Speech for the EPP hearing - November 13 -2008

 

For the ppt presentation please press here

 

 

SLIDE 1

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to make very clear two points during this presentation

One -we need to start looking seriously at bad practices and shortcomings– as those are rather the majority than exception –if not as it seems we Europeans are quite slow to learn from history we will get an exciting opportunity to do it wrongly all over again

Second – we always want to talk about Roma issues and sensitive minority issues in general TOMORROW-tomorrow has a very ugly habit to materialise itself and haunt us.

 

SLIDE 2

In 1999 the EU during the Finish presidency starts to take the issue of Roma more seriously. Immigration scares following pending EU enlargement and signals of possible explosion of violence against Roma as those witnessed in the beginnings of 1990 ties triggers a first mentioning of Roma in the Council of the European Union.

Not much happened.

At the beginning  of 2004 the then Commissioner of DG Employment and Social Affairs Diamantopolu and the director general Odile Quintan were explicit in favour of a EU Roma Policy. The violent incidents in Slovakia in 2004, the open and cheered anti-Gypsyism in Eastern Europe at that time and the explosion of racist attacks in the UK and Italian mass media focused on a possible Gypsy invasion seemed to be serious enough reasons to force a reaction of the European Union.

In April 2004 the EC organised the highest level conference on Roma. Odile Quintan standing for the Commissioner said – read the slide.

Again not much happened.

The cycle repeats again this time is the case of Italy. In fact what happened in Italy in 2007 and 2008 happened also in 2001 and then 2003, 2004 and 2005. Those of you who have doubts can see the document on Italy I prepared.

All what I said up to this moment is an argument for two things 

SLIDE 3

Opportunities 

We are at this moment the closest stakeholders ever been to a consensus of a need for a EU Roma Policy

The European Parliament mentioned in the last 2 years in 5 different resolution the need for a EU Roma Policy. Both Socialists and EPP organised meetings focused on the topic

Member States – Minister of Foreign Affairs of Netherlands less than a week ago said “A recent article in The Economist quoted a Brussels official who said, ‘We don’t lack the laws and we don’t lack the money. The problem is political will.’ If it depends on me, the problem will not be political will.”  It is quite clear it is not a problem of political will for practically all countries with a significant Roma population and many others.

European Union Council – the Council mentioned twice in a row Roma in its conclusion clearly signalling political will to address the situation.

Civil society – there is a overwhelming consensus that such a EU Roma Policy is needed. Practically all reports commissioned by the EC since 2003 which touched the Roma issue clearly recommended a EU Roma Policy.

European Commission – it seems it is reluctant in getting too involved in a rather sensitive topic but undoubtedly argues for a change in the existing situation.

SLIDE 4

Benefits of a EU Roma Policy 

I will not spell out the very obvious but rather those which we rarely ever talk about

1. Long term, coherent and measurable strategy

EU spends an important amount of money on Roma ( around 100 million per year) which is not enough but still a very good thing. Unfortunately it does so without a long term strategy or vision and without indicators therefore we are incapable of saying if there is impact or not. A EU Policy could solve these issues.

2. Balance the rights and responsibilities aspects of social inclusion policies targeting the EU Roma Citizens.

We can finally be able to move the discussion into the middle and constructive area. By constructive I do not mean exaggerated reporting or diplomatic niceties but critical constructive approach which to bridge the existing dichotomies.   At this moment we have a ping pong discussion where populist politicians and majority populations focus on the responsibilities of Roma and Roma NGOs and Roma activists focus only on rights.

These translates as urgent indisputable requirements like: Roma need to change their culture, need to put their children to school, need to wash , need to stop being a criminal lot, need to be kept outside our cities, need to be sterilized on one side and on the other the majorities need to give us rights, money, access to high level jobs , freedom to do whatever we want to do etc.

 

The discussion never goes in the middle. We Roma, never talk about our responsibilities to act against children trafficking, domestic violence, criminality, playing a role in the society at large while the majority discourse never mention rampant anti-Gypsyism, the need of fair representativeness, the abuses against us, the educational  systems which either marginalize or ignore Roma, the need of affirmative action

 

A EU Roma policy could give us this much needed chance to have discussions rather than monologues.

3. Make explicit the costs of social inclusion for EU, national governments but also the Roma

Social Inclusion costs. The cheap inclusion of Roma as it is the case now backfires as it maintains the socio-economical gap. But there should be clear costs not only for the national governments and the European Union but also for Roma. What we as Roma need to contribute in order to achieve social inclusion should be included in such EU Policy.

4. Fix the mess we are in regarding Roma Human Resources

There is simply not enough people and the few of the good existing Human Resources are very far from being in the right positions. A EU Policy could solve this issue through a Human Resources Operational Plan focused on Roma at the EU level.

5. Help the development of Roma NGOs

Rethink funding in general and NGOs funding in particular. Without a clear strategy supported by dedicated funding there are limited chances for a sustainable impact. On NGOs funding we recommend the following three distinct directions

 

a.       Social contractors NGOs (NGOs which implement projects) - their funding should be linked  to creation of human resources from within the Roma communities in addition to the existing and needed Roma NGO involvement in experimenting and implementing policies targeting social inclusion of Roma.

 

b.      Long term financing of watch dogs and think tanks capable to keep in check rampant anti-Gypsyism and able to monitor the performance of both social contractors and governments- this organisations should also have a distinct inbuilt human resources component.

 

c.       Main funding should go towards NGOs targeting empowerment and grassroots development. These NGOs should be strongly backed up politically and stimulated to start addressing the issues related to begging, trafficking, child abuse, violence and criminality within the Roma communities as well as active citizenship.

6. Reach coordination among members states and Intergovernmental Organisations

7. Address the discrepancies between the Copenhagen Criteria and what is happening nowadays within the EU

SLIDE 5

Risks –nothing changes

1. Social exclusion travels  and increases security risks

Blocking access of Roma in Italy will solve nothing. Social exclusion will travel

2. Ambiguity and limited impact

Words without meaning – social inclusion of Roma, progress, mainstreaming, flexicurity, indicators, strategy.

3. Piece-meal projects – focus on cheap inclusion

4. Reduced or no active citizenship on behalf of Roma

5. Progress measured in often exaggerated and copy/paste reports

6. Almost complete lack of self criticism or constructive criticism and avoidance of sensitive issues

SLIDE 6

1. Window dressing changes

By that I understand changes with no substance such as informal taskforces or interservice groups which to meet once every three months for 3 hours , or great speeches and reports.

2. Europenisation of the issue

Member states passing responsibilities to the EU and loosening of the national citizenship concept for Roma

3. Done without Roma or only with Roma

Both are radical approaches. The EC can not justify doing Roma policies without Roma as Roma NGOs can not justify excluding non-Roma from their activities.

4. Focus on destructive criticism or diplomatic reporting from stakeholders

The ping pong extremes I already mentioned

5. Fast results oriented and lack of long term vision or commitment

More projects and less vision. Focus on immediate results which to justify spending is a danger

6. Almost complete lack of self criticism or constructive criticism and avoidance of sensitive issues

The Staff Working Paper of the EC has repeatedly criticised for lack of self criticism. A EU Roma Policy needs to take in account failures.

SLIDE 7

1. A constructive approach

2. A serious, harsh self evaluation of stakeholders focused on failures which to permit much needed reviews

3. Long term investment in putting such a EU Roma Policy together based on strong support at the national level

4. Long term strategy based on small steps which to lead at the end to the effective mainstreaming of Roma issues in EU and national policies

5. Rethinking affirmative action and courage on behalf of stakeholders in being the first taking the risks to experiment such affirmative action measures

 SLIDE 8

Here is what I believe  we need

1. Courage, Respect  and Clarity

Courage to admit we were or are wrong and we need to make changes in the way we do things, respect in order to accept and use criticism, clarity in order to avoid the existing ambiguities in the discources.

2. Grassroots involvement and active citizenship

3. Constructive criticism and long term coherent and well financed planning