Currently, (May 2008) the EU has ten European Parliament resolutions[4] and three European Union Council resolutions[5] targeting or mentioning Roma; a good number of excellent European reports[6], over a hundred European Commission (EC) documents relevant to Roma, and to top it all off, a recent Conclusion of the European Council clearly demonstrates the political interest of the member states to address Roma issues within a European perspective.
Furthermore, Joint Inclusion Memorandums (JIM) and National Action Plans (NAP) with Roma-focused chapters, a number of Roma-relevant Structures and Schemes within the EC[7], plus a clear recommendation from Brussels encouraging the new Member States with substantial Romani communities to include Roma in their National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF)[8] seem to indicate that the Commission does quite a lot for its 8 million Roma who happen to be EU citizens.
However, all of these documents and structures do not survive more than a superficial analysis of the situation.
This article demonstrates, once again,[9] that the Commission is caught in its own rhetoric and seems incapable of stepping out of clearly wrong dogmas. It also shows how much more effort is expended in justifying the continuation of flawed experiments rather than reforming and seriously tackling the issues keeping Roma at the very margins of the EU.
Despite numerous excellent documents and speeches over the last 20 years, since 1984, the Commission in Brussels has not employed a single Roma person to work on the acknowledged acute problems facing 8 million European citizens. In this regard, the Commission has the worst track record of any intergovernmental organisations in Europe .
On April 8, 2008, Vladimir Spidla, the Commissioner responsible for Roma issues, as well as a good many other issues, took part in an event commemorating International Roma Day. His speech, unfortunately and unexpectedly, was a typical example of what in the past was the usual window dressing empty rhetoric of the Commission when it came to Roma.
The Commissioner began with the same phrases heard so often: “the situation (of Roma) is unacceptable both morally and socially and a danger for the social cohesion of Europe .” Indeed, this would be a great statement if for once it would be followed by examples of concrete solutions and efficient actions provided by the Commission. The Commissioner’s speech examined, briefly and ambiguously, the responsibilities of Member States, underlining the need to effectively implement the anti-discrimination directives and the use of Structural Funds without focusing solely on ethnic criteria, and the need to combat negative stereotypes and prejudices of the majority populations.
All of these words have been repeated to exhaustion, and have lost meaning. The speech introduced nothing new, compared to the 2004 speech of the former Director of his Directorate General (DG), Odile Quintan, and numerous other speeches in 2005, 2006 and 2007. In fact, the 2008 speech shows a dilution: the Commissioner actually backs up from a concept previously supported strongly by many in the Commission - targeted funds for Roma.
The Commissioner went on to provide his opinion on what needs to be done. He suggested that the main priority should be preschool education; interestingly, a domain the Commission has no jurisdiction and therefore no power to influence change whatsoever.
The second priority proposed by the Commissioner was employment, but unfortunately, this priority was presented in a confusing manner. The Commissioner seemed to focus on the marginal issues of black market work and micro-credits for business development. He focussed on general observations and avoided any concrete statement about solutions and previous or future actions his DG will take to address the issues.
The third priority, in the view of the Commissioner, was the issue of housing. Housing is another sector over which the Commission has no direct jurisdiction, moreover, DG Employment and Social Affairs has very little experience or expertise in this subject.
The last priority identified by the Commissioner was debts and loan sharking within the Roma communities. Indeed, this is an issue in his country of origin, the Czech Republic where around 1% of European Roma live. However, the issue is more or less marginal in most other countries with a significant Roma population. Also, there is next to nothing DG Employment and Social Affairs can do, or has done, to tackle the issue.
Commissioner Spidla also talked about the issue of fighting against discrimination, which he presented as very important. Unfortunately, he did not explain how the Commission, or his DG, plans to approach this.
Overall, Spidla’s speech refers to only one concrete action, the creation of a Roma Action Group. It is worth mentioning that the Group is supposed to perform the same functions as the Interservice Group on Roma created in 2004. As in the case of the Interservice Group, this new Group was created without any consultations whatsoever with member states, the European Parliament or civil society groups. And not surprisingly, there was also no consultation with Roma in creating the Group and it does not include any Roma or Roma expert.
Moreover, the Commissioner seems to expect a passive role for the Group. He states that the Group is “ready to cooperate” with other stakeholders. Considering that the Commission has more funding and is without doubt the dominant body in the EU dealing with social inclusion, one would expect than the Group is mandated to stimulate and steer the cooperation of stakeholders rather than waiting for others to beg for cooperation.
Overall, the entire speech was disappointing. Spidla sounded like an independent neutral observer of Roma issues sharing his philosophical beliefs related to Roma, rather than the responsible Commissioner committed to action.
The Commission has spent close to 300 million Euros in recent years on Roma without any clear short- or long- term strategy. We somehow keep expecting the Commission to come up with a strategy and concrete actions rather than empty rhetoric. Unfortunately, Spidla’s speech hints that we may be in for a long wait.
History of non-action
The European Commission and EU Member States in general have often, over recent years, seemed incapable of addressing social exclusion and anti-Gypsyism in Europe . During 2007 we witnessed incredible displays of anti-Gypsyism in Europe [10]. Presidents and mayors, leaders of political parties and leading opinion makers in Italy , Romania , Bulgaria and Hungary all produced incredible slips of tongue showing the salience of anti-Gypsyism in the public European sphere.
2007 was the European Year of Equal Opportunities. The Communication of the Commission for the European Year suggested that Roma are the “most disadvantaged ethnic minority group in Europe ,” facing “significant barriers in employment and education”. The Communication further stated that “disadvantages experienced by some communities, e.g., the Roma are so wide-scale and embedded in the structure of society that positive action may be necessary to remedy the nature of their exclusion.”
The Communication was drafted and published in 2005. Everything related to Roma in the Communication had already been said a year or two before, in reports funded by the Commission. Those reports[11] are clear about the need for an EU-wide Roma policy to address the very complex issues faced by Roma communities.
Rather than following the recommendations of the experts it had selected and paid, the Commission decided to prepare yet another report which was delivered at the end of 2007. It argued practically for the same things. In the meantime, close to 300 million Euros were spent on projects which followed no strategy whatsoever. It could be argued that almost 300 million Euros and three more years were wasted, as the report presented at the end of 2007 contains nothing new, and no significant changes were seen in the life of the Roma in Europe . The improvements which did come about were exceptional cases; either accidental or unsustainable. None of those improvements are part of a comprehensive long-term planned approach.
Countless Roma and non-Roma organisations have repeatedly asked the Commission to create a Roma strategy. A European Parliament resolution called for an EU Roma Policy/Strategy, and led, in March 2008, to a conference entitled “Towards a EU Roma Strategy.” An EU coalition of NGOs, including Amnesty International, Minority Rights Group and most European Roma NGOs sent an open letter to the Commission arguing for such a strategy.
Commissioner Spidla went to lengths to avoid talking about a possible Roma strategy.
Commissionism
It appears that the Commission is either unwilling or unable to listen to experts on Roma issues. I have found that successful bureaucrats or Commissioners believe that their success within the Commission or elsewhere gives them the ability to find solutions for similar success in the case of Roma inclusion. They do not seem to see the need to consult Roma or people with experience in this field.
It’s not enough that those with decision make power on Roma issues in the Commission have never or rarely come into contacts with Roma. Nor is it enough that the Commission does not employ Roma and does not appreciate criticism on this issue. In fact, the Commission seems to go to lengths to perpetuate and justify its own failures[12].
On November 3, 2007, following some of the worst racist incidents of the year targeting the Romanian Roma in Italy , Mr Frattini, the Italian Commissioner for Justice and Civil Liberties declared:
“What has to be done is simple. Go into a nomad camp in Rome for example, and ask them: ‘Can you tell me where you live?’ If they say they do not know, take them and send them home to Romania . That is how the European directive works. It is simple and safe. Romania cannot say they will not take them back, because it is an obligation that is part of being a member state of the EU.”
He also urged Italy to pull down the camps to prevent any Romanians from returning.
Commissioner Frattini seemed to forget, briefly, that he was not supposed to be campaigning for the Italian extreme right or Berlusconi and that he was a member of the European Commission, an organisation which promotes “respect for human rights”, “tolerance” and “unity through diversity”.
The declaration was sanctioned by many, as the Commissioner implied that Romania should receive anybody who does not know where he or she resides. Coming from a Commissioner charged with fighting for the civil liberties of European citizens, it was rightly considered to be an unacceptable declaration and strong rebuke came from European Civil Organisations and the European Parliament.
In December, due to increased pressure on the Commission, I was invited, together with a few other Roma, to meet Commissioner Frattini. During the meeting it became clear that the Commissioner had little idea about, or interest in the issues facing Roma, and that his main interest was to gain positive publicity. Despite the fact that none of the Roma present agreed or were consulted, the next day the Commissioner published a press release presenting his own arrogant(in my opinion) and unilateral point of view about the meeting.
As I write this, Commissioner Frattini is seen as the leading choice for the minister of foreign affairs of Berlusconi’s government, which includes the right wing extremist and deeply xenophobic Lega Nord.
Certainly, some positive actions have come from the Commission, but those are accidental rather than planned. Personally, I am strongly pro-European and I believe the Commission could play the most important role in the social inclusion of Roma. I have spoken a number of times with Commissioner Spidla and I found him not only very open, but also personally concerned with the situation of Roma. The criticism in this article is meant to underline problems which may be difficult to see from inside the Commission. I hope it will lead to some constructive dialogue and actions in addressing them and not just in commissioning yet another report.
In my opinion, the Commission is living in a dream world when it comes to what it had done, or is doing, for the Roma. The problem remains that for most Roma, this dream is nothing less than a nightmare.
[1] I use the word “Commissionism” to describe the ethnocentrism/institutionalism (fordefinitions see Tsvetan Teodorov, On Human Diversity) of the European Commission.
[2] See www.ergonetwork.org for more information on anti-Gypsyism in recent years.
[3] Speech of the Director General of DG Employment and Social Affairs – 2004.
[4] Resolution of the European Parliament on the Situation of Gypsies in the Community (1984) ; Resolution of the European Parliament on Education for Children whose Parents have no Fixed Abode (1984) ; Resolution of the European Parliament on Illiteracy and Education for Children whose Parents have no Fixed Abode (1989) ; Resolution of the European Parliament on Gypsies in Community (1994) ; Resolution of the European Parliament on Discrimination against Roma and Sinti (1995) ; Resolution on the Situation of Roma and Sinti in the European Union (2005) ; Resolution on the situation of Roma and Sinti women in the European Union (2006); European Parliament resolution of 15 November 2007 on application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States; European Parliament resolution of 13 December 2007 on combating the rise of extremism in Europe; Resolution on a European Strategy for the Roma (31 January 2008).
[5] Resolution No. 89/C 153/02 of the European Union Council on School Provision for Gypsy and Traveller Children (1989); Resolution of the Council and the Ministers of Education Meeting within the Council on School Provisions for Children of Occupational Travellers (1989); Resolution of the Council and Representatives of Member States; Governments Meeting within the Council on the Response of Educational Systems to the Problems of Racism and Xenophobia (1995).
[6] EU Support for Roma Communities (2002) DG Enlargement, Situation of Roma in an enlarged Europe (2004) DG Employment and Social Affairs; Review of the European Union PHARE assistance to Roma minorities (2004) DG Employment and Social Affairs; Thematic Comment No 3: ‘The Protection of Minorities in the EU’ by the EU Network of Independent Experts in Fundamental Rights(2004); Equality and non-discrimination – Annual report 2005 (special section on ‘Improving the situation of Roma in the EU') DG Employment and Social Affairs Key Voices 2005: Access to Justice, DG Employment and Social Affairs.
[7] Roma Interservice Group (2004), Roma Task Force ( 2008), Roma responsible desk officers (DG Employment and Social Affairs, DG Regional Development and DG Enlargement), Roma Internship scheme since 2004.
[8] From interviews with Colin Wolfe of the EC and Maria Ionescu of the ANR.
[9]
http://www.ergonetwork.org/inst.htm.
[10]
http://www.ergonetwork.org/Chronicle.htm ;
http://www.ergonetwork.org/livorno.htm; http://www.ergonetwork.org/culture.htm ;
http://www.ergonetwork.org/hatespeech.htm
[11] See the Conclusions and Recommendations on the Situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union and its Member States in 2003, p.64. and the Situation of Roma in an enlarged Europe report published in November 2004, p.46.
[12]
http://www.ergonetwork.org/inst.htm
