European Parliament election is quickly approaching. On May 22nd till 25th, 2014 European citizens will cast their vote to decide about their representation in the European Parliament. Direct election into the European Parliament was firstly launched in 1979 and since then every European citizen have a right to vote in these elections.

AEGEEDebate is very happy to cooperate with Y Vote 2014 project in this debate. Some time ago, the project published the article about the rules of European elections and differences among Member states. Here you can find the article.

So, what is the problem and why is it worthy to hold the debate about the topic? There is one paradox in the EU constituency. Since 1979 there have been single European elections, but the rules of the elections are in competences of nation states. This caused the national character of European elections. In fact, the only relevant similarity is the format of elections – proportional election system. Other relevant characteristics of election are different – the nature of list of candidates, election thresholds or the size of national constituency. The question, therefore, is if we really need one pan-European elections or current system produces sufficient results in the representation of the European parliament.

To solve this problem, AEGEEDebate invites two talented speakers into the debate. Armenak, Policy Officer of AEGEE-Europe on European Integration, argues that right to vote should be consistent and same for every European citizen, thus granting their equal opportunities within Member states and that real pan-European election empowers the democratic process of the EU. On the other hand, Wieke, from AEGEE-Leuven, counters with the argument that harmonization of rules into European elections does not influence the representation of the European Parliament. She refutes the importance of age harmonization and calls for stronger role of media and link between the Parliament and the European Commission Presidency. Both speakers have presented their points. Now it is up to you to decide who has got more persuasive points. Feel free to vote below the opinions and comment your thoughts about the debate.

Affirmative speaker: Armenak Minasyants (AEGEE-Yerevan)

Opposition speaker: Wieke van der Kroef (AEGEE-Leuven)

Moderator of the debate: Ivan Bielik

Defending the motion

Armenak Minasyants, member of AEGEE-Yerevan; Policy Officer for European Neighbourhood Policy.

The EU has achieved numerous achievements in the fields of good governance, democracy, rule of law, protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, economic competitiveness and joint monetary union; however we still witness the differences between the national rules and procedures on the participation in the EP elections, which directly harm the EU citizen’s right to vote. In the modern world the individuals’ right to vote and participate in the democratic processes is considered to be one of the biggest cornerstones of our societies.

With no debate, by its legal essence, the right to vote is a right and not a privilege. Meanwhile, in my belief the right to vote is not an absolute – conditions can be imposed as long as they pursue a legitimate and constitutional aim, are proportionate and do not damage the other political and civil rights of the citizens. The conditions for limitation of the right to vote may be set on such criteria as minimum age requirements and, in some circumstances, residency, but such restrictions cannot impair the very essence of the right to vote.

Each EU member state is allowed to develop its legislation and policy in this field, which in my belief is strongly putting in danger the idea of the general pan-European elections itself. The EP elections are a unique possibility for the EU citizens to cast their votes in favor of the European project, to have their say in the ongoing political debates, however in several cases the EU citizens are simply deprived of their possibility to exercise their right to vote and become an integral part of the democratic process. The electoral codes towards the participation in the EP elections are different from the EU member state to state but their main emphasize and aim is to allow the EU citizens to vote and accordingly elect a single European legislative body.

After reading the last 4 words of the previous sentence, a common reader may directly get confused: why the EU citizens should vote for one common legislative body with 28 different legislations and prescribed electoral procedures? The equality between the counterparts is one of the key principles of the EU in its external global policy. However, the idea of equality and solidarity is based first of all on the principle of equality of opportunities of the citizens. In this context the common and harmonized rules on participation in the EP elections seem to be not only logical, but as well as quite grounded from the legal point. Additionally, the harmonized rules may give an additional boost to the elections turmoil, as the EU citizens will be granted with the same identical rights, no matter of their national citizenship or any other criteria.

In complex, I fully support the respective debate’s motion and express sincere hope that the national rules on the participation in EP elections would be harmonized within Member states of the EU in the nearest future.

Opposing the motion

Wieke van der Kroef, member of AEGEE-Leuven; Projects & Working Groups Editor of the AEGEEan Magazine. 

There are differences in rules for participation in the European elections, because the elections follow national procedures similar to other elections within Member States. I will explain why it is unnecessary to focus on harmonizing these rules and how it could even further endanger representativeness of the European Parliament.

First of all, why would we need a harmonisation of national rules on participation within the European Union? If it is to increase voter turnout, there are many different ways to do this that have proven positive results.

Because let’s not forget that the most important difference in those who vote and those who don’t vote is not age, but education. So maybe we need to look at education and people’s understanding of European politics instead of rules on participation. As a young ex-Brazilian explained he learned more about the EU during school in Brazil than in the Netherlands.

Another important factor for voter turnout is the influence and decision-making powers of the EP as well as ensuring that people know European leaders. Therefore the media have an important role in the communication on issues that are important on the European level (instead of continuing to focus only on national debates). And let’s not forget the most efficient way to increase turnout: make voting compulsory.

In any case, the clear appointment of candidates for the Commission Presidency by the European parties and the debates between them are an improvement in these elections. And we can conclude that there are many ways to increase voter turnout and changing the age at which people are able to be elected is not necessarily one of them.

But what about the representation of young people? Don’t we need someone in Parliament who is young if we want to be sure that we are represented? Well… No, not really.

It is not because someone is young that (s)he can better represent your point of view. Slavery was abolished without black people in Parliament and universal suffrage was also accepted without the poor and the workers, the women or black people in Parliament.

So we do not need young people in Parliament, but we do need ways to get our issues on the agenda! But there are other, better ways to influence policy than voting. Like –for example- a requirement for the EU to ask the European Youth Council for input on all policy that concerns youth. This would be so much more effective to get our needs discussed than having a couple of young people split between different European fractions in the EP.

But what about equal rights for EU citizens? Let’s look at the differences and how harmonization will influence the current situation. The only country where you are allowed to vote at 16 is Austria. So realistically, a harmonisation of national rules will lead to an increase in voting age in Austria and not a decrease in the other 27 member states.

The age of running for elections is split almost 50/50 between states that have a minimum at 18 and those who set it higher. So this will lead to endless discussions and if the Parliament and Member States find agreement, it will again be at an age above 18.

Now, let’s conclude, in order to raise voter turnout there are a lot more useful and feasible ways to do this than harmonizing national rules on participation in EP elections. People can be represented by others who are not similar to them and changing national rules can raise the age to vote and run for a position. Harmonisation might equalize rights but not in a way that benefits young people.

So we do not need a harmonisation of national rules on the participation in European elections in order to increase the voice of youth. We need to focus on education on European democracy and the institutionalisation of input by young people on European policy.

In February 2014, European Boards Meeting took place in Lublin related to the topic of nationalism. This upcoming debate could be considered as a follow-up of the event since it is dealing with the pressing issue of relevance of nationalism in current world. We are all aware of interdependence of today’s economic relations, but that does not automatically mean we are so interdependent in other areas of our society (political, societal, environmental or cultural level). At this point, there is a room for a debate about the purpose of nation-states we live in. So, can they bring benefits to the people or they bring more harm than good? To tackle this question I am glad to welcome two speakers from the ranks of AEGEE – Mariia and Armin.

To start any debate one should define the terms that are key for understanding the debate and its complexion. Both speakers did this step to help their readers to grasp their reasons we can divide into two aspects. Firstly, there are reasons related to the political level. Mariia argues the benefits of nationalism are solidarity shared among vast group of people and dominant control of national territory. Armin shows the harm for current supranational political structures and possibility of civil unrests. Secondly, there are cultural reasons to either support or oppose the motion. Mariia speaks about preserving unique culture of the nation and providing good examples from the past people can follow. On the other hand, Armin argues for dangerous cultural exclusivity and diminishing of various cultures in such a heterogeneous community. Mariia, lastly, puts forward the idea of economic cohesion of the nation that helps the well-being of entire population.

As you can even see from such a short excerpt there are plenty of clashes in the debate you can discuss. I am looking forward to your reactions. Therefore, I wish you interesting reading without due delay. And also do not forget to vote which opinion you favour after the debate.

Affirmation speaker: Mariia Ponomareva (AEGEE-Kyiv)

Opposition speaker: Armin Weckmann (AEGEE-Darmstadt)

Ivan Bielik, Moderator of the debate

Defending the motion

Mariia Ponomareva, HR Responsible of AEGEE-Kyiv 2013/2014, graduated at National University of Theater, Cinema and Television, currently working as film director.

This delicate topic has a long story. But each story has started from the identification of main point – and according to the name – this topic is nation. First of all, I want to clarify what does it mean “nationalism” as for me. Nationalism – movement in society, which is powered by idea that one clarified nation have absolute rights and priority in some area or space. So if we are talking about nationalism we can find the forces of good nowadays and in history.

First of all, I think that nationalism can be a force of good because of effect of fastgathering people with patriotic idea together. During the changings in government, protest movements or demonstrations the nation can loose the way where to go or what to focus on. Especially if it is an idea, which is based on something that was grown with them from their childhood – their language, cultural aspect and so on. One voice, strong idea can gather people and make their eyes to see somewhere together. For sure these people can be aggressive and not polite, but with their power they can save the territory. Talking about our days the Maidan situation in Ukraine can be an example of fast and powerful reaction of the masses, which happened not without ideas of nationalism.

Second point – grounding and saving regional cultural exclusivity and ethnoidentification. Good example for this point is Latvia – small country which small population is mostly Latvian – is having a crisis of migration to Great Britain and Germany. So nationalism can be a force which can start a dialogue about national values, grounding in motherland area and keeping this small nation together.

Third – nationalism can be a way to the economic miracle – when people are ready for everything as revanchists. Germany start of 30^th of XX century. The country wanted revenge. The country was renovated after 1^st WW in very short terms.  And nationalism was the main fuel in the mechanism of economic revival. For sure it is also controversial – because they made something worthier – but if they wouldn’t stopped in time – maybe they will be more strong country than USA now.

Fourth – promoting human skills and special type of character to keep the glory of nation. Example of USA can be good here: the brave and powerful patriot – this stereotype about American man they built long time ago, but nationalism is a power, which keeps it still strong. And lot of people can attach the feeling with the whole nation – which is for sure good. On the other hand – it can be used in building strong future symbols as avoid to splitting the country.

Russian aspect in this situation is also quite controversial. But also nationalism can avoid to the splitting of the Russian Federation. The myth about Russian Man is a gathering symbol in such a multinational country with a huge distances and bad communication and low level of the understanding between national groups. Yes, small nations are assimilating very fast and it is not good, but the joining to the majority and identifying themselves with the national myth for this people is also the way to become stronger.

Fifth – migration control. Nationalism can be a good force to avoid the over-migration and total national mixing. Switzerland – is multicultural country with lot of migrants. And the awareness of overfilling the area is also a way to more clear system of checking people, who wants to live there. Also according to local laws – they try to check the people who will stay and make cultural tests about the country for them, which is also step in education for the majority of them.

All in all, nationalism can be a force of good or be a force of bad things – nobody will not disagree that it is a force. Big force, which people of the Earth have to use carefully.

Opposing the motion

Armin Weckmann, member of AEGEE-Darmstadt, currently doing PhD studies in Plasma Physics in Stockholm, Sweden.

For outlining my arguments I shall begin with distinguishing between two kinds of Nationalism, the “inclusive” and the “exclusive” form. The first one describes a political motion striving for inclusion of all its different peoples and social groups in one political body, the nation. The second one means the elevation of the nation as such above other classifications, accompanied by exclusion of those who either do not or can not fulfil the criteria associated with the nation.

One may identify the first kind as the “good” one and the second as the “bad” one. However, in reality nationalism tends to have characteristics of both kinds, hence fostering nationalism as such may give rise to both good and bad side effects – whatever one defines as “good” or “bad” about nationalism.

Problems specifically accompanied with the inclusive form:

Most nations have a heterogeneous population – some of them do not identify themselves with the nation as such. These may be minorities fearing for their cultural identity getting lost, cosmopolitans not seeing benefits of being associated with one nation or outsiders refusing to fit into society or predefined patterns in general. N.B.: These people do not necessarily need to be hostile against a national identity but rather choose to stand outside it. Including them into a nation against their will may result in resentment and is an act of disrespect.

Another argument is that national thinking can be hindering for supranational politics as we can experience it during the Euro crisis – thinking “out of the box” may be better for the well-being of the European majority (discussing this comprehensively is a matter for another debate). Apart from this, supranational structures may be more reliable for preserving national interests, if acknowledged by or articulated with other nations; structures such as the EU, NAFTA, AU and UNASUR result in this idea (whether they fulfil it adequately is, again, beyond the scope of this debate).

Problems specifically accompanied by the exclusive form:

Forging a nation in a specific shape and disregarding those who either do not obey it or cannot fulfil it will most presumably lead to civil unrest. Examples can be extracted from the history of most nations – just a small collection of recent activities: China (Tibet conflict), Turkey (Gezi protest), Ukraine (Euromaidan). All of them are caused by the clash between national interests introduced from political leaders and visions of a disregarded part of the national society, in cultural, ecological or political manner (often at least two of them are intertwined). It is worth mentioning that the definition of “national interests” can vary greatly between different parts of societies, which in itself already can fuel a conflict before actions even take place. The exclusive form of nationalism thus already bears the seed of conflict.

Furthermore, it may disdain human rights of those who do not agree on a certain definition of a nation, which holds for the three mentioned examples.

Nevertheless nationalism (especially the inclusive form) may have positive effects for the majority of a nation, hence the statement at the very beginning cannot be completely falsified. However, following the arguments given above nationalism is an obstruction for political well-being on the long run and should therefore not be suggested as a guideline for national politics, both for the benefit of national and international interests.

For these compelling questions we invited four speakers to give reasons why the motion is true or false. After you hear their arguments you can vote upon them below the video. Moreover, if you have anything to say, you can use the comment thread to express your points as well. Enjoy the video!

Speakers of the debate:

Affirmation side: Cristina (AEGEE-Verona) and Ekaterina (AEGEE-Voronezh)

Opposition side: Jana (AEGEE-Praha) and Maria (AEGEE-Verona)

Ivan Bielik

For these questions to be answered we invited two speakers, Gerard and Ozgun, to demonstrate their arguments. For the first time AEGEEDebate has launched a video online debate through Google Hangout+. We are looking forward to your feedback on this matter as well. Enjoy the new format of the debate!

Ivan Bielik

Nowadays we are witnessing on-going debate about surveillance practice of the United States launched by Edward Snowden. This issue becomes significant in the process of negotiating EU-USA free trade agreement as well. Surely, most of the citizens are not satisfied with the idea being spied over their personal matters (internet communication or phone calls). But the problem is much deeper as it might be obvious from first glance. Therefore, we invited two speakers whose aim was to argue rationally about the surveillance techniques in general.

Obviously, first fundamental clash which arises from the motion is question between preserving liberty and keeping citizens safe from outside threat. Both speakers introduced this in their first points very clearly. Decisive question which everyone should ask himself/herself in this clash is whether the development of new technologies and social media influence our perception of personal freedom. Dhruv, affirmative speaker, claims that civil liberties are still unchanged even by the occurrence of the Internet and high-speed communication. On the other side, Saurav, opposition speaker, calls for revising the understanding of civil liberties in the time of hugely interconnected technological world where the threat to citizens is acute and sudden.

Second idea that illuminates from both opinions is the idea of keeping the rules of the game. The demonstration of the theory of social contract, by Dhruv, shows us that government breaks the rules of the game with its citizens. Apart from that, we see, in Saurav’s case, on the example of Edward Snowden that the topic of national security which refers to the security of citizens is delicate affair for governments. The question that divides both speakers is what the purpose of the government is.

Last point covers principal position as well. Dhruv argues with the principle of presumption of innocence that civil liberties put significant limitations for government powers that court’s consent is essential and cannot be neglected. On the other hand, Saurav argues that if the principle of national security is at place and government does not use obtained data from surveillance to bargain with third power, court’s consent is not necessary condition for action.

We are looking forward to your comments and opinions in this controversial matter.

Affirmative speaker: Dhruv Singhal (AEGEE-Karlsruhe)

Opposition speaker: Saurav Raj Pant

Ivan Bielik, Moderator of debate

Defend the motion

Dhruv Singhal, student of Mechanical Engineering at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

In light of recent developments and revelation of widespread internet surveillance I present the following arguments to defend the motion.

Infringement of civil liberties

The most prominently cited argument is the defense of our personal freedom. Large scale surveillance clearly infringe on your freedom of opinion and expression (granted by the Universal declaration of human rights), as spying techniques like the recently uncovered internet data mining, can be used for thought policing. In a crude sense this might include reluctance to hold opinions and beliefs that might be deemed critical to the government and established norms, thus weakening the foundations of democracy itself. This argument might seem dull when compared to the desire for larger good and security but it must not be forgotten that true security can never be achieved by compromising liberty. A review of history teaches us the same lesson- a collective of individuals (often unidentified) were created by tyrannical governments, projected as being impeding to the general welfare of the society and were persecuted, be it the Third Reich or Stalinist USSR. Consider the security of women believed to be evil witches in early modern Europe and you’ll fathom that liberty is as significant in the discussion as life itself.

Rule of man vs. Rule of law

To comprehensively analyze the issue from this stand point, we consider the basic premise on which every working society is based on – an idea of social contract. As sentient beings, we humans recognize the need of cooperation from other social beings and hence participate in a so called ‘social contract’ from our birth as member of the society, by the virtue of which we mutually agree to protect our lives and liberties. This ‘contract’ manifests as the constitution and the legal code. If the government, an executive organ doesn’t exercise the powers granted by the citizens in a democratic state according to the constitution, then these acts are, but an aggression to such a social contract, signifying involuntary consent of the people. This would then imply authorization to any organized group of people to spy on individuals in/outside it’s collective.

Right to presumption of Innocence

The idea of the right to presumption of innocence has been conceived since at least the third century AD. Summarized by the Latin expression ‘Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat’ (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), this right today finds its place in the legal codes of nearly all modern democracies and republics. The existence of the same is exactly what prevents State agents like the Police to carry out custodial interrogation or “grilling” of random citizens. The consent of the court is required and is obtained only when sufficient basis for such an act against an individual is established. Since this is not possible when the suspected collective is large and unknown, clearly general public spying infringes on our rights.

But then who will protect us? The constitution and a government that adheres to it.

Against the motion

Saurav Raj Pant, Student and Outreach Coordinator of JVE-Nepal

It is obvious truth that government should be potential to gauge between national security threats and individual privacy. These are by some means the building blocks of healthy, democratic and liberal society. As far as I am concern, spying intersects with diverse indicators on which they are likely to be the decisive factors of nation’s maturity. Any breed of intimidation on Socio-economic, military and political arenas from the inside-outside rudiments is the issues of severe alarm. And combating against this should be the preliminary priority of any governments of the world. If I have to be concise, a presently national security undergoes and tackles with some kind of ‘supernatural’ foe which is probably being developed from the digital world. Rationally speaking, such new models of tentative objects are making more vulnerable to the nation’s overall infrastructures. Virtual world (Internet) is likely to have been going beyond to the ideology of constitutional framework of the country. It will be purely the matter of imprudence, if I say digital world should be free. Or I say it has to be the Free State. Absolutely, we are now living in the fully democratized world where one’s civil liberties are valued. But; reluctantly I have to say every basic should be guided from the specific country’s principle.

Let us talk about, Edward Snowden. This young man who is accused of leaking US PRISM secrecy is now the main hunt of Obama’s administration. I would like to observe Snowden’s episode in two ways. Talking about US Supreme court ruling held in 1980, it describes that no one are allowed to disclose national classified information. If such information are disclosed it will seriously violate the national interest. Yeah! Absolutely every country is accountable and responsible towards their citizens. And, country will act or intervene with any form with other parties should be and need to be for their people. According to this ruling, he violated the Supreme Court ruling and need to prosecute. On the other side of the coin, it is now inevitable that there is always limbo on spy and civil liberties. Digitally promising power blocs are noticeably spy on lesser potential country. And, how to deal with these Internet giants who provided our info’s to the Government from the backdoor? This is also against the policy paper which they show before using their page. For me I say, this Snowden’s folder truly divulges the future prospect of national data security and Internet giants.

Truly, individual privacy is staid issue in the Northern World. Spying to own citizen truly betrayed the constitutional privacy policy of the First world. But, we have to be clearer and strong in this instance that now our digital world has becoming the ‘safe harbor’ for some cluster of folks. Those clusters are probably dismantling our fundamentals of the society. I personally feel that, we should not worry until then when our mined info’s should not be the ‘bargain’ point of our competent leaders to the third parties.

In principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud Deum et verbum erat Deus. (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)

It is well know that philosophy is science of questions. All the time man is asking, but instead of finding answers man is just opening new questions, over and over again.

This time it is open, if I may say one controversial and contradictory question. Question where in the end we’ll ask ourselves; what is freedom of speech, and how to define it? Don’t be surprised if you stay closed mouth.

If we define freedom of speech where one is able to express his thoughts and beliefs as Malik says, offensive speech should be included too, from Azemina’s point of view. But this can be very queasily. Truth is, one should be free to say whatever he/she wants, but if it is offensive, wouldn’t it be disrespectful, wouldn’t it hurts others feelings and in the same time? Observed from this point of view, does it harm some other freedoms; freedom for choice, on privacy, spiritual privacy etc.?

In spite of it, Azemina thinks that insulting should be viewed as a normal and acceptable part of plural society. She says that on first place there shouldn’t be any term such as blasphemy. Society should make difference between words that wound and actions that kill says Azemina.

Back to Malik’s view, it’s not word about constraining. What is there, is the same right of not saying anything too, same as saying the same. Religious people have right to not accept or not hear something that they find offensive. In accordance with that right it clarifies that there is no constraining freedoms of speech from religious side.

While Azemina defends stance, Freedom of speech is constrained by religious sensitivities, whereas no place for secular society, because every open, honest word will be interpreted as offence, Malik sees it different. He stands behind, there is nothing such as religious sensitivities or constraint, there is only self-interested state with its tools.

State is one which “freedom of speech” shaped by needs of global organizations and protected by itself in the name of progress ought to be both constrained and threatened by religious sensitivities. Freedom of speech is constrained within, what’s seen as, permanent civilizational progress, says Malik.

In the end is our speech free within society’s convention, or only within bless of Deity? Or should we ask if our speech is free at all, or it is all part of our imagination, where we are only being puppets for a higher aim?

As you cannot stay indifferent on this topic, share your opinion with us. Tell us is everything indeed only about religious sensitivity, or is it the same just being tool of our eternal empires/ states. Define THE freedom of speech.

Affirmative speaker: Azemina Ćorić

Opposition speaker: Malik Pašić

Sabiha Kapetanovic, Moderator of the debate.

Defending the motion

Azemina Ćorić, student of International Relations.

Why call it the freedom of speech if you can’t really say what you think? This is a question that comes to my mind whenever the topic of freedom of speech and religion comes out. It seems logical to some people that religion should be spared from the freedom of speech just because it is considered sacred by some people. Religion is something subjective and as people are free to believe in something, so should people have the right of free speech no matter the topic.

Probably when it comes to this topic the first example that everyone would remember would be the controversial pictures of prophet Muhammed made in Denmark. Those pictures were considered insulting and it was considered spreading hatred just as the film that came out in the U.S.A. Much of what is deemed ‘hatred’ today is in fact the giving of offence. And shouldn’t the giving of offence be viewed as a normal and acceptable part of plural society? Why should it be any different when it comes to religion?

The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things is called blasphemy. Many countries have laws to punish blasphemy. Should there be any laws for blasphemy and should there be any term such as blasphemy in the first place? Recent years have seen increasing demands from governments and individuals that free speech should be limited – both in the West and in international law, in order to protect religious sensitivities but it should be remembered that the very freedoms that allow someone to insult religious sensitivities also allow the religious believer to practice his or her faith free from fear of persecution.

Despite this disturbing development governments and intellectuals in liberal democracies have often given only reluctant support to the value of freedom of expression instead of employing language that obfuscates and relativizes the difference between words that wound and actions that kill. By this logic those who insult religious feelings are extremists and that different from those who respond to insults with violence. Insulting religion may not be a polite thing to do, but it certainly should not be something you put in the criminal code. When you do so it becomes censorship.

Against the motion

Malik Pašić, student of Dramaturgy.

If there is something called “religious sensitivity”, it probably refers to state of being especially cautious regarding phenomena that diverge from religious beliefs. We cannot define freedom, but we can say that it requests one’s possibility to make worthy choices. Freedom of speech requests that one is able to express his thoughts and beliefs.

So does “religious sensitivity” represent a difficulty in meeting that request? If it does then it means that at least one or both of next two claims are true:

I. Religious worldview constrains persons or groups freedom of speech.

II. Because of sensitivities of some groups regarding their religious beliefs, others freedom of speech is constrained

If religious worldview supports freedom of speech, and if it meets others (non-believers) request for freedom of speech, then there is no basis on which these concepts are confronted.

(first point) Religious worldview accepts world as a creation and doesn’t demand scientific proof for believing. Most believers would agree that there is something called absolute knowledge, and that it certainly isn’t, and can’t be, in human hands. Knowledge is not wholly achievement of a human, but also God’s mercy in the same way as nothing is ever really created by a man. Quest for knowledge is then a quest for comprehending His creation. Therefore, religious worldview is open for acquiring knowledge, but it can never allow any certainty. If no human knowledge is really worthy, all quests for knowledge are valid – as they are nothing more than attempt to realize own position in what’s been already determined. Every assumption is then guesswork, and there is nothing outside divine creation that can be discussed, there are no mechanisms, within religious worldview, for constraining believers’ freedom of speech.

(second point) Following what’s been said in first argument, it should not be hard to understand why non-believers freedom of speech is not constrained. Freedom of speech requests that one is able to express his thoughts and beliefs to anyone who wants to listen to them. So freedom of not wanting to hear is implicated in the freedom of speech, any religious man or woman has right not to enter the dialogue if he or she finds it offensive, as they have right to manifest themselves towards any speech that confronts their beliefs. Religion tendency to expand implies it being open for dialogue, trying to give it’s answers to permanent questions that bother humanity.

So what’s the problem then?

There was a time in history when societies gave their freedoms to be guarded by secular states. As global organizations had mechanisms to enforce state laws that ought to guarantee equal rights and freedom for all, whole world seemed united in the same important goal for all humanity.

Even theoretically, state can violate freedom of speech, but state cannot guarantee its protection. When states proclaim personal freedoms, they condition societies to agree upon terms given from global organizations. For example, Bosnia and Herzegovina has to meet the requirement of progress in the field of allowing personal freedoms so it can get a favorable loan. Society is forced to change itself in allowing what’s globally been agreed upon as freedoms, all for sake of the state’s interests.

This “freedom of speech” shaped by needs of global organizations and protected by state in the name of progress ought to be both constrained and threatened by religious sensitivities.

First step in building global society is to make all societies agree on same idea of progress. Only within the speech of this progress is your freedom of speech guaranteed. So, freedom of speech is constrained within, what’s seen as, permanent civilizational progress. Your speech is free within convention.

Your freedom is confined within what’s agreed upon as our general cause, your speech is confined within what’s agreed upon as generally accepted knowledge.

Doubt, from which enormous human progress was born, is lost somewhere in history. Faith is one of the rare positions that firmly stand against any certainty in human knowledge. This “freedom of speech” disqualifies religious worldview as a valid position for a speaker. When it tells him: “use our methods of acquiring knowledge, agree on our common goals, use our ways to discuss your problems, fight within legal fight, speak within legal speech, find your interest within what’s our civilizational progress”, what it really tells him is: “leave your belief” or at least “leave it inside your private place”. When the society decides without people it gets confronted with what it calls “religious sensitivity”. It can not call them “people with different opinion” nor “people who were left without their freedom of speech because their worldview is religious”, can it? The “religious sensitivities” sounds better – it is a condition, it can be, it can pass, but it can not decide.

To enlarge or to not enlarge? To become member or not to become member? Or maybe it is better if we ask – To enlarge now or not to enlarge now?-

On our way to find answers on questions easier let first observe through short lines history of European Union.

1923 Pan- Europe Movement whose main idea was – United States of Europe. It was leaded until 1929 by Federal Organisation in Europe whose aim was to handle European problems while maintaining national sovereignty. After many other treaties and organizations which were following it, finally on May of 9th 1950. ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) was formed from which European Union was born.

Observing Europe like the Union, there are three general modes of developing the EU. These are: completing, deepening and widening (ENLARGEMENT).

It is well known from article 49 of the Treaty on the EU: „Any European state which respects the principles may apply to become member of the Union. These principles are: liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of the law.“

Enlargement is one of the most important modes for United Europe. It started from 1951 with six founding states and continued till 2007 when last countries entered (Romania and Bulgaria). Enlargement is continuing. It is in the EU interest to continue and to gather all European states under the same roof, acting together and reunifying our continent. For now Croatia, Macedonia and Turkey are next candidates and other Balkan countries are waiting for their turn.

To go back on our main topic which would be, is Croatia ready for EU, and is EU ready for next enlargement with all crisis that is facing with, is big question which has to be answered. To resolve vicious circle and find answers, Lana and Armenak will help, sharing with us their opinions.

Armenak calls this in question because of human trafficking and corruption problems that Croatia is still having. Besides of that, like everyday country, especially in days of crisis, Croatia, no matter how agriculturally rich country is with great perspective for tourism, it can’t escape from economic problems that are facing with. However there is always brighter side, where Lana is taking us, making point what and how much EU is actually gaining with Croatia’s joining. Naturally, EU gains with Croatian’s quality agricultural richness, beautiful cultural heritage, which is in same time heritage of Europe too. Although, we’ll already see, as they are of course opposing each other, Lana’s story about Croatia’s fulfilled conditions is a bit different than Armenak’s point of view.

Then come back to the same point, and most important one, which are people. As Lana is describing us, Croatians are hard-working nation with a lot of qualities, bringing with them friendship and cooperation. We can’t oppose it, but do those same Croatians, with high unemployment rate, want to enter in EU, we can find out from Armenak’s argumentation.

Instead to argue with yourself, share your opinion with us. Tell us what you think would be the wisest decision to make. Stay together or split? Because we need wisdom in the time of crisis, instability, protests and riots.

Affirmative speaker: Armenak Minasyants (AEGEE-Yerevan)

Opposition speaker: Lana Tomić (AEGEE-Zagreb)

Sabiha Kapetanovic, Moderator of the debate

Defending the motion

Armenak Minasyants, AEGEE-Yerevan, current Policy Officer on European Integration of AEGEE-Europe

As we know Croatia joins the European Union on 1 July, 2013. The accession process has taken 12 years and four months from the Croatian authorities, and it is still big question, if this time has been used properly or simply has been wasted.

In my perception the accession of Croatia to the EU should be viewed from 3 big points: 1) Political: 2) Economic 3) People.

1)    After the bloody split of Former Yugoslavia and violent fratricidal war in the Western Balkans, Croatia is the very first country of F.Y.R. (not counting Slovenia) to join the EU.  Since 1990’s the Croatian authorities adopted plenty of new laws, amendments, procedures and regulations which totally correspond to the EU standards. For a long time Croatia has stopped disturbing state-building process in neighboring Bosnia, allowed to return the Croatian Serb refugees, and even engaged a Serb minority party into a government coalition and of course completed the extradition of all of those prosecuted by The Hague war crimes tribunal. But are all these steps enough to join the European family? Simultaneously, according to the most of the researches and experts the main outstanding political problems connected with Croatia are human trafficking and the necessity to continue the fight against corruption, which are somehow driven out of the political agenda of EU-Croatia talks.

2)    Nowadays, economy can be considered as the skeleton of each society and country in general. All the independent surveys and polls shows that one of the biggest issues of the Croatian authorities for the next few years is creation of jobs and vacancies and guaranteeing the conditions for sustainable economic growth. At the same time Croatia has much neglected agricultural potential, instead of it, the biggest single asset is its wonderful coastline and 2012 was the most successful year from the viewpoint of tourism. But in economy sphere Croatia is facing 2 problems: with more than 15.0% of Croatia’s population over the age of 64, it could be considered as the ageing population and the impact that this fact has on everything from pensions to creativity is a huge problem for the future governments of Croatia. The Croatian economy, although is not part of the Eurozone, but is mostly integrated into it, which means that even now not everything is in Croatian hands. Croatia’s largest market is Italy, which as we all probably know, has been hit badly by the Euro crisis and with all its consequences. Worth to mention that more than 60% of Croatia’s exports go to the EU and it is not required to be a prominent economist to understand what probably will bring Croatia’s accession and how it may worsen even the current not-stable economic situation in EU.

3)    And what about the PEOPLE? Do Croatians really want to join the EU or are they really aware to what structure they are going to become part of? Even though in 2012 during the referendum on the accession to the EU, 66% of Croatians have said “YES” to the EU, it’s still difficult to say what the real opinion on the accession is. The main and simple expectation of the Croats from the Accession and the local politicians is to see concrete and certain steps taken toward the solution of problems faced in daily life. However, many of the politicians speak only on EU membership and in the short run, Croats will see very few changes on the day they join the EU. After accession a new chapter will begin for Croatia, which will demand fresh thinking to tackle the economic morass and overcome the problems with which are facing the Croats, and to say that the EU in its current shape will be able to assist much – seems to be a bit romantic.

So, to sum up: in my belief if we comprehend the above mentioned 3 sections, it becomes clear that the accession of Croatia to the EU has been a political process which has been fastened somehow by the Euro elites and mostly will not fulfill the expectations of the Croatian government and common citizens.

Against the motion

Lana Tomić, AEGEE-Zagreb PR responsible, currently student of political science at University of Zagreb

In order to prove this statement wrong, I will outline 4 concrete arguments why accepting Croatia as 28th member state is a step forward, and not back, for European Union as a whole.

1. COMMERCE

Often, when you spend some time eating with a Croatian (frankly, any Western Balkans’ citizen) in some Western European country, you will hear him/her complaining about food being: sometimes tasteless, or too expensive, of an artificial taste, but mostly everything mentioned at the same time. It is true: Croatia is full of super high- quality groceries, and has plenty to export, too. Now you can finally enjoy them as much as you like, since your local food- suppplier cannot use high custom fees as an excuse for high prices.

2. CULTURAL HERITAGE

Since at this point Croatia has already become a mainstream touristic destination, no point in doing too much marketing here. Still, things like The Walls of Dubrovnik Episcopal Complex of Euphrasian Basilica in Poreč,  Cathedral of St. James in Šibenik or Diocletian’s Palace are always worth mentioning. Since majority of them reflects cultural richness, heritage, art and history that is  many European states share, does it not seem logical to let something that is already very European at its essence, to became part of biggest community of European states? Sure it does.

3. NUMBERS= BEING FAIR

Croatia has gone a long way to please all the European Commission’s demands. Since this is not another sad story, I will not go in details here. Common criteria for all of them was: Croatia has to meet the average standards of all the EU members, not just the least developed ones. So, with Croatia and EU the story goes as it goes with love: if someone has been trying so hard, for such a long time, to meet your standards, than he/she probably loves you. And, above all, deserves to be with you. (Until that person starts taking too much of your money, and causing you problems. Than you can intervene.)

4. PEOPLE

Croatian workers are everywhere perceived among most working ones. However, do not worry for your workplaces: we leave our lovely country only if we really have to. And knowing that current economic situation is terrible almost everywhere in the European Union, there will be no point in doing so in the near future. Furthermore, when we talk about science, EU might profit from the fact that it will be easier now for Croatian students and scientists to join European universities and research centers. Just a little more googling and one might find out that Croatians never give up in the discovery of new inventions, and know how to contribute to a university that has been a good host for them.

It is well known that EU is passing through rough crisis. From all sides you can see red lights, and hear alarms. What can be done?! Austerity is being used, but it can be find as controversial measure if it is observed from different angles, ex. government and populists, or if we try to define austerity, there can be used a wide array of choice, like:

“Austerity measures refer to official actions taken by the government, during a period of adverse economic conditions, to reduce its budget deficit using a combination of spending cuts or tax rises.” (http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=austerity-measure)

„Austerity, forced from the EU level and supported by national governments, cuts are being imposed in nearly every sector that matters to ordinary people. They are cutting welfare benefits, health care, education; privatising our common goods in the name of paying off the debt, dismantling labour and social rights in the name of making our corporations more competitive so our economy can recover.“  (http://foraeuropeanspring.org)

Through the debate, leaded by Ivan and Miguel, we can find out, from one side, Ivan’s affirmative side, that enforcing contract which one side signed is important in order to keep the relevance of the contract itself. Ivan is briefly introducing us with austerity measures, caused by breaking rules of Basic Treaties (founding documents of the EU), whose idea was equal rules of game for all members. Although, if we read opposition’s arguments, Miguel is questioning, how much austerity is adequate. Nevertheless, it is being followed by riots, leading to social unrest and violation of human rights, causing deterioration of democracy.

Of course here we have clash of opinions. While Ivan is defending austerity measures, believing that they correct bad, unsustainable economic policies. On other hand Miguel is against austerity measures, because they, as Miguel says, are just cover for powerful, self-interested people, making situations just worse than it was, convincing citizens that austerity is a way to new economic growth.

It is up to you now; your opinions, your ideas, your critics, they are all more than welcome. Read, think, and decide between your own clash of opinions, where are we going, and where do you want to go. It is the same with the outcome of debate. Who had better and stronger arguments? It’s up to you to decide. Stay active!

Affirmative speaker: Ivan Bielik (Speaker of IPWG)

Opposition speaker: Miguel Gallardo Albajar (Project director of AEGEE-Europe)

Sabiha Kapetanovic, Moderator of the debate.

Defending the motion

Ivan Bielik, AEGEE-Brno and Speaker of IPWG, student of European studies at Masaryk University, Czech Republic.

I do not believe that Europe should abandon its austerity only because people do not like it. The word of “austerity” has already gained negative connotation in European public space. From this standpoint it is quite courageous to defend such measures. In my part I will explain the correcting nature of austerity measures and the importance of enforcing values incorporated in the founding Treaties.

So, firstly, countries targeted by austerity measures do need the incentive to reform their spending. Deficit-run budgets in countries like Greece or Spain could not be sustained at any price. Such economic policies were hazardous for the citizens from long-term point of view. Moreover, such irresponsibility of politicians who run states was blatant. They were not caring about the prospect of the country, but only for their self-interest. Such approach is doomed for Armageddon. These austerity measures are just correcting the situation which was destined to end very badly. Even at the expense of people’s unrest, it is necessary to redefine and correct economic standards in the countries.

Very interesting example is, paradoxically, Germany. In 1990’s Germany was a “sick man of Europe” – country with no growth, no prospect of development or potential. They embrace exactly the same austerity, because they need to change how economic policies worked. Now they have become most economically developed country in the EU. It does not imply from this example that Greece will be next Germany. What, however, does imply from the example is that correcting past wrongs can lead to better future. In the end, do not forget why such measures are taken. It is not because of sadomasochistic attitude of Germany to enslave Europe, but because national politicians failed. If they had not failed, no austerity would have been implemented. Simple. Therefore, I consider austerity measures as needed to force changes for which national politicians lost courage.

Second point contains value-based argument about keeping the promises which you were signed in the past. The purpose of Basic Treaties (founding documents of the EU) is to set equal “rule of the game” for every member. The Treaties introduce values and norm of the EU. Most of us agree that one should follow these values and norms while he is in. The norms for economic performance of the states are included in the Treaties, so they are applicable for every member state. Nowadays, Spain, Portugal and others break these rules. Austerity measures in the EU are a response for breaking fundamental principles in the Treaties. From this follows that it is not morally wrong to enforce the norms that were agreed by all. If we are not enforcing compliance with the EU norms then there is a precedential decision which can lead to respecting other breaking of Treaties as well. Just consider when other principle of the EU is at stake. Most of the people would argue that it is fair to keep promises. But why then is it bad to enforce austerity when country signed the Treaties? Should not we enforce the norms as well in this case? That challenge is rarely put forward by mass media and even more rarely thought at public. Once you are a contract side, you need to bare consequences of not fulfilling the norms. Therefore, I believe that austerity is justifiable as long as it forces others to comply with the Treaties.

Against the motion

Miguel Gallardo Albajar, Project director of AEGEE-Europe.

The ‘troika’ (the European Central Bank, the European Commission, and the International Monetary Fund) should abandon the thesis that the solution to the current crisis should be based upon austerity. During the last years, they have been imposing this idea against very solid arguments, like the evidence of its adverse effects on the countries that the measures were supposed to save. We all have been witness on how austerity has failed to solve the problems of the countries severely affected by the current financial crisis, with the sole exception of Ireland which had very specific conditions. Austerity has failed to reactivate economy, but it has caused additional problems for middle classes by cutting basic services as education, health care and other social benefits. Moreover, it has been used in many cases as an alibi for enforcing a neoliberal (or maybe we should say ‘neocon’) agenda, including privatization of basic services such as health, air control and water, in many cases sold at very low price due to the urgency of obtaining cash flow, or under suspicion of benefiting some private interests.

The whole austerity idea is quite new, as for previous crises different kind of solutions were taken. It mainly relies on a scientific publication from the National Bureau of Economical Research in Harvard, called “Growth in a time of debt”, issued in 2010. It has been mentioned by US government, by EU commissioner Olli Rehn, or the president of the European Central Bank, when recommending (or imposing) austerity measures to bring back the economic growth.

What nobody could expect is that a young PhD student would prove that the excel sheet from where the article extracts the conclusions is full of mistakes. This shocking discovery has been backed up by the tutors of the 28 years old student, which were skeptics at the beginning but later acknowledged that he was right. What worries me is that nobody checked the calculations before taking dramatic measures that have worsened unemployment, impoverished the whole society of many countries and maybe even jeopardised the growth they were supposed to stimulate.

Many economists start to admit their lack of critical analysis, and politicians have changed their attitude in the last weeks, loosening the strict conditions imposed to countries that had been bailed out. The authors admit partially their mistake, but also signal the politicians which in occasions have cited their research to justify measures that could not be based upon their conclusions. Politicians now try to avoid their responsibility by blaming researchers for their wrong decisions.

In any case, what has been proven is that austerity is not the magic solution to reactivate economies. A rationalization of the budgets is for sure necessary (investment in research and education in the line of the Europe 2020 Strategy should be kept), but Europe has to stop the destruction of decades of achievements in social welfare, which have shaped the society of our continent. This wrong direction, sustained even against evidence by blindly following a research article, is one of the causes of the erosion of the image of Europe on the eyes of its citizens, and it will need years of right policies to gain the trust back. We cannot wait until tomorrow for this change to start.

The civil war in Syria seems like a never-ending story. Two year conflict has asked its price. Let the numbers speak for a while in the introduction. The UN reckons that 70,000 Syrians, mostly civilians, have died. The true figure is probably far higher: thousands have gone missing or have been locked up. In the past few weeks an average of 5,000 people have fled every day. The UN’s High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) says the number now exceeds 860,000, but many more have left uncounted. The number displaced within the country is higher still. More than 4 million Syrians now lack fuel, electricity, a telephone line and food (The Economist).

Source: Flickr

However, military invasion in support of rebels is still questionable. Syria lies in very sensitive region of the world. Moreover, Western countries (definition in this debate is countries which are located in Western hemisphere with the membership of NATO) are quite reluctant to experience another costly military adventure. Next question is also who these rebels are and whom they are representing. Recently, there was serious discussion about arming Syrian rebels (you can read more in these articles, first, second and one comment). So, which arguments prevail? It is not clear at all.

It is my pleasure to invite two speakers of the debate who are somewhat more-or-less connected with the motion. Affirmative speaker, Sabiha, is studying in Izmir, Turkey and opposition speaker, Anastacia, is Russian and studying in Sankt-Petersburg. Both countries are playing serious role in Syria conflict. Additionally, both ladies are members of IPWG which makes this debate IPWG-oriented. This, however, does not mean that others are not invited to discuss foreign-policy.

Content-wise, ladies covered important points in the debate such as stability in the region and the duties of democratic countries to interfere in foreign conflict. Of course, they came with different results. Sabiha concludes that responsibility to protect is important for Western democracies and intervention will stabilize the region. Anastacia, comes with instability of the region after invasion with future turbulence and, secondly, with relativistic view on different cultures (West vs. Middle East). It is up to you to decide which arguments are stronger and more persuasive. Any comments in this sense are more then welcomed.

Affirmative speaker: Sabiha Kapetanovic (AEGEE-Izmir)

Opposition speaker: Anastacia Petrushkova (AEGEE-Saint Petersburg)

Ivan Bielik, Moderator of the debate

Defend the motion

Sabiha Kapetanovic, AEGEE-Izmir, student of International relations at Izmir University, Turkey.

Democracy explains peace, and peace is absence of war.

(Peace Theory : democratic states are attacking non-democratic ones with aim to make them democratic too, and on that way secure more peaceful world.)

World without war is almost impossible. We are living on Earth, not in Heaven, so we can’t talk about possible Utopia. But still, that doesn’t mean killing innocents, that doesn’t mean that we need reason to help them. We all belong to Human Race and it is our duty to do good to each others, saving and helping without fear and calculations. On that way we enable ourselves to live honourably with all beauties that life is giving us.

Source: Flickr

In my first argument I would like to notice meaning of International Organisations who are formed so they could be above national states, therefore to provide peace and security. Following that notation we have United Nations Security Council (UNSC) which is the heart of the world’s collective security system. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) has the military capacity needed to undertake crisis-management operations, if diplomatic efforts fail.

“Where the UNSC fails to authorize the use of force, liberal states have a responsibility to act to uphold world order, including in extreme cases through preventive use of force.” (www.palgrave-journalist.com/ip)

Despite their philosophy, Western countries let wars happen. What I want to say is if they do not finally stop the war in Syria more wars in the regions will happen. What is happening in Syria is a Civil War between government of Assad and protesters. War started as extension of Arab Spring that is assuming to be forth wave of democratization. War with more then 70 000 of victims. War where children are being used like Human Shields. War in which people who don’t want it are dying, being used like pawns for unscrupulous, bloodthirsty game played by one in a series dictators.

“Two rockets are falling a minute on average.” (Journal of strategic security)

We are using Western countries for the synonym of democracy. Should not they stay behind their words and fight for peace and human rights?! Yes, they should! Because killing of human beings is something that everyone in the world has an obligation to end. My point is that Western countries have to act, not to wait for more victims to be killed.

It is important to note next argument which is saying that even if we are living in period of globalization, where states still have full right on their sovereignty, but where every problem is immediately connected with region and the world. It is saying us clearly that war in Syria could easily spread to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, well on whole Middle East and who knows till where. Because of that we must not be afraid to act, to fight for liberty, freedom, life! There are no more excuses for non-invasion! If they need reason, Turkey can be reason. Like NATO’s member NATO has to protect it if it is compromised which Turkey is. Turkey itself requires NATO to act. We must not let history to repeat again.

On the end, to sum up my argumentation I would like to ask from you, readers, to imagine, just on second all that bloodthirsty tyranny, control over your mind, over everything that you are, impossibility to take one breath without fear what will happened next. Can you? There is nothing worse on Earth than war. But unfortunately very less people can understand it.

Against the motion

Anastacia Petrushkova, AEGEE-Sankt Petersburg, is studying Political science at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia.

In my opinion, consideration of an armed invasion of another country should be based on a detailed comparison of the following factors: (1) importance of the expected results for the “target” country and (2) possible risks. Of course, the estimated probability of achieving the positive results should also be considered very accurately.

Does it really worth it to take a risk of getting even more victims, unbalancing unsteady, but more or less stable, current situation in the Middle East, and – as a side effect – tarnishing the political reputation of each of participating Western countries and United Nations, to go there and get rid of the current regime in Syria, passing the power to the opposition which is not even fully supported by the local people?

First of all, let’s have a look at issues connected to the expected results.

Does really the West know what the East, precisely Syria, needs? Are they able to estimate properly which regime is going to serve better? We all know that the current president, Bashar al-Assad is guilty in military crimes, but as of now both sides are aggressive and cruel and both of them are killing. Who is guiltier now?  Besides, as Bashar al-Assad pointed out, he wouldn’t be able to keep his place without people’s support. He is also claiming that the uprising against him was initiated by al-Qaeda fighters and foreign jihadi forces, trying to destroy his “stable regime”. The situation is not so clear… And speaking of it in “democracy terms” Syrian people should take the responsibility and decide themselves, which way they are willing to go. The role of Western countries would be to try and organize and then supervise a peaceful dialog between the government and people.

Moreover, the opposition block in Syria is not solid at all. Many players were pushed together by a pressure of “you’re either with us, or against us” principle, when they had to choose between joining the current regime or the oppositions, and decided the issue by simply picking the “smallest” evil of the two. What will keep those opposition players together once Assad is out of the power? Won’t it break out with new, maybe even more destructive, conflicts?

Possible risks

Another thing is that by invading Syria the West would put the whole Middle East region at risk of further destabilization which might become very destructive. Are Western countries, especially in their current state, ready to take responsibility for the whole Near East?  Or even just for the situation in Syria?

And the last, but not least – the most obvious point: naturally, there is very high risks of getting even more victims among the local civilian population, as well as among the international troops, without any guarantee of achieving the peace. In any case, violence at no point seems to be a right way to start a democratic regime. At least, as long as there is still a hope of a peaceful resolution.

During upcoming Spring Agora Rhein-Neckar 2013 Comité Directeur (abbreviation “CD”) will present one interesting and controversial proposal. Many new members of AEGEE are confused by the proposal, because they do not remember existence of regions that were abolished in 2006. Therefore, the purpose of this debate is to inform and educate the members in order to make good decision at Spring Agora by bringing arguments for and contra the proposal.

In this point I would like to clarify the position of IPWG in this debate. Some people could object that it is not the business of this working group to enter the discussion about proposal. However, IPWG does not have any stake in supporting or rejecting the proposal. Our goal is to offer impartial debate about the proposal through newly established online platform which should serve for whole network, not only for IPWG members. You can judge if we succeed.

Now back to the debate. We invited Comité Directeur of AEGEE to enter the debate because of its relevance for the network. On the other hand, opposition speaker is former Speaker of Network Commision, the stakeholder which is directly influenced by the proposal. We hope this will bring quality and depth to the arguments in the debate. Last word is, however, up to the reader.

The outline of the debate is similar to former ones. Firstly, the proposal is introduced in order to completely comprehend what it is about. Secondly, Comité Directeur introduces qualitative benefits of the proposal such as sustainability and improved knowledge transfer. Second point is about encouraging cooperation and transparency (stability) in the region. Overall, CD offers clear structure of the opinion, brief points and relevant benefits of the proposal.

On the other hand, opposition speaker, Olimpia, tries to explain why proposal will not solve the problem and advocates flexibility of current system for network distribution. Moreover, Olimpia contests the likelihood of regional division of AEGEE into the regions. Relevant point is also rebuttal of cooperation and stability which is advocated by the CD. Overall, Olimpia uses good structure of the paper and relevant examples. She is tackling important points in the debate.

I believe that you can get all information about the proposal from this debate. This information should serve delegates at Spring Agora to decide what will happen with the proposal. I wish you pleasant and informative reading. Do not forget to comment because this problem is relevant for all members of AEGEE.

Affirmative speaker: Comité Directeur (as a team)

Opposition speaker: Olimpia Parje

Ivan Bielik, Moderator of the debate

The proposal

Article 27: Network Commission

(1) 1.The Network Commission supports the locals in the region and the Comité Directeur with their tasks. 2. It is composed of up to eleven individual AEGEE members, who are not members of the Comité Directeur.

(2) 1.The members of the Network Commission are only entitled to act in the name of the association, when they act on behalf of one or more of their assigned locals, in those countries where their locals are present, and always with prior written consent of the Comité Directeur and those local(s). 2. They have no financial power.

(3) The Network consists of 10 geographical areas. Each area is assisted by a Network Commissioner. Each local has the right to express its opinion regarding the distribution of the areas, which can be revised and modified every three years in accordance with the Strategic Plan.

(4) 1.The members of the Network Commission are elected by the Agora for one year. 2.All members of the Network Commission may be re-elected. 3The Speaker of the Network Commission is to be elected at the occasion of an Agora among the elected members by simple majority.

So basically it means that opposed to now, where the regional distribution changes every six months with the elections of the Network Commission, the regional distribution will be fixed for three years.

Defend the proposal

Comité Directeur of AEGEE

The proposal will bring more sustainability and better knowledge transfer in the Network. Locals staying together mean stronger cooperation and stronger personal bonds between people from one region. This means that knowledge will circulate more easily, there will be more exchange of best practices. This can be especially valuable for fresh and inexperienced locals or boards.

Additionally, the proposal will create better informed locals and more discussion on level of the locals. The closer locals are networked, the easier information passes between then. Besides the top-down channels, more discussion will take place between the locals on the same level, which means that locals will be better informed, have a clearer opinion and lastly will be able to send more informed delegates to Agorae,e.g. When locals know each other and confidence is stronger, it will be much easier to apply together or regional grants, such as e.g. the Visegard Foundation.

Second benefit is better visibility of our locals. Sticking together and building sustainable relationships also gives room for common projects and e.g. common PR initiatives. E.g. smaller locals can benefit more from the PR efforts done in big locals, and the external picture of AEGEE will become more coherent because one local will know what the other does. Moreover, it will bring more support with the organisation of events. We have seen that organising big events like Agorae is also possible for smaller locals, if they receive support from surrounding antennae. Examples are Agora Alicante and Agora Rhein-Neckar.

Last benefit is more transparency for the locals. In case we establish regions, Network Commissioners will have to state already during the elections for which region they candidate, which makes it much clearer for the voting locals to know who they will work with, opposed to the current process where the Network distribution is being done after the election according to the results of the elections. This will also decrease the risk of having two Commissioners from the same region and having geographically widespread regions that are difficult to take care of by one person.

Against the proposal

Olimpia Parje, working with Network commision for two years, former Speaker of the Network Commision; master degree in European studies.

While discussing such a substantial change to the structure of AEGEE such as the introduction of regions and an official regional level, we should take into account where this idea comes from but most of all we should be truly informed about the very unfortunate consequences this change would bring upon our network.

Why regions won’t solve our problems

The proposal to introduce a regional level aims to fix our long-time problem of lack of continuity and weak locals by introducing a set of arbitrary borders to be reviewed every three years. The fact that our network needs improvement is no news to anyone, but if there is anything that has kept the network together it is the Network Commission and the way this works. The proposers assume that by fixing regions for a longer period of time, the Network Commissioners involved will ensure a proper knowledge transfer, locals will cooperate more with each other etc. However, this solution will only facilitate the election of members of the Network Commission based on geographic residence and not competences. What does geography have to do with the preparation, motivation and possibilities of the people who stand for elections? Isn’t it in the end also a discrimination and limitation of those who would do a good job based on their place of birth? Who would you rather take care of your part of the network? Nothing will guarantee continuity – this always depends on each person, how well they do their job and how well they transfer their knowledge to their successor – all the dedicated people are doing it now as well.

The division of the network

While it is true that structures create stability and encourage cooperation, it is only towards the inside. Regions were abolished in 2006 because the regional feeling had become much stronger than the European feeling, contrary to our aim. The introduction of regions will divide our network into small corners of Europe that will rarely cross their ‘borders’ and will create a greater psychological barrier between the already distanced European and local level.

Some will argue that there are already de-facto regions existing in the network, but this is false. There are locals that have stuck together for 2-3 years, and locals that are often under the same network commissioner, it’s true. But it is the flexibility of the network distribution to network commissioners that allows the locals to get as much attention as they need. Just to give off some examples:

• Locals from the UK have often been grouped together with Dutch and Belgian locals, due to geographical reason. On one occasion however, a Hungarian netcommie was elected who had very close personal ties to the UK, had lived there for a while, was very motivated to invest more than the usual amount of energy into this part of the network and was willing to make trips our of her personal budget because of this, as AEGEE-Europe was reluctant to pay for more trips to such a weak part of the network.
• Greek locals have been grouped together with different parts of the network, either with the Balkan locals, the Turkish ones, the Mediterranean ones – Italian etc. (depending on the situation that would benefit them most each time).  At the moment they are grouped together with Romanian and Moldavian locals under a Romanian netcommie, without Bulgarian ones. Many complain this is not a coherent-linear distribution but it is definitely never random. This Romanian netcommie in question even speaks greek, has grown up in Greece and spends many of her days in Greece.

There are many more examples to give to support this claim and prove how flexibility has helped improve our network. What if a local has a problem of working with a certain netcommie – will they be excluded from a region completely? How would you imagine this working in a network with fixed regions? Let me tell you, it won’t work.

There are other ways to encourage cooperation between locals geographically linked, be they under the same netcommie or not. TSUs, National Youth Councils, Regional Training Courses, Twin Antennae to name the obvious ones. And why not ‘regional’ projects such as EaP?

The arbitrary nature of borders

The proposal doesn’t state what the regions will be. Who is to decide upon this? The Comite Directeur through a decision probably. But one CD will think differently than the other. And this is normal.

How will you divide the Balkans? The Caucasus and Russia? Central Europe? Based on languages? Based on cultural proximity? These things often vary depending on who you ask. Where will you put Greek locals – with the Balkans or Turkish ones? The UK, France? Everything is relative. There is no fair division of Europe. And to be honest, hasn’t this continent been fragmented enough? If this proposal is accepted, we’ll surely live to experience this on our own skin.

You may see some practical advantages of the existence of regions, but then again the same goes for a national level, which we strongly want to avoid, don’t we? You may see in regions a solution for lack of continuity and cooperation, but the only thing regions will bring is a fragmentation of our widely spread network, an agora-wide voting for nationality instead of competences, and eventually the loss of the idea that we are one network and the loss of the European feeling altogether.