Europe's anti-Roma racism (EN)

Traditionally strongest in Central Europe (plenty of nasty examples from recent history in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic etc.), the anti-Roma racism has rapidly spread in Western Europe since the EU enlargement. I pass on France's forced expulsion of Roma (EC Vice-president V. Reding said it all when she compared it to anti-Jewish persecutions during WW II), to focus just on the recent case in Greece that sparked a new wave of hysteria across Europe.

Greek authorities find a blonde girl ("the blond angel") in a Roma family, and suspect she may be abducted. DNA tests confirm that she is not the biological offspring of her so-called parents. While they offer a story of informal adoption, they are put in jail and much of Europe is frantically looking for the real parents ("she looks Scandinavian" is the dominant opinion). Ancestral myths of children abductions by the Roma are revived. In Ireland, a blonde girl is taken away by authorities from her Roma family, only to be returned later when DNA tests confirm that she is indeed from that family (well, yes, there are blond Roma children occasionally, as can be easily checked in many Roma communities).
The cases multiply, and note what crude racial profiling is sufficient to trigger police action:
"The police seized the girl after receiving a tip about a blonde-haired, blue-eyed child who looked nothing like her family, the Sunday World reports." 


Eventually, the biological parents of the "blond angel" found in Greece are identified in Bulgaria, and confirmed by DNA tests. They are, well, dark-skinned Roma themselves; and they confirm the informal adoption story (true, the Roma are not so good with the paperwork).

So what will happen now? Will the Greek Roma family be released from prison, with apologies and perhaps some compensation? Will they be allowed to keep the little girl whom they raised as their daughter?

My guess is different:

A wake-up call (EN)

The shocking decision to impose a 'tax' on bank depositors in Cyprus will only reveal its full consequences in the coming days and weeks. The signs so far are ominous; bank runs and social unrest in the coming period cannot be ruled out.

But whatever happens, one thing is already clear: that the North/South, Centre/Periphery cleavage in the Eurozone and in the EU at large has become irreversible, a point of no return has been reached. It is no longer taboo to force periphery governments to bypass democracy, break their promises and even their countries' law, if the powerful creditors so desire. The existence of second-class countries in the EU, for long an unspoken reality, has been officially formalised. And, with it, the end of the EU as we once knew it.

Incidentally, the measure may be as stupid as it is abusive. But even if it works, by some miracle and against the evidence of EU-imposed policies so far in its Southern rim, the harm of breaking the promise of a united Europe made of equal citizens is already done.

Out of a sense of historical justice, I would be tempted to wish that countries who are now forcing Cyprus into this legalised theft of its citizens' savings would one day live through such an experience themselves. But no, this would be wrong in any circumstance, and two wrongs don't make a right. I don't wish any citizen of any country to face a situation of being robbed outright by his or her own government. As one who lived under a totalitarian regime, I know well the feeling of frustration and disempowerment that such arbitrariness can bring, and how big a blow it can be to citizenship and basic human dignity.

For Romania, a periphery country itself and chronically treated as second-class within the EU - largely due to a corrupt, self-interested political class - this should be a last-chance wake-up call.

Dosarul Schengen - mize si incordari (RO)

Subiectul aderarii la Acordul Schengen incinge din nou, in aceste zile, coabitarea politica damboviteana. Diferenta fata de precedentele esecuri pe aceeasi tema este schimbarea de roluri: daca in 2011 presedintele Basescu era cel care propunea realocarea banilor pentru securizarea frontierelor spre alte domenii si autoritatile se razboiau cu florile olandeze, iar anul trecut pe vremea asta puterea portocalie obstructiona Serbia cu bataie pe Schengen, acum guvernul USL - sustinut de o majoritate zdrobitoare in parlament - isi incordeaza muschii in fata Occidentului, in timp ce basistii critica prestatia puterii.

In ambele ipostaze, avem de-a face cu acelasi simptom, chiar daca actorii au fost re-distribuiti: vorbim de slabiciunea pozitiei externe a Romaniei (un tratament similar aplicat, sa zicem, Poloniei sau Cehiei ar fi greu de imaginat), combinata cu incapacitatea cronica a clasei politice de a se abtine de la demagogie si de a actiona unitar si disciplinat in chestiuni care tin de interesul national. Totul, pe fondul unei deteriorari generale a climatului european in chestiunea liberei circulatii (si nu numai), despre care am scris deja de mai multe ori.

Ce ar fi, totusi, de facut? Si cum poate fi judecata pozitia guvernului Ponta?

"DeBasificarea justitiei"? Nu, multumesc. (RO)

In contextul noului asalt politic asupra Justitiei, se vorbeste despre "debasificarea" ei, in sensul eliminarii unor sustinatori ai lui Basescu din conducerea institutiilor-cheie: CSM, Parchetul General, DNA.

Am fost si raman un critic acerb al lui Basescu, al sistemului de putere pe care l-a construit in ultimii ani, al felului in care si-a impus controlul asupra multor institutii ale statului, sau le-a subminat si marginalizat pe cele pe care nu le-a putut controla cu usurinta. Accept si premisa - destul de usor de sustinut cu argumente - ca influenta basista persista in unele structuri, inclusiv in Justitie. Este greu de ignorat cum, la apogeul confruntarilor politice din 2012, Parchetul a parut sa-si ia instructiunile din unele declaratii publice venite de la Basescu sau de la Monica Macovei.

Daca chestiunea "debasificarii Justitiei" s-ar fi pus anul trecut, n-as fi avut rezerve in a o sustine.
Sa nu uitam, dupa semi-esecul referendumului de demitere a lui Basescu (vot coplesitor pentru demitere, dar referendum nevalidat), alternanta democratica la putere a fost in real pericol. Jocul de poker al USL-ului cu demiterea presedintelui (despre care mi-am exprimat parerea la momentul respectiv) a dat apa la moara basistilor, dandu-le ocazia sa pozeze in - culmea ironiei! - aparatori ai statului de drept. Tabara basista, pentru un timp, a parut sa-si recapete partial suflul politic. Pana acolo incat Basescu a gasit tupeul sa declare ca este pregatit sa ignore inca o data votul electoratului la alegerile parlamentare, anuntand ca va refuza sa nominalizeze candidatul aliantei castigatoare la postul de prim-ministru.

Intr-un astfel de context, cu un Basescu hotarat sa se agate de putere chiar in lipsa oricarei legitimitati populare, amenintand fatis cu repetarea manevrelor anti-constitutionale din toamna lui 2009 (cand a impiedicat o majoritate parlamentara legitima sa acceada la guvernare) si in mod evident dispus sa faca uz de influenta subterana pe care o putea exercita asupra institutiilor de stat (vorbim nu doar de 'activarea' unor sustinatori infitrati politic in diferitele institutii, ci si, intre altele, de santajul unor oameni vulnerabili cu dosare furnizate de serviciile secrete - formula bine rodata de Basescu in ultimii ani), o operatiune de curatire a Justitiei de pionii otraviti care raspundeau la ordinele Cotrocenilor putea fi o idee buna. Era vorba, in fond, de o chestiune de viata si de moarte pentru democratia romaneasca - salvarea principiului ca ajungerea la putere si pastrarea puterii se decid prin votul popular la alegeri. Pentru un timp in 2012, masinaria puterii basiste a parut capabila sa rastoarne chiar acest element fundamental al libertatii noastre de dupa 1989 (asa cum deja o facuse, poate nu chiar atat de flagrant, in 2009). Scenariul puterii basiste rezistand impotriva votului popular cu ajutorul serviciilor secrete si al Justitiei infiltrate politic era intr-adevar unul de cosmar, pentru evitarea caruia "debasificarea Justitiei" putea fi un raspuns. Desigur, ramanea de vazut ce ar fi putut face USL-ul concret, fara a forta regulile jocului ca la tentativa esuata de a-l demite pe Basescu.

Dar ce inseamna "debasificarea Justitiei" acum, in 2013?

2012: un bilant (RO)

Anul care a trecut cred ca va ramane in istoria democratiei romanesti ca anul unei necesare schimbari de putere, dar si al zguduirii din temelii a subredei ordini institutionale a Romaniei post-comuniste. In 2013, urgenta ar trebui sa fie reconstructia solida si credibila a institutiilor democratice afectate de criza politica din ultimii ani, in particular de puseul din vara anului trecut. Fara o astfel de reconstructie, s-ar putea sa nu mai ramana nimic in picioare la urmatoarea viitura a vandalismului politic. Din pacate, nu vom putea conta pe clasa noastra politica pentru asta - ca de obicei, pare sa aiba cu totul alte prioritati.

Mai pe larg: