EnlargeEU Newsletter
Analytica, Thinking Laboratory
May 2009
By Nina Stroempl, Residential Intern
The name dispute between Macedonia and Greece has recently come up in US politics. The United States has urged both nations to work together to find a solution. But it is not so simple even in the US.
The name dispute is what caused Greece to block Macedonia’s NATO entry and threatens to block EU accession as well. Therefore many in the US feel this issue needs to be resolved as soon as possible.
Earlier this month 15 members of the US Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and urged a speedy resolution. These members of Congress fully support Macedonia, and even called Macedonia on of the United States’ “most staunch allies and trusted partners”.
There are also members of Congress who tend to sympathize with Greece, however. 19 Members of the US Congress recently proposed a resolution to the name dispute all the while criticizing Skopje for “Anti-Greek rhetoric” that is damaging relations with Greece.
The Greek American community has spoken about the issue as well. They recently wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to reconsider the US policy of recognizing Macedonia by its constitutional name. Around 200 lecturers from 11 countries took part in writing this letter.
This letter is quoted as saying "We call upon you, Mr. President, to help - in whatever ways you deem appropriate - the government in Skopje to understand that it cannot build a national identity at the expense of historic truth,” and later states "We believe that this silliness has gone too far, and that the U.S.A. has no business in supporting the subversion of history."
On May 22, 2009 Hillary Clinton received an award from the Greek American Community and was asked about the name dispute. She reiterated the US stance that a solution that is acceptable to both parties needs to be found. She also said that the administration is very committed to this issue which was picked up early on.
"Obviously, this has to be resolved by the parties themselves, but we are urging that resolution. We think it is in everyone’s best interest. As you said, it would open the way for movement toward another nation joining the European Union, which we think promotes stability in the region, so we are very committed to doing what the United States can to facilitate that," she said.
Concluding Thoughts:
It seems Greece holds all the trump cards in this issue, leaving Macedonia with very little bargaining power. It looks like Macedonia will have to make more concessions than Greece, and is left with the choice of preserving its name (and many feel this is core to its identity) or gaining members to NATO and the EU. Macedonia says it is ready to compromise. Yet, the huge statue of Alexander the Great that the government plans to erect in Skopje’s main square does not seem to send that message. That,
however, is another issue.
Sources: The Sofia Echo, Makfax, Mina, Focus
EnlargeEU Newsletter is also available at Analytica’s blog: www.analyticamk.blogspot.com
Monday, July 6, 2009
Religious Teaching in Schools – practices in Britain and France
EnlargeEU Newsletter Analytica, Thinking Laboratory
April 2009
by Sonja Risteska, Residential Intern
In every country, no matter of the continent or the stage of development the implementation i.e. introduction of religious teaching in schools has caused heated debates. There have always been two opposing sides regarding this issue, the church or any other religious institution with its believers, strongly lobbying for it on one side; and the people who believe the church and the state should be separated, and that the church should not be involved in the education process. No matter which side someone will take, there are pros and cons on both sides and most probably the debate will remain a never ending one.
Practices in the EU
The practises around the world dealing with religious teaching are of course different. Even in the European Union the ways it is sanctioned differ quite a lot from country to country. For example, two of the oldest democracies, the UK and France, have totally different laws and practices regarding this issue.
France on one hand is highly famous for its recent ban on all religious symbols in the public primary and secondary schools, triggered by the headscarves worn by Muslim girls. This highly controversial law called, Law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, was adopted in 2004 as an amendment to the French Code of Education that expands principles founded in existing French law, especially the constitutional requirement of laïcité: the separation of state and religious activities. France’s past is filled with clashes and wars between different religious groups (Protestants, Catholics, Jews, etc.) and for that reason in 1905 a law was adopted which separates the church from the state. What French children study in schools today is some sort of transversal studies about the religions in general through other subjects such as history, geography and literature. This can certainly not be called religious teaching. Religious teaching can only be taught in private religious schools and it is not mandatory.
In Britain on the other hand religious instruction and daily worship are statutory requirement in every school. This issue is dealt almost the same across the country with small varieties. For instance, in England schools have to teach religion but parents have the right to withdraw their children from all or part of the lessons, even in church schools. The school is not obliged to provide alternative lessons for those children. In Wales, schools are encouraged to teach children about "Christianity and the other principal religions in Great Britain" but there is no mention of secular philosophies. Scotland's national guidelines on religious and moral education (RME) say that, "while recognising the role of Christianity as the major religious tradition in Scotland, pupils should also be encouraged to develop understanding of and respect for people of other faiths and people who adopt a non-religious stance for living". What children are taught is not how to be religious but how to be religiously and racially tolerant and to have a better understanding and respect for the different communities that constitute the British society.
Common ground
No matter what it is called, (histories of religions, religious education, ethics, etc.) what the education authorities should do is teach children from early age about tolerance, dialogue, understanding and appreciating differences. This is especially important in multicultural societies for building a solid basis for peaceful coexistence of all different religious groups. In order to avoid any negative impact special attention should be paid to the educators who should be carefully selected from professionals in the field that would not attempt to manipulate the children by promoting certain ideologies. However there are no guarantees and certain dangers will always exist since young children are easily influenced and can be used in someone’s propaganda. Most importantly the responsible authorities should always put the children’s rights and wellbeing first; children should always have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with their religion as well as with other religions and the morals and ethics behind them.
April 2009
by Sonja Risteska, Residential Intern
In every country, no matter of the continent or the stage of development the implementation i.e. introduction of religious teaching in schools has caused heated debates. There have always been two opposing sides regarding this issue, the church or any other religious institution with its believers, strongly lobbying for it on one side; and the people who believe the church and the state should be separated, and that the church should not be involved in the education process. No matter which side someone will take, there are pros and cons on both sides and most probably the debate will remain a never ending one.
Practices in the EU
The practises around the world dealing with religious teaching are of course different. Even in the European Union the ways it is sanctioned differ quite a lot from country to country. For example, two of the oldest democracies, the UK and France, have totally different laws and practices regarding this issue.
France on one hand is highly famous for its recent ban on all religious symbols in the public primary and secondary schools, triggered by the headscarves worn by Muslim girls. This highly controversial law called, Law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, was adopted in 2004 as an amendment to the French Code of Education that expands principles founded in existing French law, especially the constitutional requirement of laïcité: the separation of state and religious activities. France’s past is filled with clashes and wars between different religious groups (Protestants, Catholics, Jews, etc.) and for that reason in 1905 a law was adopted which separates the church from the state. What French children study in schools today is some sort of transversal studies about the religions in general through other subjects such as history, geography and literature. This can certainly not be called religious teaching. Religious teaching can only be taught in private religious schools and it is not mandatory.
In Britain on the other hand religious instruction and daily worship are statutory requirement in every school. This issue is dealt almost the same across the country with small varieties. For instance, in England schools have to teach religion but parents have the right to withdraw their children from all or part of the lessons, even in church schools. The school is not obliged to provide alternative lessons for those children. In Wales, schools are encouraged to teach children about "Christianity and the other principal religions in Great Britain" but there is no mention of secular philosophies. Scotland's national guidelines on religious and moral education (RME) say that, "while recognising the role of Christianity as the major religious tradition in Scotland, pupils should also be encouraged to develop understanding of and respect for people of other faiths and people who adopt a non-religious stance for living". What children are taught is not how to be religious but how to be religiously and racially tolerant and to have a better understanding and respect for the different communities that constitute the British society.
Common ground
No matter what it is called, (histories of religions, religious education, ethics, etc.) what the education authorities should do is teach children from early age about tolerance, dialogue, understanding and appreciating differences. This is especially important in multicultural societies for building a solid basis for peaceful coexistence of all different religious groups. In order to avoid any negative impact special attention should be paid to the educators who should be carefully selected from professionals in the field that would not attempt to manipulate the children by promoting certain ideologies. However there are no guarantees and certain dangers will always exist since young children are easily influenced and can be used in someone’s propaganda. Most importantly the responsible authorities should always put the children’s rights and wellbeing first; children should always have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with their religion as well as with other religions and the morals and ethics behind them.
Possible reform in NATO - "Consensus minus one"?
EnlargeEU Newsletter
Analytica, Thinking Laboratory
March 2009
Due to Greece’s veto Macedonia was not invited to join NATO at the Alliance’s Summit in Bucharest despite its success to meet all of the necessary membership criteria. Citing the principle of solidarity and consensus, the allies gave in to the Greek pressure and postponed the invitation to Macedonia. The invitation remains open, namely it will be handed over upon settling of the name dispute. These developments seem not to influence the vast support the country’s NATO membership enjoys among the citizens, which is still at 85,2 percent, according to the latest poll of the Institute for Democracy. However, not much progress has been made for settling the name dispute.
In light of these events the Canadian Defense Minister Peter McCay recently came up with a proposal to revisit the consensus process in NATO, namely to adopt a “consensus minus one” formula when admitting new members into the Alliance. This means that at least two countries would have to object the accession of a new member which would result in avoiding blockades motivated by (unreasonable) bilateral disputes, especially disputes that have no prospects in being resolved swiftly.
This is currently a prevailing issue because in addition to the Macedonia/Greece problem there are other countries which might face similar problems; such case is Slovenia that is threatening to veto Croatia. The result of “consensus minus one” would be effective isolation of certain member states of NATO. Accordingly Greece would no longer be able to impose its will to prevent Macedonia from joining NATO and all together undermine the enlargement process.
An Alliance such as NATO which in the post-Cold War period has sought to redefine itself and preserve its viability by moving into “out of area” operations should have an internal mechanism to deal with problems such as an obstructive veto. As an increasing number of countries join the Alliance, its security demands increase as well; in the Balkan region Macedonia is undoubtedly an important factor for stability. Macedonia could contribute greatly to NATO’s security objectives; this however can be done much more efficiently from within the organization.
PPRROOBBLLEEMM:: tthhee ccoonnsseennssuuss rruullee ccaann oonnllyy bbee aalltteerreedd bbyy ccoonnsseennssuuss
The former Macedonian ambassador to NATO Nano Ruzin claims that even if this proposal sounds very attractive, it would be very difficult to isolate Greece within NATO. It is obvious that Greece has its political allies; it can be argued that if there was enough political will from all other member states in NATO to admit Macedonia, this would have happened at the summit of Bucharest even without the “consensus minus one” formula. Therefore it remains questionable how efficient such formulas can be amid lack of political will within the Alliance.
However many prominent political figures have openly stated their support for Macedonia. For example the Former NATO Secretary-General Lord George Robertson has stated that it is a disgrace that Macedonia did not receive an invitation to join NATO due to Greece’s objections. Such statements together with the proposal of the Canadian Defense Minister should be greeted as extremely positive for the Macedonian case because they demonstrate that countries which have significant contribution to NATO such as the US and Canada are willing to support Macedonia. Therefore Macedonia should remain hopeful that before long all Alliance members will realize the mutually beneficial relationship between NATO and Macedonia, consequently overcome the name issue and thus contribute to the overall peace, stability and development in Southeast Europe.
EnlargeEU Newsletter is also available at Analytica’s blog: www.analyticamk.blogspot.com
Analytica, Thinking Laboratory
March 2009
Due to Greece’s veto Macedonia was not invited to join NATO at the Alliance’s Summit in Bucharest despite its success to meet all of the necessary membership criteria. Citing the principle of solidarity and consensus, the allies gave in to the Greek pressure and postponed the invitation to Macedonia. The invitation remains open, namely it will be handed over upon settling of the name dispute. These developments seem not to influence the vast support the country’s NATO membership enjoys among the citizens, which is still at 85,2 percent, according to the latest poll of the Institute for Democracy. However, not much progress has been made for settling the name dispute.
In light of these events the Canadian Defense Minister Peter McCay recently came up with a proposal to revisit the consensus process in NATO, namely to adopt a “consensus minus one” formula when admitting new members into the Alliance. This means that at least two countries would have to object the accession of a new member which would result in avoiding blockades motivated by (unreasonable) bilateral disputes, especially disputes that have no prospects in being resolved swiftly.
This is currently a prevailing issue because in addition to the Macedonia/Greece problem there are other countries which might face similar problems; such case is Slovenia that is threatening to veto Croatia. The result of “consensus minus one” would be effective isolation of certain member states of NATO. Accordingly Greece would no longer be able to impose its will to prevent Macedonia from joining NATO and all together undermine the enlargement process.
An Alliance such as NATO which in the post-Cold War period has sought to redefine itself and preserve its viability by moving into “out of area” operations should have an internal mechanism to deal with problems such as an obstructive veto. As an increasing number of countries join the Alliance, its security demands increase as well; in the Balkan region Macedonia is undoubtedly an important factor for stability. Macedonia could contribute greatly to NATO’s security objectives; this however can be done much more efficiently from within the organization.
PPRROOBBLLEEMM:: tthhee ccoonnsseennssuuss rruullee ccaann oonnllyy bbee aalltteerreedd bbyy ccoonnsseennssuuss
The former Macedonian ambassador to NATO Nano Ruzin claims that even if this proposal sounds very attractive, it would be very difficult to isolate Greece within NATO. It is obvious that Greece has its political allies; it can be argued that if there was enough political will from all other member states in NATO to admit Macedonia, this would have happened at the summit of Bucharest even without the “consensus minus one” formula. Therefore it remains questionable how efficient such formulas can be amid lack of political will within the Alliance.
However many prominent political figures have openly stated their support for Macedonia. For example the Former NATO Secretary-General Lord George Robertson has stated that it is a disgrace that Macedonia did not receive an invitation to join NATO due to Greece’s objections. Such statements together with the proposal of the Canadian Defense Minister should be greeted as extremely positive for the Macedonian case because they demonstrate that countries which have significant contribution to NATO such as the US and Canada are willing to support Macedonia. Therefore Macedonia should remain hopeful that before long all Alliance members will realize the mutually beneficial relationship between NATO and Macedonia, consequently overcome the name issue and thus contribute to the overall peace, stability and development in Southeast Europe.
EnlargeEU Newsletter is also available at Analytica’s blog: www.analyticamk.blogspot.com
The Abortion Debate - a heated and never-ending ethical debate
EnlargeEU Newsletter
Analytica, Thinking Laboratory
February 2009
The Abortion Debate - a heated and never-ending ethical debate
by Karmen Sumić, Residential Intern
Roughly speaking, there are two camps with two distinct conceptions on life. The pro-choice movement emphasizes the freedom of choice for women, while the prolife adherents wish primarily to protect the rights of the unborn child/foetus. There is strong correlation between the abortion issue and religion. Generally, abortion is preached as negative because it entails killing of a human being, yet many religious groupings concede for some exceptions. Abortion rights fall under the larger concept of reproductive rights, generally referred to as women’s rights, but these do not form part of the international human law. Abortion becomes a highly politicised term when the state starts interfering with abortion law reforms.
A New Abortion Law in Macedonia: A needed change?
Recently, there have been some street campaigns supporting the governmental strategy to award Macedonian women with at least
three children, which were in turn condemned by many pro-choice NGOs. Additional turmoil was caused by rumours that the
Macedonian Ministry of Health is drafting a more restrictive law on abortion in order to improve the population growth. Tighter
rules (e.g. asking approval of the male partner) would restrict women’s rights and might suggest a drawback for woman
emancipation in Macedonia.
So far, Macedonia has had a quite liberal abortion policy (Yugoslav legacy). The statistics by the Republic Institute for Health
Protection is not updated (circa 6,000 in 2006), but it still shows that abortions have been constantly diminishing in the last 20 years
(five times lower than at independence). The official data is also lacking estimates of the existent practice of illegally terminated
pregnancies and does not reflect the complexity of the problem.
For comparison, Slovenia, with an equal population rate of 2 million, is displaying similar abortion trends. Experts believe that
natality rate is not related to the abortion rate, as induced abortions are diminishing faster than natality is falling. Even the myth
that irresponsible young women abort the most is untrue. Rather, it is the socio-economic status of women which is to blame for
terminating a pregnancy.
Studies show that minority women have a higher rate of unintended pregnancies because of their marginalisation and
stigmatisation. Half of the Macedonian Roma women interviewed by the National Roma Centre have had one or more abortions.
The size of Roma families can be explained by poor use of contraceptives which in turn leads to high rates of abortions.
Who benefits from making abortion a highly-charged issue?
A negative aspect of banning abortions is the phenomenon of medical tourism - travelling to countries where abortion is easier to perform – which in the Macedonian case is difficult because of slim financial means and visa policy. The prohibition may lead women to seek illegal practices, where unsafe and risky quasi-medical interventions can even be life-threatening. As the praxis from other countries has shown, women can easier plan their pregnancies when the economic situation is favourable, i.e. with better employment chances, organised child care and an overall climate of well-being. These factors stimulate childbearing more than state-imposed rulings.
Anti-abortion groups have the right to express their views. Understandably, these views should not become hate speech towards the female population. The real question that should be posed is whether the new law can in reality favour the national interests or whether it will just discriminate women in an already highly patriarchal society. There is need to speak openly about these issues and to have a sound and balanced public debate.
Quick Facts: Macedonia 6,000 (Source: RZZZ); Slovenia 6,000 (Source: IVZ) World: 42 mio (in 2003); 19 mio performed illegally, 70,000 deaths (sos.se). Illegal in Malta, Ireland, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile…
Analytica, Thinking Laboratory
February 2009
The Abortion Debate - a heated and never-ending ethical debate
by Karmen Sumić, Residential Intern
Roughly speaking, there are two camps with two distinct conceptions on life. The pro-choice movement emphasizes the freedom of choice for women, while the prolife adherents wish primarily to protect the rights of the unborn child/foetus. There is strong correlation between the abortion issue and religion. Generally, abortion is preached as negative because it entails killing of a human being, yet many religious groupings concede for some exceptions. Abortion rights fall under the larger concept of reproductive rights, generally referred to as women’s rights, but these do not form part of the international human law. Abortion becomes a highly politicised term when the state starts interfering with abortion law reforms.
A New Abortion Law in Macedonia: A needed change?
Recently, there have been some street campaigns supporting the governmental strategy to award Macedonian women with at least
three children, which were in turn condemned by many pro-choice NGOs. Additional turmoil was caused by rumours that the
Macedonian Ministry of Health is drafting a more restrictive law on abortion in order to improve the population growth. Tighter
rules (e.g. asking approval of the male partner) would restrict women’s rights and might suggest a drawback for woman
emancipation in Macedonia.
So far, Macedonia has had a quite liberal abortion policy (Yugoslav legacy). The statistics by the Republic Institute for Health
Protection is not updated (circa 6,000 in 2006), but it still shows that abortions have been constantly diminishing in the last 20 years
(five times lower than at independence). The official data is also lacking estimates of the existent practice of illegally terminated
pregnancies and does not reflect the complexity of the problem.
For comparison, Slovenia, with an equal population rate of 2 million, is displaying similar abortion trends. Experts believe that
natality rate is not related to the abortion rate, as induced abortions are diminishing faster than natality is falling. Even the myth
that irresponsible young women abort the most is untrue. Rather, it is the socio-economic status of women which is to blame for
terminating a pregnancy.
Studies show that minority women have a higher rate of unintended pregnancies because of their marginalisation and
stigmatisation. Half of the Macedonian Roma women interviewed by the National Roma Centre have had one or more abortions.
The size of Roma families can be explained by poor use of contraceptives which in turn leads to high rates of abortions.
Who benefits from making abortion a highly-charged issue?
A negative aspect of banning abortions is the phenomenon of medical tourism - travelling to countries where abortion is easier to perform – which in the Macedonian case is difficult because of slim financial means and visa policy. The prohibition may lead women to seek illegal practices, where unsafe and risky quasi-medical interventions can even be life-threatening. As the praxis from other countries has shown, women can easier plan their pregnancies when the economic situation is favourable, i.e. with better employment chances, organised child care and an overall climate of well-being. These factors stimulate childbearing more than state-imposed rulings.
Anti-abortion groups have the right to express their views. Understandably, these views should not become hate speech towards the female population. The real question that should be posed is whether the new law can in reality favour the national interests or whether it will just discriminate women in an already highly patriarchal society. There is need to speak openly about these issues and to have a sound and balanced public debate.
Quick Facts: Macedonia 6,000 (Source: RZZZ); Slovenia 6,000 (Source: IVZ) World: 42 mio (in 2003); 19 mio performed illegally, 70,000 deaths (sos.se). Illegal in Malta, Ireland, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
