Category: Europe

  • conflict, peace and international education 

    conflict, peace and international education 

    It’s that time of year again. On streets and in shops across the UK this, someone will have been be selling poppies. And today, on Remembrance Sunday, at War Memorials from tiny villages to Whitehall, people will gather for a period of silence. A moment to reflect, to remember. 

    For me personally, there is a family connection. My paternal great-grandfather was killed in WWI, leaving four young children. His name is on the vast Tyne Cot memorial in Belgium, one of 35,000 of the missing who died in the Ypres Salient after August 16, 1917, and have no known grave.

    But I also think of another memorial, the one I gathered around for the years I worked at Sheffield University. This is the moving tribute to the students and staff who lost their lives in two World Wars. 

    This carved stone monument at the University’s core was once located in the original library, and it contains arguably the most sacred and painful book in its collection – a Book of Remembrance.

    Sheffield University had its own battalion in WWI and it was almost completely destroyed on the first day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916. Some 512 young men lost their lives in a single day. I was once given permission to lift off the glass cover and open the book. It was shocking, each page crammed full of so many hundreds of names. 

    For many of those students, hopefully joining up and travelling to France was the first time they had been overseas, just as it was for my great-grandfather. He left his mining village on the unluckiest of journeys – first to Gallipoli where he was gassed, and then to France where he died in the mud. 

    Today, students have a very different opportunity for travel, for connection. A century after my great-grandfather died, I have travelled the world in peacetime thanks to international education. I’ve been to Delhi and seen the vast war memorial at India Gate with its eternal flame and walls of other names – Hindu, Sikh, Muslim. I have friends from China whose relatives long ago would have dug the trenches as part of as part of the 140,000 strong Chinese Labour Corps for the British and French armies.

    Remembrance Day isn’t a British only tradition – a whole world was drawn into those terrible events. 

    What international students teach us now 

    And I have international students friends who don’t need a poppy to remind them to remember because they come from countries with current experience of conflict. 

    Who are they? A refugee scholar from Syria working on environmental sustainability. A Gaza scholar who rejects the language of resilience and uses her research to build deep understanding. A friend in Singapore who has family in Russia and Ukraine. And the Afghan scholars who have become not only friends but family, those who teach us all that the peace to sit with your loved ones and share a meal is never to be taken for granted. That for young girls and women to access education, university, careers and have choices is a right hard won that must be cherished. Each of them is also my teacher. 

    As the world changes, nationalism grows and spheres of influence are fortified by economic and literal weapons, those who understand one another are more important than ever

    And this is also why I believe in international education. Peace takes understanding. It takes work. As the world changes, nationalism grows and spheres of influence are fortified by economic and literal weapons, those who understand one another are more important than ever. 

    It is a tragedy that language courses close because, as John le Carré said, learning a language is an act of friendship. But international education in all its forms is also what my NISAU friends call a ‘living bridge’.

    Whether it happens through traditional programmes of overseas study, short courses, institutional partnerships, TNE or internationalisation at home, global education offers a precious opportunity to meet in peace. To gain a perspective not only on what others think and how they see the world, but about yourself. 

    Why it matters that #WeAreInternational 

    When years ago we founded a campaign called #WeAreInternational , it was a statement not about a structure of higher education but about who we are and want to be. It doesn’t mean abandoning your identity, it means opening it up to possibility. That is in itself an education. 

    John Donne famously wrote that no man is an island but that we are deeply connected to one another, all of us connected to the continent. And when others are harmed, we are all diminished. That the bell that tolls for any life is ringing for humanity too. 

    On Remembrance Sunday this year, as we are urged never to forget, there is also an implicit call to action – not to wage war but to build peace. How do we do that? Nobody is pretending it’s easy, but I think the education we are privileged to support has a very human part to play. 

    I think of the words of my Afghan scholar friend Naimat speaking at City St George’s University of London to students earlier this week. As the minute’s silence begins on today, I will think of my great-grandfather Robert, the lost students of Sheffield University, and the words of this international student who knows of what he speaks. 

    To achieve peace at all times, we must do three things:

    1. Acknowledge the past: we must study and accept the hard lessons, the disconnected dots, and the mistakes of history.
    2. Act in the present: we must stand up against injustice wherever it occurs, recognising that a violation of human rights in one corner of the world eventually casts a shadow over all of us.
    3. Prioritise the future: we must commit to sustained dialogue – not just talk, but a genuine exchange of ideas where all voices, especially the most marginalised, are heard and valued.

    Dialogue, he says, is the non-violent tool we possess to sustain peace. It is how we convert fear into understanding, and resentment into cooperation. And international education offers a precious and powerful opportunity for both. 

    Source link

  • What’s not talked about when you live overseas

    What’s not talked about when you live overseas

    The first time someone told me I was “too loud” in Latvia, I laughed. Not because it was funny, but because I genuinely hadn’t realized I was being loud. We were eating pizza one evening at Easy Wine in Riga, and despite being the only one not tipsy on the refreshments, I was still somehow the rowdiest at the table. 

    I shrank down an inch in my seat. The moment gave me pause. It was oddly familiar, like déjà vu. Everything around me felt almost known, just slightly askew, like it had been tilted on its axis. 

    The shame of taking up too much space? That I knew. But this time, it didn’t come from being Brown. It came from being American. 

    In the United States, my race is always top of mind. I’m a university student, and as a Government major, it’s a regular feature of my coursework. Having grown up in a nearly all-White town, I’ve been explaining my identity to others since I could talk. 

    With nearly two decades of practice under my belt, I’m well-versed in how my skin color and ancestry shape the world around me, and how to articulate that for others. So, the longer I spent in Riga, the more unsettled I felt by how absent race seemed from the conversation. 

    Conversations not had

    Hours spent gazing out the windows of trolleybuses gliding through the city confirmed what I suspected: Riga is not very diverse. Among the small number of people of color I did see, most were other South Asians, like me. In the United States, race is an ever-present topic, whether it’s in political debates, academic syllabi or heated threads on X. In Latvia, it felt like race had slipped out of the cultural vocabulary altogether. 

    As part of my study abroad program, we often heard from expert guest lecturers. And as each one spoke, a quiet confusion grew inside me: Why is nobody talking about race? I started to feel like a foreign lunatic, playing an internal game of “spot the non-white person” on every street. But the more I searched, the more questions I had. Where was the discussion? Why wasn’t it happening? 

    So, I brought it up with a friend I’d made in my hostel. Arsh is an Indian student studying mechanical engineering at Riga Technical University. He had been living in the city since February. When I asked if he’d experienced discrimination as a visibly Punjabi Sikh, his answer surprised me. 

    “No,” he said. 

    And then he added something that completely shifted my perspective. 

    “Nobody talks.”

    Silence and race

    I’d known Latvians were famously quiet, but I’d never considered how that silence might shape their understanding and construction of race. 

    In the United States, your racial identity is often the first thing people ask about. Strangers want to know what you are and where you’re from. Race in America is personal, political and inescapable. The constant conversation can be both exhausting and empowering: it pushes systems to change, creates space for shared stories of resilience and holds people accountable.

    But it also creates a kind of fatigue. As a person of color, you’re constantly on: explaining, reacting, defending. You’re visible, but often through a lens of trauma or tension. 

    In Latvia, it was different. What I came to think of as a kind of “quiet neutrality” reigned. People didn’t ask where I was from. They didn’t comment on my skin tone. They didn’t bring up diversity or inclusion, mainly because they weren’t speaking to me in the first place. 

    At first, that silence felt like relief. But eventually, it began to feel like an absence, because bias still exists, even if no one’s talking about it. 

    The power of passive racism

    After speaking with Arsh, I turned to the Internet, searching for other South Asian perspectives on racism in Latvia. I found plenty. 

    One Quora user bluntly wrote, “Indians are treated like shit here in Latvia.” Another shared that she didn’t know if others felt negatively about her brown skin, but if they did, they didn’t confront her about it. A Redditor described being told to “go back to your own country.” These stories varied wildly from hate crimes to total indifference, but they painted a clear picture: racism existed here. It just didn’t look the same. 

    Curious to dig deeper, I reached out to Gokul from @lifeinlatviaa on Instagram. A popular Indian content creator who’s lived in Latvia for seven years, Gokul shares his takes on life in the Baltics. Many of his videos humorously cover topics of social culture, stereotypes, education and work. He also co-hosts the podcast Baltic Banter with Brigita Reisone. 

    When I asked Gokul about his experience, he described the racism in Latvia as mostly “passive.” Latvians, he said, are reserved. “If they don’t like something, they won’t be in your face about it,” he said. 

    Still, he shared more overt examples, like housing ads that openly say Indians need not call. He noted persistent stereotypes, too: that Brown people are dirty kebab shop owners or delivery drivers. 

    The familiarity of bias

    None of this was unfamiliar to me. I’ve experienced housing discrimination. I’ve been called dirty by a White person. The common style of racism in Latvia was new to me: distant and quiet. In the United States, I once had a tween boy bike past me and mock an Indian accent — it was less traumatic than it was bizarre. There was certainly nothing subtle about it though. 

    Looking further, I found several reports from Latvian Public Broadcasting documenting hate crimes and prejudice against South Asians. So no, it’s not that racism doesn’t exist in Latvia. It’s that it shows up differently, and more importantly, it’s not widely discussed. 

    That difference matters.

    Race is fluid and contextual; its meaning shifts with time, place and history. In the United States, racism is foundational. It began with colonization and slavery, extending through the systemic injustice known as Jim Crow in the 19th and 20th centuries, to modern-day Islamophobia and racial profiling by police. Racial violence and resistance are woven into the country’s DNA. 

    Latvia’s history tells a different story. Latvia is a nation shaped more by being colonized than by colonizing. Ethnic Latvians have fought for sovereignty under foreign rule, whether by Germans or Soviets. Today, its population is overwhelmingly White, and ethnic tensions tend to focus on Latvians and Russians, or Roma communities. Immigration is relatively new here, so the language to talk about race may simply not have developed yet. 

    And that brings me back to volume. 

    In the United States, being loud is often classed and racialized as “trashy,” especially when tied to communities of color. In Latvia, loudness is framed differently: it’s seen as a kind of cultural rudeness. It’s not about being Brown, it’s about being foreign. And because everyone is generally quieter, the social cues around race, identity and belonging shift, too. 

    Little things like volume, friendliness and eye contact build the scaffolding around how race is perceived in different societies. They may seem like surface-level quirks, but they shape deep-rooted assumptions.

    And they remind us: racism may look different in various places, but it doesn’t disappear. It just changes form. And recognizing that change is the first step to dismantling it.

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why do many people outside the United States connect loudness with being American?

    2. Why was the author troubled about the lack of conversation about racism in Latvia?

    3. What kind of conversations do you have about race and do they make you feel more or less comfortable?

     

    Source link

  • Can a podcast cross borders?

    Can a podcast cross borders?

    “To me the essential ingredient is that two persons or two teams from different countries collaborate, right?” Ricci said. “So who’s doing the podcast itself makes it really a cross-border operation.”

    A podcast becomes cross-border, he said, when you bring different perspectives from different countries together in one story. There are two ways to make that story compelling to both the audiences and to Europe as a whole.

    The first way, he said, is to have a strong story that articulates across borders and is relevant for two countries. It can be a very specific story that relates to feelings and notions interesting to anyone. The second way is to start from a general topic and then find a story within that topic. 

    “I’d really love that all podcasts speak to every audience we aim to target,” Ricci said. “I think it’s the biggest challenge to make sure that every podcast finds its audience in every national context.”

    At WePod, the team divided the production process into stages. 

    First there was a pre-editorial stage where they brainstormed ideas. Then came a pre-production phase, where within the topic they reflected more concretely about the characters of each podcast. 

    “How do the different episodes talk to each other?” Ricci said. 

    Provide room for perspectives.

    That was followed by the production phase. That involved going on the ground, setting up interviews and working on scripts and language transcriptions. 

    Finally, in the post-production phase everything textual became a finished podcast, ready to be promoted and distributed. 

    Caminero said that every podcast WePod did was produced in at least two languages, the first in the native language of the podcast producer and in English for a cross-border audience. “Obviously, this creates specific challenges because not all versions can be identical,” Caminero said. “You need to make room for adaptations.”

    Ricci said that it was important in a big production like WePod, with people from different nationalities, to give people room to express themselves. “I think it takes time just to sit around the table, understand each other,” Ricci said. 

    This becomes important when you have deadlines and deliverables. “You’re pretty much kind of freaking out to meet everything, every deliverable you have to meet, every deadline,” Ricci said. If you try to impose a top down approach, it won’t work.

    “So, I think it just takes a lot of talking before action,” Ricci said. 

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What does it mean to be cross-border?

    2. How can a story that is interesting in one country have resonance in another?

    3. Can you think of a topic important to your region that would also be important to people elsewhere?

     

    Source link

  • With a passport, you should be able to vacation abroad. No?

    With a passport, you should be able to vacation abroad. No?

    On a weekday in Kampala, people line up early outside the embassies of European countries. Last year, almost 18,000 Ugandans joined these queues, according to an analysis by the Lago Collective. This year, I was one of them, folder in hand, hope in check. 

    Typically, those folders contain bank statements, proof of visa payment, job contracts, medical records, photos of family members, land titles, academic transcripts, flight reservations and detailed itineraries — each one meant to prove stability, legitimacy and belonging. 

    After paying to apply for a Schengen visa — which allows free travel between some 29 European countries for a limited time period — 36% of those Ugandans were rejected. Why? Mostly because embassy officials doubted the applicants would return home.

    Each applicant must pay €90. That added up to more than €1.6 million that Ugandans paid Schengen countries last year, more than half a million of which was from applicants who ended up rejected. 

    The collective wager lost by Ugandan applicants was part of an estimated €60 million spent in Africa last year on Schengen visa applications that led nowhere. In fact, Africa alone accounted for nearly half of the €130 million the world paid in failed bids to enter the Schengen zone.

    The Schengen gate

    Tucked behind those numbers lies a quieter cost: missed opportunities for work or travel and the often-overlooked spending on legal consultations or third-party agencies hired to improve one’s chances. But more tellingly, there is a perception problem — wrapped in geopolitics and sealed with a stamp of denial.

    “It’s like betting,” says Dr. Samuel Kazibwe, a Ugandan academic and policy analyst. “Nobody forces you to pay those fees, yet you know there are chances of rejection.”

    One such story belongs to Fred Mwita Machage, a Tanzanian executive based in Uganda as human resource director at the country’s transitioning electricity distribution company. Machage thought he was just booking a summer getaway — a chance not only to unwind, but to affirm that someone like him, who had worked in Canada, had traveled to the United States and Great Britain, and, if you checked his profile, was “not a desperate traveler,” could move freely in the world. That belief, like the visa itself, did not survive the process.

    He had planned a trip to France the past April. Round-trip tickets? Booked. Five-star hotel? Paid. Travel insurance? Secured. A $70,000 bank statement and a letter from his employer accompanied other documents in the application.

    “They said I had not demonstrated financial capability,” Machage recalled, incredulous. “With my profile? That bank balance? It felt like an attack on my integrity.”

    Worse, the rejection wasn’t delivered with civility: “The embassy staff were rude,” he said. “And they weren’t even European — they were African. One of the ladies looked like a Rwandan. It felt like being slapped by your own.”

    Banned from travel

    For Machage, the betrayal was not just bureaucratic — it seemed personal. He estimates his total loss at nearly $12,000, including tickets, hotel deposits, agent fees and visa costs. While he hopes for a refund, it’s understood that most travel agents don’t return payments; instead, they often suggest that you travel to a visa-free country.

    That will likely get more difficult to do. This month, U.S. President Donald Trump issued a sweeping travel ban targeting twelve countries — seven in Africa. Somalia, Sudan, Chad and Eritrea faced full bans; Burundi, Sierra Leone and Togo, partial restrictions. The official reasons included high visa overstays, poor deportation cooperation from the home countries and weak systems for internal screening. And it ordered all U.S. embassies to stop issuing visas for students to come to the United States for education, although U.S. courts are considering the legality of that order.

    For Machage, the rejection left him with a lingering sense of humiliation, though he found some small relief in a LinkedIn post where hundreds shared similar tales of visa rejection.

    “I realised I wasn’t alone,” he said, “But the process still left me feeling worthless. Sorry to mention, but it’s a disgusting ordeal.”

    I know exactly how Machage feels.

    How to prove you will return home?

    When I applied for a visa to the United Kingdom, I too was rejected. The refusal read: 

    “In light of all of the above, I am not satisfied as to your intentions in wishing to travel to the UK now. I am not satisfied that you are genuinely seeking entry for a purpose that is permitted by the visitor routes, not satisfied that you will leave the UK at the end of the visit.”

    The “I am” who issued the rejection did not sign their name. Perhaps they knew I’d write this article and mention them. How easily the “I am” dismissed my ties, my plans, my story. Meanwhile, my British friend who had invited me was livid. 

    “It felt like they were questioning my judgment — about who I can and cannot welcome into my own home,” she said. She was angry not just on my behalf, but because she felt disregarded by her own government.

    Captain Francis Babu, a former Ugandan minister and seasoned political commentator, doesn’t take visa rejections personally. He said the situation is shaped by global anxieties over the scale of emigration out of Africa into Europe that has taken place over the past decade. 

    “Because of the boat people going into Europe from Africa and many other countries and the wars in the Middle East, that has caused a little problem with immigration in most countries,” he said.

    Needing, but rejecting immigrants

    The issue is complicated. Babu said that these countries depend on the immigrants they are trying to keep out. In the United States, for example, farms depend on low-cost workers from South America. 

    “Most of those developed countries, because of their industries and having made money in the service industry, want people to do their menial jobs. So they bring people in and underpay them,” Babu said. 

    For Babu, even the application process feels unfair. “Even applying for the visa by itself is a tall order,” he said. “There are people here making money just to help you fill the form.” 

    While Babu highlights the systemic hypocrisies and challenges, others, like Kazibwe, see hope in a different approach — one rooted in political and economic organisation. Where people enjoy strong public services and can rely on a social safety net, there tends to be low emigration so countries are less hesitant to admit them.

    “That’s why countries like Seychelles are not treated the same,” he explains. “It’s rare to see someone from Seychelles doing odd jobs in Europe, yet back home they enjoy free social services.”

    For Kazibwe, the long-term fix is clear: “The solution lies in organising our countries politically and economically so that receiving countries no longer see us as flight risks,” he said.

    Perhaps that is the hardest truth. Visa rejection is not just an administrative outcome, it’s a mirror: a verdict not simply on the individual but on the nation that issued their passport.

    Back at the embassies, the queues remain. Young Ugandans, Ghanaians and Nigerians — some with degrees, others with desperation — wait in line, folders in hand, their hopes in check. And every rejection carries not just a denied trip, but a deeper question:

    What does it mean when the world sees your passport and turns you away?

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why are so many Ugandans getting denied travel visas to Europe?

    2. Why do some people think that the visa and immigration policies of many Western nations are hypocritical?

    3. If you were to travel abroad, how would you prove that you didn’t intend to stay permanently in that country?

    Source link

  • The guardians of the exosphere

    The guardians of the exosphere

    Not many military forces have ranks and uniforms that were inspired by science fiction. The U.S. Space Force (USSF) has both. Their dress uniform is described by the U.S. Armed Forces Super Store as “a deep navy, representing the vastness of space” and the jacket’s buttons are diagonal and off centre with the logo of the Space Force. 

    Members of the Space Force are known as Guardians, a term that will be familiar to fans of the animated superhero series where extraterrestrial criminals unite to preserve the galaxy. 

    But the Space Force has a real and serious purpose. After being discussed for several decades, it was created in 2019 and tasked with protecting the United States from threats in space with the motto, “Semper supra,” which is Latin for “Always above.”  

    As the USSF mission statement explains, “From GPS to strategic warning and satellite communications, we defend the ultimate high ground.” 

    Despite its vast mission, there are fewer than 10,000 Guardians — enlisted women and men and officers — making it the smallest wing of the U.S. military.

    Detecting missiles and other objects

    Like all nations, the United States relies on critical infrastructure and everyday business that is now dependent on satellites which enable navigation, weather forecasting, earth observation, communication and intelligence. 

    Before the formation of the Space Force, monitoring satellites was part of the duties of the U.S. Air Force. Now the U.S. Space Force has taken over many of those duties and is dedicated solely to operating and protecting assets which operate in space. Their mission also includes operating the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System which is designed for advanced missile detection.

    The USSF currently has six bases in the continental United States and one base outside of the country. Located in Greenland, it is its most northerly base. Previously known as Thule Base, in 2023 it reverted to its traditional name Pituffik.

    In March 2025, Pituffik base hosted a visit by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance following statements by President Trump that he wanted to “buy Greenland”. 

    Donald Trump was not the first American president who wanted to buy Greenland. In 1946 President Truman made a similar offer to Denmark, the colonial power. Denmark turned him down — the Greenlanders had no say in those days as a colony. Now Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark and all Greenlanders are Danish citizens.

    Eyes on the skies

    But even in 1946, there was already a U.S. base in Greenland, built during World War Two during the years that Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany. Thule Base was America’s most northerly deepwater port and runway and supported Allied naval operations against the Nazi threat.

    Now, 80 years on, the base can monitor not only space activities, but the expansion of Russian government activities in the Arctic region. Climate change is expected to enable an ice-free Northwest Passage in the coming decades when traffic in shipping could rival the Suez Canal. 

    Now, with the addition of the Space Force to Pituffik Base in Greenland, the sea sky as well as space will be closely monitored.

    The location of Pituffik is not only strategically placed to keep an eye on Russian and Chinese space activities, but to monitor polar orbiting satellites. These observation satellites, which orbit north to south, make a full orbit every 92 minutes. In addition to civilian and scientific satellites, which provide data on land, sea and atmosphere, there are military satellites which are classified.

    The vast majority of military satellites that are operated by the United States are believed to number around 250 which is more than the total of Russian and Chinese military satellites. Military observers believe many of these satellites are monitored from Pituffik. 

    Nobody wants a war in space.

    The idea of a space force had been discussed for decades because “nobody wants a war in space” according to Major General John Shar, the commander of space operations for the U.S. Space Force. Shar compared the need for the United States to operate military space operations to ocean-going nations wanting a navy.

    Several other countries agree. France, Canada and Japan have created their own versions of a space force to deter threats in space.

    French President Macron announced the creation of a space command in 2019. The force is being established in tandem with the French Air Force. As one of the leading space nations in the world, the force will protect French satellites. French aerospace companies are currently designing a new generation of satellites reportedly designed to carry lasers and possibly even guns.

    The Canadian Space Division, a division of the Royal Canadian Air Force, provides “space-based support of military operations” and “defending and protecting military space capabilities” according to their mission statements.

    Japan’s Space Operations Group is part of the Japan Air and Space Self-Defense Force unit based in Tokyo. Japan, also a leading space nation, is building many earth observation and surveillance satellites. Many of their astronauts from JAXA, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, have flown missions on the International Space Station. 

    The Japanese have also taken on a wider mission, beyond a national military focus. They are enhancing their capability for Space Domain Awareness in order to focus on the increasing risk of collisions with satellites caused by space debris.

    Earth’s satellite infrastructure can be substantially damaged by space debris orbiting at an average speed of 17,500 mph. It’s not only cyberattacks and targeted satellite destruction that can cause serious global disruption.

    The United States, France, Japan and Canada point out that any new satellites and any activities from the respective space forces will stay within the strictures of the International Outer Space Treaty which outlaws testing nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in space.

    If space around the earth and beyond can remain a peaceful place, perhaps the designation of “Guardian” for the U.S. Space Force is appropriate. 

     

    Questions to consider: 

    1. In what ways does science fiction inspire ideas that are useful for humanity?

    2. What should nations not be allowed to do in space?

    3. Would you join a space force in your country to help monitor and protect space activities?

     

    Source link

  • A history lesson on Europe for Donald Trump

    A history lesson on Europe for Donald Trump

    “The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States, that’s the purpose of it.” So said U.S. President Donald Trump in February. He repeats this assertion whenever U.S.-European relations are a topic of debate.

    Trump voiced his distorted view of the EU in his first term in office and picked it up again in the first three months of his second term, which began on January 20 and featured the start of a U.S. tariff war which up-ended international trade and shook an alliance dating back to the end of World War II.

    What or who gave the U.S. president the idea that the EU was “formed to screw” the United States is something of a mystery. If he were a student in a history class, his professor would give him an F.

    Trump’s claim does injustice to an institution that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 in recognition for having, over six decades, “contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe” as the Nobel committee put it.

    So, here is a brief guide to the creation of the EU, now the world’s largest trading bloc with a combined population of 448 million people, and the events that preceded its formal creation in 1952. 

    Next time you talk to Trump, feel free to brief him on it. 

    Staving off war

    With Germans still clearing the ruins of the world war Adolf Hitler had started in 1939, far-sighted statesmen began thinking of ways to prevent a repeat of a conflict that killed 85 million people. 

    The foundation of what became a 28-country bloc lay in the reconciliation between France and Germany. 

    In his speech announcing the Nobel Prize, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Thorbjorn Jagland, singled out then French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman for presenting a plan to form a coal and steel community with Germany despite the long animosity between the two nations; in the space of 70 years, France and Germany had waged three wars against each other. That was in May 1950. 

    As the Nobel chairman put it, the Schuman plan “laid the very foundation for European integration.”

    He added: “The reconciliation between Germany and France is probably the most dramatic example in history to show that war and conflict can be turned so rapidly into peace and cooperation.”

    From enemies into partners

    In years of negotiations, the coal and steel community, known as Montanunion in Germany, grew from two — France and Germany — to six with the addition of Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The union was formalized with a treaty in Paris in 1951 and came into existence a year later. 

    The coal and steel community was the first step on a long road towards European integration. It was encouraged by the United States through a comprehensive and costly programme to rebuild war-shattered Europe.

    Known as the Marshall Plan, named after U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, the programme provided $12 billion (the equivalent of more than $150 billion today) for the rebuilding of Western Europe. It was part of President Harry Truman’s policy of boosting democratic and capitalist economies in the devastated region.

    From the six-nation beginning, the process of European integration steadily gained momentum through successive treaties and expansions. Milestones included the creation of the European Economic Community and European Atomic Energy Community.

    In 1986, the Single European Act paved the way to an internal market without trade barriers, an aim achieved in 1992. Seven years later, integration tightened with the adoption of a common currency, the Euro. Used by 20 of the 27 member states, it accounts for about 20% of all international transactions.

    Brexiting out

    One nation that held out against the Euro was the United Kingdom. It would later withdraw from the EU entirely after the 2016 “Brexit” referendum led by politicians who claimed that rules made by the EU could infringe on British sovereignty. 

    Many economists at the time described Brexit as a self-inflicted wound and opinion polls now show that the majority of Britons regret having left the union.

    In decades of often arduous, detail-driven negotiations on European integration, including visa-free movement from one country to the other, no U.S. president ever saw the EU as a “foe” bent on “screwing” America. That is, until Donald Trump first won office in 2017 and then again in 2024.

    What bothers him is a trade imbalance; the EU sells more to the United States than the other way around; he has been particularly vocal about German cars imported into the United States.

    Early in his first term, the Wall Street Journal quoted him as complaining that “when you walk down Fifth Avenue (in New York), everybody has a Mercedes-Benz parked in front of his house. How many Chevrolets do you see in Germany? Not many, maybe none, you don’t see anything at all over there. It’s a one-way street.”

    This appears to be one of the reasons why Trump imposed a 25% tariff, or import duty, on foreign cars when he declared a global tariff war on April 2. 

    His tariff decisions, implemented by Executive Order rather than legislation, caused deep dismay around the world and upended not only trade relations but also cast doubt on the durability of what is usually termed the rules-based international order. 

    That refers to the rules and alliances set up, and long promoted by the United States. For a concise assessment of the state of this system, listen to the highest-ranking official of the European Union: “The West as we knew it no longer exists.”

    So said Ursula von der Leyen, president of the Brussels-based European Commission, the main executive body of the EU. Its top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, a former Prime Minister of Estonia, was even blunter: “The free world needs a new leader.”

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why was the European Union formed in the first place?

    2. How can trade serve to keep the peace?

    3. In what ways do nations benefit by partnering with other countries?

     

    Source link

  • Decoder: The Silence of America

    Decoder: The Silence of America

    Iconic photos from the Cold War cover the corridors of the Prague headquarters of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, news networks created by the U.S. government to counter censorship and disinformation from the Soviet Union and their East European satellite nations during the Cold War.

    Images from 1989, the year communist rule melted away in more than a dozen countries, were reminders of earlier days when Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty had broadcast news in Polish, Czech, Slovakian and the Baltic languages; those countries are now robust democracies as well as members of the European Union and NATO.

    Those historic photos jostle with more recent images from countries where human rights and democracy are not observed, including Russia, Belarus, Iran, Afghanistan and other nations across Central and South Asia. In total, the two networks broadcasted in 27 languages to 23 countries providing news coverage and cultural programming where free media doesn’t exist or is threatened.

    The journalists who broadcast there often do so at great risk. 

    Many are exiles unable to return to their own countries. Three of their journalists are currently jailed in Russian-occupied Crimea, Russia and Azerbaijan. The charges against them are viewed as politically motivated.

    Countering power with news

    On 14 March 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order which cut the funding for the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the parent agency of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. It also cut the funding of Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcasting Network, the Voice of America — the “official” voice of the United States — as well as Radio & Television Marti which broadcasts to Cuba.

    The funding cuts would effectively silence these networks. In response, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. 18 March that argued that Congress has exclusive authority over federal spending and that cannot be altered by a presidential executive order. Voice of America Director Michael Abramowitz filed suit 26 March. 

    On March 27, the Trump administration announced it had restored the funding for Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. 

    Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty came into being after the end of the second World War when Europe became a divided continent. While the wartime allies, including Britain and the United States, focused on rebuilding their economies after years of war, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin sent his army to occupy most of Eastern Europe. 

    Despite promises made at a meeting in the Crimea, known as the Yalta Conference, during the final months of the war in 1945, Stalin refused to allow free elections in East Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. 

    Neither were free elections held in the three Baltic countries — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — which the Soviet Union had annexed in 1940. The crushing of democratic rule in so many nations was characterised by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill as “an iron curtain” that had “descended across the continent.” 

    After years of fighting Nazi Germany, half of Europe was now ruled under a Soviet dictatorship.

    Containing communism

    The United States responded with a policy of ‘containment’ that aimed to halt the spread of communism without using soldiers and tanks. Radio Free Europe started broadcasting in 1950 followed by Radio Liberty in 1953. 

    With a system of transmitters pointing east, news programmes that countered the state propaganda were beamed to the countries in the Soviet bloc, eventually in 17 languages. These were tactics that came to be known as ‘soft power’.

    Based in Munich, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, or RFE/RL as they became known, attracted dissidents who opposed the Soviet-imposed governments. Their audiences grew during the Cold War, despite threats of prosecution. 

    In addition to news, broadcasts covered music, sports and science. Banned literature written by dissidents who challenged the communist systems could be heard on RFE/RL. Czech dissident Vaclav Havel was one of those voices.

    The Berlin Wall tumbled down in November 1989. It was followed by the Velvet Revolution that overthrew the Czech government and installed as its president, the former political prisoner Haval. He invited RFE/RL to move their base from Munich to Prague. 

    “My confinement in prison might have lasted longer had it not been for the publicity I had through these two stations,” Haval said at the time. 

    An outcry in Europe and elsewhere

    The news that the Trump administration would shut down the radio networks spread quickly. Listeners, viewers and supporters who had lived through the Cold War years when only pro-government broadcasts were legal, shared their stories on social media:

    “In Romania, they [RFE] lightened communism with the hope of freedom.”

    “As a small girl, living under a communist regime in Poland, I remember my grandfather listening every night to Radio Free Europe, to get uncensored news from around the world, to get different opinions on the world’s affairs, and probably hoping that one day, he would live in a free world. It was illegal to listen to this Radio, and the quality was very poor, and yet, he would do it every night … ” 

    Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski recalled how his father had listened to Radio Free Europe and Voice of America. “This is a great shame,” he wrote. “My grandfather was listening to RFE in Soviet-occupied Poland in 80s. It’s how we learned basic facts about our own countries because communist propaganda was so tightly controlled.”

    On 17 March the Czech Republic asked the foreign ministers of the European Union to support RFE/RL so the journalism could continue. 

    One diplomat who was in the meeting said that stopping RFE/RL’s broadcasts would “be a gift to Europe’s adversaries.” Already Russia’s state broadcaster, Russia Today, had tweeted that cutting the funding for RFE/RL was an “awesome decision by Trump.”

    When Vaclav Havel welcomed Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty to Prague after democracy had been restored to Czechoslovakia, he said that having RFE/RL in the Czech capital was equivalent to having three NATO divisions. 

    The supporters of the networks are hoping that the soft power of free media is indeed able to pack a powerful punch for free media.

    Update to this story: As of 30 March, Radio Free Liberty has informed News Decoder that, while two weeks worth of funds have been received, the rest of U.S. government funding had not yet been restored. We will continue to update this story as we learn of further developments. 

     

    Three questions to consider:

    1. Why, during the Cold War, were radio broadcasts across closed borders one of the few ways people could receive news that was not controlled by the government?
    2. In what ways are people limited in accessing news, culture and music?
    3. In what ways might a free media be important in a democracy?

     

    Source link

  • A dangerous time for the press

    A dangerous time for the press

    The media landscape in the Balkans, however, paints a different picture. According to the World Media Freedom Index for 2023 that is compiled by Reporters Without Borders, among the Western Balkan countries only Serbia — with more than 2,500 media outlets registered in the country — saw its standing on the Index drop. It now stands at number 91 out of 180 countries.

    Other Balkan countries were labeled under the category of “satisfactory” press freedom in 2023, but that left me both intrigued and somewhat skeptical.

    Having walked the corridors of Balkan newsrooms, I find it hard to align with such a rosy classification.

    You can talk truth to power but does it answer back?

    Allow me to rewind to a particular moment that epitomizes the uphill battle faced by journalists in the Balkans. It was during a presidential election in the Balkans, where I, as a reporter, faced a common challenge.

    I wanted to know what a candidate planned to do for education reform if he won. To my surprise, he brushed off the question, saying he didn’t have time for “those things.”

    This incident reflects a broader issue journalists in the Balkans deal with. It’s not just about getting information; it’s about holding politicians accountable to their promises. This encounter showed how some crucial topics get ignored in the fast-paced world of politics.

    In the bigger picture, it represents the challenges journalists face in the Balkans. Beyond the struggle for information, there’s a sense that politicians are sometimes disconnected from the issues that really matter to the people they represent.

    As we talk about press freedom in the Balkans, this story highlights the need for a media environment where politicians are not only accessible but also willing to discuss important matters. The challenges in the newsroom go beyond just finding information; journalists dig into the heart of the region’s political scene, where uncovering the truth often faces significant obstacles.

    The tension between media and politics

    In Bosnia and Herzegovina, I share common ground with others who have navigated the multifaceted challenges, including economic pressures, political interference and a lack of public understanding of the vital role of journalism.

    The erosion of institutions, with government services often ignoring or withholding information from journalists, further compounds the difficulties. There’s an urgent need for public support and understanding, essential components often lacking in a society where journalists struggle to assert a role in shaping a transparent and accountable governance structure.

    Progress has been made, but an undercurrent of danger and hostility still defines the media landscape in many parts of the Western Balkans.

    One cannot dissect the state of press freedom in the Balkans without acknowledging the omnipresent forces of political and economic pressure. It’s a delicate dance where journalists strive to maintain their professional integrity amidst the looming shadows of political influence. While Western counterparts may experience a healthy tension between media and politics, in the Balkans, the scales often tip in favor of political dominance.

    Press freedom is more than a legal framework; it’s a delicate ecosystem that requires protection from both overt and subtle threats. Even with seemingly robust legal safeguards, journalists in the Balkans find themselves grappling with political pressures, compromising the very essence of an independent press. The contrast between what is envisioned in theory and what actually happens in practice is evident, posing a challenge for journalists as they navigate intricate situations.

    An informed citizenry relies on information.

    Economic challenges further compound the struggle for press freedom. The media landscape is fragmented, with limited resources allocated to quality journalism. The survival of news outlets often hinges on their ability to generate revenue. That results in pushing stories towards sensationalism and entertainment to capture audience attention. It’s a dilemma where the pursuit of truth clashes with the demands of a market-driven media economy.

    It is noteworthy though that the people of the Balkans believe in the role of the press. In 2023, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Bosnia and Herzegovina conducted a survey on the level of media freedom and trust in the media among the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    They found that citizens trust the media more than they do religious groups, government institutions and the international community and that most people believe that politicians violate journalistic rights.

    As the political landscape in the Balkans continues to shape the narrative, journalists walk a tightrope between reporting the facts and navigating the intricate web of political sensitivities.

    The advent of digital platforms offers a glimmer of hope, yet challenges persist. Around 200 podcasts have emerged in the Balkans, attempting to carve a space in a landscape still dominated by traditional media. The struggle to monetize content and the scarcity of advanced recording technology remain barriers, hindering the potential growth of this burgeoning form of media.

    These days, I’m directing News Decoder’s part in a project called WePod that brings together nine organizations from seven European countries to study and hopefully nurture the podcasting industry in Europe, create collaborative audio content and train and connect podcasting professionals.

    In some ways it brings me back to where I began. From exploring the buzzing airwaves of radio I am now doing so with its digital counterpart. But what hasn’t changed is the need for people to support journalism by purchasing content that offers quality, verified information and sharing content from trusted sources. They are the are essential steps that every informed citizen can take to bolster independent media. Because without this type of media, we won’t have informed citizens.

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What was different about how the press operated in Paris that surprised the author?
    2. What is one thing that makes reporting in the Balkans challenging for journalists?
    3. In your country do you think people trust the press more than they do the government? Why is that?

    Source link

  • My robot university counsellor – The PIE News

    My robot university counsellor – The PIE News

    The PIE’s Director of Research and Insight, Nicholas Cuthbert tests the limits of virtual counsellor software!

    Can he tell the difference between a human and a machine? The video shows how AI is revolutionising recruitment, with powerful WhatsApp integrations and offer-letter capabilities making lead conversion faster and smoother than ever.

    Source link

  • Do fixed borders guarantee peace?

    Do fixed borders guarantee peace?

    The crumbling of the Soviet Union brought bloodshed. I remember covering clashes in Kyrgyzstan’s Osh province in 1990 between ethnic Kyrgyz, who were mainly animal herders, and ethnic Uzbek, who were mainly farmers, with very different needs and interests.

    Since then, disputes over grazing and water rights have also boiled over along the borders of Kyrgyzstan’s Batken region and Tajikistan’s Sughd region. In autumn 2022, in the worst fighting over the border since the fall of the Soviet Union, dozens were killed and thousands forced from their homes.

    It was after this that the leaders of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan started working on new demarcation lines. Now, after successful diplomacy to deal with the root cause of the problem, the two nations have agreed to shift their borders.

    “Negotiations have reached the final point and can be discussed openly,” Kamchybek Tashiev, head of Kyrgyzstan’s secret service, told the Kyrgyz parliament in March. “After parliamentary consideration, our presidents will sign the ratification.”

    Under the deal, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will swap small areas of land and make better arrangements to share water resources. A number of disputed roads will be declared “neutral” and made available to both nations, according to the Defense Post.

    Which all goes to show that to secure friendship and good neighbourly relations, you sometimes have to define your boundaries.

    Recommended reading: “Prisoners of Geography” by Tim Marshall, an excellent account of how geography affects history and politics.

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why might there be disputes over borders?
    2. Why does the world generally agree that existing borders should remain untouched?
    3. What does the case of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan tell us about changing borders?

    Source link