| View this email online if it doesn't display correctly |
| | |
|
Reporting Back
October-December 2018
Dear friend,
Within
my newsletter you will find my report back from my delegation’s trip to North
Korea, updates on salient EU affairs, and an outline of the potential future
for Britain post-Brexit. With regards to the immediate Brexit discussions,
there is nothing in my capacity as an MEP I can add of note at this time.
Clearly the main discussion on this matter is currently within the British
House of Commons and UK government. Like you, I await to see what transpires in
the Commons debate and subsequent vote.
As ever,
Nirj |
|
Feedback from delegation visit
to North Korea
As some of you might be aware, for the past
three and a half years, the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with
the Korean Peninsula, which I have the honour to Chair, has undertaken a series
of confidential meetings with North Korean officials, in order to discuss
ending the Korean War and secure lasting peace and stability to the Korean
Peninsula. We have determinedly advocated confidence-building measures, with
the intention of indirectly fostering the practical steps necessary for
reducing risks in the region and, ultimately, building upon this foundation to
transition the Peninsula from a state of armistice to a state of peace.
Little did we know when we began, how quickly
the march towards peace and reconciliation would happen. Following the historic
Kim-Trump Summit, in Singapore, earlier this year, an act that required
enormous political courage from all sides, my colleagues and I felt duty bound
to explore how the EU could help facilitate de-escalating tensions and support
an evolving peace process.
To this end, following a hiatus of almost six
years, the delegation sent a mission to the DPRK last month, restarting the
Inter-Parliamentary meetings between our two sides and marking the first direct
engagement between any European Parliament body and the DPRK in this mandate.
Just one year ago, such a mission would have
proved impossible, as the world tensely waited to see if war would break out in
East Asia between the DPRK and the US, following numerous ballistic missile and
nuclear tests conducted by Pyongyang. However, the last year has witnessed a
seismic shift in the nature of international engagement with the DPRK.
The mission focussed on four key areas:
meetings with the DPRK authorities, visiting Pyongyang facilities, visiting EU
humanitarian projects in the countryside (about 4.5 hours driving from
Pyongyang) and meeting the EUMS (EU heads of mission) in the DPRK.
Our findings were clear. In our meetings with
the primary interlocutors, in this case the Speaker of the Supreme People’s
Assembly (SPA -their parliament), the Director of the Key International
Department for Internal Affairs of the Central Committee of the Workers’
People’s Party, the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Vice-Minister for
Economic Affairs, and the formal Inter-Parliamentary Meeting (IPM) with the SPA
Friendship Group, our opposite numbers interestingly never adopted a
complaining tone and at no point blamed the UNSC, the USA or any other actor,
of unfair treatment. |
| |
Our counterparts unilaterally insisted upon
the fact that the DPRK has now achieved its security strategy - by the
development of its nuclear programme - and is now focused on national
prosperity. They pointed out that although sanctions have had an impact on the
implementation of their economic plans, the DPRK has developed a strong
self-reliance system. Pride in this self-reliance and national patriotism were
inherently suggested as the value system that underpins the regime’s continued
existence above all other considerations.
If asked on which sanctions first they would
like to see removed, the common answer was that this is not the point, but
that rather we need to first develop “confidence building” measures, increasing
bilateral contacts, rather than removing specific sanctions. Having few
political allies and surrounded by historical enemies, the regime is ostensibly
reaching out to form fresh relationships with new global players, like the EU.
While the UN-voted sanctions, which have been
fully implemented by all EU member states, have
undoubtedly led to the confidence necessary for the advent of this new
beginning, opinions
differ on their efficacy. Some EUMS diplomats considered that there is no
evidence that they produce any significant impact on the political decisions of
the Central Committee, and even reinforce a strong sense of pride, hurting only
the most vulnerable whilst the elites have insulated themselves from their
effects. |
| Indeed, Pyongyang, the location of a
privileged two million inhabitants, mostly integral to the regime, was, to our
surprise, a modern capital, as advanced as any in Southeast Asia, with
checkpoints when leaving or entering the city. They told us the checks are in
place for security purposes, to prevent the infiltration of external inimical
forces. Be that as it may, they also prevented North Korean peasant farmers
from leaving their farms and finding jobs in the city.
Our visit also demonstrated that there is a need
to bring clarity and transparency to the peace and denuclearisation process. We
are concerned that the discussions behind closed doors, on a bilateral basis
between the US and North Korea, precludes the involvement of other concerned
actors like China, Japan and Russia, leading to suspicions, misunderstandings
and unwitting mistakes.
Further, that while in the long-term our
common goal, the American demand for immediate, complete verifiable and
irreversible denuclearisation, will not happen until the DPRK is satisfied that
they can get something for something, in gradual stages.
Going forward, we discussed initiating an
international conference, chaired by the EU and involving the six direct
protagonists, as well as international development banks like the World Bank,
AIB, Japanese development organisations, and UN agencies, including UNIDO, USDP
and other relevant stakeholders in preventing war and securing stability and
sustainable peace to a denuclearised, neutral Korean peninsula.
Furthermore, the Supreme People Assembly
expressed their wish to visit Brussels and, if exceptionally authorised, an
incoming Inter-Parliamentary Meeting could be held during the first part of
2019. The SPA also interestingly expressed, given the years of a de facto
frozen bilateral relationship, their wish to invite the EP President and AFET
Chair to visit Pyongyang. |
|
The future of a post-Brexit Britain - Address given at the
Conservative Party Conference 2018
The
British are an exceptional people. Our exceptionalism comes from a recognition
that goes back to the Magna Carta: that no-one is above the law. The British
are best when we are independent. Starting with the England of Henry VIII who
made England independent of the then EU: the vast domination of the Papacy over
global affairs, which enabled successive Popes to divide the globe for
conquests between Spain and Portugal in the Americas, and continental Europe
for the Holy Roman Empire. All this came to an end when Henry VIII proclaimed
that he was the head of the Church in England, and not the Pope, thus creating
an independent English nation.
This
act of defiance against the then European order isolated England and left his
later successor, Elizabeth I, to battle tremendous odds to maintain national
sovereignty. The referendum of 2016 has transported us - in the reign of
Elizabeth II to the reign of Elizabeth I - in the blink of an eye. Elizabeth I
had to battle the Spanish Empire in the West, the dominant Holy Roman Empire on
the continent, and of course France, to maintain our independence. How did this
small fog-bound, near bankrupt, Kingdom of England and Scotland end up by the
end of the 19th century being the largest global Empire that the
world has ever seen?
How
did they do it? A nation of no more than twenty million at the time, ruling
hundreds of millions. The second strand to our exceptionalism is the
dichotomous nature of our spirit. Contradictorily, while establishing imperial
order through its military, British teachers were imbuing Indian and colonial
children (including my ancestors) with the values of freedom, democracy, rule
of law and justice. I have no doubt that in a post-brexit world, British
exceptionalism will get stronger and stronger. Let us also be in no doubt that
with us gone, the European project of creating a French and German dominated
super-state will accelerate, because we were the biggest impediment to the
creation of the United States of Europe – the ultimate end objective of ‘ever
closer union.’
|
| A
post-brexit world could well consist of an ever self-absorbed United States of
America, withdrawing into herself and undermining, unwittingly or otherwise,
the multinational rules-based order, established by her predecessors who
enabled American dominion over the structure of the post-war world; producing
seventy years of peace and stability for her citizens and the global democracies.
That
the current administration of the US is setting out to dismantle these
multilateral arrangements is astonishing, but strangely enough gives British
exceptionalism its chance to be regnant. The multinational order is based on
the rule of law - a rule of law, descending from Magna Carta, which encouraged
everyone from dictator to peasant to live under that law, recognising human
rights. That spirit of international law emanated from Britain, in the same
dichotomous, almost schizophrenic notion, that the Imperial subjects must be
taught the values of democracy and liberty.
So
human rights, fairness in trading, global concern for the environment, a spirit
of cooperation under a rules-based system – all underpin that exceptionalism
that our country has stood up for, time and time again. If Trumpism prevails
and the international order becomes increasingly unstable, the EU or the United
States of Europe, will attempt to compete for the space left behind by the
withdrawal of the US influence over the multinational system.
The
vacuum left behind will be filled and it can only be filled globally by these
alternatives: China acting alone and promoting its belt and road initiative; or
alternatively like-minded liberal democracies; Britain, Japan, India,
Australia, Canada and others determined to protect the international rules
based system. Because only by acting together can these nations protect the
economic wellbeing of its peoples in the coming period of disruptive economic
history. By 2030 or even sooner, a combination of artificial intelligence and
bio technology will see the destruction of our conventional industrial base, to
be replaced by the digital age. |
|  |
Artificial
intelligence, health and educational software, autonomous and electric cars, 3D
printing, agriculture-related software, will disrupt 90% of the traditional
industries which we now know. It is amazing to think that Uber is just a
software tool and that they don’t actually own any cars and our now the largest
taxi firm in the world, while Airbnb is the biggest hotel company in the world even
though they don’t own a single hotel. All that with IBM Watson giving legal
advice with 90% accuracy, which is affordable, is putting hundreds of thousands
of young lawyers out of jobs. IBM Watson helps to diagnose cancer four times
more accurately than human nurses. And from 2028 onwards car ownership will begin
to collapse, with driverless cars delivering us to our destination and thus
leading to car-parking spaces in cities becoming empty. Last year more solar
energy was installed worldwide than new fossil installations and the price of
solar will drop so much that we will have cheap electricity leading to
increased desalinisation, creating an abundance of clean water.
We
are now at the confluence of two immense revolutions. On the one hand biologists
are deciphering the mysteries of the human body and in particular of the brain
– and at the same time computer scientists are giving us unprecedented data
processing power. When the biotech revolution merges with the infotech
revolution, it will produce big data algorithms which will challenge individual
freedom.
There
will be huge discrepancies between the hyper rich and the poor. With power in
the hands of digital giants forming digital monopolies, unless regulated, big
data algorithms will undermine the very idea of individual freedom. This gap between huge corporations owned by
the few, controlling vast wealth – and most of humanity controlling nothing,
will lead to a paradigm change in our political culture. The triumph of liberal
democracies over communism only happened because the democracies diffused the
power to process information and make decisions among many people and
institutions. Dictatorships concentrate power and information in one place and
in the same way soon artificial intelligence might swing the pendulum in that
direction, making it possible to process enormous amounts of information
centrally, making centralised systems more efficient than diffused systems.
Because concentrating information relating to a billion people in one database
gives you far better algorithms and accruing enormous central power, giving
dictatorships in the 21st century extraordinary control over their
subjects.
Britain’s
exceptionalism is duty-bound to break this monopolistic power of data over our
individual lives. A new form of liberal politics will need to emerge where the
protection of individual freedom under a rules-based system becomes paramount
for the survival of our civilisation as we know it. And in this fight, a
post-brexit Britain could have a pre-eminent role to play.
One
of the most astonishing things that is happening every four years, the
Olympics, where patriotism manifest itself in all its glory, is that extremely
powerful countries agree to compete under the same rules as tiny, insignificant
nations, under a common code of rules, recognising that each individual athlete
is equal. The world in the 21st century should be governed thus, as
we govern the Olympics. Britain is the best equipped nation to lead the creation
of this new world order. |
| Reporting back from Europe
The EU freezes the UK out of the
Galileo satellite project
Despite
contributing significantly to the funding and technological creation of the
Galileo system, it has been confirmed that the UK will not use it for defence
or national infrastructure purposes. This is as a direct result of the EU
choosing to bar the UK from being fully involved in all aspects of Galileo. The
decision of the EU to freeze the UK out of vital aspects, thus precipitating
Britain’s withdrawal, was widely criticised by politicians and the aerospace
sector alike. Carl Bildt, the Co-Chair of the European Council on Foreign
Relations, lamented that “excluding the UK from the security part of the
Galileo satellite system, and thus forcing them out, is strategic folly of the
first order.”
Similarly,
Tom Enders, the chief executive of Airbus stated
that the UK's departure from the £8.9bn European Galileo satellite project
is a “serious blow to the EU’s common security and defence ambition.”
The Galileo project began back in 1999, with the aim to
create a network of thirty satellites to orbit Earth, giving the EU autonomy
from US and other international systems. It is intended to support military
forces and businesses as well as mobile phones and satnavs. One of the most
important elements of the Galileo system is the Public Regulated Service, an
encrypted navigation service. This was largely designed by UK scientists and
engineers; though the EU has determined that British contractors will be locked
out of any future development.
Given these developments, Theresa May has rightly concluded
that that UK will develop its own system to fulfil our requirements. The Prime
Minister stated:
"Given the Commission's decision
to bar the UK from being fully involved in developing all aspects of Galileo,
it is only right that we find alternatives, I cannot let our armed services
depend on a system we cannot be sure of. That would not be in our national
interest. And as a global player with world-class engineers and steadfast
allies around the world, we are not short of options.” |
| The Future Direction
of the European Union
With
the second largest net contributor to the EU budget due to leave, and populist,
eurosceptic movements gaining electoral ground across the European continent,
one might have been forgiven for expecting the European Parliament’s ‘Future of
Europe’ debate to be a reflective, hard look at what has gone wrong in recent
years. And where it can regroup and concentrate its future efforts. Instead,
the debate descended into the familiar federalist hubris and expensive wish
lists. From the formation of huge armies to the further erosion of national
sovereignty. Within the adopted report was a series of measures designed to
reduce the sovereign power of member-states and centralise power within the EU
bureaucracy. This included proposals to remove member-states’ veto on the EU’s
tax-raising powers as well as the size and scope of the EU budget. In addition,
the proposals sought to give the EU more autonomy to exercise its own foreign
policy.
Conversely,
the ECR group led calls for an EU that does less but does it better. That moves
away from the failing federalisation project and instead focuses on where the
EU’s combined efforts could be effective. Namely, the migrant crisis, border
control, internal security, international trade, the environment, and the
completion of the single market.
|
| Conservative and ECR MEPs condemn move
to further impede use of Glyphosate
Members of the European Parliament’s Special Committee on the
Authorisation of Pesticides – formed following the debate over the weed killer
Glyphosate –this week returned with its findings. For many months now, the committee has been
tasked with examining the scientific evaluation of glyphosate, the world's most
commonly used weed killer which was relicensed for five years by the EU in
December last year.
While the report is non-binding, ECR Group shadow rapporteur Anthea
McIntyre opposes many of its proposals, which undermine the principle of
science-based decision making. They also run counter to much of the evidence
gathered by the committee, which demonstrated that the present authorisation
system is largely effective and strikes the right balance between food
production whilst also safeguarding consumers.
Scare stories should not lead the process. The
license of Glyphosate, the world’s most popular weed killer, was originally
approved by both the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemical
Agency, bodies set up precisely for this kind of advice.
A ban would be bad for rural livelihoods, bad for food prices
and bad for the environment - because alternative methods to using glyphosate
harm biodiversity. It is estimated that banning Glyphosate would cut UK
production of winter wheat and winter barley by 12% and oil seed rape by 10%, costing
the farming industry £940m a year. Its use also lessens the need for mechanical
ploughing, reducing pollution and soil erosion. No biological alternatives are
expected to be commercially available in the near future.
While the UK negotiates its exit from the EU the decisions
made here will still impact British farmers. That’s why Conservative MEPs are
still working hard to deliver for our farmers. Even after Brexit our
agriculture markets will remain closely associated so getting EU policy right on
pesticides is good for Britain in the long term as well.
|
| Member-States autonomy over border
controls restricted
An EP plenary vote has proposed that internal border checks within the Schengen area
should be limited to a maximum of one year, instead of the current two-year
period.
The Schengen Borders Code, which is currently under revision,
enables member-states to carry out temporary checks at internal borders within
the Schengen area, in the event of a threat to
public order or to internal security. Nevertheless, the vote determined that
the initial period for border checks should be limited to two months, instead
of the current six-month period; and that border checks couldn’t be extended
beyond one year, halving the current maximum limit of two years.
Currently
six EU member-states have a range of internal border checks in place. Following
the vote, the ECR group warned that ideological support for borderless travel
should not come before national security issues. It is member-states and their
own security and police services who are best placed to determine the necessity
for border controls. Furthermore, it is the member-states themselves that bear
responsibility for the protection of their people. At a time when the threat of
cross-border security concerns remains high, it seems irresponsible to actively
reduce the measures available to a nation to ensure the safety of her citizens. |
| I will be back in touch with you again very soon. In the meantime you can check my website Best wishes, Nirj Deva MEP |
| |
