The Netherlands: Green party's strong stance on migration praised by Radboud Univ. professor - by Janene Pieters

While GroenLinks leader Jesse Klaver's firm stance on not making deals with north African countries on asylum seekers may have annoyed many of the other party leaders, his commitment to his his ideals impressed local GroenLinks factions and gained praise from a number of migration experts, including a professor at Radboud university.

The Dutch government formation talks between the VVD, CDA, D66 and GroenLinks collapsed again earlier this week. And again the problem was the asylum policy. The VVD and CDA want to make deals with North African countries - like Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea - on shelter for asylum seekers in the region. Jesse Klaver and GroenLinks are firmly opposed to this.

Klaver fears that the local authorities will not be able to adequately protect the asylum seekers under their care, and that any agreements made with the North African regimes will be very difficult to enforce. Instead he wants the Netherlands to take in more asylum seekers. "We will not send anyone back to countries where it is unsafe", Klaver said in the Tweede Kamer on Tuesday.

Henk van Houtum, expert in European border policy and professor at Radboud University, thinks that Klaver definitely has the right idea about asylum deals with North Africa. "Deals with shady, North African regimes are legally untenable and extremely unwise", he said to Financieele Dagblad. "It is known that regimes in Libya, Sudan and Eritrea do not take human rights very seriously. Nevertheless the Netherlands want North African countries to be responsible for the asylum seekers that the Netherlands is apparently to full for."

Read more: Green party's strong stance on migration praised by Radboud Univ. professor, local parties | NL Times

U.S. Administration Strategy in the Middle East Is Deeply Problematic and EU Should Not Be Involved

In his "landmark speech" last month in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, President Trump called on all “responsible nations” to “work together to end the humanitarian crisis in Syria, eradicate ISIS and restore stability to the region.” While all three are desirable goals, the strategy for achieving them that Mr. Trump outlined in that same speech will achieve precisely the opposite. “Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace,” Mr. Trump said, “all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran.” The president then called for a U.S.-backed pan-Arab coalition aligned against Iran, which, he says, is stoking “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror.” While that is certainly true, the same could be said of several other states in the region, including the one in which the president delivered his speech.

The president’s proposal is deeply flawed. What is happening in the Middle East today is largely a regional power struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The conflict in Syria is a proxy war, not between the United States and Russia, as some American commentators have suggested, but between the two major powers vying for regional hegemony. By taking sides in the struggle, the administration will only prolong the agony. What is required instead is a kind of détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran, one that would rob their proxies of their reasons to keep fighting. The timing may be right for such an effort. Jean-François Seznec, a Middle Eastern expert at the Atlantic Council, told Voice of America late last year: “Having low oil prices is making life much more difficult for Saudi Arabia and Iran…. If there were a major military conflagration, it would ruin both of them, and I think they realize that.”

The president’s proposal is deeply flawed. What is happening in the Middle East today is largely a regional power struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The conflict in Syria is a proxy war, not between the United States and Russia, as some American commentators have suggested, but between the two major powers vying for regional hegemony. By taking sides in the struggle, the administration will only prolong the agony. What is required instead is a kind of détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran, one that would rob their proxies of their reasons to keep fighting. The timing may be right for such an effort. Jean-François Seznec, a Middle Eastern expert at the Atlantic Council, told Voice of America late last year: “Having low oil prices is making life much more difficult for Saudi Arabia and Iran…. If there were a major military conflagration, it would ruin both of them, and I think they realize that.”

Note EU-Digest: According to a New York Times report, President Donald Trump’s strange allyship with Saudi Arabia over Qatar is cause for suspicion about whether his allegiances are informed by business interests.

The report noted that Trump has been in business with the Saudis for 20 years, since he sold ownership of the Plaza Hotel to a Saudi prince and has one golf course in the United Arab Emirates with another on the way. He hasn’t, however, been able to enter into the market in Qatar.

Also please note : Trump, is the first US president in 40 years who’s failed to divest from all his personal businesses upon taking office, has fallen under criticism for doing so.

“Critics say his singular decision to hold on to his global business empire inevitably casts a doubt on his motives, especially when his public actions dovetail with his business interests,” the Times reported.

Another weird development is that just one week after President Donald Trump accused Qatar of funding terrorism, the United States has agreed to sell Qatar $12 billion worth of F-15s. 

Hopefully EU member states will have the "guts" to totally distance themselves from this bizarre Trump Administration foreign policy, in any form or shape, be it in the Middle East, or any other part of the world .  

EU-Digest

Financial Fraud: EU nations back plans for prosecutors office to fight financial fraud

Europe’s justice ministers have set their sights on tackling financial fraud across the bloc.

After meeting in Luxembourg, twenty EU members have decided to create the European prosecutor’s office.

The new body will focus initially on cross border VAT fraud and EU budget corruption but hopes to expand to other areas.

Announcing the measure Europe’s Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova said after its’ adoption there will be a 2-3 year period to establish the office: “This really a big step in our fight against corruption and fraud.”

Read more: EU nations back plans for prosecutors office to fight financial fraud | Euronews

Brexit: Britain is preparing to jump off a cliff

Theresa May's plan seemed so simple: we're way ahead in the polls, so let's call an election, grab a great majority and start building a strong and stable Britain.

Instead, she found out that the British people are tired of empty slogans and that they don't believe she is the right person to lead the UK through the complex Brexit negotiations.

Theresa May remains the British prime minister so far, and is willing to do anything it might take to get life support from the Northern Irish extremists, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

Nobody else is willing to touch the Conservatives, and thus May could soon be pushed out of 10 Downing Street.

So far, her survival strategy was to ritually sacrifice her closest advisers – but it is not only foreign secretary Boris Johnson (despite the loud public denials) that is sharpening his knives.

If May had learned her lesson from former UK prime minister David Cameron's EU referendum disaster and did not call the unnecessary election, London would be fully focused on finalising the preparations for Brexit negotiations right now.

Europe is heading into the talks next week with a clear, detailed and published mandate, unanimously approved by all 27 member states.

However, on the British side of the table, there will be representatives of a very weak government with an unknown mandate, since the unrealistic phrases from the Tory election manifesto are exactly that – unrealistic.

Moreover, the European negotiators will have to keep asking: will our British partners even be at the table a few months down the road? Or will we have to go through every single issue again if there is another snap election and a new British government?

Europe hoped a stronger majority would liberate May from the choke-hold of the Tory Brextremist MPs, and enable her to agree to a deal that makes sense for both sides.

Instead, we will negotiate with a weak government that must rely on extreme partners and where basically every government MP holds a veto, thus reducing the trustworthiness of the British negotiators to almost zero.

Whatever the British negotiators claim, there is simply no guarantee that any agreement will be passed by the current UK parliament.

Read more: Britain is preparing to jump off a cliff

Brexit: "the prodigal son" - EU tells UK its door still 'open'

France and Germany have said the UK could still stay in the EU, as Britain confirmed that Brexit talks would start on Monday (19 June).

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, made the comment after meeting British prime minister Theresa May in Paris on Tuesday.

Of course, the [EU] door remains open, always open, until the Brexit negotiations come to an end”, he said.

The German finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, told the Bloomberg news agency in Berlin the same day that “if they [the British government] wanted to change their decision, of course, they would find open doors”.

Macron and Schaeuble said they “respect” Britain’s decision to leave.

The French leader said: “I would like the negotiation and then the discussions on the future relationship with the United Kingdom to be launched as soon as possible.”

But he added: “Let us be clear … once negotiations have started we should be well aware that it will be more and more difficult to move backwards.”

Schaeuble added that Germany did not want to punish the UK for leaving. “We will minimise the potential damage and maximise the mutual benefit [of Brexit]”, he said.

May’s Brexit manifesto said Britain would quit the single market and impose curbs on EU freedom of movement.

But she said on Tuesday June 13 “we want to maintain a close relationship and a close partnership with the EU and individual member states into the future”.

Read more: EU tells UK its door still 'open'

France election: Macron party set for big parliamentary win

The centrist party of French President Emmanuel Macron looks on course to win a landslide victory following the first round of parliamentary elections.

Projections show La Republique en Marche (Republic on the Move) and its MoDem ally set to win up to 445 seats in the 577-seat National Assembly.

The final outcome will be decided at a run-off next Sunday.

Mr Macron's party was established just over a year ago and many candidates have little or no political experience.

Read more: France election: Macron party set for big parliamentary win - BBC News

Shariah Law: Marches against archiac Islamic law to be held in many US cities - by A. Selsky and J.Karoub

Must Sharia Law become integrated in Western Societies?

The group organizing the rallies, ACT for America, claims Shariah "is incompatible with Western democracy and the freedoms it affords."

But most Muslims don't want to replace U.S. law with Islamic law, known as Shariah, and only "radical extremist groups" would call for that, said Liyakat Takim, a professor of Islamic studies at McMaster University in the Canadian city of Hamilton, Ontario.

Shariah, Takim said, refers to guidelines or principles — how Muslims should live. "Fiqh" refers to jurisprudence, or specific laws. The values embedded in Shariah do not change and are shared among Muslims, he said, while fiqh is open to interpretation and change, and in fact differs among Islamic sects and communities.

"In the public domain, Muslims are not required or expected to impose their laws on the country in which they live as the minority," Takim said, adding there has never been an understanding "that the same laws would be applicable at all times in all places."

"The Quran allows slavery, so does the Old Testament. That doesn't mean we allow it today, too," he said. "Laws are amenable to change."

The marches come amid a rise in reports of anti-Muslim incidents in the U.S., including arson attacks and vandalism at mosques, harassment of women wearing Muslim head coverings and bullying of Muslim schoolchildren.

But while there is little likelihood that Shariah would ever supplant U.S. law, some states have already moved to insulate themselves against the possibility.

Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Louisiana, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee have enacted laws prohibiting the use of foreign law in state courts, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The group organizing the rallies, ACT for America, claims Shariah "is incompatible with Western democracy and the freedoms it affords."

ACT for America has chapters around the country and says it is focused on fighting terrorism and promoting national security. It says it condemns bias against religious groups and is "proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with peaceful Western Muslims as well as peaceful Muslims worldwide."

Note EU-Digest: Even though scholars and others say the USA protesters are stoking unfounded fears and promoting a distorted and prejudiced view of Islam, it must be said that if it goes unchecked, like it did in Britain, this discriminatory archiac Muslim law can become part of national laws, which should not be allowed in democratic Western Societies respecting human right laws.
 
Read more: Marches against Islamic law to be held in many US cities