Report of the Conference "Internal and External Challenges" Budapest, 24th-25th May 2007

A Conference managed in co-operation with the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Minority Studies

Budapest, 24th-25th May 2007

24th May, Afternoon Session: New Neighbours and (in)security

Proceedings were begun by a welcome from Dr Judit Tóth, the chair of the first session, on behalf of the Minority Studies Institute, the Hungarian section of the Challenge Consortium, which is made up of 23 international research institutes. The Consortium concentrates on the changing landscapes of European liberty and security issues, and this conference was to address some of the issues brought up by the enlargement of the EU and the interactions between its various members, and those countries on its borders.

JHA, ENP and CFSP cross/relations and dilemmas, Sarah Wolff (London School of Economics) and Esther Barbé (Autonomous University of Barcelona)

Ms Wolff spoke first, focussing on the links between justice and home affairs, and foreign policy objectives, specifically with reference to the issues around border management in the Mediterranean. She argued, first and foremost, that there is a gap in the literature caused by the fact that we tend to think justice and home affairs are internal issues; in fact they are themselves European foreign policy objectives and should be seen as such. The development of the European Neighbourhood policy is just one example of the way in which apparently internal policies are becoming difficult to separate from external areas such as foreign, defence or even development policies.

Ms Wolff then illustrated the link between these policy areas through a case study of the bilateral co-operation between Spain and Morocco in the management of borders. Apparently, illegal migration has been reduced by 40% (although this is not provable), through a number of techniques including the use of biometrics to monitor people’s movements, and integrated external vigilance systems used by both Spain and Morocco. Since the beginning of the cooperation period, Morocco has been the main beneficiary of Spanish aid, and has also gained room for manoeuvre with respect to the EU.

Within the EU, focus on Mediterranean borders is increasing, and the surveillance company Frontex Operations now has an important effect on the management of borders in this area; Ms Wolff directed the audience to a paper on the subject by another conference participant, Sergio Carerra, for more information. The increasing focus on the Mediterranean has had effects on general border management, and in particular on relationships with non-EU Mediterranean countries such as Egypt and Israel.

Ms Wolff then moved on to talk about the dilemmas caused by the increasing use of surveyance technologies in the control of borders. She argues that surveyance technologies are instruments of modern governance, and are by no means neutral. Although they allow the EU to better manage its borders, they also have an affect on its citizens, and can easily be turned to immoral purpose. This, she argues, raises ethical issues for new and old EU members alike, since allowing their security to be partly looked after by other Mediterranean states may compromise the values upon which the EU rests. Thus, concluded Ms Wolff, we are presented by a problem in the coherence of EU policy, with a possible disjuncture between the rule of law on the one hand, and justice and home affairs on the other.

Ms Barbé then continued the discussion of the European Neighbourhood Policy, talking about how it interacts with the CFSP, and the challenges for the EU in dealing with its new neighbours after enlargement. Like Ms Wolff, she too was concerned by the possible disjunction between the ethics of the EU, and its need for security measures.

Traditional foreign policy stresses good relations with neighbours, and mutual recognition of borders, but the EU, says Ms Barbé, does not have a traditional foreign policy, and borders, particularly within the EU, do not mean what they once did. Rather, as is clear from EU security communications, EU foreign policy aims to transform its neighbours and create a ring of well-governed countries around itself, through a series of trade-off and bargains offered to these countries to transform themselves. As neighbouring countries co-operate on objectives like counterterrorism and WMD, they are offered a deeper relationship with the EU. This ‘deeper relationship’ relates to the acceptance of a particular country into a particular sort of democratic, peace-loving community, as well as a promise by the EU to help with the resolution of conflicts, particularly frozen ones.

Ms Barbé then went on to discuss how successful this policy is. To this end, the literature asks three separate questions, relating to the clarity of the norms the EU uses and offers to its neighbours, the credibility of the offer made to neighbours, and whether in fact there may be better players in this field than the EU itself. According to Ms Barbé, the union is neither clear nor wholly credible, and there may indeed be better players available. This is exemplified, for instance, in the case of the agreement signed with Morocco, in which ‘crisis management’ is mentioned, but precisely which crisis is not determined; Ms Barbé argued that there should have been specific mention of the Western Sahara problem and exactly what the EU plans to do about it, and that the omission of it causes problems for the EU’s credibility. Indeed, she argued, perhaps Russia would be a better player in this field. Ms Barbé concluded by arguing that the EU is currently faced with number of big dilemmas in terms of the CFSP and the ENP, over how exactly to establish ‘transformative power’, and over what the EU and its power ultimately mean.

Peter Reményi (University of Pécs): Pacification and Realities in West Balkan

Reményi’s talk was on borders in West-Balkan, and the consequences of peace and the ongoing settlement process of the Kosovo crisis. The problem is a classic one, arising from the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the instigation of a number of borders. The treaties signed brought the end of armed conflict, but a fragmented region, and indeed the new borders created conflicts of their own. The principle of inviolability of borders generally overruled that of self-determination, meaning that the ethnic tensions which caused the war were inherited by the new states, except Slovenia. This problem is handled by states in two different ways, either by getting rid of minorities using ‘legal’ tools, or through ‘internal separation’. However all of this leaves us with a number of risks in terms of the questioning of borders, unsolved ethnic tensions, trafficking and organised crime, and ultimately the prospect of more armed conflict. In addition we are still left with a large number of refugees whose return is hampered by local authorities. There are hidden tensions too, often caused by stateless ethnicities; Reményi argued that it is only a matter of time before they push for statehood themselves. From a geopolitical point of view therefore, the biggest problem is the inadequate running of borders, and the fact that the changing of them always hurts one or another group of people. Thus, suggests Reményi, they should be eliminated, which can only be done by admitting the West Balkan states to the EU, all at the same time. He left us with the question this idea brings up, over whether the EU will westernise the Balkans, or whether the Balkans will ultimately Balkanise the EU.

Gregory Mounier (University of Reading) Policing and Public order in Practice – lessons from research in the West Balkan

Mr Mounier’s talk sought to ask whether the EU’s policing action in West Balkan is indeed helping to reform the area, or is in fact more effective in protecting the EU internally. For the EU, policing in West Balkan largely revolves around containing and fighting organised crime, which is seen as the most serious obstacle to reform in the area, as well as the biggest potential risk from the region to the EU. Organised crime undermines the rule of law, and is often linked to political movements which have an interest in instability; in turn criminal groups are inclined to stir up ethnic conflict and unrest because it makes their activities easier. EU authorities do not trust local police, so their policing needs to take place without reliance on them, rather much use is made of liaison officers in embassies and military camps who gather information on groups whose activities might have an effect on EU states. EU policing is carried out using two strategies, one directly financed by the EU, the other linked to the ESDP, relating to the reform of local police networks. Although the ESDP is in theory about creating the right security conditions for sustainable peace, Mr Mounier argued that it is really simply a way of pursuing EU internal security objectives outside the union, and exporting EU standards abroad. There are, argued Mr Mounier, a number of problems with the EU’s actions. To begin with, local people do not see local police as corrupt, so it is unclear as to whether it is right to be taking the power out of their hands. In addition, although organised crime is a problem, people in the Balkans seem much more concerned with petty crime, which is not being dealt with by the EU missions. A focus on organised crime does not leave room to help with the democratic development of these states or to think carefully enough about internal economic and social security, and thus does not reflect the needs of civil society. In addition, such a focus may not even be so useful in protecting the EU, since it leaves out other factors which may also undermine the union’s security. Thus, Mr Mounier’s conclusion on the EU’s policing in West Balkan was not particularly positive.

Zsolt Belánszky (Hungarian Association for Migrants) A New neighbour: Moldova with open borders

Mr Belánszky spoke on the field research gained by Dr Sallai in 2006. He began with a short introduction to the area, explaining that when Moldova switched back to its national language of Romanian after the fall of the USSR, a small area, Transnistria, did not wish to switch and declared its independence. This led to a short violent armed conflict in 1991-2, during which Russia came in on the side of Transnistria; a ceasefire was declared in 1992 but the peace process has been stuck since then. Moldova offered to grant the area autonomy, but this was turned down as leaders are only willing to accept real statehood; Russian forces and ammunition are still present in the area. Although small, Transnistria is important for Moldova as it contains 30% of the country’s industry and 90% of its energy production; thus the conflict is really more about geopolitical issues than ethnic or linguistic ones.

According to Dr Sallai’s research, about 1/4 of Moldavia’s 4mil citizens work outside the country, and a lot of the consumption within the country is fuelled by this outside labour. Unlike in the rest of Europe, the population is growing although with a GDP of $2000 per capita, it is thought to be the poorest country in Europe. Border control has traditionally been a problematic issue, particularly along the 453km ‘interest zone’ with Transnistria where there are Russian peacekeeping patrols. The border with Ukraine was only properly drawn in 2001 and a EU border assistance mission has been needed since there is a great deal of Transnistrian illegal trade. Relations with Russia have somewhat improved but are still not good, but there is now partnership and much cooperation with the EU. Relations with Romania are complicated since many Moldovans are dual citizens of the country, Romania’s accession to the EU further complicates the issue since it means that these dual citizens should in theory be members of the EU now, entitled to work wherever they wish within the union.

Mr Belánsky concluded by saying that due to its geopolitical situation Moldova will stay poor for the foreseeable future, and Moldovans will continue to wish to travel abroad; in the meantime the conflict with Transnitstria is a serious issue. EU accession for the country seems far away, and it is necessary for Moldova to pursue an independent foreign policy out of the shade of Russia. EU policies, in turn, should take seriously the situation in Moldova and try to help to find solutions to the problems inherent in it.

Imre Szilágyi (Institute of Foreign Affairs delegated to speak on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) On West Balkan policy

Mr Szilágyi gave his opinion on some of the matters discussed above, which he described as a ‘half official’ position, largely reflecting the position of the Hungarian prime minister. Stability in West Balkan is, said Szilágyi, a primary interest for Hungary and the EU as a whole, and accession to the EU should be taken seriously and is an important factor in maintaining peace and stability in the region. So far, processes involving Serbia have been very successful, and it is clear that it and Kosovo’s futures lie in the EU; without their integration the area will remain one of crisis. Thus Hungary is encouraging the EU to give backing to Serbia’s accession agreement which was suspended in 2006. In addition, Hungary is very much in favour of the swift accession of Croatia, and is ready to help with the country’s preparation. On the particular subject of Kosovo, Szilágyi said that a viable solution was needed, approved by the UN security council, otherwise the area would declare an independence that would not be accepted by everyone. Serbs in Kosovo, he argued, need to feel safe because mass out-migration would create international problems. The Hungarian government has a constitutional responsibility to Hungarians outside Hungary’s borders, and is thus watching events closely to see what effects they will have on them. Particular attention is to be paid to those outside EU countries, as they do not wish to see a new ’iron curtain’ at the EU’s southern borders. As a result, it is pushing for the Schengen visa system to be instigated to make movement easier.

Discussion

Questions were raised over whether Moldova is part of the Balkans according to Hungarian foreign policy, but the answer was somewhat unclear. The fact that Hungary has no official statement on Transnistria was remarked upon, since the area is so close; it was suggested that Hungarian foreign affairs should be better educated in this field. A perspective from Bulgaria was given, stressing the importance of the movement of people, since many people have never left the small area in which they live. The Hungarian position on Vojvodina was discussed, and the fact that an agreement of economic co-operation has been signed. It was suggested that Hungarians in Vojvodina should be offered dual citizenship, but it was also argued that this might affect stability in the region. Instead, it was argued that a simpler solution might be a national visa whereby Hungarians in the area are allowed to enter Hungary more than usual. However, it was agreed by many that the Hungarian government needs to come up with a strategy on the issue soon.

Attila Pók (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) Conclusion

Dr Pók began by telling us about the Balkan centre, www.balkancentre.hu, which acts to promote communication between policy makers, diplomats and businessmen interested in Balkan matters. Its work is particularly important because under current circumstances many different spheres need to cooperate in shaping Hungarian foreign policy. The traditional aims of this policy – EU and NATO accession and protection of Hungarian minorities in neighbouring countries – are now somewhat outdated and need to be rethought. Particular focus is still given to minorities, of whom there are about 3million in Hungary’s neighbouring countries. The situation is delicate, and action needs to be taken carefully since anything said about minorities – even for instance Russians in Estonia – will seem to give a message about Hungarian minorities in other areas. Indeed, Dr Pók argued that in some cases the situation is so delicate that the best solution can be wait on events, rather than trying to formulate and enforce policies which may not work. As discussed by the speakers, internal security is currently a big issue in the Balkans. Dr Pók argued that although organised crime is a problem, many people in the area survive on it, and if we are to try to get rid of it we must take responsibility for the social security of the people who rely on its income. If we remove ways of doing things which have worked for a number of years but do not offer anything else instead, chaos may ensue. In addition, Dr Pók argued that although we live in a ‘new’ Europe where the state does not mean what it once did, theoretically we are still stuck in a 20th Century social science framework which takes the state as its main point of reference. Social scientists and politicians, he said, need to take each other seriously to find solutions to new problems: old theoretical techonologies have ceased to work.

25th May, 1st Morning Session

The session on Integration and des/integration: migrants was introduced by the chair, Angelina Tchorbadjiyska, who brought up the starting idea that within the EU, older and newer member states have somewhat different perspectives on this topic.

Sergio Carrera (CEPS): What is going on at EU level on integration of immigrants

Mr Carrera sought to address the relation between the EU framework of integration, and the common integration policy, and to ask whether there is really a consistent approach apparent. The EU framework tends to use a soft-law approach, the main instruments of which are handbooks, communications and lists of principles, which lack binding legal effects and are thus not enforceable. A significant shift in thinking has been made, towards the idea that integration is also about the self-sufficiency of the migrant, and their gaining new skills. Another much-used idea is the responsibilities which migrants have to make themselves fit into the host society. The latest handbook, published in May 2007, focuses on mainstreaming, and starts from the conception that integration is not linear or necessarily plannable; in addition it legitimates the use of obligatory integration programmes for migrants and much importance is given to the ability to acquire new competences. The second element in the integration of migrants into the EU is the role of member states themselves. One question asked is the extent to which member-states’ representatives influence the output of the handbooks; for this we need to look at what is happening on the national level. There is an increasing tendency for mandatory integration programmes, and the idea that people must be integrated before they can receive residence status. It was argued that member states have rather a big influence in EU policy on the subject.

Integration is somewhat difficult to define, and definition of it is to some extent left to members-states to decide. It is increasingly becoming not only about ‘fitting in’ but about self-sufficiency and acquisition of deeper knowledge of the host society. People who do not pass integration programmes are at risk of facing exclusion. Mr Carrera argued that these sorts of policies do not follow a community approach or the ‘fair and equal treatment’ idea, but rather become a tool for a state to practice restrictive and nationalistic policies, and means that immigrants must lose their own national identities to become properly integrated. Thus, Mr Carrera concluded that it is difficult to see much of a community approach when looking at the EU framework and the Common Integration Policy. Perhaps, rather than allowing states like Germany and Austria move their own policies to the international level, we need to let older principles continue to guide our approach and try to keep a more liberal policy. Otherwise, we may be in danger of social conflict and insecurity within the union.

Paul Minderhoud (Radboud University, CML) Social Security and immigration

Mr Minderhoud discussed the position of EU member states with respect to the giving of social security to immigrants from other member states. The Challenge Midterm report argues that social security should provide for immigrants who are participating in the host society. Residence Directive 438 gives all EU citizens the right to entry to all other states for three months; if people wish to stay longer they can do so only if they are working or have sufficient resources not to work, in other words they are not allowed to become an ‘unreasonable burden’ on the host state. Once people have been resident in another state for 5 or more years they have the right to permanent residence even if they have no resources. However, argued Mr Minderhoud, the wording of the directive is rather ambiguous, and it is unclear that people will necessarily get expelled from states if they apply for social security. In addition, precisely what an ‘unreasonable burden’ is not defined, and leeway is given to states to examine whether financial difficulties may be temporary. As a result, states have developed their own definitions and ways of implementing the directive, Hungary is still in the process of putting it into place. The idea that states can only expel people if they are proved to be an ‘unreasonable burden’ has fuelled discussions over welfare tourism and fear for social welfare systems. Mr Minderhoud argued that this fear was needless since there is no unconditional access to social security of member states. In addition, a recent study conducted in Sweden, where immigrants have unlimited access to the welfare system, showed no evidence of welfare tourism, and that immigrants from new member states did not generally claim social security. Thus, concluded Mr Minderhoud, concerns about potential abuse of these systems are so far unfounded.

András Kováts (Institute for Minority Studies): The fate of migrants’ integration in CEE

Mr Kováts set about discussing the debate developing over the substantive elements of policy recommendations made on immigrants’ integration in new member states. Some argue that integration patterns in new member states are very different to the old states, and that policy recommendations for older states therefore cannot be applied. Others argue that there is no fundamental difference except for in numbers of migrants, and that policies must still be implemented. Mr Kováts argued however that there are some important differences between older and newer states. To begin with, GDP in newer states is much lower, and unemployment in real terms is much higher, as well as worse housing conditions, less engagement in education and worse health, as evidenced by lower life expectancy. Welfare systems in newer states, despite economic changes in the mid 1990s, are still only somewhat transformed from what was there during the communist era. Their insufficiency is made feasible only by an informal economy which is much less available for immigrants. In addition, asylum systems are much less sophisticated, partly because of the low level of migration. Patterns of migration are also different, being mostly from neighbouring countries rather than from far-away ex-colonies, and far less of whole families. As well as this, the perception of migration is different: immigrants are not as visible either on the street or in the media or political speeches. They do not participate in politics at all, whereas political participation is one of the benchmarks of integration in the aforementioned EU handbooks. Immigration policies are often influenced by foreign policy considerations which in turn complicates the whole debate. All of the new member states joined the Geneva Convention in the early 1990s and policy tends to focus on asylum. Mr Kováts argued that there are not enough comprehensive national initiatives or political strength for valid policy making on the subject of integration. He left us with the question of whether these differences should result in regionally different policy priorities, and if so, how these differences should be articulated. If not, we need to think about how to reconcile the tensions which will be caused by clear disparities between the states.

Dr. Annamária Veress (Official in charge of migration law, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement) On the Bill on Integration

Ms Veres provided us with a short insight into the Hungarian Government’s line on integration. Organisational structure was changed last summer, such that the department of migration is a newly-made unit. The ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement has expressed a clear wish to draft something on integration, which is becoming increasingly important as numbers of foreigners in the country are going up year by year. Many are ethnic Hungarians and integrate easily, but for the others help with integration may be needed. As a member of the EU, Hungary may now receive increasing numbers of immigrants and it needs to prepare itself legally and socially for this. Integration is seen as a dynamic, long-term, two-way process, and there is a broad spell of issues to be dealt with. Following a number of studies, a white paper has been drafted on refugees and other legal residents in the county, mostly focussing on integration and the importance of follow-up. The most important question at the moment seems to be the acceptance of foreigners into the labour market, made complicated by the fact that unemployment is still relatively high in the country. Since the target group is not homogenous, it is necessary to create a detailed legal framework which can take care of all immigrants; concentrating different interests and needs into one act will, however, be difficult. The government intends to apply ‘mainstreaming’, requiring that equality for all is achieved. Although resources are an issue, the costs will arguably be offset by the gains made through the creation of a more cohesive society.

Michael Lindenbauer (on behalf of the Regional Representative of the UNHCR)The UNHCR experiences and dilemmas of refugees’ integration in Hungary

Mr Lindenbauer presented a less than encouraging picture of the situation of refugees in Hungary, many of whom find it difficult to become integrated into society. A big problem is that many simply do not have enough to survive on; when the UNHCR talks to the authorities about this, they are told that if refugees are earning at all, or live out of camps, they are not entitled to refugee financial support; many have lost hope in waiting to be registered for benefits. Since the 1980s Hungary has recognised a number of thousands of refugees, but the numbers of people who have stayed is most likely in the 100s, and many of these are ethnic Hungarians. Although he did not wish to jump to conclusions, Mr Lindenbauer argued that people leaving most likely do so as they feel there must be better conditions for them elsewhere. Integration is difficult for a number of reasons, including lack of support for language-learning, and problems with schooling for children in camps, as well as lack of access to vocational training and the near-impossibility of getting previous qualifications recognised. In addition there is little recognition of the fact that people may need psychological help with trauma, which itself can make it difficult to integrate into normal life. Mr Lindenbauer was interested by the insight into the government’s position, but argued that policies need to be implemented as soon as possible to reach people on the ground. He did not wish to argue that asylum seekers should have the same integration possibilities as recognised refugees, but did say that something must be done about how difficult it can be to integrate having been a non-integrated asylum seeker for a long period of time. Mr Lindenbauer concluded by saying that action needs to be taken immediately, and will require both compassion from society and willingness of refugees. He reminded us that in these issues we are talking about only a few hundred people, meaning that helping them should not be terrible hard, and that the country has a responsibility to make sure people are not forced to move on if they want the chance of a viable life.

Discussion

Dr Tóth argued that since there had been so much discussion of problems with terminology and statistics, perhaps each country should use the same indicators and indexes for everything, to which Mr Carrera responded that he would not like to see any sort of binding rules on this, as looking at issues such as social inclusion from the point of view of statistics leaves us in danger of losing the important factors. There then followed a discussion of rules over social security provision to EU member states migrants, and it was suggested that in some cases human rights may be at risk in not providing social security, such as in a case quoted, where a young woman became pregnant in a member state not her own, was unable to work, but was also not entitled to social security as she had not been in the country for long enough. It was suggested that in policies over social security provision, the principle of proportionality should be used. It was also suggested that it should be used when thinking about requirements for immigrants to integrate, particularly when this requirement is for people to integrate before they even arrive in a country, as is the case with the right to family unification in France. In general, it was agreed that member states need to move somewhat away from nationalistic positions, and that new frameworks need to follow community interests.

2nd morning session: Integration and des/integration: Romas, chaired by Attila Melegh

Roundtable discussion: Is there any impact of the enlargement on the Romas’ integration? How could 2007 become a Year of Roma Integration in the EU?

The first participant to speak was MEP Viktória Mohácsi, who argued that 2007 has little chance of becoming the Year of Integration, but perhaps we should aim for an Equal Opportunity year, encompassing all issues including human rights. Although improvement of treatment of Roma people is a criteria for accession to the EU, the effectiveness of this law is not clear, as evidenced by the accession of Bulgaria in January this year, despite an incident of organised police abuse in the country in September 2006. She admitted that European legislation is not having the impact it should be having in Hungary, and that segregation and discrimination against Roma children in Hungarian schools is still a big problem, despite much attention being given to the issue (on paper at least) in the Public Education Act.

The second short talk was given by two representatives from Municipality of Hódmezővásárhely, a city which has overhauled its education system in order to bring in unsegregated schools, such that now all schools are required to take in all sorts of students, and to integrate them into the school community. The main focus-points of the de-segregation have been the efficient use of resources to re-tailor the school system and increase the levels of specific skills needed for the integration of underprivileged students. A number of institutions were closed, including the institute for underprivileged students, but much of the staff were re-employed elsewhere so as not to lose their knowledge and experience. Although the scheme looks promising, there are still a number of dangers to face, not least the attitude of parents, many of whom do not see the negative impacts of segregation and are scared of exposing their children to new school communities and new teachers. The teachers, in turn, need to be provided with adequate support so that they can deal with problems which arise. Thus, the way forward seems to be the promotion of open-mindedness and tolerance, and the continuation of a co-operative and integrated process.

The next speaker was dr. Jenö Kaltenbach, as the Ombudsman for Ethnic and National Minority Rights, on the impact of accession to the EU. It seems as though accession acted as a motivation to change the traditional Hungarian legal system towards a more anti-discriminatory system, and the strengthening of possible protection against discrimination. In 2000 the first anti-discrimination paper was drafted, but a law was only passed in 2004. However, the commission which was set up as a result made it clear that discrimination is not as easy to define as we might think, and may be hidden, making it much harder to combat. EU directives have pushed law-makers to develop effective sanction systems, including the establishment of ombudsmen, which Hungary has in fact had since 1995. In addition EU structural funds have been given to resources for Roma projects, as well as the inclusion of the Roma as a focus in the Equal projects started in 2004. There are still a number of problems, often relating to the lack of knowledge about the nature of discrimination, and the weakness of central government in the running of schools, which are some of the prime spots for discrimination. In addition, there are problems with how the media handles some of the issues relating to the Roma; as a result Mr Kaltenbach argued that the majority society must be convinced that they too will benefit from the integration of the Roma for it to properly work.

Next dr. Balázs Krémer from the Prime Minister’s Office spoke on the discourse on Roma integration and how it has been impacted by accession. He argued, following Berne, that often the real issue is different from that which is talked about out loud, and that politicians tend to say what they think people want to hear. He argued that the prevailing discourse in Hungary is one of platitudes which do not have much meaning, and compromises which come out with very little effect. Before the accession of former communist states, the EU did not address Roma at all. Now, they are willing to support programmes, but only those which are specifically targeted at Roma, which brings up the rather contradictory idea that the way towards integration is through segregation. Mr Krémer argued that EU policy on the Roma is problematic in a number of ways, and that a subject which was a big issue in Hungary’s acceptance into the EU has somehow become less interesting to the EU since accession, with the result that not enough is being done. However, there are some positive impacts including inclusion strategies, and the ‘jobs and growths’ strategy, which highlighted the idea that this is not just a moral problem but an economic one, and the fact that not just the Roma but society as a whole should benefit from their integration. EU policy is becoming more ‘evidence-based’, which is positive, but it is unclear quite what its effects will be.

There was then a discussion among the participants, during which the point was made, to begin with, that economic issues are very important in dealing with the Roma but tend to be ignored. There was then further discussion of segregation in schools, and the idea that much of this is supported by parents, 52% of which were willing for their children to sit next to ‘badly behaved’ children, but only 10% of whom were willing for them to sit next to Roma children. Segregation is made worse by the fact that high proportions of Roma children are defined as ‘mentally disabled’ and are educated in special institutes. Mr Krémer argued that while non-segregated schools are a good idea, it is not necessarily an evidence-based policy issue, and more research needs to be done to show that the children involved are really getting better educations. Mr Kaltenbach argued that one of the main problems is that schools are being treated as though they were an isolated element, when in fact they are bound up with the rest of the social framework, all of which needs to be treated together if any real progress is to be made.

András Pap (Institute of Legal Sciences): Are migrants and Roma Integrated? Lessons on police and ethnic profiling in Spain, Hungary and Bulgaria

Racial profiling is the tendency by police to stop people because of their apparent ethnicity rather than actual suspicion, based on ‘reasonable presumption’ of potentiality. When done either because of prejudices held by the police themselves, or the majority society, it will clearly have a negative effect on integration regardless of state policies. There are moral and human rights issues over racial profiling, but it is often also an ineffective policing strategy, as police waste time stopping innocent people when they could be chasing criminals. Pap’s team’s study was one of the first to be done outside the English-speaking world, which is where most research on racial profiling has been done. The three countries in focus have all undergone a relatively recent transition from totalitarian to democratic government. Research was done through qualitative interviews with police-officers, discussions with the public, and with people stopped. Throughout the process evidence for institutional racism was found, although it is difficult to measure. In Bulgaria and Hungary racial profiling seems to be more present in the stopping of pedestrians. Roma in Hungary are not only stopped more often, but also feel they are subject to more disrespectful treatment. This is coupled in Hungary with underpolicing of Roma neighbourhoods, while numbers of Roma were reported saying they would prefer a higher police presence. It was found that ‘Roma as Criminal’ was an idea held not only by the police but by many members of society and by many Roma themselves. A common method in measuring prejudice, asking people what percentage a particular group makes up in a population, was used to measure prejudice-levels against Roma and other minorities. Hungarian police tended to think the proportion of Roma in the country was around 30%, when in fact it is around 6%. Similarly, guesses proportions of general immigrants were far too high, for instance the Chinese proportion was estimated at around 5% when ethnic minorities make up less than1% of the whole population.

Lea Kőszeghy (Institute of Minority Studies): Monitoring inequalities and discrimination of migrants and minorities

Ms Koszeghy set out to discuss the work of the Institute of Minority studies, and the kinds of challenges posed for them in doing research for the FRA. There is a growing interest in social inequality and discrimination, and there has been a boom in requests for reports. However, there is often a tension between contractors, who request very particular sorts of information, and social scientists who see the need to present local contexts to make the data usable, and it is often difficult to marry requests of contractors, and scientific methods. In addition, precisely what the relevant issues are can be in question. For instance when the Institute began they had to lobby to be able to look at the Roma as an important minority, and were instead asked to do a report on Islamophobia in Hungary, which is a much smaller issue.

Ms Kőszeghy then went on to discuss briefly some of her own research on the housing situation of the Roma. Large inequalities can be seen here, but there is a list of factors shaping these which are not often put together in the same line of thought, including housing policies of previous eras, and direct and indirect discrimination by local government and citizens. Accession to the EU has had little if any effect on this, but interest is growing in the issue. (Ms Kőszeghy’s research is available on the internet at www.justiceinitiative.org).

Due to time issues, Elspeth Guild opted not to give any concluding remarks.

Afternoon Session: Biometrics: a challenge for privacy or public policy? Chaired by Sergio Carrera (CEPS)

Wolfgang Schreiber (EART) Biometrics: applications, costs and risks

Mr Schreiber began by making the important point that when we talk about ‘biometrics’ we are not dealing with a single phenomenon, but rather a whole set of different sorts of information about people’s physical characteristics; thus biometrics can include fingerprints, face- and voice-recognition, iris characteristics, hand configuration, and even DNA.

Biometrics have a number of state and private applications, and some which are between the two, such as airport regulation. State applications include the use of biometric data in passports and visa data storage; some of the in-between applications may include, as well as airport security, access to public services or password-free financial transactions and access to computer programmes. In the private sphere biometrics can be used to keep ‘private’ spaces private, such as gated communities in some parts of South America and South Africa, individual houses and workplaces, and to monitor employees’ attendance at work.

Service providers give us a number of reasons for which we should want to use biometric technology, for instance enhanced security, and no more problems with forgotten passwords. Its costs have so far been difficult to evaluate since it is as yet unclear, for instance, whether biometric passports are more or less expensive to produce than non-biometric ones, and whether biometric airport security systems make up for their cost in increased effectiveness. However, in general it seems as though the market for biometrics has not yet really taken off, and that most potential commercial users are waiting to see how the technology fares in state application.

Mr Schreiber then went on to talk about the risks associated with the use of biometric technology. To begin with there is the question of where to store the data so that it is not in danger of being accessed by unauthorised people. In addition there is the risk that it can cause or add to social exclusion, for instance in the case of access to gated communities, or in the US visa waiver system in which countries supplying the US with biometrical information receive visa waivers for their citizens, while those who do not comply will not. In addition, there is the very complicated and basic problem of trust. Many people may simply not want to register their data because they are suspicious about what it might be used for. Mr Schreiber argued that the German Ministry of Interior’s wish to extend the time period for which data can be stored, and to allow unrestricted access for police to local authority databases, coupled with the use of military personnel for police duty, may be symptoms of politicians’ concentration more on security than liberty.

Certified identity and uncertainties – documents and mistakesJuliet Lodge, University of Leeds

Ms Lodge began by expressing her aim to dispel some of the myths around biometrics, and discuss some of the issues involved in its use. Perhaps the central issues are those of liberty and privacy, since biometrics can allow closer monitoring and more detailed information of people, and the possible mixing of public and private spheres.

One of the first myths about biometrics is that they are a failsafe way of identifying people, but this is not in fact the case. For a start, certain biometric indicators may simply not be verifiable on some people, for instance people with certain sorts of disabilities. In addition, certain biometrics may change during a person’s life, and data itself can degrade. Thus, governments’ attitudes that they can validate that we really are who we say we are is displaced.

Ms Lodge then went on to discuss the position on biometrics among the general public. Those who are against biometrics can be accused of being anti-modern, but there is real fear from some sections of society. Many people are uncomfortable with systems whereby access to services is controlled by biometric indicators, as it can seem as though the government controls our identity through holding the data which gives us our rights. In addition governments’ wish for general centralised databases has met with opposition, since this points towards increased surveillance of society. Many people feel that the risks to people’s liberty and security outweigh the claimed benefits.

At present, argued Ms Lodge, there are indeed a number of risks. Systems to combat ID theft are not sophisticated enough, and biometrics companies themselves are at fault for allowing this to happen, creating a sense of ‘creeping insecuritisation’. In addition better safeguards must be put up against fraud, and information trading, as well as the granting of information to third parties. Related to this, it is vital to guard against information and intelligence commodification.

Ms Lodge concluded by arguing that since biometric systems are open to attack, there is currently not enough trust in the technology for it to be acceptable to the general public. In order for people to trust biometric technology, they must first understand it better, so that they can criticise it, and eventually control it.

Dr Peter Stauber: Prum Treaty and extended data exchange. Backgound, context and state of play (Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement)

Mr Stauber’s talk aimed to rectify a number of misunderstandings about the treaty, and to explain to participants more about its content. Originally the treaty was signed in Prüm in 2005 by seven old EU member states, as a ‘treaty on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation’, particularly in terms of combating terror, organised crime and illegal migration. [The full treaty can be accessed via the EU Council Portal at http://europa.eu]. It aimed to solve the long-standing EU contradiction between a Europe without traditional border controls, and the fact that free movement of persons also entails free movement of illegal persons, which creates problems for law enforcement. More recently the treaty has been opened up not only to new states, but also to further development, and as a result, argued Mr Stauber, a number of complex and interesting issues may emerge. A large part of the treaty will soon be incorporated into EU member responsibilities.

Much of the treaty relates to the exchange of information, including DNA and fingerprint data. Thus it is based, in part, on the principle of availability. Each party must set up DNA analysis files and make them available to other parties. Since Prüm expressly relates to law enforcement, only databases related to this can be connected; other databases such as hospital ones may not be used. Indeed data-protection is taken very seriously in the treaty, and data searches can only be done on an automated, ‘hit/no-hit’ basis. Mr Stauber argued that although the treaty does make law enforcement more efficient, it is only a technical improvement, and that the signing of it does not enable countries to do anything significant which they could not do before.

Mr Stauber then finished his talk by telling us about the current state of play with regards to the treaty. As well as the original seven member states, another nine have declared their intention to join. However its technical implementation is in the pilot phase at the moment, in only five countries. In Hungary the treaty is currently in the process of ratification. Nonetheless, Mr Stauber remarked on the immense speed with which elements of the treaty have been incorporated into EU workings, leading him to argue that as a result Germany and its allies have managed to for the EU to implement the system they created for data exchange.

Dr. Judit Sandor (Central European University): Genetic data and bioethical challenges

Dr. Sándor began by reminding us that genetic data is a broad topic, and as such can be difficult to define; she made clear that during her talk she would be using the definition from the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data. Genetics is a topic with numerous legal and social challenges; in some countries there are specific laws with regards to data and how it is dealt with, but in many there are not.

The genetic testing market is expected to become increasingly profitable, but the data obtained from it is of a socially-sensitive nature, and the privacy issues inherent in it must be adequately discussed and dealt with. To begin with there is the issue of how data is obtained. The most straightforward and open method is to give people a test, and then give them the results of this test. However information on people’s genes can be obtained without their knowing about it, for instance through the disease history of their family members, or from very small samples such as hair or dental floss which can be obtained without permission.

This brings us on to the question of control and privacy: Ms Sándor wondered whether, if we need a specialist to interpret our genetic-test results, how much control we can really have over it. In addition, since there is uncertainty about the future application of genetic data, people may give consent for their data to be used for one purpose at present, but it may later be used for other purposes; thus there is a significant question over ownership of genetic data. In addition genetic data can add to discrimination, for instance against people whose genes suggest they will be the sufferer of a late-onset disease.

Thus, suggested Ms Sándor, we may need a new legal paradigm to deal with genetic data, this is a view echoed by many in the EU. This is partly to do with the scientific significance of the data, but also the cultural significance of taking genetic samples. Any laws would have to deal with intellectual property and gene-patent issues, and the various uses of the interpretation of genetic data; many countries are still waiting on events.

Dr Judit Tóth (University of Szeged): The case of the Hungarian State President with biometrics

Dr Tóth began by familiarising the audience with the main legal roles of the president. He is to represent the unity of the nation, and oversee the democratic operation of state organs, as well as being chief commandant of defence. The current president, elected in 2005, said of himself that he had both symbolic and merit-based power, and that his duty was to stand for human rights and the constitutional values of the nation, as well as representing the government’s foreign policy, with a certain amount of room to manoeuvre. He describes himself as a ‘friend of Europe’, and argued that democracy needed to be taken even deeper in the domestic sphere.

Dr Tóth then described to us his ideas on biometrics, and his attitude to the USA. The president declared that as an academic, he would not travel to the US while he was still required to offer up biometric data in the form of fingerprints. In addition, he disagreed with the fact that visas are needed for Hungarian citizens wishing to enter the country. When he had to go on a state visit to the UN General Assembly in New York he still refused to give his fingerprints. In addition he would only meet President Bush in Budapest, in line with his wish to emphasise the importance of liberty, democracy and the protection of human rights, including during the fight against terrorism. To this end, he refused to sign the agreement between the US Department of Homeland Security and the EU, arguing that data should not be transferred abroad unless the person concerned has explicitly consented to this transfer.

Dr Tóth concluded by arguing that although states do need to protect against terrorism, and that this will limit our liberties, each limitation must be proved to be appropriate, and must not in turn limit human dignity. Thus, even though it may seem as though some people would at present choose security over liberty, a new balance must be struck between the state’s self protection, and the need for the respect for fundamental rights.

Discussion

Following the lectures, there was an invitation for questions from the floor. Mr Stauber was asked whether the Prüm treaty is really as good an example of the principle of availability as it seems, to which he answered although it does not implement the principle entirely, perhaps it is a good first step. To the idea that the treaty is at risk of putting speed and efficiency, which are not values, over rights, which is a value, he argued that although this may be a danger in general, Prüm seems to be a good practical solution to current problems and seems to have found a balance between these two. He was then asked why there was need for ratification of the treaty if an EU council decision incorporates it. He answered that there are political reasons for joining the treaty, in being part of smaller groups within the EU, and also that not all parts of the treaty are incorporated into the EU decision. In addition, policies can be implemented faster by joining the treaty.

There then followed discussion of whether biometric data is at base about tracking citizens, and the fact that medical data can be used to track people even if it was not originally collected for this purpose. Ms Lodge argued that although policy-makers say the use of biometrics is all for our security, which does indeed need to be protected, it is unclear that biometrics will actually make the difference they are supposed to, and that technical surveyors have a vested interest in the fact that politicians often do not understand properly how all the technology works. In addition, it was suggested that the state market is crucial for biometric companies which want to profit in the commercial market which is expected to grow up in the future.

Didier Bigo (CERI) Conclusion

Mr Bigo described the case of biometrics through a metaphor: the travelling of the self. He argued that biometrics are not the problem in themselves, but rather the retention of biometrical data through databases such that in theory our every movement can be traced, and we have what he referred to as a ‘data double’ which travels without us. This problem increases when there is a network of data exchange, the limits of which are unclear. Perhaps the biggest fear is caused by the fact that, argued Mr Bigo, the US does not seem terribly concerned with data protection, and that they tend to make links between various people (such as family ones), based on this data, which are not necessarily relevant links to make.