agency (EMA), responsible for the evaluation of medicines since its creation, in 1995. The EMA is the hub of a European medicines network, including over 40 national regulatory authorities, securing a continuous exchange of information and knowledge. 

Facts and Numbers 

In fact, people in Europe are not only living longer but also with greater quality standards. According to Eurostat, life expectancy at birth in the EU-28 was estimated at 80.6 years in 2013, reaching 83.3 years for women and 77.8 years for men. Thanks to continuous research within the pharmaceutical sector, the guarantee of safety and better outcomes is one of the biggest achievements in the health industry. Let us take a look at rare diseases. Characterised by its low prevalence, they affect between six and eight per cent of the population in the EU, representing between 27 and 36 million people. Rare diseases represent a considerable challenge for the industry, as the conduction of clinical trials is hardly representative. At EU level, the Commission has already taken concrete steps to address this issue. Since the 1990’s at both EU and national level, national strategies and different initiatives have emerged. 

We all know that medicines are not entirely good for our system, but the truth is that we need them. The truth is that they do take our pain away. It’s kind of a dependent relationship. And even though many people struggle until the last moment to avoid taking medication, we can’t deny that drugs can help us withstand a period of sickness in our lives. We all know that drugs are said to cause side effects, which is not a secret and shared with all patients, and there are regulations on quality control, namely on packaging and labeling. Small bottles of hope. 

Small bottles of hope. Frédérique Voisin-Demery ©Flickr 

When it comes to patient safety, the EU has been working on crucial topics such as monitoring falsified medicines and developing research on orphan medicinal products as well as in advanced therapies. Fueled by the rising number of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), the EU pharmacovigilance legislation, which has been subject to a major review that led to the adoption of new legislation in 2010, has been a major progress in public health. According to the Commission, approximately 5% of all hospital admissions are caused by ADRs, 5% of hospitalised patients will experience an ADR during their hospital stay and ADRs are causing 197,000 deaths annually throughout the EU. 

Moreover, a study from the Department of Pharmacology at the Government Medical College in India has reached the alarming conclusion that there is a big correlation between women using oral contraceptive pills and the development of glaucoma. These findings have been paving the way to post-authorisation safety and efficacy studies aimed at fortifying drug surveillance and therefore enhancing patient security. Naturally, there are countless cases of ADRs reported across the EU as well as undesired side effects. 

The Other Side of the Coin 

Because we are, after all, evaluating the development of a business, some stakeholders remain skeptical towards the pharma sector’s way of operating. Late in March, EMA has published a public consultation entitled EU Medicines Agencies Network Strategy to 2020 – Working together to improve health, which had a joint reaction from three different organisations: Health Action International (HAI), International Society of Drug Bulletins (ISDB) and Medicines in Europe Forum (MEF). 

These health groups called on the Agency in order to address independence and transparency problems. One of the major concerns came from a policy advisor from HAI, who claimed that “83% of the EMA’s budget is coming from corporate fees in 2015”, reflects an essential cause for apprehension, as there may be a strong conflict of interests amongst staff and experts throughout the Agency. In 2012, an international initiative (AllTrials) lobbying for all clinical trials to be published was created by BMJ, Cochrane Collaboration amongst other stakeholders. 

EMA’s stance towards transparency was however improved in 2012 by Professor Guido Rasi, in a first real commitment from any regulator to open up clinical trial data. Rasi said that the EMA’s new policy would serve as a useful “complementary tool” ahead of the implementation of the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation that will come into force before May 2016. This new Regulation will allow for greater transparency as it eradicates the legal framework for the pharma industry to not publish its data. In October 2014, EMA announced that from the 1st of January 2015, the Agency would begin publishing the clinical study reports comprised in all applications for centralised marketing authorisations for new medicines. The US drug regulator, FDA, is far behind EMA when it comes to transparency, as the American Agency remains unacquainted with the transparency concept yet FDA possesses more clinical trial data than any other regulator. 

The new EU legislation also foresees improvements to Eudravigilance, the EU adverse drug reaction collection and management system, to simplify reporting, enhance data quality and improve searching, analysis and track functionalities for better health protection. 

Beyond Europe 

The EMA is responsible for issuing drug certifications based on World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations, and it also supports the work of health authorities outside the EU. These certificates are in compliance with good manufacturing practices (GMP), required by EU Health legislation. According to EMA’s statistics, both in 2014 and 2013, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Israel are the top three importer countries. India, China, Algeria and Kuwait appear in the top ten in both years, though in a different order. 

Hence, the Agency fosters relationships with many countries, aiming to exchange knowledge and regulatory information such as marketing authorisation procedures, changes to marketing authorisations and post-authorisation surveillance of medicines. Thus, the EMA works in close collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, as well as with the health and food national representatives of Canada, Japan and Switzerland. Though of a different nature, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, China, India and Russia are also closely working with the EU.

In 2014, the African Union announced the creation of an African Medicines Agency molded on the EMA concept. Likewise, the East African community developed a similar initiative (though through a decentralised model) for five African countries. The same happened in the Caribbean. 

Not always pleasurable but sometimes essential. Not always pleasurable but sometimes essential. Comunidade Cristã Paz e Vida © Flickr 

Conclusions 

We often complain about excessive bureaucracy but we ought to be grateful to be European and protected by such high standards when it comes to medicines. Due to a decrease in the quality of healthcare systems across the EU, following the systemic crisis and austerity measures, the EU is now fighting back and rising up from the ashes in order to tackle inequalities within the Member States. 

Despite the difficulties, the EMA maintains its support towards the implementation of a new international standard designed to improve the reporting of suspected side effects of medicine in Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) by establishing the same reporting format across the world. Also, the Agency continues supporting Member States and the Commission in the implementation of the Falsified Medicines Directive as well as developing further guidance fort good manufacturing (GMP) practices and good distribution practices inspections, and also supports the assessment of third countries for equivalent GMP requirements and supervision arrangements. 

I find it fantastic how human curiosity, along with Science, has delivered such impressive results to humankind. One hundred years ago, life expectancy at birth was almost 50 years less – this is remarkable. Nowadays, we do live longer but in some unfortunate cases, elderly people end up stuck in a bed, extending their lives by taking drugs and also thanks to the innovation in medical devices. 

This is a point in which I remain apprehensive and where ethics and morality come into play. 

Nevertheless, the pharmaceutical industry still has many challenges to tackle. Issues like parallel distribution, falsified medicines and drug shortages are causing major problems for the sustainability of pharmacies in the Member States, as well as in healthcare systems throughout the EU. Conflicts of interest between all players in the game must be contained, and patients must be the uttermost priority of this sector.

NATO’s Emergency Meeting: Is PKK behind the curtain?

Article published in Cafebabel

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the controversial president of Turkey. unaoc © Flickr

Turkey called a controversial emergency meeting with NATO. Is Erdogan targeting the Islamic State or taking revenge on the Kurds, after an historic result in the last elections? 

On 27 July, Turkey requested an extraordinary meeting at NATO headquarters, in Brussels. Article 4 of the founding treaty of the US led alliance enables all 28 members to request for consultations whenever they believe their “territorial integrity, political independence or security” is in danger. At stake is the so-called threat imposed by the Islamic State (IS), which has been increasing its sphere of influence. It has already destabilised the southern border of Turkey, killing over thirty people and injuring more than one hundred in Suruç, on 20 July, according to the mainstream media. This bloody event has placed Turkey directly in the conflict, as Turkish warplanes began striking militants targets in Syria last week. 

Since NATO’s creation in 1949, there have been only four extraordinary meetings under Article 4, the last, a requested by Poland in March 2014, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. According to NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: "NATO allies follow developments very closely and stand in solidarity with Turkey." 

IS: an excuse to weaken PKK? 

Nevertheless, Turkey has seized the chance to attack Kurdish militants in strikes, risking a feeble peace process within the country. Listed as a terrorist organisation internationally by several states and organisations, including NATO and the European Union, President Erdogan probably thinks that this is the right moment to weaken the PKK. It is important to note that countries like India, China, Russia, Switzerland and Egypt do not recognise PKK as a terrorist or any kind of perilous organisation. 

However, the Kurds in Syria have been the most effective forces against the Islamic State as it was proved in Kobane. After having joined the fight against the Islamic State, some doubts have arisen amongst politicians worldwide as to whether the group should or should not be considered a terrorist organisation. Moreover, since 2014, throughout the media, mainly online, headlines backing up PKK’s actions and therefore question its progressive status have been growing, since the Kurds have been sacrificing their lives in Syria and Iraq. Even though, Turkish Prime Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has told the press “there is no difference between PKK and Daesh (Islamic State). You can’t say that PKK is better because it is fighting Daesh.” On the other hand, voices claiming PKK’s neutral stance has risen, including some coming from the European Union. According to POLITICO, Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of a powerful Iraqi Shi’a paramilitary organisation show that in fact Turkey is actually supporting the Islamic State as it's weakening its crucial enemy in Iraq, the PKK. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has urged President Erdogan to “keep measures appropriate”. It is indeed a very diplomatic way of asking for some consideration for the Kurdish community – so far allies against the same enemy – but Germany maintain its towards Turkey. As for EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, she called on Turkish foreign minister to encourage the government to return to negotiations with the PKK. 

The PKK was formed in 1978 and between 1984 and 2013 it has waged a military struggle against the Turkish state, demanding for cultural and political rights as well as the self-determination for the Kurds in Turkey, representing 10% to 25% of the total population. 

Elections in Turkey gave seats to Kurdish Party 

In the beginning of June 2015, Turkey’s ruling party, AKP, lost its majority after 13 years in power. The surprised outcome came along with pro-Kurdish HDP, People’s Democratic Party, gaining 13,12% of the electorate, securing 80 seats for the first time in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. This was a major shake for current President Erdogan, who was expecting a majority and intending to change the Constitution in order to implement a presidential system in the country. A HDP deputy, Sirri Sureyya Onder said "this was a victory of democracy over political corruption... of peace over war." 

This election gave hope to the entire Kurdish community, who suddenly got to see their voices being represented in the Assembly and therefore bigger chances for the creation of a Kurdish nation. 

 Conclusions 

Aiming to create a jihadist-free buffer zone in Syria, Erdogan is risking a civil war in his own country. It seems very explicit to the international community that the main goal of Turkey is the eradication of PKK. Now, with the hostilities in the air, “no man’s land” is now labeled in many territories across eastern Turkey as yesterday (2nd August), two Turkish troops died following a suicide attack by Kurdish PKK militants, according to BBC. Nevertheless, since 24 July, Turkey has been carrying out raids on PKK bases. Who is to blame then? 

In my opinion, we can’t really point a finger and blame the Kurds just because they were identified as a terrorist organisation by some countries as well as institutions, which happen to maintain good relations with Turkey. This is a problem which roots are deeply connected with societal motives and therefore with the capacity of the human being to accept the other. The Israeli-Palestinian case is comparable, even though the disparities between the two rival groups are even wider in the latter. 

The Syrian civil war is somehow being positive for the Kurds who have been able to show their strength and determination fighting the Islamic State. But the famous saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is apparently not suitable for the Kurdish community, according to the Turkish President. 

The conflict has just rekindled and the extraordinary meeting at NATO headquarters was just a question of diplomacy, a political necessity to justify unjustifiable actions. How much more bloodshed will we have to be confronted with?

Iran Nuclear Deal, a Win-Win Solution?

Article published in Cafebabel

Iran nuclear negotiations were tough but constructive. © European External Action Service

After ten years of negotiations, a historic nuclear deal has been sealed between six world powers (USA, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany) and the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the 14th of July. What’s behind this agreement? 

Despite all efforts, the agreement is still subject to long discussions as President Barack Obama’s words have indicated, “this agreement is not made in trust but in verification.” Iran will dismantle much of its nuclear infrastructure while the UN, US and EU will take down a range of sanctions that were imposed on Iran over the past nine years. 

Among the conditions determined by the agreement, Iran will: reduce its enrichment capacity by two thirds while closing its underground facility at Fordow for enriching uranium; Iran’s accumulation of low enriched uranium will be reduced by 96%; the core of the heavy water reactor in Arak will be removed and redesigned in a way that will not produce significant amounts of plutonium; Iran will allow a UN inspector to enter in certain places, such as military sites, should the inspectors have any doubts regarding Iran’s nuclear activity. Once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified that Iran has moved forward in order to reduce its programme, the UN, US and the EU will lift the sanctions. 

Reactions to the Nuclear Agreement 

In his declaration, Barack Obama has said that this was the best agreement in order to prevent Tehran developing a nuclear bomb. He also promised to veto any attempt of the Republicans who are opposing the nuclear deal. Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif defined the outcome of the negotiations as a “win-win” solution, though not perfect. 

As for Netanhyahu, he described the moment as a “bad mistake of historic proportions.” The Israeli President was clearly dissatisfied with the agreement and has even demanded the US Congress kill it. The sense of insecurity has grown in the Zionist country, as the hypothesis of the end of the Iranian sanctions might canalize billions of dollars to militant allies like Hezbollah and sectarian battles in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, is now on the table. 

On the European side, French President François Hollande has manifested optimism before this historic step but warned, “we must be extremely vigilant on what Iran will be.” Both Frans Timmermans and Federica Mogherini have shared words of optimism, congratulating the historic agreement and all the efforts involved. 

When did this all begin? 

Shortly after World War II, in 1953, an orchestrated plan from the CIA overthrew Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq, in a coup that defeated a democratically elected Prime Minister. Mossadeq, just like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002, had sought to nationalise Iran’s oil industry. The US didn’t like it. 

Later on, in 1979, the Iranian revolution began when the Shah of Iran, an American puppet called Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, was obliged to leave the country. This revolution happened following months of protests and strikes against his policies. Once Pahveli was exiled, Islamic religious leader Ayatollah Khomeni returned from exile. The Iranian people then voted a referendum and on the 1st of April the Islamic Republic of Iran was proclaimed. In 1979/1981 the US Embassy hostage crisis determined the loop of bad relations between the two countries that seemed not to have an end. After 444 days, the final 52 hostages were released. A few years later, in 1985/86, under Reagan administration, the US secretly shipped weapons to Iran in exchange for help in liberating America hostages taken by Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as to illegally head off profits from these sales to the Contra rebels fighting to takeover the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. This ended up in a major political crisis for President Reagan. In 1988, an American warship shoots down an Iran Air flights in the Gulf, killing all people on board. The US claimed that the Iranian Airbus was mistaken for a fighter jet. 

After these consecutive attacks towards the Islamic Republic of Iran and its people, still, in 1997, Mohammad Khatami was elected President and has called for a dialogue with the American people, which never really happened. 

George Bush’s allegations towards Iran 

Nevertheless, the major accusation concerning Iran came in 2002, when president George Bush, in his State of the Union address, denounced Iran as part of an “axis of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea. This claiming with no real evidence had full support from the mainstream media across the United States. Speculation had been implanted in the American citizens’ minds and Iran was set to be the next target. From 2002 onwards all nuclear fears and sanctions began, when an opposition group reveals that Iran was developing nuclear facilities including a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz as well as a reactor at Arak. Naturally, the US accused Iran of clandestinely developing a nuclear weapon programme, which Iran vehemently denied. 

More than a decade of talks and discontinuous attempts of engagement between Iran, the UN and the US, a big pack of sanctions over the nuclear issue was imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran, between 2006 and 2010, by the UN. The US and the EU have also imposed sanctions on Iran, extending its measures in 2012 to the financial sector. Bilateral sanctions were applied in several other countries. 

Ahmadinejad’s allegations towards the US 

In 2005, when Ahmadinejad was elected President, the relations between Iran and the West got worsen. During his speech at the UN in 2010, the former Iranian President claimed that most people believed the US government had orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Since 2013, when Hassan Rouhani became Iranian President, the relationship between the West and his country turned a lot smoother. Thirty years later, an Iranian President held a phone call with the US head of state, Barack Obama. 

Conclusion 

Following a historic and political timeline of the US and Iran, the big winner of this agreement is the US. Iran will visibly win as well, primarily by expanding its financial sector through negotiations with external investors once the sanctions are lifted. Also, Iran represents the fourth largest oil reserves in the world. However, due to international sanctions, Iran’s ability to export became seriously restrained. If the nuclear agreement passes in the Congress and the sanctions are lifted, the country could increase its oil production by approximately 50% and consequently lower oil prices. 

But the main question remains: why was Iran submitted to sanctions in the first place? What legitimacy has a country like the US, or some other country with a history of invasions and plotting, to impose sanctions in a sovereign state? Real evidence was never found, just like in Iraq, but a single suspicions from the West, namely from the US, seems to be enough to dictate deals and agreements as if the other part had any choice. 

As I have mentioned in previous articles, I am totally against political and military interference in other states, be it directly or indirectly (via coup attempts). By sanctioning Iran, the UN, US and the EU kept on impoverishing the Islamic country, based on political fears. Iran is not being given anything new because much of its chance of generating wealth was taken away nine years ago, and yet the US, not directly, still wins the legitimate control of Iranian facilities. Nevertheless, this was indeed a memorable deal, considering the past relations between Iran and the West, and Iran’s geographical position in the world, as Iran has the capacity of fueling prosperity throughout the Middle East.

South Sudan: four years of independence amidst violence, blood and corruption

Article published in Cafebabel

Southern Sudanese soldiers parade at the John Garang Mausoleum during the celebrations of independence day in the city of Juba.  © European External Action Service

Four years have passed since the independence of South Sudan but the country is facing an enormous humanitarian crisis since the outbreak of the civil war, last December. Political impasse due to corruption is the major concern in a country rich in oil and yet one of the least developed countries in the world. 

On the occasion of South Sudan’s independence from Khartoum, on 9 July, High Representative Federica Mogherini, EU Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven Mimica, and EU Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management Christos Stylianides, have shared some thoughts and demonstrated some commitment towards the Sudanese people. “Genuine peace negotiations are the only way forward and need to be revitalised swiftly. The EU pledges its full support for the peace efforts being made and recognises the steps to date. But it’s too little and too slow. Government and opposition leaders remain unwilling to engage seriously or to stop using violence as a means to achieve their objective,” stated the European representatives. 

The European Commission estimates that around 4.1 million people are currently in life-threatening situations and in need of urgent medical care. Since the dawn of the conflict around 1.6 million people have been displaced and over half a million (590 000) are living now in neighboring countries. Before such a devastating situation, the European Union had contributed, along with the Member States, some €217.5 million in 2015. In early May, the United States pledged $5 million to help set up an accountability mechanism for South Sudan. 

A Country Weakened by its Past 

Four years ago, after a referendum held in line with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), South Sudan, a country with 8.26 million inhabitants and one of Africa’s biggest oil producers, has turned into a state. Recognised as the newest nation in the world, the most triumphant scene of African progress since the end of apartheid in South Africa, the country located in Central Africa faces now a serious humanitarian crisis that began in December 2013. The international community was blamed of lacking efficacy to ensure that South Sudan would develop into a democratic and stable nation. 

More than any other part of Africa, the Sudan is defined by civil war. It was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, and then ushered into the 20th century by a discriminatory arrangement of Egyptian and British control. Colonial efforts at modernisation were confined to the north while the south was left to exploit land and slaves. 

On 15 December, an armed conflict erupted at the centre of the South Sudanese governmental authority, the presidential palace in Juba, the capital. This confrontation divided army officers loyal to president Salva Kiir, of Dinka origins, and discontented soldiers supporting his ex-deputy Riek Machar, of Nuer roots, becoming into a tragic civil war, in which more than 50,000 people were killed. Kiir accused Machar of plotting a coup attempt, while Machar blamed the president for trying to kill him. The Dinka and the Nuer are the two most prominent and most populated tribes in South Sudan: longtime rivals who had battled over land and resources since at least the 19th century. 

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) at Zam Zam camp outside El Fasher, Sudan. | (cc) United Nations Photo

Corruption in South Sudan, what else? 

Nevertheless, there is so much more behind religion that one cannot see. According to Global Witness, a NGO dedicated to exposing corruption, there is no evidence that oil revenue in South Sudan is reaching those who need it most. Identified as the most important source of income, just 5% of the latest budget was used on healthcare, education and infrastructure combined. The oil industry is definitely the root of this revolting conflict and several battles have been fought in order to control the sought after black gold. 

Before the unleash of the armed conflicts, South Sudan’s government spent months developing laws which should ensure that the country’s oil sector was not a source of corruption or conflict. However, as of December 2013, since the outbreak of the conflict, all the work done to improve governmental transparency has fallen apart. 

Last April, South Sudan received a $500 million loan from the Qatar National Bank (QNB), which means that the African country will owe around $781 million, interest inclusive, paid over a seven years period. Naturally, the government has suggested a payment in oil, should cash be lacking. The problem with this agreement is the certainty that the money invested will not go to the country, people’s needs, and infrastructures, but yes into private pockets. Here we have a good example of a parasite country. A country that chooses to live from other country’s financial support instead of making the most out of its natural resources to enrich the country and its people. 

Political deadlock 

On the 29 May, Kenyan president Kenyatta announced plans to merge Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) peace process and SPLM (Sudan’s People Liberation Movement) reunification process. Due to quarrels between president Kiir and former vice-president Machar, in Nairobi, the merged process was stalled 28 June. 

This political impasse has been costing the lives of thousands of South Sudanese people as conflicts continue in Equatoria and Bahr el Ghazal. 

On the 30 June, the United Nations released a human rights report documenting widespread rape and women buried alive. Why is the international community so quiet before such outrageous actions? Why do some lives matter less than others?

Greek Debt Audit's Coordinator Accuses Criminal Debt System

Article published in Cafebabel

Greek tragedy. Andrea_44 © Flickr 

The situation in Greece is calamitous. Draghi has dictated the closing of all banks, restricting people to withdrawals of 60€ per day from the ATMs. How far will the Greek crisis go? The mainstream media has been flooding our news feed with the same discourse over and over again: Will there be reforms? Will Greece pay its debt? But what do we really know about what is happening in Greece? 

Outcomes of the Greek Debt 

Auditor Brazilian Maria Lucia Fattorelli is the coordinator of the Greek Debt Audit, whose outcomes she has presented in the Hellenic Parliament early in July. This technical and detailed description of the debt system’s modus operandi is a must see in order to widen our perspective and therefore our own conclusions about what is really happening behind this massive debt. The first point to note is that the set of agreements was not an initiative of the Greek government. "It was an initiative of the Troika and the benefits reverted to the organisms that constitute it,” said Fattorelli. 

Moreover, the conclusions from the audit show that all contracts analysed are attached to the memos and within an attachment they found another agreement. The mechanism found in the Bilateral Agreement was hidden in one of its annexes where it was another agreement. Fatorelli claims that through this mechanism, the money borrowed from bilateral creditors did not go to Greece; instead, abusive costs were transferred to the Hellenic country. 

The revelation of this mechanism tears down the utterance that the taxpayers of other European countries would be funding Greece. “We must submit a report. It is an instrument, not an opinion. Once made available, it is the responsibility of the government and society to know how to use it to change the situation of the country and its relations with creditors,” alerted Fattorelli. Many wonder why we haven't seen this information on the mainstream media. Shouldn’t this be public knowledge? 

Behind Fattorelli’s audit on the Greek debt, there are three main players at stake: The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 

The EFSF was created as a temporary crisis resolution mechanism by the Euro zone Member States in June 2010. However, some voices like Fattorelli claim that the IMF imposed the creation of the EFSF, turning this new mechanism into a disguised money laundering facility. The EFSF has already provided financial aid to Portugal, Greece and Ireland. A permanent rescue mechanism was also created in October 2012, the ESM. The ESM acts currently as the unique instrument responding to new requests for financial assistance by the Eurozone. So far, it has provided loans to Spain and Cyprus. 

During an event to promote support for the Greek people in Portugal, Francisco Louçā, coordinator of the Left Bloc party, has said that a “new order in which there is no space for either contracts or solidarity” has been created in Europe. To be true and proven that the entire debt system is a big scheme, dictating an ultimatum to Greece, is the absolute proof of how the world elite is working on shrinking human rights and dignity of life. Let us keep in mind that a bailout with the same features and conditions, massive austerity and the downfall of social rights, is now being paid back to its creditors, from Ireland, Portugal and Spain… 

The Greek Tragedy 

Luckily, we are living in a democracy, at least that is what all Europeans believe, and even though the Greek people might be under a terrible financial dictatorship, they were recently able to vote on a referendum where most Greeks admittedly manifested interest in leaving the Eurozone. Sunday, the so-called “Ultimate Summit” decided whether the creditors extended financial aid to Greece or not. As expected, Eurozone leaders reached an agreement over a new Greek bailout, which is still under discussion about its conditions. However, German Finance Minister Schäuble as well as Angela Merkel will put a short leash on Greece. 

What we are witnessing currently is a political struggle between the Greek Government and the “European government.” Along came a societal struggle and different stances have been formed throughout the EU. In one side, we see numerous protests across Europe trying to appeal to the suffering that the Greek people is enduring now and likely even more in the future. On the other side, we see a faction condemning Greece for its fiscal irresponsibility and many years of living like kings. This group claims that Greece should leave the Eurozone since they don’t want to pay more taxes because of the laziness of the Greek people. But is this really the truth? When we live in a democratic society, we have to face and respect other people’s opinions… 

A look back into Greek’s political history 

Despite of a big percentage of the European population being well aware of the tyrannical procedure of the banking system, in the Greek case, we have to take into consideration that, compared to many other European nations, they have been slightly more irresponsible when dealing with their public finances. 

When it comes to Politics, Modern Greece has always been an unstable country. It is important to rewind the tape in order to better understand the Greek crisis. In 1967, with support from the United States, Greece saw the installation of a dictatorship, which only ended in 1974. Considering that for half a century Greece hasn’t closed its budget (!), we must assume that there was an enormous governance problem inside the country. Along with an extreme badly management of Greek public accounts there is a powerful banking synchronization that has been destabilizing the whole Eurozone as well. 

For example, if we look at fractional-reserve banking, a very common banking policy and the current form of banking practiced in most countries worldwide, we can have a small idea of how banks play with our money generating debt — a huge irresponsible financial policy. The process is very simple: for instance, if you put 1 euro in the bank, 50 euros will automatically be assumed as ready to be lent, depending on the reserves of the bank. This system is clearly not sustainable on a large scale. 

The economic imperialism that has now blown-back to the United States and Europe has been evolving for decades and can be directly traced to the end of World War II, to the birth of the CIA, the IMF and the World Bank. “The stock market and economy have become weapons of mass oppression manipulated by an imperial banking cartel to impose order and exploit the masses. This crisis boldly represents the manifest evolution of the fascist spirit reasserting itself as the dominant ideology,” wrote David DeGraw in Global Research. 

Conclusions 

It is always difficult to make a reasonable judgment on the Greek crisis as many factors are at stake and we cannot take for granted that we know everything of this complex tragedy. 

It seems to be that an agreement will take place very soon and therefore Greece will remain in the Eurozone. The conditions of this agreement are yet to be known, but we already know that many of Syriza’s promises during the campaign period went downhill. Instead of getting rid of the debt, the Greeks will now pay more taxes, the VAT on restaurants will go up, and pensions will diminish. This is a recipe for disaster. If Greece wants to rise from the ashes and save the country from a likely default, it must open up, attract external investors, encourage internal investors and reduce the huge amount of bureaucracy that is constantly obstructing any attempt of progress. This is the only way of generating wealth in a country that has nothing to offer, besides tourism and high quality olive oil. 

Above all, one must have respect towards the Greek people, the cradle of democracy. Youth and the elderly do not have to pay for the mistakes of past governments, and the global banking cartel must be stopped. But, by whom? Are we really living in a democracy?

Hot in Copenhagen! What's the odds?

Old Port in Nyhavn, Copenhagen, July 2015. © Marta Pacheco

Old Port in Nyhavn, Copenhagen, July 2015.

The Little Mermaid, Copenhagen, July 2015.

Egeskov Castle, Denmark

A long weekend in Amsterdam

Sunset in Amsterdam © Marta Pacheco

A nighty-night ride through the canals of Amsterdam

Mushrooms in the local market, Amsterdam

Boat terraces with creative decorations

Cute corner shop, Amsterdam

Immigration, Huntington and the EU

Article published in Cafebabel

Jamaica airport immigration desk. rickpilot_2000 © Flickr

A serious debate on immigration is still going on in the EU after the recent tragic events in the Mediterranean. How should Europe respond to immigration? History has been shaped by migration and the EU must learn from the past to win the challenges of the future. 

 Leave or die 

Back in the XIX century, between 1845 and 1852, the Great Famine happened in Ireland, leading to the death of around 1 million of Irish people who suddenly were deprived of food, specifically potatoes, which by that time represented 80% of their food supply, specially for the poorest segment of the population. One of the biggest social consequences of this disaster was, naturally, immigration. 

The first wave of massive immigration to the United States defines this period in History, when nearly one million of famine Irish immigrants searched for hope and took their traditions and religions with them. Fifty years later, during the 1900’s, the United States was home for 8.8 million people who had arrived from a little bit everywhere in the world, increasing the total population every single year. By 1970, immigrants represented 4.7 percent of the US population and it grew to 6.2 percent in 1980. As of 2010, 25% of US population under the age of 18 were first or second generation immigrants. Eight percent of all babies born in the U.S. in 2008 were from illegal immigrant parents, according to an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center. 

Immigration is still going on 

This complex demographic phenomenon keeps on growing and contemporary immigrants account, nowadays, for around 44% of the US population as a whole! In the XIX century, people were coming mainly from Europe, but since the United States admitted more legal immigrants, between 1991-2000, there was an abrupt movement of people coming from Mexico, China, India, Philippines, Dominican Republic, and other countries. 

Furthermore, a survey from the Census Bureau showed that by 2050, one quarter of the American population will be of Hispanic descent. Also, the same research centre estimated the US’ population to be around 319.000.000. The United States is the third most populous nation in the world, after China and India, and the world’s largest national economy fuelled by high productivity. 

Where does all this lead us? If we think of immigration as an engine development rather than a colossal attack against our principles and traditions, we would see the other side of the coin and stop making such a big problem over it. 

Samuel Huntington. © World Economic Forum 

A cultural problem 

As Samuel Huntington wisely defended on his work, The Clash of Civilizations, 1992, the age of ideology would end and the world would only revert to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In his anthropological and social thesis, he argued that the principal axis of conflict in the future would be along cultural and religious lines. 

Multiculturalism is good for the development of a society and also for the Human progress. What is happening nowadays across the European Union is purely not acceptable. First and foremost, because we are speaking about people in need: migrants trying to reach our continent, fleeing from war, poverty and diseases. 

The circus in the British media as well as France, Hungary and many other countries, is based on internal political fears, and second, they are not true. Evidence shows that immigrants in Britain have been creating wealth to the UK, having contributed with £20 billion to UK public finances between 2000 and 2011, according to a research led by two migration economists at University College. The most outrageous of all of this condemnation is the fact that immigrants pay out far more taxes than they receive benefits. Let us congratulate, for once, Merkel’s stance towards Mr. Cameron, regarding his attempt to free movement of people to the UK. Why forbid people to cross one’s territory but still make free way for their national products? Should European leaders be barred of drinking coffee coming from Africa? What about the petrol coming from the Middle East? Should it also be denied entry in the EU?

If History can teach us something, is to make us look back and see the retreats and the progresses from the past and learn with them. In a quick overview over the past century, immigration has made the world move forward as many of the immigrants from yesterday made the world we are living today. Unfortunately, we are living in an era where the pursuit of power is the norm and the respect for the human being as a person it appears to be fading away.

Libya : European Union's 'hot potato'

Article published in Cafebabel

Libya: EU's hot potato. UK Ministry of Defence © Flickr

As time passes, the situation in Libya seems to be worsening. Between oil, power, migration and refugees, how the EU is going to tackle this crisis which is literally at its doors? 

It is official. The EU has decided to move forward with the use of military force against alleged smugglers in the Mediterranean. After a EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels, Foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said it is time to move along with logistics in order to prepare the operation known as EUNAVFOR Med. On the ground, the EU intends to step into Libya – partially the root of the problem - but its actions must comply with international law. Thus approval from the United Nations is still needed, as Mogherini remains confident of its legal authorisation. After visiting China, the EU’s foreign affairs leader believes that Beijing will not veto the plans in the Security Council. As for Russia, it says it is willing to cooperate but would only support a naval operation.

EU Foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini. Casa de América © Flickr

The UN’s endorsement represents extreme importance to the EU, as it is the only legitimate way of entering Libyan waters or airspace. According to our European leaders, and given the avid reluctance from several Member States such as the UK, France, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, among others, to resort to the use of force is better than a quota system to address the migration crisis. This joint position reflects our not so united European Union’s decision-making process and consequent actions in times of catastrophe.

I am convinced that the vast majority of people around the world constantly and unreservedly have condemned the dictatorial regime of Muammar Gaddafi, while they were against the expected invasion of Libya. We continue to think that this invasion was unjust, immoral and even tyrannical. It is a crime against Humanity, against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and against interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states. Déjà vu. 

Iraq. Libya. Syria. We must understand the main reasons behind these bloody wars and understand why they keep on going. We must understand the irony of seeing the European Union preparing an invasion in a country that is in ruins due to a previous invasion, four years ago, by European counterparts. 

Money is the sinews of war. Images Money © Flickr

The Petrodollar 

To simplify the story, let us introduce the petrodollar. The petrodollar is a currency solidified by former US President Nixon, in 1973, to quantify all the earnings made in United States dollars through exports of petroleum. A deal was struck between Saudi Arabia and the United States in which every barrel of oil purchased from the Saudis would be denominated in U.S. dollars. In exchange, the United States offered weapons and protection of their oil fields from neighboring nations, including Israel. 

In 2001, Iraq began selling their oil in Euros. The US invaded. In 2010, Gaddafi proposed a new currency, the Gold Dinar, and the US invaded and caused a major political instability in the country that still remains to this day. Syria abandoned the petrodollar in 2006 and Iran followed in 2008. Is it a coincidence all the conflicts and tensions we witness today between the West and the Middle East?

Undoubtedly, everything is connected. From oil, to war, to power, to repression, to migration, to refugees, to epidemic diseases, to urgent decision-making... Now, the “hot potato” is literally at Europe’s door. And will the European Union invade Libya? Is this the correct way of acting? One should not forget what happened in the past. The decision of entering other countries’ territory moved by a military action will only generate more blood, suffering and death. Also, what was initially supposed to be a simple operation against the smugglers might well end up being a war with nefarious consequences. 

Waiting for the decisive Summit 

EU leaders will convene on the 25th of June in a Summit in Brussels where the asylum question will be addressed as a priority. Despite Mogherini saying that the military action does not require “boots on the ground,” some doubts still remain about this matter. The EU’s foreign policy leader also mentioned that the EU is establishing relations with some relevant authorities in Libya. From this, we ought to understand that an agreement is being sealed between the parties to move on with this operation. However, the audience is divided. 

Is military action really a good solution? Moyan Brenn © Flickr

Analysts, academics and politicians remain apprehensive about this matter. Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa director, said: “Introducing measures to tackle smugglers without providing safe alternative routes out for the people desperate to flee conflict in Libya, will not resolve the plight of migrants and refugees.” From the Parliament, German MEP Reinhard Bütikofer, co-chair of the European Green Party, has raised significant questions such as about casualties. “How would the EU differentiate between a smuggling boat and a fishing boat?” asked Bütikofer. “What would they do if they got attacked by one or the other side of the Libyan conflict?” added the German MEP. 

It is clear that the EU is before a very sensitive subject. There is no clear union to move forward with all the options that are on the table – the quota system and military action. Legally speaking, the EU Dublin asylum system has been a subject of concerns and critics. German MEP Ska Keller, from the Greens, has recently defended during a plenary in the Parliament that “Dublin needs to be thoroughly reformed. Governments should work to create a climate of solidarity and should not send the army against refugees.” Like many others, Keller believes in a structural reform of the Common European Asylum System (ECAS), aiming to improve Member States’ capacity to provide effective first-line reception.