The largest Macedonian NGO for the monitoring of elections, MOST with over 3300 monitors will observe the 11 elections in FYROM. The head of this organization, Darko Aleksov said that preparations have started for the monitoring of the process of the preparation for the elections.
On the 18th of October, President Barack Obama met the Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi in Washington. The meeting started with a ceremony at the White House and a public speech of both leaders. After that, Obama hosted Renzi and other important Italian personalities for the last state dinner at the White House.
The two leaders strengthened their alliance and cooperation. Italy has been in Europe one of the major supporters of the free trade agreements proposed by the US and Canada, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). In exchange, the U.S. has supported the Italian position on the migratory crisis, arguing that EU countries should share responsibilities.
Moreover, Obama expressed its support to Italian reforms and criticized the economic policies of austerity undertaken by the EU institutions. The US President argued that the expansive economic measures adopted by his country in response to the crisis of 2007 were successfully implemented and the US recovered from the crisis. Conversely, the restrictive economic measures carried out by the EU authorities led to a long economic recession and social problems such as unemployment. In addition to that, Obama warned EU about the fact that the long economic crisis as well as the high level of unemployment have created the conditions for the birth of populism in many countries.
Undoubtedly, the US considers Italy as an important member of NATO alliance and a privileged interlocutor in the EU. Renzi, in his speech, assured the commitment of Italy in supporting the international coalition fighting in the Middle East against ISIS. Italy also allowed the U.S. to use Italian military bases to carry out air strikes in Libya, and few days ago the government accepted to participate to a NATO force in Eastern Europe.
Finally, it is also important to remark that the meeting took place approximately two months before the Italian constitutional referendum promoted by Matteo Renzi. As regards the referendum scheduled for the 4th of December, President Obama expressed his support for the constitutional reforms, as the US Ambassador in Italy did before him. On the one hand this support from the US strengthened the credibility of Renzi’s government on the international stage, but on the other hand the official stance of the US on the Italian referendum provoked criticism in Italy. In fact, many political parties against the constitutional reform defined the U.S. position as an interference in the domestic jurisdiction of a sovereign state.
The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump took place on the 26th of September. The event was held at the Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, at 9 p. m. The democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and the republican Donald Trump confronted in an heated debate over some important topics. This first debate was an opportunity for the Americans to know more about the political proposals and the personality of the two leaders. The presidential elections are scheduled for the 8th of November and the popularity of the candidates may be significantly influenced by their performance in the three presidential debates.
The debate lasted 90 minutes, and was divided into three main topic areas: achieving prosperity, America’s direction and securing America. As regards the first topic area, the candidates were asked to express their position on jobs. Clinton proposed to build an economy that works for everyone and not just for those at the top. She wants to create new jobs by investing in infrastructures, innovation, technology, clean renewable energy and small businesses. Furthermore, Hillary proposed to make the economy fairer by raising the national minimum wage, introducing earned sick days, paid family leaves, and free college. On the other hand, Donald Trump argued that the main problem related to jobs in the U.S. is that companies are fleeing the country. This happens because of the high taxes that they have to pay in the U.S. Then, the two candidates were asked to express their vision on taxes. Donald Trump affirmed that he would cut taxes on companies from 35% to 15%. In his opinion, this measure would attract companies in the country as well as creating new jobs. While Clinton expressed a different perspective on taxes. She said that her plan is to raise taxes on wealthy and cut taxes on small businesses and lower social classes. Her purpose is to create a more consistent middle class. At this point of the debate, Trump was asked to explain why he refused to release his tax returns. Even though it is not an obligation for candidates, it is a tradition followed by U.S. Presidents in order to promote financial transparency. He replied saying that he will release his tax returns when Hillary releases her emails.
Concerning the second area, America’s direction, the two candidates were asked to give their opinion about race relations in the country. Hillary Clinton said that the first challenge is to restore trust between the communities and the police. This goal requires a criminal justice reform and a restriction of the possibility to buy weapons. Conversely, Trump affirmed that he would bring back law and order in the country, empowering the police and using methods like the “Stop and frisk”. It is a practice used by the police officers in which they stop and question a pedestrian, then frisk him for weapons. However, Clinton argued that this method was declared unconstitutional.
Referring to the third area, securing America, the candidates were asked to talk about the issue of cyber attacks. Clinton said that cyber security will be one of the biggest challenges of the next President. She accused Russia of being responsible for one of the recent attacks to U.S. information. On the contrary, Trump affirmed that it is not sure that was Russia who stole the information. After that, they were asked to talk about the prevention of home grown terrorism and ISIS. On this topic Trump affirmed that ISIS is the result of the disaster made in the Middle East by the previous U.S. governments. He criticized a foreign policy based on military intervention and the NATO alliance, which requires a great economic contribution from the U.S. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton expressed her support to the foreign policy of President Obama, and she reminded the importance of NATO for the security of the U.S., as well as the others alliances and treaties that the U.S. signed with foreign countries.
At the end of the debate, a poll expressed a 62% of support for Hillary Clinton and a 27% of support for Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton appeared to the public much more prepared about her political program and at the same time she managed all Trump’s attacks by smiling and keeping calm. On the contrary Trump reacted to Hillary’s accuses in a much more spontaneous way, even raising his voice. The next debates between the two candidates, scheduled for the 9th and the 19th of October will be fundamental to known who will be the next President of the U.S.
Nice is the umpteenth terrorist attack in France. This Islamist offensive concerns all Europe. Within Paris attacks on January and November 2015, about 230 people were killed in the last one year and half. So, it’s indispensable to clarify why France became an ISIS recurring target and observe the French military interventionism.
[subscriptionform]
[level-european-affairs]
Excepting Iraq and Syria, France conducted its military operations in Africa in the last five years: Libya, Mali, Chad, Niger, Mauritania, Burkina Faso and Central African Republic. Colonialist past produce an effect on Hollande current foreign policy. 19,000 soldiers in all external operations, 10,000 troops in internal one (Operation Sentinel): nearly 30,000 French troops are active against terrorism and in several crisis contexts.
Air-bombs on Syria were the reaction after November 2015. At the same time, terrorist actions between January 2015 and July 2016 are not only an Islamist reaction headed by Daesh top brass. They hide a deep-rooted conflict which begins during the Postcolonialism in the 1950s.
Indeed, after the Second World War, a lot of French operations took place in Middle East and in former African colonies as Benin, Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Guinea or Djibouti. OAS (Organisation de l’armée secrète), PLF (Palestinian Liberation Front), Hezbollah, Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, ISIS: about 320 people killed by terrorism since 1950s.
Algerian question, Israel-Palestine conflict, French integration policy, Postcolonialism strategy are the most important reason of several terrorism attacks until 2000s. Now, the last two causes are interconnected with ISIS issue.
So, the fundamentalism becomes a social revenge of socially excluded young Muslims, how Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron told Canal Plus television after the Nov. 13 attacks in Paris: “Exclusion is a fact of life in France. I am not saying that this explains or excuses what has happened, but those young people who have been radicalized … often have no more faith in society.”
Giacomo Pratali
[/level-european-affairs]
This is the fifth part of the series “Athens: the crisis within the crisis” (click here).
In a corner of the Eleonas refugee camp, among the new barracks inhabited by newly arrived refugees, I met a young man from Syria. He shared his personal experience with the human consequences of geopolitics.
A refugee family
Ibrahim came towards me with his little cousin in a trolley. They were curious about me. Ibrahim was a former student who had to flee from his village in northern Syria. Ibrahim had stayed in Pireus Port for a long time before going to the Macedonian border, then staying for a long time by the border fence. I got the impression that he fled from Jihadists. Ibrahim and the family wish to reach Germany. The little girl misses her father, who left Syria three months earlier, and who is waiting for them in Germany.
The little girl wants her Mom, so we walk towards their barrack. Ibrahim delivers her, and we sit down to talk at the stairs. His friends show up, one of them with his little daughter. They tell me about their life in the camp, and I promise to write about it.
Before the war
Ibrahim misses the Syria that existed before the civil war. Then no-one asked if you were a Christian or a Moslem, a Sunni or an Alawite. “Al-arab wahid ashab” his friend says – he does not speak English, but tells in simple Arabic that all Arab-speakers are one people. We should not fight against each other. Another friend of Ibrahim has worked in Nabatieh in South Lebanon. I tell them that, in fact, I am on my way to Lebanon, to celebrate Resurrection and the Orthodox Easter. The young men wish me a good pilgrimage, and ask me to say hi to the Syrians in Beirut. One and half million refugees from Syria are sheltered in Lebanon, alongside four million Lebanese citizens, as well as several million stateless Palestinians.
The conflict back home
As with the Lebanese thirty years earlier, the Syrians have experienced sudden change from cultural pluralism to sectarian war. The diversity used to be exposed by the presence of various churches, mosques and historical monuments. The civil war, by contrast, pits brother against brother, worker against worker. Tactical alliances change swiftly for militias on the ground, while the strategic map shows four coalitions: the government with allies, the rebels spearheaded by Jihadists, the so-called Islamic State in the east, and the Kurdish democratic forces in the north. Here is scarce room for idealism. In sectarian war, you must shoot your neighbour before he shoots you – or get away. The UN has registered 6,6 million internally displaced persons, while 4,8 have fled the country.
The right to seek asylum
After reading the second article in this series, some of the refugees I had met send me an email. They attach photos of their barracks, most of them lacking air condition. In each barrack, several families live under the same tin roof, under the Greek summer sun. Also an employee sends an email, reporting that the electric supply has become more reliable, but that there is a lack of workforce. But most important of all, the refugees fear the deal between Turkey and the EU, about forced return of Syrian refugees.
Amnesty International claims that the EU-Turkey deal violates international human rights law. Syria certainly is unsafe, and Turkey is moving in the same direction with an Islamist president using Jihadists as proxy against secular leftist forces in the Kurdish areas of Turkey and Syria. The Turkish military always was hostile to Amnesty. But when Turkey and the EU made their deal, Amnesty protested against both.
Ibrahim expects to be deported within few days. The girl and her mother are in contact with the girl’s father, Ibrahim’s brother in law. He has obtained permit to stay in Germany, and contacted the German embassy in Athens, asking to reunite with his family. The German embassy told him to wait five months for a reply, but the Greek temporary residence permits for his family last only one month more. The asylum bureaucracy is overloaded – and hasty deportations prevent serious processing of the asylum applications.
Amnesty International has a petition against the EU-Turkey deal (click here).
EU extension of sanctions against Russia is only the last chapter of the Ukrainian crisis. As appeared in the latest months, the ceasefire between Kiev and sepatists looks like a band-aid.
[subscriptionform]
[level-european-affairs]
The EU ambassadors from the 28 member states approved on June 21 to prolong the sanctions against Moscow until 31 January 2017. Main justifications are two: annexation of Crimea and presence in Ukraine.
Despite it’s approved unanimously, a part of Western public opinion, but also Italy, Hungary and Greece do not shared this choice. Indeed, Russia is a strategic partner in Syria against Islamic State; but also from economical viewpoint, because of several European partnerships with Moscow.
Putin trip in China on June 22, come on the heels of European sanctions, demonstrated the will to find new economical and financial partners after more than two years of sanctions. As noted by Mark McNamee, Central and Eastern Europe analyst at Frontier Strategy Group at CNBC, “Strengthening energy ties with China and India would serve Putin’s geopolitical interests further, while also stealing market share from the Saudis. In economic terms, other than energy, Russia is unable to offer much of anything to China. Of far more importance is the political support Russia offers, regarding foreign policy matters at the United Nations, Group of 20 and other venues … China, naturally, is happy to have a useful ally as it seeks to reform the existing U.S.-led order to attain its geopolitical goals. ”
“It’s clear that for the changes to be made to the constitution, preliminary conditions must be met. Russian forces must be withdrawn from Ukraine,” Poroshenko told French television. While Moscow continues to turn down every charges.
Meanwhile, the ceasefire in Ukraine is falsely going on, as demonstrated by 3 Ukrainian soldiers killed on June 18 or by the dreadful video, reported by Daily Mail, which shows Ukrainian soldiers burying alive a sepatist. And the large number of tanks in Donbass means that civil war has not already finished.
So, after Minsk II, new talks are very necessary. Islamic issue and an updated fair-trade between EU and Russia are the two main questions for International Community.
Giacomo Pratali
[/level-european-affairs]
This is the second of five articles in the series “Athens: The Crisis Within the Crisis” (click here)
The people of Greece have found ways to care for themselves, when the state entered a welfare crisis, as a result of the financial crisis. This article series shows some striking examples of community self help among citizens in Athens, even involving migrants. While the Greek people have helped themselves, their government has been stuck in an impossible political game. What was the grand strategy?
[subscriptionform]
[level-european-affairs]
Solidaric citizens take responsibility
Some of the most striking community efforts are found in the hands-on efforts management of the migration crisis, where citizens and migrants combine old resources in innovative ways, covering basic needs without money, and thus, generating value. In our article series, we have documented two complimentary efforts, one directed by the Syriza government, another led by the Anarchist movement. In line with recent studies in economic anthropology, we have turned the attention to “the other side” of the crisis: how do common people, out of necessity, innovate alternative infrastructures and currencies, and how do they generate economic value from scratch? One may have hope in this grass roots political economy. This undergrowth spreads unnoticed, in the shadow of the elitist political economy, with its investors, governments, banks and treaties.
Irresponsible deals between banks and elites
While recognizing the grass roots political economy, one should also not forget the elitist political economy, because its failure has caused everyday suffering and practical problems. The middle class in Greece is striving to keep up their way of life. In this situation, some of my friends are establishing a family. The father has gained a full time job, which hardly covers their expenses, while the toddler is being looked after by his mother. She also re-schools herself to qualify for jobs with predictable payment, while the kid stays with his grandparents. As in most families, care work is done on a voluntary basis, mostly by women, also by retired or unemployed men. Informal economy covers welfare needs, and generates value – but not without costs. Common people in Greece ask the simple question of why they have to pay for the irresponsible deals between Greek elites and European banks. The reformist government was voted in power in order to keep the irresponsible parties responsible of their actions. Why did it fail?
Keeping peace with the Greek elites
Why did not the irresponsible elite in Greece pay for the economic crisis? Why did the reformist government refrain from a Robin Hood policy – stealing back what the rich had taken from the poor, in order to return it to the poor? One reason might be the need to maintain peace in a country where old people still remember civil war. When the reformist Syriza Party became the largest party, their election campaign was supported by a host of radical socialist and anarchist movements. These were known for spectacular street clashes with the special police force Delta. Most members of this police force voted for the fascist Golden Down Party, according to election research. The Fascists believe in the unity of the ethnic nation, while the Anarchists are loyal to the unity of the social class. Thus, the two movements suggest two opposing ways to overcome the destructive effects of financial capitalism. In both blocs, the activists have grandparents who risked their lives in civil strife during the World War II and after. In between these two blocs, it may have been difficult to be the Syriza Party: on the one hand, trying to be loyal to the socialist bloc, on the other hand, trying to avoid antagonizing the nationalist bloc. This may explain why the Syriza Party chose to create a coalition government with the conservative nationalist Anel Party. Perhaps this move prevented civil strife? Perhaps it also made it impossible to keep the old elite responsible of their corruption?
Keeping peace with the European banks
Why did not the irresponsible European banks pay for the economic crisis? During the negotiations about the debt crisis, the media attention was won by the Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, who looked like a rock star. But the power game was won by his German counterpart Wolfgang Schäuble, a hard liner. He demanded that the Greek tax payers should pay for the Greek debt crisis – against the suggestions from those who have tried this recipe before, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and former World Bank leader Joseph Stiglitz. These suggest more social liberal policies. From such a viewpoint it is rather absurd that the European Central Bank has a shared currency, the Euro, without any shared monetary policy, to counter low conjunctures. Instead of keeping the European and Greek elites responsible of their irresponsible money lending policies, the Greek tax payers are forced to pay. Drinking water is a basic human right, but the Greek government has been forced to sell this public service to private corporations based in Germany. Thus, the drinking water is no longer under democratic control. The policy making is left to a social darwinist principle of the survival-of-the-strongest – completely against the visions of Adam Smith, a founder of economic liberalism, who believed that the state should ensure equal opportunities for everyone. When the rule of the financial oligarchy is called “neoliberal”, then the language is counter-factual, and diverts attention away from the actual violence of the regime. Why could not minister Varoufakis and the IMF together turn the tide? Did they under-estimate the extremism of all the Schäubles who follow in the footsteps of Reagan and Thatcher – and Pinochet? When someone say “there is no alternative” to financial capitalism, then they actually refer to the Diktat of financial capital.
Is this a coup?
When the baby sleeps, his mother tells me that the solidarity movement talks positively about Merkel, it is not her, but Schäuble, that is seen as the enemy. When I ask her where the class struggle within Greece has gone, after the new government, she is positive about keeping the nation together. The young mother talks about civic “patriotism”, like the historical Republican movement in Latin Europe. During the Great Depression in the 1930s, a reformist Republican government was elected into power in Spain, but failed dramatically. Armed reaction from the nationalist bloc, combined with passive acceptance from liberal states, led to the Spanish Civil War. Of course, Greece in 2016 is a specific place and period, different from Spain in 1936. Nevertheless, one similarity is that in contemporary Greece, the reform movement gained governing position through a coalition between socialist parties and anarchist movements, similarly to the Republicans in Spain. However, one of the differences is that in contemporary Greece, the reformist socialist party chose to form a coalition government with a conservative nationalist party, whereas in historical Spain, the entire nationalist bloc became part of an armed reaction. Thus, with Spain during the Great Depression, the neighbouring liberal governments could sit passively and watch the Spanish Civil War. But in contemporary Greece, the reformist prime minister was forced by neighbouring liberal governments to sign “the third memorandum” – which implied that the Greek reform government had to surrender to all demands from the counterpart, even giving up democratic control over drinking water. “This is a coup!” was the shout from the socialist and anarchist movements. “The only progressive action today is to bleed”, prime minister Alexis Tsipras said recently. The good news is that even though the Syriza Party has failed, it nevertheless failed much less dramatically than others.
Helge Hiram Jensen
[/level-european-affairs]
A new ceasefire (repeatedly violated), as in 1994, but not a peace treaty. It’s the current situation concerning Nagorno-Karabakh, which is involving not only the two principal players, Armenia and Azerbaijan, but also Russia, Turkey, United States and France from a diplomatic viewpoint.
[subscriptionform]
[level-european-affairs]
The ceasefire on April 5 is barely standing. The largest escalation of cruelty since 1994 is staggering. And the last Armenian government approval of a draft bill recognizing the Nagorno-Karabakh region’s independence is meddling negotiation on Nagorno-Karabakh war, mediated by OSCE Minsk Group and chaired by United States, Russia and France.
Beyond military perspective, several diplomatic works are very recurring during the last months. From meeting between Russian president Dmitri Medvedev with Armenian and Azerbaijan heads and summit between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian foreign minister Sergej Lavrov, up till talks between Istanbul and Baku.
A lot of geopolitical perspectives are crossing. For example, peace talks are influenced by awful relationships between Turkey and Russia, which accused Istanbul of supplying weapons to Azerbaijan army. This context is almost neutralizing OSCE efforts. So diplomatic works are producing little progresses.
The charge that Azerbaijani forces have violated the ceasefire in the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh early on April 4 from Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Defense minister show that Baku strategy is working. Indeed, Azerbaijan is attracting international attetion to reach a positive deal. On the other hand, Armenia wants to maintain this regional order and shouldn’t want to make too many concessions under Russian and OSCE pressure.
Other geopolitic crisis could cause a reduction of international attention on Nagorno-Karabakh. This could mean that Russia and, in a part, Turkey could not be interested to change actual situation and continue to influence the Caucasus region.
Giacomo Pratali
[/level-european-affairs]
How confirmed in the last weeks, the real Libyan conflict is between GNA and HoR, which didn’t still ratified UN government. Behind this impasse there is General Khalifa Haftar, very well-liked by Egypt and EAU through weapons supply in the war against Islamic State. And, while France partecipated to G5 meeting in Hannover with Germany, Italy, United Kingdom and United States and discussed about Libya crisis, on the other hand Paris is supporting Egypt to extend its sphere of influence on Cyrenaica and its oil well.
[subscriptionform]
[level-european-affairs]
After that workers at the Marsa el-Hariga terminal had refused to load the shipment which should have to export 650,000 barrels of oil on April 22, Libyan crisis is becoming always more complicated. It’s clear that Tobruk government is trying to control oil well. “This had the potential to be a very ugly incident and I am pleased that it has been resolved peacefully without injury to anybody or loss of revenue or damage to the integrity of NOC or the country,” Tripoli-based Chairman Mustafa Sanalla said.
Not only from oil viewpoint, but also from military one. After that Shura Council pushed out Islamic State fighters from Derna, Hafeth al-Dabaa, a spokesman for Derna Mujahideen Shura Council (DMSC), told the BBC that Haftar didn’t freed the city but its warplanes targeted Islamic revolutionaries. And, with LNA, is moving towards Sirte, the Daesh stronghold in Libya.
The Serraj request to support his government to international community especially reguards Haftar. UN support on April 28, when it blocked illicit crude sale towards Malta, could be not enough.
Indeed, Egypt and EAU are directly supporting Tobruk and Haftar. The purpose is to come first to Sirte and defeat Islamic State. Supported by Al Sisi, the General is aiming to become the leader of Libya.
So, French participation to G5 about Libya and the contemporary weapons supply to Egypt are complicating Libyan context. And, above all, the role of Western countries.
Therefore, Libya’s U.N.-backed unity government called on Thursday was necessary to stop all military actions against Islamic State: “In the absence of coordination and unified leadership … the Council expresses its concern that the battle in Sirte against Daesh (Islamic State) will be a confrontation between those armed forces. Accordingly, the Presidential Council, as the supreme commander of army, demands all Libyan military forces wait for it to appoint a joint leadership for the Sirte operation,” the statement said.
Giacomo Pratali
[/level-european-affairs]
Eunavfor Med is ready for the operational phase B2. The war against the traffickers in the Mediterranean will be fought in Libyan territorial waters, «but many political and legal challenges must be solved before we can recommend this transition», says Admiral Enrico Credendino, head of the European mission. Critical issues depends on the failure of the executive of national unity, without which the United Nations can’t authorize the arrest of traffickers and the destruction of the means directly on the ground. On 7 October 2015, the European Parliament announced the strengthening of military missions in the Mediterranean, aiming to board, search and seizure the boats used by the smugglers. While the December signing in Morocco between some members of the Libyan social and political life for the formation of an executive of national unity turned out to be illusory, the head of mission of the United Nations Support (Unsmil), Martin Kobler, has welcomed the release of the establishment of the national unity government approved by the majority of the Libyan Parliament. But this announcement is not official. Waiting for a political stability that averts the threat of Daesh and legitimate EuNavFor Med to a local remedial action aimed to stop the migratory hemorrhage destabilizing Europe, the mission remains temporarily “suspended” at the stage 2, that of the war against smugglers within 12 miles nautical from the Libyan coast. Although the international community supports the prime minister Fayez Al Sarraj, received in Italy by Matteo Renzi, the situation becomes critical. France, America and Britain could intervene with future air strikes against Isis bases in Libya, favored by the current institutional chaos. The Foreign Italian Minister Paolo Gentiloni reiterates the urgency of the national government, and focuses on joint fight against terrorism. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Pierferdinando Casini, shares the same opinion, and declares that «The attack on 7 January in Zlitan against a police training center is part of the Islamic State strategy to postpone the settlement of the national unity executive agreed between the parties and the UN». Without a government internationally recognized, Eunavfor Med is designed to stall. The command of the mission, however, suggests a future move to Stage 3, with operations even on the coast, in collaboration with the Libyan forces. The identification of objectives is necessary, to solve the intelligence gap on the smugglers’ business model. According Credendino, «When the stage 2B and 3 will start, other missions will be sponsored by the international community. Therefore the activities of EuNavFor Med and other operations should be coordinated in order to mitigate the risk of fratricide. The European operation’s mandate should be extended for the formation and training of the Libyan coast guard». The third step, which has not yet received the EU green light, would actually be the most effective, because the majority of the smugglers operate in Libyan waters. But as the Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni affirms, «The UN Security Council can’t authorize an intervention without an express Libyan request». As for the results actually achieved, the mission has contributed to the arrest of 46 traffickers and to the destruction of 67 boats. 14 European countries are participating in EuNavFor Med: Italy, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Slovenia, Greece, Luxembourg, Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Sweden. Currently, six European warships are engaged offshore Libya: an Italian one, an English one, a French one, a Spanish one and two German, but other ships should be made available from England, Belgium and Slovenia. Four helicopters, many drones and 1300 military will be added to these. The costs of military intervention – apart from an annually European contribution of 12 million Euros – are supported by the individual participating countries. Italy has contributed to the mission with a budget of 26 million euro and 1.020 soldiers.
Viviana Passalacqua