Regarding ‘EU Kosovo mission up in the air’:

I would like to bring to your attention an item that may be of interest you in light of your recent article. As far as I know there has been no reporting on this in a European context, even though it raises serious questions about the ‘EULEX’ mission in Kosovo and its director, Pieter Feith.

As you know, Ban Ki-moon has said that the UN will continue its role in Kosovo under Resolution 1244 until a new Resolution says otherwise. Of course, there will not be a new Resolution, since the Russians and Chinese will block anything that suggests the UN is handing over to EULEX and the Albanians.

Meanwhile, there have been a number of media references to a June 15 date for the UN to transfer functions to the EU and Albanians, because that’s the date that the new ‘Kosovo constitution’ comes into effect.

Who’s been touting this date? It turns out: Pieter Feith, the EU’s representative there and the head of the EULEX mission (which Serbia rejects as an illegal presence on its territory).

One should especially note the following comments made in an interviewexternal : “This [Kosovo] is an independent, sovereign state, recognised by more than 30 of the most important democracies and economies in the world. We do not see it as a helpful proposition that the sovereignty of Kosovo would be impaired in a way as we see now.”

Yes, the EU, as an organisation, did authorise the sending of EULEX. HOWEVER, as far as I know, the EU itself does NOT have a unified position that Kosovo is an “independent, sovereign state” as per Mr. Feith’s statement – though the majority of individual EU countries do (and others don’t).

The question is, who authorised him to talk as if this is the EU’s position? He represents the EU there, not the Netherlands. Even if this is his private opinion, or his own government’s, it seems to me he’s way over the line with respect to the EU, much less telling the UN when its mandate is over.

Jim Jatras

Director

American Council for Kosovoexternal

Washington

Regarding ‘Vote for police reform brings Bosnia closer to EU’:

As one of my favorite news sites I just couldn’t ignore the misuse of the term ‘Muslims’ when you referred to the Bosniaks as one of the native ethnic groups or peoples in Bosnia. That pseudo-ethnic and religious term is very deceptive in the context of the Balkan politics, particularly when it is applied to the historically legitimate ethnic group, namely the Bosniaks.

It is a fundamental mistake to equate religion with ethnicity. Unfortunately, we Bosniaks are constantly referred to as “Muslims” or “Bosnian Muslims”. Sadly, that is the same religious, quasi-denominational ethnic terminology – “Muslims” – as the Serbian nationalistic rhetoric used and still does use when referring to the Bosniaks, instead of the proper ethnic term “Bosniaks” for this distinct ethnic group or people.

Bosniaks – along with the Serbs and Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina – have their own distinct language, culture and history. Referring to them as Muslim is not only imprecise, it denies them their existence as an ethnic group altogether. While this may seem like a trifling distinction to the general reader, it is important to note that this imprecision has been intentionally exploited to commit acts of genocide against ethnic Bosniaks (see the February 2007 official judgement by the International Court of Justice at The Hague). Calling Bosniaks “Muslims” was specifically designed by Serbian nationalists to lessen the sympathy other Europeans might feel for the plight of a “non-European” people.

The fact that an entire national, ethic group is named and labelled as a religious group especially in the complex, often xenophobic and competing web of the Balkan nationalist politics, has a negative echo and has been and is still being used as a justification for war, war crimes and acts of genocide.

The Columbia Encyclopedia says of Bosnia and Herzegovina: “The ethnically diverse population speaks Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian (all dialects of Serbo-Croatian). The country’s Bosniaks (about 48%, mainly Muslim), Serbs (about 37% of the population, largely Eastern Orthodox), and Croats (about 14%, mostly Roman Catholics) formerly formed a complex patchwork, but civil war and the flight of refugees forcibly segregated much of the population.”

This distinction is very important to us.

Regards,

Mesha Dzinovic

EventLink, Inc.

New York

Regarding ‘ICT sector to monitor its own C02 emissions’:

ICT needs to be considered as a conglomerate of technologies, which have not all taken the required measures to speed up energy efficiency. It is very important to consider those which already introduced initiatives 10 years ago versus Datacenters, for example, which are struggling with high energy consumption (mostly due to cooling).

I would like to invite you to read an articleexternal I contributed, which will tell you little bit more about what we have done at Ericsson (PDF version herePdf external ).

Patrick Le Fevre

Ericsson

To complement your LinksDossier on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, I would like to draw your attention to the prospects offered by the election of a new US President in November and the advent of a new US administration as of January 20, 2009.

As you will not have failed to notice, the Republican candidate, John McCain, as well as both the Democratic hopefuls, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have made very clear statements about the need to tackle climate change head on.

In a recent policy paperexternal entitled “Clinton, McCain, Obama – Europe’s Best Hope for Climate Change?” (also available in FrenchPdf external ), I in fact argue that Europe has a unique chance with the three candidates to take international climate negotiations forward. All three have committed to bold emissions reductions targets, to full auctioning of permits, and to broad coverage of a prospective emissions scheme, both in terms of industries and gases.

The climate – no pun intended – in the United States has much improved. Public opinion polls show concern over global warming is on a par with European levels. Business has called for government action, and key positions in Congress are held by advocates of legislative changes.

In fact, Congress is currently examining “America’s Climate Security Act,” introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner on 18 October 2007, which many have heralded for its bipartisan co-sponsorship. Thus legislation is being examined in parallel on both sides of the Atlantic. This, and the presidential campaign, offer a unique but fleeting opportunity for Europe to help shape a future global treaty with the United States by the end of 2009. The challenge, beyond the inherent uncertainty of the election outcome, are the potential dynamics between the US and the EU plans on the one hand, and international negotiations on the other.

Both the EU and the US plans have real weaknesses. In some respects, the US plans are more ambitious than the EU’s, and vice versa. Also, not all is green in DC. The insistence on getting the BRICs and other developing countries to sign up to clear emissions reduction targets may again derail, or at least seriously delay, an international agreement, as it did in 1997.

China demonstrated in Bali in December that it is ready to play a more constructive role. However, transforming these tentative signals into actual endorsement of an international treaty will require great diplomacy. The EU and the US should engage jointly in discussions with all major emitters with an open mind and not talk unwisely or prematurely of “border adjustments” and tariffs on imported goods from countries without carbon pricing.

In a context of economic difficulties, there could thus be a tendency to look on the other side of the Atlantic and find arguments for lowering standards where the other option appears less demanding. The opposite should happen.

European governments, EU policymakers, business, and EU NGOs and think tanks should all follow US developments closely, drawing inspiration on aspects where the United States is ready to go further than the EU, and bolster the resolve in the USA where it appears to flag by sticking to adequate standards.

Stephen Boucher

Co-secretary general

Notre Europe external

Paris

France

Regarding ‘Commission to target expert groups in transparency drive’:

The comments on the transparency of Expert Groups made by Commission spokesperson Valérie Rampi to EurActiv suggest that the Commission is watering down its promise to introduce greater transparency to such groups.

Last year, President Barroso and Commissioner Kallas made a commitment to publishing the names of both the organisations and the individuals that sit on every Expert Group. Now spokesperson Rampi says that only the names of those who participate in a “personal capacity” will be included.

The European Parliament has called on the Commission to carry out a thorough review of Expert Groups due to concerns over imbalance. It says members should be selected through an open and transparent process [(2007/2141(INI)) Committee on Budgetary Control, Rapporteur: José Javier Pomés Ruiz A6-0010/2008].

Given that as many as 10,000 industry representatives may be sitting on Expert Groups (based on the Commission’s suggestion that “only” 20% of its members come from industry and academic estimates of the size of Expert Group membership), it is crucial that the Commission acts swiftly to resolve this issue.

The public should know who is represented (the names of organisations as well as names of individuals) and what the mandate of each Expert Group is. Without access to this information, we cannot know whether or not the groups are acting in the public interest.

Yiorgos Vassalos

Lead researcher

ALTER-EU project on Expert Groups