Great expectations” “

In spite of the action plans and development objectives fixed by the United Nations over the years, Africa “continues to be a disinherited continent at the political, economic and social level”, says NOËL TREANOR, general secretary of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (Comece) in his editorial to the June number of “Europe infos”, monthly bulletin of Comece and the Catholic Office of Information and Initiative for Europe (OCIPE). Treanor (cf. SIR no.51/2005) underlines the need for the G8 meeting being held under British chairmanship in Gleaneagles (Scotland) from 6 to 8 July to respond to Africa’s hopes for greater justice. EDUCATIONAL POLICIES. “Some recent studies have shown that from the viewpoint of research, there are only a handful of European universities within the 50 best universities of the world”, says CLARE COFFEY, emphasizing “the astonishing results achieved in this regard by the USA and Asia”. “Higher education in Europe is lagging behind international competition”; in Coffey’s view, “a more coordinated policy is needed to put our continent back into the running”. Recalling the Lisbon objectives, aimed at turning Europe into “the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world”, the journalist observes that “this is easier to say than to do since educational policies remain the competence of the various member states and not of the European Union”. “With a 25-member Europe – Coffey explains – the legislation in this field and the educational qualifications are innumerable, in particular at the level of higher and university education”. The “Bologna declaration of 1999 called for the creation of a European space for higher education by 2010” in which “the various national systems of education would converge” in “a common framework” based “on the recognition of three levels: bachelor, master and doctorate”. The European Ministers of Education, meeting at Bergen (Norway) in recent weeks, adopted to this end “legislative proposals” that “provide for minimum levels of equivalence which ought to facilitate the reciprocal recognition of qualifications and competences”. But if these projects are to meet with success, “they must be scrupulously implemented by the various national governments”. COMMUNICATION AND DEMOCRACY. “Listening more closely to citizens; better explaining the policies of the European Union to citizens; and more effectively reaching citizens”: these, explains LUC DENIZOT, are the three pillars on which rests the new strategy of information and communication due to be adopted by the European Commission in the near future. Commission Vice-President Margot Wallström, who is responsible for this policy, “has proposed a series of specific measures” with a view to “creating – as Wallström herself put it – an excellent information service, able to respond in a personalized way to the questions of citizens”. These measures include “a closer coordination of information policies between the Commission and the other institutions; the improvement of contacts with the organs of the press; and the organization of weekly meetings within the member states to bring citizens on board”. In the meantime, Denizot points out, since 1st May, “it is already possible to contact the new network of local centres (400) set up by the Commission and called “Europe Direct Information System”. The facilities offered by the system include a single free-phone hotline (0080067891011) accessible from all member states and an electronic message service via Internet on the website: http.//europa.eu.int/europedirect/. EUTHANASIA. In recent weeks the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe has rejected the draft resolution presented by Dick Marty (rapporteur, Commission of Social Affairs) on euthanasia. The draft – notes KATHARINA SCHAUER – renounced any explicit demand for the legalization of euthanasia, but indirectly tended to reinforce the acceptance of active euthanasia by asking, among other things, for the recognition of an unlimited right of the patient to ‘decide in the terminal phase of life what to do with his/her own person'”. Discussion of the issue has been continuing in the Council for three and a half years, points out Schauer, but the terms of the question were not always clear: “Marty’s draft resolution did not facilitate the debate due to the ambiguity of the terminology and formulations used” and because “it ignored the problems created by the Dutch and Belgian legislations on euthanasia, in particular the frequent cases of abuse that have led to the death of some patients without their consent”. “Debate is indispensable, but our efforts – concluded Schauer – ought to aim at the application of Recommendation 1418 on the protection of incurable invalids and the terminally ill”.