(Almost) Perfectly Equipped European Failures – The Case of Roma

by Valeriu Nicolae

 Missed Opportunities

1. A Commissioner for ethnic and religious minorities

Background:

Few analysts challenge the idea that the main social problems and a significant part of the economic problems in Europe stem from tensions related to extreme nationalism, social exclusion and racism against different ethnic and religious groups. However, the well-documented ethnic and religious tensions in ex-Yugoslavia, Turkey , Spain , France , the UK , Cyprus , the Baltic Countries and Transnistria are not necessarily the most serious issues. The riots in February 2004 in Slovakia involving the Roma population in Eastern Slovakia resulted in the largest deployment of army troops since the Second World War and had many commonalities with the riots in the autumn of 2005 in France . The fact that Roma continue to be the most rejected European ethnic minority, according to polls in EU member states, should be a serious reason for concern not just in speeches but also in the actions of the EU institutions.

The Commission often publicly complains that in the case of ethnic and religious exclusion, racism and discrimination, member states need to do much more but are reluctant to do so. At the same time, there is no clear cut portfolio within any DG, or even a Unit within the European Commission, to work on these issues, although there are units dealing with gender, disability and sports issues.

The Commission puts a considerable amount of money and human effort towards combating gender and disability discrimination.[1] It places the rights of the child high on its agenda. But, comparatively from a financial and human resources point a view, the European Commission addresses discrimination on ethnic and religious grounds only marginally.

Anti-Gypsyism, as well as anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, are rampant and deeply ingrained in Romanian and Bulgarian society.[2] Extremist parties are flourishing in both countries: Ataka[3] and Romania Mare[4] are well represented in the national parliaments. Hate speech as well as violent attacks against ethnic and religious minorities are still often reported. Together the two countries almost doubled the number of Roma in the European Union and brought a significant Islamic minority within the borders of the European Union.

Commission reports of 2005 for Bulgaria and Romania included a phrase that was both unprecedented and non-typical in the usual indirect and diplomatic language of the EC: “The Bulgarian/Romanian authorities should demonstrate, at all levels, that the country applies a zero-tolerance policy on racism against Roma or against any other minority or group and that this policy is effectively implemented.”

In late 2005 and during 2006 we witnessed tens of incidents proving that the zero-tolerance policy was far from being implemented by governments in both Bucharest and Sofia . In fact, flagrant violations of this policy were far from isolated incidents as we witnessed Anti-Gypsyism in the stadiums, on the political scene and in mass media[5].

The last report on Romania in 2006 included a reference to decreasing “institutional discrimination and violence against Roma”. The Bulgarian report said the same thing but with a more ambiguous wording. It would be a serious stretch of imagination to believe that Romania or Bulgaria would have been allowed to join the European Union if any level of “institutional discrimination and violence against French, German or British nationals (for example)” existed, even if it was reported to be on the decrease..

With the notable exception of discrimination, racism and violence against Roma and minorities, each of the other main concerns of the European Commission (justice/corruption, agriculture, competition) is directly under the control and monitoring of a Commissioner and at least a few dedicated units work on these issues.

Since the Constitutional fiasco in France and the Netherlands in 2005, the Commission has talked about ways to reconnect to its citizens. The Economist, in its “Charlemagne” articles, had often underlined the need of the European Commission to make itself better known and address issues that matter most for the average European citizen.

The quite insipid new portfolios allocated for Bulgaria (Consumer protection) and Romania (Multilingualism) hardly do anything in that direction. It would have seemed logical that at least one of the two new Commissioners receive a portfolio linked to ethnic and religious minorities.

On November 15, 2006, the leader of the European Socialists in the European Parliament, Mr Martin Schulz, strongly criticized the decision of the Commission to give the Romanian Commissioner the portfolio of multilingualism, describing it as “skimpy,” and proposed instead a portfolio for minorities. The Commission chose to ignore this recommendation.

In theory, the Commission has no political allegiances, but in practice the Commissioners are very careful to preserve their political support in their countries[6]. Tackling issues related to racism, exclusion and discrimination has proven to be sensitive in the past, as a significant percentage of the European electors still struggle with racist and xenophobic prejudices. The European Commission seems to follow the political lead and has taken an indirect approach to tackling ethnic and religious discrimination. The Commission rarely seems prepared to take a strong stand in this area.

These factors seem to signal that the European Union is reluctant to seriously tackle issues related to ethnic and religious minorities despite all signals saying it should do otherwise.

The Commission had a great opportunity to name a Commissioner on ethnic and religious minorities at the end of 2006. The next such opportunity will come only in 2009.