The Future Is Here Today

The Future Is Here Today
Where Business, Nature and Leisure Provide An Ideal Setting For Living

Advertise in Almere-Digest

Advertising Options

August 5, 2016

The Netherlands: 38% of international students remain in Holland five years after graduation

Rotterdam Erasmus University Campus
Over a third of all international students who graduated from Dutch universities have remained in the Netherlands five years later, according to a report from EP-Nuffic on the rate of retention of foreign students.

Welcome, to work’, produced in collaboration with Bureau Blaauwberg, found that the five-year stay rate of international students from the 2008/09 graduating cohort was 38%, higher than the global average of 25% recorded by the OECD.

Of that cohort, 71% are employed in the country, reflecting the efforts of national campaigns to train foreign talent to enter the labour market.

“Substantial numbers of students come here because of the quality and reputation of the education system, without even a thought of remaining in the Netherlands to work afterwards,” the report notes, but adds that the figures “suggest that a majority of graduates wish to seriously evaluate their prospects in the Dutch labour market, or for further study.”

Promoting the Dutch labour market to foreign graduates is a leading tactic in initiatives to retain students.

Of the 7,350 international students graduating in 2008, 70% were still in the country in October 2009 while two years on, 3,540 students, or 48%, remained.

Retention figures are higher among students outside of the EU and EEA, who have free access to the Dutch labour market, the report shows.

“Since [non-EEA students] have already made a big decision, it makes sense that they would put in more effort to stay on after graduation,” it says.

The number of international students has consistently risen in the Netherlands in recent years, with close to 90,000 international student enrolments in 2014/15, up from 70,389 the previous year.

The EP-Nuffic program, Make it in the Netherlands, aims to show students the career opportunities available once they graduate.

The scheme’s efforts consist of bridging the divide between Dutch and non-Dutch students, helping to connect international students’ studies to a career path and making the Dutch language more attractive to learn for international students.

“An early acquaintance with the Dutch language is essential for a successful start in the domestic labour market,” the report notes.

The program also aims to increase the scale of regional student retention campaigns, and reduce red tape for students who are looking for work.

“Where possible, we’ve decreased this red tape and made sure that more information is provided in English,” a spokesperson from EP-Nuffic told The PIE News.

“One of the main results was that the possibilities for the so-called ‘orientation year’ in which students are allowed to stay in Holland to look for work has been simplified and elaborated.”

The report also credits higher education institutions for the higher than average stay rate.
“When it comes to increasing the stay rate and retaining international students in the Dutch labour market, to date the institutions have taken the lead,” says the report.

It also makes recommendations of what more could be done to encourage international students to stay in the country post-graduation.

“Increased efforts would benefit, for example, from more regional collaboration and a comprehensive national, social and economic agenda,” the spokesperson said.

“Municipalities, businesses, not-for-profit organizations and higher education organizations should better exploit cross connections.”

EU-Digest

Turkey: Fethullah Gülen and the United States - Fahrettin Altun

Why not extradite Gülen to the International Court of Justice in the Hague?
At the Vienna Airport, Austrian newspaper Kronen Zeitung published a controversial message to international travelers: "Going to Turkey on vacation supports Erdogan." This message, spread by one of the country's top selling media outlets, fuels hostility - not just against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom they openly hate, but the nation he leads.

In Turkey, ordinary citizens thwarted a coup attempt orchestrated by a terrorist organization that infiltrated the military. People have been camping out at public squares to stand guard against threats. Not only did the country's democracy collapse, but it also became consolidated as a paradigm shift took place on July 15. President Erdogan's opponents in Turkey, who resorted to anti-Erdoganism in the past, experienced serious setbacks. While the authorities bring coup plotters and their accomplices to justice, certain steps are being taken to strengthen the state apparatus. For the first time in history, there is genuine cooperation between various social and political groups that are united in their opposition to the coup attempt.

The West, however, does not share the Turkish people's enthusiasm. What they desperately want is for Turkey to stop acting independently and according to its national interests and instead assume a passive role in the international arena. To be clear, it is the United States, not Europe, that is the driving force behind the anti-Turkey rhetoric. The Europeans are merely acting according to signals from the U.S. If European leaders were able to devise a strategy of their own, they could understand that the July 15 coup attempt could have meant destruction for the continent. Sadly enough, Europe lost its sense of direction a long time ago.

And how does the American political leadership behave? By mounting pressure on the media, they bullied mainstream news outlets to ignore the basic principles of journalism and attack Turkey. Over the past two weeks, U.S. officials have tried to characterize the situation in Turkey as a power struggle between two rival groups - as if there were two legitimate powers engaging in some kind of civil war. At the same time, the United States has falsely portrayed the government's response to Fethullah Gülen's terrorist group, the Gülenist Terror Organization (FETÖ), as a crackdown on dissent.

The U.S. has been defending the coup plotters so desperately that one cannot help but wonder why they will not stop supporting FETÖ. Why does Washington try to cover up Gülen's tracks? It would appear that they want to continue their cooperation with FETÖ to keep Turkey in line. Moreover, one could argue that FETÖ's access to information remains strong enough to make Gülen valuable for the U.S. government. Likewise, they might be concerned that a comprehensive crackdown on FETÖ could bring to light U.S. foul play in Turkey and elsewhere over the years.

As Turkey's official inquiry sheds light on FETÖ's crimes, Washington's relationship with Gülen will become a matter of domestic policy rather than a foreign one. While the involvement of a group in the United States in the failed coup attempt becomes clearer, the U.S. will have a lot more questions to answer. The very people who allowed Gülen into the country will be held accountable in the court of law and in the public eye. Knowing exactly where the current process leads, Gülen has started to beg his host country to allow him stay in the U.S. Let him get on his knees and beg - even though his words mean absolutely nothing

Note EU-Digest:  To support Turkey and possibly also help the US to get out of the mess they are in with Turkey, the EU should request the US to extradite Fethullah Gülen to the Netherlands and put him on trial at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.  

Read more: Fethullah Gülen and the United States - Fahrettin Altun - Daily Sabah

August 2, 2016

Germany: Cologne Turkish demonstration shows major flaws in EU legislation re: New EU citizens rights and obligations


German Citizens of Turkish Descent demonstrating in Cologne
Aljazeera reported recently that tens of thousands of Erdogan supporters rallied in Cologne to show their opposition to the failed coup attempt on July 15.

In the meantime Turkey has summoned a senior German diplomat, the embassy said, a day after German authorities stopped Turkey president from addressing a rally in Cologne via video-link. ministry at 1pm (10:00 GMT)," a spokeswoman for the German embassy in Ankara told the AFP news agency, adding that the ambassador, who was summoned originally, was not in town.

Hours before the demonstration, Germany's constitutional court banned an application to show live speeches from Turkey by politicians including Erdogan, amid fears that political tensions in Turkey could spill over into Germany.

The decision sparked anger in Turkey, with presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin calling the ban unacceptable and a "violation of the freedom of expression and the right to free assembly".

Germany is home to aboutthree million ethnic Turks, making up Turkey's largest diaspora, and tensions over the failed coup have put authorities there on edge.

The tension comes at a time when relations between Germany and Turkey are already strained over the German parliament's decision to brand as genocide the World War I-era Armenian massacre by Ottoman forces.

As to new EU citizens rights and obligations. It is high time the EU Commission and EU Parliament review some of the procedures for EU member states immigrant swearing in ceremonies related to new citizen. In this respect the EU would be well served to copy the swearing in procedures applied in the US where a new citizen swears agreement to the following: 

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."  

This would certainly avoid ridiculous scenes like recently in Cologne,Germany, where German citizens of Turkish descent demonstrated in favor of "the leadership in their country of origin, and where the President of that country consequently got upset with the German Government that he was not allowed to participate as a speaker in the demonstration via a TV hookup. 

It can not get any crazier than this. Mr. Erdogan, given his record on freedom of speech, should be the last person to make remarks about human rights or freedom of speech - as to the German demonstrators of Turkish descent.  In case they feel more in-line with Turkish Customs, Tradition and Culture, or Mr. Erdogan's Government ideals, they are completely free to go back to live in Turkey.

EU-Digest

France: Muslims go to Catholic Masses in Europe to show solidarity - by Milos Krivokapic and Raphael Satter

In a gesture of solidarity after the gruesome killing of a French priest, hundreds of Muslims on Sunday attended Catholic Masses in churches and cathedrals across France and Italy.

More than 100 Muslims gathered at the towering Gothic cathedral in Rouen, near Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, where the 85-year-old Rev. Jacques Hamel had his throat slit by two teenage Muslim fanatics Tuesday.

‘‘We are very moved by the presence of our Muslim friends and I believe it is a courageous act that they did by coming to us,’’ Dominique Lebrun, the archbishop of Rouen, said after the service.

Some of the Muslims sat in the front row, across from the altar. Among the parishioners was one of the nuns who was briefly taken hostage at Hamel’s church when he was killed. She joined her fellow Catholics in turning to shake hands or embrace the Muslim churchgoers after the service.

Outside the church, a group of Muslims were applauded when they unfurled a banner: ‘‘Love for all. Hate for none.’’

Churchgoer Jacqueline Prevot said the attendance of Muslims was ‘‘a magnificent gesture.’’

‘‘Look at this whole Muslim community that attended Mass,’’ she said. ‘‘I find this very heartwarming. I am confident. I say to myself that this assassination won’t be lost, that it will maybe relaunch us better than politics can do. Maybe we will react in a better way.’’

Read more: Muslims go to Catholic Masses in Europe to show solidarity - The Boston Globe

July 31, 2016

The Netherlands: City of Almere Parking Fines considered "Municipality Legalized Robbery" by vistors and citizens

Almere: a parking fine can cost you a fortun
Parking fines, you know they exist, but how high they are usually is a total mystery until you get a fine.

Of course rules are rules, but they should be proportional. Not a Municipality legalized robbery.

Visiting the city of Almere on Sunday, July 31, to do some errands, we parked the car at 12.55 in a downtown Almere open air car parking called "Landdroesdreef" and paid  € 4.10 (US $ 4.60) to park for approximately one and a half hour worth of parking time until 2.27 pm..

Unfortunately, the errands in downtown Almere took slightly more time than expected and when we arrived at the parking lot it was 2.42 pm, only some 15 minutes too late and we found a fine on the windshield of the car for € 62.50 (approximately $70 US Dollars).

The parking "police", who had given the fine were still standing on the parking lot and we immediately went to them to apologize for the 15 minute delay, but they were not willing to forgive the fine, or even reduce it. Worse of all, they were also unable to explain why a fine for 15 minutes of overtime in a parking lot was € 62.50.

By whatever standards, these kind of a parking fines are ridiculous, specially in smaller cities like Almere, or on a Sunday, when in most cities around the world, there are either reduced parking rates or no parking fees at all.

The Municipality of Almere and the business community would do good to look into this if they want to make Almere consumer friendly and attract more visitors and tourists to the city..

Almere-Digest

July 30, 2016

Brexit Vote Britain Should Not Receive Any Favors From EU, Say 53 % Of EU Citizens Polled

Britain: "Up the creek without a paddle"
An opinion poll published on Friday, found the majority of voters in Germany, France, Sweden and Finland think the UK should not receive any favours when negotiating a post-Brexit trade deal.

Germans and the French were the most opposed to offering Britain a "generous deal" that pays tribute to Britain's role as a neighbour and "important trading partner", according to the YouGov survey.

In both countries, 53 per cent of respondents said it should not expect any favours, compared to 27 per cent who said the EU should offer Britain a "generous deal".

As one EU parliamentarian said: "let's see who they will blame now for their problems - they can't have your cake and eat it also !".

EU-Digest

NATO - In depth Look At Nato Shows It Has No Role To Play In Politics

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on 1949 in Washington DC, and ratified by its twelve member states. The treaty was clearly a response to the growing military threat that appeared by the communist ideology and military power of the Soviet Union, at the same time, the treaty was also viewed by some members as an insurance policy, provided mainly by the United States against the resurgent Germany.

This essay discusses the role of NATO; further it will examine why NATO should not be dissolved, and will discuss Libya as case study. This essay also discusses why NATO should be dissolved, and will draw upon the war on terror in Afghanistan. This essay will conclude that NATO does not have much relevance in 21th century nor it had following the Cold and the Collapsed of the Soviet Union, therefore, it's not imperative for NATO to maintain alliance.

NATO was founded on the grounds that the organisation will protect its members, but mainly from the military threat of Soviet Unions, Lord Hastings Ismay, the first Secretary General clearly defined NATO; "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down (William: 2008, 348)." Ismay argument demonstrates that the international institution was founded mainly because of the of military threat of Soviet Union during the Cold War. NATO's former Secretary General Willy Clases stated that:

"it could build on its past, moving to establish closer ties with Central and East European states; deepen its political , economic and social ties with the United states; build a better relationship with Russia and certain Mediterranean and North African states; and work with regional and international organisation to ensure the stability of Europe its neighbours ( MaCalla:199,445)

Clases statement shows very strong aims of NATO to survive and will expand as global cop; continue its task to safeguard its member states; nevertheless, scepticism remains about its future. NATO's former Secretary General, Manfred Worner stated that "The treaty of Washington of 1949, nowhere mentions the Soviet Union" (MaCalla: 1996, 446). Worner argument reveals that military Threat of Soviet Union was not the main reason; however, NATO has wider international prospects.

At the end of the Cold War, it was perceived that the absence of a compelling external threat, NATO members would no longer see any compelling reason to maintain the alliance, and it would soon appear to be ineffective and incompetent security organisation. Waltz (William: 2008, 349) argued that the:

"alliances will tend to be less robust in a multipolar world because major powers will possess more options as their numbers increase... prudence suggests that existing alliance commitments can no longer be taken for granted ( William:2008,350)".

However, Walt argument proved to have minimal effect on the organisation. NATO flourished at least in some ways since following Cold War, and was broadly engaged in extensive combat operations, such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and recently in Libya.

Adler and Barnett (William et al: 2000) argued that persistence of NATO clearly demonstrates that the international community posses great challenges of security relations than neo realism has traditionally allowed. Their statement shows that NATO has survived many security challenges over time and continued to prosper as a security management institution in 21th century, on the other hand, the emergence of non-state actors brought massive challenges for the states security, states are now fighting non- state actors, such as Al-Qaida and Taliban, NATO responded efficiently by engaging on the War on Terror in Afghanistan, training and developing Afghan National Security Forces, and ensuring partnership agreement to continue military support to the country beyond 2014, after the withdrawal of NATO soldiers from the country. Thus, NATO's interest in promoting peace and stability has not only benefited its members but also wider international community.

NATO should be dissolved clearly it achieved its purpose and outlived its usefulness. Wallander and Keohane ( William et al:2000) argued that NATO is no longer an alliance, its purpose and operations has changed over time and it has transformed in to a regional collective security arrangement or security management institution. Their argument demonstrates that NATO still have great importance in the region, nonetheless, its aims have changed and there is still security threats for its members, but there is still many global security challenges facing NATO member states, this could be the fight on terror, environmental security challenges or the remnants of the Soviet Union, Russia, thus, these challenges keep NATO active and should therefore not be dissolved. NATO as security management institution take human rights and humanitarian intervention into account, NATO efficiently responded to crisis in Libya. The NATO humanitarian intervention in Libya was legitimate, because it was authorised by UN Security Council, the main purpose of this operation was to save human lives and it was successful.

The consequences of a dissolved NATO will not help the wider international order, this is because NATO is also an enforcement arm of the UN Security Council, helped to combat Terrorism, WMD and Cyber Warfare, on the other hand, NATO members states shares democratic values, William et al (2000:358) argued that NATO persists because it's member states shared democratic norms and identities. This shows that democracy is the common language in these countries, and therefore, they can communicate very well and identify their common enemies and share military burden in order to make each ally stronger than individual part. The North Atlantic treaty organisation was set up to defend against the threat of Soviet aggression, however, today it's viewed as increasingly dysfunctional, and still searching for a new role two decades after the collapsed of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War ( Kashmeri:2010).

William (2008) argued that NATO has had little effect on counter-terrorism efforts. Williams statement points to the inability of NATO on combating terrorism. It could be argued that NATO was failed to stop Terrorists attacks on their members states, NATO was incapable to stop major terrorist attacks of 911, 7/7 London bombing or Madrid attacks, on the other hand, NATO did not achieved much of its goals on combating terrorism in Afghanistan, NATO failed to eliminate Top Taliban leader, Mullah Omer and could not stop much of the insurgency in the South of the country, as a result, NATO's member states had to pay huge cost of a lengthy War in Afghanistan, NATO lost their real aims in Afghanistan, its initial purpose of War in Afghanistan was to battle Terrorism, however, the aim spread to many other challenges, and it is now fighting for human rights, war on drug, reconstruction and building a democratic society for Afghans, NATO clearly lost its mandate in Afghanistan and its members had to pay massive amount of finance to support the war at the time where their own national economies were struggling with huge debts and deficits.

NATO believed that the organisation will transform into a World cop, by adopting a strategy of 'Out of Area' (Kashmeri: 1996), this dream is diminishing at slow pace in the mountainous Afghanistan, where many of its European members are avoiding main battle, France and Netherland has already withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, while leaving other members in uncertainty and disarray, on the other hand, US close ally Canada has also withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, making it more difficult for other NATO members to achieve significant goals, the remaining members are struggling to find resources to send a few hundred trainers to Afghanistan.

NATO does not have much relevance in 21th century nor it had following the Cold War and the collapsed of the Soviet Union, it was not imperative for NATO to maintain alliance. Mearsheimer ( 1994) stated that international institutions maintain only 'false promise' as a foundation for security. Mearsheimer's statement demonstrates that NATO is ineffective and therefore should be disbanded, security issues are best achieved through states, thus, security institutions have no place in international system. If the international community is posed with global threats, NATO would be unsuccessful, it would be more advantageous for each region including Europe to build their own security force rather than creating a global NATO force. It could also be argued that security institutions are manipulated by powers for their own national interest; hence, NATO is a great tool for US to advance its agenda. The extension of NATO force has also threatened development of democracy in Russia, most democratic activists in Russia have oppose NATO enlargement, precisely, on the grounds that it hinders the progress of democracy in Russia.

NATO is a tool of US and the majority of Americans have different social moral values compare to their European counterparts. Steele (2004) argued that Americans do not share values, but institutions with Europe. This illustrates that Europe and the US have similar institutions, like Europe they have a separation of powers between executive and legislature and an independent judiciary, but both Europe and the US have different values and this distinction is crucial. It clearly shows that they do not have common values or perceptions, and these perceptions may include security issues, and what constitutes a threat for the US may not constitutes a threat for the Europe. Steele (2004) clearly distinguish these differences, in the US more people have guns than have passports, and there is not one European nation of which is the same as US on this. However, millions of US nationals do share European values, but this only amounts to 48% and that the US is deeply polarised is incorrect.

European states are officially embedded as America's allies, and it's clear that the allies should support America and respect their leadership, thus, this makes it hard for European states to not follow American perceptions about security, if they don't they will fear of being attacked as disloyal. It's very obvious that Europeans like Americans have their own interest, sometimes they will coincides, and these interest will also differ, but it's normal (Steele:2004), it's clear that the US has some bilateral security treaties with other countries. And that could be a good deal for European states. If Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden could take considerable risk of staying neutral during the Cold War, thus, no need to join NATO in 21th century, in which the world is much safe than it was in bipolar order. It's clearly true that NATO will not function with the unanimity it demonstrated during the Cold War, however, the lesson has been learned from Iraq War and that the organisation has become no more than a " coalition of the reluctant"( Steele:2004), because it's strong member such as France and Germany did not joined the Iraq War.

The US as a leader and most powerful member of NATO, has always pushed the European allies to spend much on their defence infrastructure, blaming them for spending too little or spending on the wrong policies. This has been a regular feature of NATO meetings for years. Valasek argued that

"Virtually every piece of legislation in the U.S Congress involving NATO, such as bills on enlargement or missile defence, pass with at least an attempt by lawmakers to attach amendments mandating greater European contributions (Velasak:2001,20"

Velasak statement reveals that the Europeans are being pushed for something which they are not interested and it's also not in their national interests to spend much more on their defence infrastructure and pay heavily for the costs of wars, thus, NATO has become a threat to Europe. NATO's existence undermines Europe's own efforts to build their own regional security institutions which will more efficiently respond to external security threats. Some member states, particularly, the UK often looks over their shoulders for not upsetting big brother, the US. If the UK is so much cautious of not upsetting the US, thus, Central and East European States are more cautious not to upset the US, because they need the US more for their external security. On the other hand, the Common Security and Defence policy of Europe ( CSDP) does not have much power, assets or organisation, their first Task of deployment took place in 2003 in the Republic of Macedonia "EUFOR Concordia"(Chivvis:2008). The organisation seemed to be so weak that they used NATO assets, however, it was considered to be success, but their missions are considered to be very low profiled and small, hence, it makes it so ambiguous that they can respond efficiently to a real global threat.

To sum up, this essay demonstrated that NATO was founded for common defence against the hostile Soviet Union during the Cold War. NATO flourished in some ways and its humanitarian interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya provided NATO further legitimacy. Therefore, NATO's achievements as a legitimate international security institution cannot be underestimated; however, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed to confront Soviet Union military power, and achieved its purpose and outlived its usefulness, and it's time for the organisation to die a peaceful death, it's elimination will lead the path for regional security structure, which would efficiently deal with external security threats, on the other hand, NATO is a tool being used by the US, as the US is the most powerful member and assumed leader of the organisation, therefore, this advance US agenda and sometimes the US interest coincide with European interests, this is because most of Americans and Europeans do not share similar values. Iraq War was a clear example of this interest, which led NATO's main members to opt out of the War; however, US had great interest in the War and continued without their support.

This report was written by an anonymous writer at the UK Academic Writing Services

EU-Diges