Page 1

ology raw materials for a history of the European Youth Forum

Editorial Team Giuseppe Porcaro — Editor in Chief John Lisney — Editor Thomas Spragg — Assistant Editor Anne Debrabandere — Translator Trupti Rami — Copy editor James Higgins — Copy editor Alexis Jacob — Art director Feriz Sorlija — Curator European Youth Forum 120, rue Joseph II 1000, Bruxelles Belgium – Belgique

In partnership with

HAEU with the support of / avec le soutien de : the European Commission la Commission européenne the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe Le Fonds européen pour la Jeunesse du Conseil de l’Europe

2011 European Youth Forum

ISSN : 2032-9938 Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed in this volume are those of the authors and artists and do not necessarily represent official positions of the European Youth Forum

* Anthology * NOUN Pronunciation : /anˈθɒlədʒi/ Origin : from the Greek word ἀνθολογία (anthologia ; literally “flower-gathering”). In Greek, the word originally denoted a collection of the ‘flowers’ of verse, i.e. small choice poems or epigrams, by various authors. Collection of literary and artistic works chosen by the compiler. It may be a collection of poems, short stories, plays, songs, or excerpts.




I am both honoured and humbled that as current President of the European Youth Forum (YFJ), I have the chance to write a foreword to this anthology on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the merging of the three existing European youth platforms and the creation of the European Youth Forum. The reality in which the YFJ operates today is vastly different from the reality in which it came into being. The EU has enlarged from 15 to 27 member states and is still growing. The CoE has enlarged to 47 member states. The recent Arab spring is changing the geopolitical picture of our Southern neighbourhood and the world has become more interconnected and interdependent than ever before. Moreover, we are in the aftermath of one of the worst economic and financial crises Europe has ever witnessed and the levels of youth unemployment in parts of our continent reach alarming heights. Recession and budget-cuts have a negative effect on the funding that is available to youth organisations and youth activities. They put in danger the much praised co-management system on youth issues in the Council of Europe. We face many challenges. But what is also different today from 15 years ago is the recognition of the Youth Forum as the voice of young people in Europe. What numerous youth activists and youth representatives fought for over the years became a reality. We are thus better equipped to face these challenges. We wanted to be heard. Now, we are heard. The European Youth Forum is the main partner of EU Institutions in the youth field. We recently met Commission President Barroso. We have regular meetings with the Commissioner responsible for Youth. We hold the Chair and the Secretariat of the European Steering Committee on youth. We continue to elect 20 out of 30 members of the Advisory Council on Youth in the Council of Europe. We need to use this recognition and power wisely and ensure that we continue with a cross-sectorial and rights-based approach to youth policy in Europe. The Youth Forum, as a volunteer-based, youth-led platform will continue to be an advocate of the rights of young people across Europe. Youth participation, volunteering, non-formal education and informal learning remain the corner-stones of our work. I would like to thank all the people who have helped make the European Youth Forum what it is today. Peter MatjaĹĄiÄ?, President of the European Youth Forum




Forewords We must welcome the initiative of the European Youth Forum to publish a historical anthology of its activities and publications to mark the fifteenth anniversary of its creation. Indeed, the merger in July 1996 in Cork of the European Coordination Bureau of International Youth Organisations (ECB), the Council of European National Youth Committees (CENYC) and the Youth Forum of the European Communities (YFEU) is proof of the will of the organisations to cooperate closely with each other and coordinate their activities with respect to European institutions ; rather than compete and undermine their ability to be heard. So this unique initiative deserves to be commemorated. Especially at a time when the Lisbon Treaty opens up new opportunities for the democratic participation of young people as well as for more active involvement on their part in the process of European integration. Remember that the European Youth Forum was one of the first civil society organisations to be recognised by the European Institutions. An organisational structure was established within the European Commission in the late 70s as well as a specific budget line to finance the activities of the Forum. It could thus be argued that the active cooperation that developed over the years between the Youth Forum and the European institutions was an application “ante litteram” of a “partnership agreement” that were proposed by the Commission’s White Paper on European Governance in 2001. Such agreements have yet to be implemented, however, in the absence so far of Treaty provisions on participatory democracy. The new provisions of the Lisbon Treaty have filled this ga p. They should facilitate the conclusion of partnership agreements with civil society organisations. The contributions published in this anthology enable us to relive the major historical moments and activities of the European Youth Forum. They reflect the organisation’s active participation in the process of European integration. A striking example is the story, both coherent and uncompromising, of Giacomo Filibeck on the European Youth Convention. The latter was convened at the initiative of President Giscard d’Estaing. However, it clearly reached beyond the expectations of its creator. Most of the young people involved, although chosen by the members of the Convention itself, made proposals that were far more ambitious than had been expected. Finally the historical significance of this anthology should be noted. It complements the Youth Forum’s documents that are filed at the historical archives of the European Union at the headquarters of the European University Institute in Florence. All whom wish to research the activities of the European Youth Forum are able to enjoy the treasure of documented evidence that is available in Florence, to which we can now add this remarkable anthology of documents and activities of the European Youth Forum. Paolo Ponzano, Special Adviser to the Vice President Sefcovic and Senior Fellow at the IUE Jean-Marie Palayret, Historian and Director of the Historical Archives of the European Union




Forewords A few words introduce our school’s homepage ( : “The Erg (école de recherche graphique in Brussels) is a school of art that is open to the world and listens to society in all its diversity.” These words portray the link that is made in the school between the development of future artistic personalities of individuals who think and act - and the challenges of the world around them. We found most of these challenges in the work of the European Youth Forum. From the issue of mobility, which has gained significance since the entry into force of the Bologna agreement, to the right to a general and fair education. But also : the right to employment and to decent working conditions, to decent pay that resonates “outraged” over the squares in Europe, to issues of health, well being, sustainable development, human rights and fundamental freedoms… Our students understood all of these issues, these challenges, in their own way. Every time with a different, personal and creative approach. I hope you enjoy their work and that their words, images, facilities will provide the beautiful ideals upheld by the European Youth Forum with a much needed support. Anne Degavre, Director at ERG




Forewords On the occasion of the 15th Anniversary of the European Youth Forum, I am cohosting the event that brings to the European Parliament different generations of YFJ alumni and current members. The event is a great occasion to launch the Alumni Network - a platform meant to enable us to keep in touch, share knowledge, exchange experience and debate about the future of Europe. As a general rapporteur for the EU budget 2011, I have made youth, education and mobility budget priorities. I successfully reinforced the budget of the EU’s education and youth programmes. The resources for such essential programmes as Lifelong Learning Programme, Youth in Action, Erasmus Mundus and Marie Curie Actions were significantly increased. To mention some of them, in 2011 : 4500 additional students benefit from Erasmus, 800 additional youths participate in the training activities and 1600 more young people are able to do voluntary work within the European Voluntary Service. We already know the European Commission’s proposal on the Multiannual Financial Framework after 2013. The increase by 68 % on education and training is ambitious but the discussion will be long and difficult. Your support will be needed in order to secure the way to tackle the challenges of the upcoming years. The very first European Youth Forum Alumni Network will be a network of people that want not only to share good memories, but also to discuss the future and the ways of strengthening the position of young people by supporting their efforts for an empowered and decent life. I am honoured to be a part of this great project for Europe. Sidonia Jędrzejewska, MEP





15 words by Giuseppe Porcaro

Building new social, political and geographical spaces does not happen overnight. This anthology is gathered while celebrating many important dates for European youth movements. 15 years of existence of the European Youth Forum. More than 30 years after the establishment of the Youth Forum of the European Communities. Almost 50 years from the creation of the first European platform of National Youth Councils. 60 years from the launch of the first pan-european youth campaign. Europe, Youth Organisations and Youth Policies. Three interconnected processes, one minimum common denominator : the strive for youth rights. The main purpose of this book is to start filling gaps. First in the research field that little explored so far the political contribution of youth to the European project and the impact of youth organisations in the policies that affect young people in the continent. Second gap is in the preservation of the historical memory of a Platform which, by definition, is subject to refreshing changes of various generations of youth representatives. Third gap is in the recognition of the achievements of youth organisations, often underestimated both in terms of educational value, social capital and knowledge production. A single book is not sufficient for filling those gaps. With this anthology we are rather opening a construction site without being able to close it, as the work will be in progress for quite a while. However, we aim here to ship and store a fair amount of raw materials to start the building process. For this purpose we are going to collect three kind of materials. An evenly mix of first hand testimonies from people that led and linked together most of the processes happened around the European Youth Platforms in the past 30 years. A collection of various shapes and kinds of documents that we considered important for understanding the progressing of this story. Artworks produced by a group of students from the Ecole de Recherche Graphique (ERG) of Brussels who dived for a semester in the challenge of representing youth rights. As said, we are storing here raw material without starting building operations yet. The storage logic results in three sections. The first dedicated to the process of organisational development of this unique civil society platform known today as the European Youth Forum. The second exploring the historical evolution of organised youth in Europe between 1945 and the end of the 1990s. The final block of material takes a closer look into the last decade of the action of the Youth Forum and its impact on youth policy development. Such collection would not have been possible without the contribution of all the people that made the Forum directly and indirectly in the past decades. Particularly those that accepted to participate in this editorial project and whose words you will be able to read in the following pages. However a special thanking goes as well to those who did not write but actually did a lot of the things written in the book. All those political activists, dedicated volunteers and professionals who spent part of their life wandering in a youth organisation. Learning from it. Discovering Europe through it. Making a difference in their own communities. Exercising the basic grammar of democracy through participation. To those and to the millions of people active in youth movements in Europe is dedicated this publication.

Table of Contents p. 22 p. 28

p. 30

Timeline 1945 – 2011

A Unique platform for youth organisations 15 years developing a strong European Youth Forum (1995) Speech by François Mitterrand, Youth Forum GA (1995) Protocol marking the fusion of the three platforms (1995) Letter of Jacques Santer congratulating the creation of the European Youth Forum (1997) Results of ECB Postal Vote on the future of the organisation

p. 48

A larger Forum, a larger Europe (2003) Interview with Romano Prodi, in “Youth Opinion”, n.1 (2007) Interview with Margot Wallström, in “Youth Opinion”, n.1

p. 62

Working in European Youth Forum Secretariats (1996 – 2011) List of the employees working at the European Youth Forum Secretariats

p. 70

Engagement for Participation and Human Rights (2006) Opening by Bettina Schwarzmayr, launch of the “All Different, All Equal” Campaign (2008) Foreword by Thomas Hammarberg, in “European Youth Forum Report 2008 Report on Racism and its impact on young people”

p. 80

p. 82

A European (Youth) History

(1990) Speech Antonio Seguro in the Youth Forum Symposium on Youth Rights (1990) Speech of Jacques Delors in the Youth Forum Symposium on Youth Rights p. 254

The Grand Anti – Fascist Alliance, 1941 to 1945

(1990) General Report of Youth Forum Symposium on Youth Rights

(1956) MGM Arrangements for covering Society and other delegations to International Youth Congress in Great Britain p. 100

Geopolitics of youth policy in post – war Western Europe (1945 – 1967)

(1993) European Charter on Youth Rights p. 270

(1967) Foundations Linked to C.I.A. Are found to subsidize Youth Organisations, New York Times 1967 (2003) Activities of European Youth Campaign in the 1950s in Wilford H., Caute D., “The CIA, the British Left, and the Cold War”, London, Routledge p. 112

European Youth Policy from the 60s to the 90s

Youth policy and advocacy development in the 2000s

p. 294

EU White Paper on Youth (2000) Initial contribution of the European Youth Forum to the European Commission’s White Paper : Youth Policy

(1970) Resolution on Youth, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

(2001) Speech of Romano Prodi at the I Youth Convention on Volunteering

(1972) Resolution on Establishment of European Youth Foundation, Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Youth organisations and the European Communities (1975) Recommendation EC Council Decision (1978) Communication of the President of the European Commission

(2001) Press Release, European Youth Forum, 21st November p. 328

European Youth Convention (2002) European Youth Forum Contribution to the European Convention : Bringing Europe closer to its young citizens

(1978) Caro Report, European Parliament

(2002) Proposition d’amendement à l’Article III-177 (ex Article 149)

(1980) Pruvot Report, European Parliament

(2002) Proposition d’amendement à l’Article 34, partie II de la Constitution

(1981) Internal Note of BEC on the 50/50 ponderation p. 238

Back to the future, youth policy in the 2000s

p. 272

(1967) Oral question at the EP with debate in connection with youth and adult education in Europe

p. 142

No Rights, No Way !

Building blocks for a European Youth Policy Architecture (1989) Editorial, in “Youth Opinion”, December.

(2003) Press Release, European Youth Forum, 7 February (2003) Press Release, European Youth Forum, 22 May

(2009) Press Release, European Youth Forum, 5 October (2011) Press Release, European Youth Fourum, 16 March p. 360

The Structured Dialogue (2009) An EU Strategy for Youth, Investing and Empowering. A renewed open method of coordination to address youth challenges and opportunities, European Commission Communication

p. 410

p. 514

Conclusions Appendix

p. 517

Statutes of the Council of European National Youth Committees (1963)

(2009) Press Release, European Youth Forum, 8 May

p. 523

(2009) A renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010 – 2018), Council of the EU Resolution

Statutes of the European Co-ordination Bureau of International Youth Organisations (1987)

p. 535

Statutes of the Youth Forum of the European Communities (1978)

p. 542

Statutes of the Youth Forum of the European Union (1995)

p. 561

Statutes of the European Youth Forum (2010)

p. 588

List of Bureau/Board Members of the European Youth Forum (1996 – 2012)

Co – management and the Council of Europe (1998) Resolution on the Youth Policy of the Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers (1998) Letter from Youth Forum SG on new Council of Europe co-management structure (2006) All Different, All Equal Campaign Development Plan, Council of Europe (2008) The future of the Council of Europe youth policy : Agenda 2020, Declaration of the CoE Conference of Ministers

p. 440

p. 510

The European Youth Forum Acting Globally (1998) Braga Action Plan, World Youth Forum (1998) Conclusions 1st World Ministerial Conference on Youth (2007) Declaration of 1st EU-Africa Youth Summit (2010) NGO Statement of World Youth Conference (2010) Governmental Statement of World Youth Conference



1945 End of World War II and creation of the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY) by the World Youth Conference ; bringing together international youth movement representatives from 63 States but soon after becoming a tool for Soviet control on International Youth Affairs.



Foundation of the Council of European National Youth Committees (CENYC) – a forum for exchange on youth issues of eleven National Committees of WAY (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom) and the two National Youth Councils of France and Luxembourg.

The Final Declaration of the European Summit in the Hague states “the necessity to ensure the active youth participation in the ongoing transformations and in the important enterprise of the European construction”.

Establishment of the European Youth Foundation at the Council of Europe to provide financial support for European youth activities.

1972 1951 Launch of the European Youth Campaign (EYC) by European Movement International and WAY to promote a pro-European attitude amongst European youth.

1948 Establishment of the World Assembly of Youth (WAY) – the international coordinating body of national youth councils and organisations created as an alternative to WFDY.


1968 Worldwide protests by students and workers ; in Europe, the “youth issue” becomes a political priority.

1971 The European Coordination Bureau of International Youth Organisations (ECB/BEC) is established to promote European consultation and cooperation between international nongovernmental youth organisations (INGYOs).

A resolution by the Committee of Ministers sets up the European Youth Centre (EYC) in Strasbourg – a research and educational centre with accommodation and conference facilities, providing a locus for the activities of European youth organisations.

1978 Creation of the Youth Forum of the European Communities – an initiative of the EC but with independent status.






International Year of Youth : the Council of Europe organises the first conference of Youth Ministers in Strasbourg.

The European Youth Rights Charter is drafted by the Youth Forum ; it sets the rights and standards that young people need in order to fully realise their potential in an emerging Europe.

Creation of the European Youth Forum (YFJ) : the fusion of CENYC, ECB and the Youth Forum of the EU.

2001 1st Youth Convention on Volunteering and adoption of the White Paper on Youth of the EU – a new framework for cooperation among actors in the youth field in order to better involve young people in decisions that concern them.


1988 First Ever European Council of Ministers responsible for youth affairs – informal session 16 - 17 July, in Athens.

1989 Fall of the Berlin Wall and rapid development of National Youth Councils in Eastern Europe.



“All Different - All Equal” : the first edition of the European Youth Campaign to reinforce the fight against racism, antisemitism, xenophobia and intolerance.

First World Conference of Ministers Responsible for Youth, Portugal, and adoption of the Braga Youth Action Plan at the Third World Youth Forum of the United Nations System, with the aim of promoting youth participation for human development.

Inclusion of the article on youth in the Draft EU Constitution : Article III - 182 (e) states that the Union action shall be aimed at encouraging the development of youth exchanges and of exchanges of socio-educational instructors and encouraging the participation of young people in democratic life in Europe.

2002 The European Youth Convention is organised for the young people of Europe in the framework on the European Convention to draft the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.



2009 Adoption of the Lisbon treaty ; including art. 165 based on the Youth Article within the previous draft EU Constitution.



First Africa-Europe Youth Summit ; allowing youth representatives from African and European youth NGOs to express their concerns to the II EU - Africa Heads of State Summit in Lisbon.

International Year of Youth and World Youth conference in Mexico ; adoption of the Guanajuato declaration recognising young people as key actors in the Millennium Development Goals.

2010 Launch of the Europe 2020 Strategy of the EU and beginning of the implementation of the EU Youth Strategy 2010 - 2018.

2005 EU Heads of State support the initiative of a European Youth Pact for a more unified and coherent approach to youth issues within the Lisbon Strategy.

2011 European year of volunteering ; celebrating and recognising the efforts and contribution of volunteers and volunteering organisations.


A Unique Platform for youth organisations 15 years developing a strong European Youth Forum A larger Forum a larger Europe Working in European Youth Forum Secretariats Engagement for Participation and Human Rights



A Unique Platform for youth organisation

15 years developing a strong European Youth Forum


If you’re for youth, you need to be young ! 15 years developing a strong European Youth Forum words by Diogo Pinto

I was asked to contribute to this project, which is aimed at preserving the institutional memory of the European Youth Forum and of the role played by youth organisations in shaping Europe as we know it, by writing an article about the organisational development aspects of European civil society platforms based on both my experience with the European Youth Forum and on my current responsibilities as Secretary-General of the European Movement International. Sitting in front of my computer with a view of Brussels as I start to write this article, I feel both glad and overwhelmed. Glad that the European Youth Forum’s current leadership thought of me as a valid contributor to this anthology and offered me the opportunity to share with the readers my impressions and memories and overwhelmed by the realisation of the extent of how much the European Youth Forum has affected my own life. I like to think that I am not the exception and that many of you reading this article feel exactly the same way when you think about the European Youth Forum. You think of the time and energy you have dedicated to it and the opportunities and experiences that it offered to you. Many of us owe to the European Youth Forum that we have met so many extraordinary people whom we call friends (or even the person with whom we have decided to share our life), that we have travelled to so many different places (or even moved to one of those), that we have learned about so many aspects of life (or even become experts on some of them) and so very many other things, good and bad. I make this previous point because I believe that, regardless of what can be said about the organisational development of civil society platforms and other similar and related concepts, the true impact of the European Youth Forum, its most impressive achievement and most significant contribution to shaping Europe and the rest of the world, has to be the impact it had, it has and will keep having upon thousands of people like me and you, who have seen their lives changed and changed the lives of thousands others. I was elected President of the Portuguese National Council in February 1995. Soon after and because of that, I had to attend two meetings at the European level : the CENYC General Assembly in Helsinki and the Youth Forum of the European Union’s in Paris. CNJ was member of both those platforms and played a role that seemed much more important than could be expected from a small, permanently-in-internal-crisis and quite poor structure from a small, peripheral, southern country. That was impressive. But even more impressive was the seriousness of the discussions, the formality of the procedures and the huge amount of more or less bright people from so many different organisations and countries that one would meet at such occasions. And, of course, the presence of Mitterrand.


A Unique Platform for youth organisation As a newcomer, I was allowed to ask all the stupid questions, and one of them was obvious : Why did we need three different youth platforms in Europe ? I was comforted to find that I was not the only one to ask the question and to learn of the discussions over the merging of the three platforms into one. So, in a nutshell, my first steps in the wonderland of European youth platforms coincided with the beginning of the journey that would lead to the establishment of the European Youth Forum. I was privileged enough to take part in this journey, get to the destination and sign, on behalf of the Portuguese National Youth Council, the constitutive act of the European Youth Forum. Apart from the historical and emotional value of the process, it is worth looking, from the organisational development aspects, at what the most important drivers of this merge were. I think we can classify them into two categories : the practical and the political. The practical aspects are probably the easiest to understand and relate to. Having one platform instead of three meant more concentration and, therefore, more availability of resources (all the grants in the same account), very important savings (one office instead of three, one secretary-general instead of three, one Board instead of three, one membership fee instead of two, etc.), less meetings to attend, less flights to take and more focus on the implementation rather than on the discussion. The political aspects are probably more interesting and more important, though. First and foremost, there was the idea that by working together and speaking with one voice, youth organisations would be stronger, louder and more efficient. They would appear to be more serious and more capable too, and hopefully they would achieve more and better results. This image, which 15 years later seems simple and almost simplistic, was a blurry one, though, and many diverse fears threatened its implementation at the time, such as mistrust between National Councils and International Organisations, mistrust among countries and regions, mistrust among party-political families, etc. All these fears and mistrusts had to be overcome, and it took perseverance and lots of patience but also a future-oriented vision to succeed. Then, and still among the political aspects, there was the aim to be open to the Central and Eastern European neighbours and inclusive of the new realities and structures in the youth sector landscape. Keep in mind that 1995 was only six years after the fall of the Berlin wall, that the EU was made of 15 member states and the Council of Europe of 38, that countries such as Russia, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan but also Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia were not integrated in the European institutions yet ; and that wars were still being fought in Croatia and especially in Bosnia. Having the young people of Europe state that they were ready to work hand-in-hand as equals regardless of whether they came from an “old” EU-founder Member State, a newly independently established former Yugoslav republic, or even a former Soviet republic across the Black Sea, was a revolution that I believe paved the way for the Europe we have today. And finally is the aim to establish youth policy as a serious, important, well-resourced and results-oriented policy area or competence at the European level. In 1995, it was still five years before the White Paper on Youth and 15 years before the Treaty of Lisbon fully recognised the rights of young people to participate in the democratic life of the European Union. Many of the things we take for granted today were nothing more than grandiosity dreams then. The point I try to make here is that the process and the history of the early organisational development of the youth platforms in Europe, and

A Unique Platform for youth organisation especially that big leap forward that led to the establishment of the European Youth Forum, were led by a certain set of objectives that remain more or less the same and keep surfacing whenever changes are envisaged, discussed and finally implemented in the structures and working methods of the European Youth Forum and in those of other European civil society platforms. During my tenure as Secretary-General of the European Youth Forum, I did my best to remain loyal to the principles that had inspired the changes in 1995-1996 and of which I had been a close observer. Thanks to the understanding and the support of the Board and of the decisions made by the Members, a policy of rationalisation and optimisation of the resources was implemented, based on a strict control of the expenditures and an active search for diversified sources of incomes, and sound management practices, transparency and accountability became rule. At the same time, and probably more importantly, the enthusiastic openness to new members was kept, the inclusiveness towards different actors was developed, and a genuine drive to improve the internal democratic procedures became self-evident. The assumption of its responsibilities as a major player in the youth field at a global level, as well as the awareness that its capacities and resources needed to be shared and put at the service of the less capable and less resourced, contributed to make the European Youth Forum a respected partner and interlocutor of governments, European and international institutions in various policy fields and in diversified political stages. And all this was possible, at the end of the day, because the European Youth Forum and its members accepted and were ready to undergo the changes that allowed it to implement its mission better and more efficiently. I am deeply convinced that the success of the European Youth Forum among the myriad of European civil society platforms that exist lies exactly with this simple proposition : Being able to remain faithful to its objectives, refusing corporatism and promoting openness and making its organisational development an engine rather than an obstacle to achieve these objectives. Therefore, the lessons to learn from this success are simple too, and they apply both to the future development of the European Youth Forum and to the development of any other given European civil society platform : If you’re for representation, you need to be representative ; if you’re for democracy, you need to be democratic ; if you’re for openness and inclusiveness, you need to be open and inclusive ; if you’re for accountability and transparency, you need to be accountable and transparent ; if you’re for policy, you need to be political ; if you’re for Europe, you need to be European ; if you’re for youth, you need to be young ; if you’re for solving problems, you need to be solution-oriented ; and more importantly, if you’re for people, you need to be people-centred. This is what I learned at the European youth Forum, and this is what I try to implement in the European Movement International. This is also what I would like to see all civil society organisations doing. This would definitely contribute for a better and more democratic Europe. I wish and count on the European Youth Forum to remain as an inspiration, an example and a lives-changing experience so that we can keep being proud of the past and hopeful on a better and brighter future for all.

33 Diogo Pinto was born in Nampula (Mozambique) in 1974. He got involved with youth organisations when he was 15 years old through the local chapter of the Catholic Students’ Movement (MCE) in Guimarães (Portugal). Later, he was elected President of the Guimarães’ Municipal Youth Council (1992), National Coordinator of the Catholic Students’ Movement (1993) and President of the Portuguese National Youth Council (1995). He studied Sociology at ISCTE – Lisbon University Institute. Diogo worked as Coordinator of Participation and Programming at the World Youth Festival that took place in Portugal in 1998 and later as SecretaryGeneral of the Portuguese National Youth Council (2000-2001) and National Director of Intercultura AFS Portugal (2001-2005). He was elected SecretaryGeneral of the European Youth Forum in April 2005 and was reelected in 2006 remaining in office until May 2009. In June that same year, Diogo Pinto was appointed Secretary-General of the European Movement International, the European civil society platform established in 1948 for working in favour of European integration. He lives in Brussels and has one son.


A Unique Platform for youth organisation

A Unique Platform for youth organisation

Speech delivered by Mr. François Mitterrand, President of the Republic, at the opening ceremony of the XIth General Assembly of the Youth Forum of the European Union Paris, Friday 31 March 1995 Ladies and gentlemen, I accepted your invitation with pleasure. It has been a tradition for several years, long before I was elected as President of the Republic, that I take part whenever possible, in European events and mainly European youth activities. It seems to me, and what you just said Mr President confirms it, that whatever interest and enthusiasm young people are showing for Europe, a substantial part of Europe’s youth has no direct link with Europe, is not admitted to the institutions. In other words, you have the feeling that you are there as witnesses or assistants and not as active partners. With my presence here today, my intention was to express my opinion, i.e that it would be crazy for Europe, as well as for any society, to cut itself off from its youth. As I said on several occasions before, and I apologize for repeating it once more, I still remember that day in 1948, almost 50 years ago, when the first European congress met in the Hague. It was an informal Council of course, which was the result of some goodwill and of some vague ideas which had emerged very soon after the second World War. Everybody agreed that it could not go on like this. I was myself born during the first World War, I fought in the Second. I could see what the consequences would be. It was Winston Churchill who chaired the meeting, he who two years earlier in Zurich in 1946 had proposed what he called “the supreme solution” to combat a possible return to old nationalist…and belligerent tendencies. The solution he said and I quote “is to reconvene the European family and to give it a structure which can develop in peace, in security and in freedom”. This is what was said by one of the main actors of the Second World War, one of the most prominent and respectable personalities of that period, a citizen from a country which was not expected to be particularly in favour of this type of organisation. As a young member of Parliament, I was there at that time. I can also remember how enthusiastic I was to be there with the founding fathers of Europe, from Robert Schuman to De Gasperi. There were also many parliamentarians and organisations with no mandate, who were simply there to offer the world, and at least Europe, a response to its evils as Europe had just been torn apart by World War II. The destructions and casualties were incalculable. Millions and millions, not to speak about the material damage which even today, are not totally repaired. I am trying to think how you, in the same situation, would have reacted. And now, are we already preparing the Third World War ? Will Europe continue to destroy itself in the form of a collective suicide ? And why ? First of all for financial interests, like in 1914, then for violent



A Unique Platform for youth organisation and simplistic ideologies as was the case in 1939. I therefore ask you : is it not worth reacting, protesting, opposing these tendencies, organising ourselves and inventing another way of organising the relations on our continent. This process has already started, for better or worse, but more for better than worse. Sometimes the process was slow, there were also steps back. And by chance it happened that I was present at all these different stages. First of all, there was the Treaty of Rome, followed by a long period of uncertainty where we had to see if the veto of each member state could prevent the others from moving forward. Then there was a new start, with the European Parliament, the European Council, the very important agreements leading to the adoption of the Single Market which led to the automatic ratification of other Treaties (otherwise the Single Market would have added new disorders and new steps backwards although in itself it was a good idea) and of course of the Maastricht Treaty which I proposed for ratification in 1992 to the people of France. I was not too sure of the final result, but was convinced that I had to consult the citizens and not just the members of Parliament and the elites. Today Europe is to some extent back in the slow lane, and in a way it is very often slowing down itself. This is due to the fact that it has created institutions which are too finicky, whose perspectives are too restrictive, with the installation of a big bureaucracy with a big “head” in Brussels and elsewhere. They forgot that there were also people, citizens, and that among those citizens, there are young people, without whom nothing can be built, because as you mentioned it earlier on, young people should not be excluded from the period you will live in. This is one of the strongest ideas one can express. Today we are discussing the future of our society, that of the XXIst century, in which I will not live. But I discuss it, I am interested. It is not because I will not be there that I am not interested. But you will be there, for better or worse and as we are living on a continent where the institutions are generally quite developed, living in a given period also means participating, making one’s voice heard, being present and not only from time to time with a ballot paper, but an active presence such as yours here today. One can measure the progress made since the times that I was referring to earlier on. We should be happy when looking at the long way since the establishment of the European Steel and Coal Community until the decision to abolish frontiers, and so the common foreign policy which will inevitably lead to a common defence policy. But all this was not sufficiently prepared and it therefore had to overcome the legitimate opposition of nations with a long history and tradition which cannot be abolished. In other words, there are many contradictions to overcome. And this is why Europe is being contested in many circles but, in my opinion, less than what people say. When we organised the referendum in 1992, I knew that we could take for granted that almost everybody was in favour of Europe. If I had submitted the law to the two houses of Parliament, the text would have passed with 90 % of the votes in favour. It would have been easy. As a politician you meet other politicians, representatives from associations, trade unions, institutions, all those who in our cities and towns have the possibility, through their job, to travel and to see Europe. All these people knew that it was necessary to build Europe and they had good reasons to contribute to its construction.

A Unique Platform for youth organisation But why would workers, who have to work very hard to earn a modest salary, to keep their job in a situation of high unemployment, to fight for their health and security, for their children’s education, who are concerned about many events that threaten their living, suddenly have been motivated to vote for Europe ? As the European project appeared to them as a longerterm objective than their immediate concerns, it was not a priority for them. People also started to believe that the European project was to blame for the under-developed social state where too many people had to live like them. They usually do not express their opinions in newspapers, they do not hold congresses and when they were interviewed for an opinion poll, their answer is usually : “Europe, of course I am in favour”. But who was against Europe ? Nobody probably. But when it comes down to prioritising interests, which are sometimes contradictory, European interests are always put on the back burner. The result was narrow, while forecasts had all, except mine because I was convinced that it would be difficult, predicted that the referendum would be a formality. I think that you are in an almost comparable situation. It might happen that you make progress or steps forward like the ones that I mentioned earlier on. But we are not at the eve of the signature of the Treaty of Rome, we are no longer in 1957. We now have institutions, laws, a European market, common policies, but we have reached a sort of deadlock, and if we do not manage to make progress in the coming years, there is a risk that we threaten the previous stages. This is your responsibility, your job for the future. Fortunately, we are starting to a abandon the narrow “market approach”. It is true that we started the European project with an economic market and I do not think that it was a mistake on the part of the founders of the EEC. They managed to gather a number of interests in the context that I described above. It was followed by a period of liberalism which I believe, and this is a personal opinion, was completely unreasonable where the tasks of the State and of public authorities were completely neglected, showing an absolute lack of interest for the needs of the citizens (the thirst for deregulation, the triumph of individualism). I am an individual and I like to be listened to as an individual. But I can not take individualism as the basic philosophy of a society. It would be a contradiction, even in the words. And this is precisely what the wild liberal tendencies did over the last decades. The common market was the basis of Europe. I approved this in the fifties, and still do. But that was not enough. Europe as a mere economic area would have interested nobody. But passing from the economic market to a wider form of cooperation took 10 to 15 years. Plus the fact that people started to lose interest, which made our task even more complicated. Europe as a mere economic area, or the Europe of capital and goods is not very exciting, although it gives some return (and even very high profits) to a few, but not to the majority of us. A sort of new god, of golden calf has taken an important place in all of our cities. It seems that one has forgotten that money is not the only force that drives people forward. People need more profound values, if we want them to get involved. Otherwise only those who have a clear interest will do so. And what about the others. All they do is work to produce profit for a few. But when your work is badly paid and insecure, it is not very exciting. More and more people get convinced that we need to base Europe on a number of values in order to get that support, to awaken the



A Unique Platform for youth organisation enthusiasm or to give a meaning to people’s lives. But which kind of values ? I could suggest a number of them, and you can guess which ones I have in mind. But you are the ones who will have to defend these values for the coming 50 years. After centuries of war, social conflicts, violent repressions, a set of rights have finally been commonly accepted, not so long ago in fact. The right to self-determination is recognised by the international community but is often violated. The respect of minorities : we all know that every day, somewhere in the world an army represses rebellions preventing minorities from expressing their culture, from enjoying the minimum of autonomy which they need. It is easier to talk about tolerance than to be tolerant. Pluralism is also developing, especially in Africa, where an increasing number of countries have established institutions and more than one political party, they have guaranteed the freedom of the press, organised free elections. But all these liberties still need to be strengthened. Political democracy, political liberties : how many countries still have political prisoners, i.e people who are in prison because of their opinions ? Equal opportunities : it is a matter that concerns more particularly young people. Solidarity, the protection of the weakest, the primacy of intelligence and human creation over the power and value of goods. Europe has to respond to social needs, to cultural ambitions ; it must try and solve the democratic deficit (a very trendy concept). There are many countries in Europe where this deficit exists and we are all responsible for it. It is only if Europe sets for itself the objective of reinforcing and protecting these values that it will become interesting again, that you will feel like committing yourself. And not only to get involved yourselves, as you are already active, but to convince others to get involved. This Europe, that I see as democratic, the Europe that managed over the last forty years, and especially over the last six years to offer a source of inspiration, how does it work ? You are the representatives of national youth councils of all European countries. You are the main actors of what we call “la vie associative”, which gives you a specific responsibility. But are you sure that you effectively represent your constituents ? I have also had the same problem in my various political mandates : we are supposed to represent a group and when you turn back, you realise that there are not so many people behind you, and in the end there is nobody at all. We praise ourselves in speeches, we speak on behalf of others, and in fact nobody listens any more. It seems to me that European construction too often gives the impression to citizens that it is paralysed by administrative structures. I do not want to interfere in the debates for the presidential campaign in France, but it is true to say that we cannot make Europe only with experts. This all seems too distant for citizens who have to cope with the difficulties of daily life. I wonder who, better than you, could, if you manage to make your voice heard, pass on this message. Who could, better than you, pass to others the indispensable conviction and enthusiasm. Your are one of the components of European democracy. Together with political parties, trade unions and community organisations, you are an essential element in the freedom of expression and representation of men and women in our countries. Democracy needs organisations such as yours, which mobilise people for collective action and establish contacts between citizens and institutions. Your organisations and associations of popular education also contribute to promoting active citizenshi p. From one generation to another, we pass on the awareness to learn about democracy. This means that in Europe,

A Unique Platform for youth organisation we need to be able to fulfil our basic education tasks. You must make your voice heard ; you want to anyway. But you are not always given a chance to do so, in which case you have to fight for it. It will never be given automatically. Nothing is ever just given for free. This has been the subject of numerous songs and poems. Both in public and private life, nothing is given very easily, everything must be gained on the basis of effort, determination and persuasion. Just look at how long it took for Europe to give a chance to its youth to make its voice heard. You had to wait until 1978, i.e more than twenty years after the signature of the Treaty of Rome, for the establishment of the Youth Forum. You are a young organisation. You have mentioned the topics that are of concern to your generation : training, employment, professional integration, racism but you could have added so many others : drugs, the fight against poverty, heath, new epidemics that affect our daily lives. On all of these important issues, you certainly have an opinion : state it. The European Union, to which I have contributed for almost 50 years since it exists, is quite remote from the daily concerns. It has made progress in many respects, but not on the above issues. This means that there is a gap, and you have to fill it. If you do not do it, I do not see who will stand up and do it. All this should also in a way reassure us, because we are only at the beginning. Europe up to now has been the job of a generation that is now ageing. It will now be a matter for a new generation. This means only two generations, which is not very much (you are not yet at the age where you realise that time flies) taking into account the difficulties and obstacles that we have known in Europe. Mr President, you said that you want no more war in Bosnia, or in Algeria, but this is not enough. You have to say how you want to avoid these conflicts. One of the best ways to do it is to make sure you have the means to enforce this, to work at the diplomatic level and at the same time to demonstrate your strength. The Society of Nations lost its influence because it took initiatives at the legal level, which was already very good for that time, without ever becoming a law-enforcing body. The United Nations did more, but not enough. So continue, keep on trying, do not give up your main task and have confidence in yourself. You have to raise awareness and convince millions of Europeans. Open wide the doors of your organisations and of the European Union to all kinds of young people. Make sure your organisation is not an rigid structure, a beautiful abstract concept or an endless series of assemblies with numerous mandates. Let it not become a matter for professionals only. Life is where everybody is involved. Men and women only feel like getting involved when deep inside them there is something that one could call faith, a necessity, a need, when their mind starts to take over from the rest. Otherwise everything rapidly collapses. The understanding of the matter through the development of science requires that in all countries, research is given the top priority. I repeat this every day, and I would like to convince more people about this in my own country : the role of the human being is to harness the world around him. But to harness our environment, we need to understand the world in which we live, this planet on which everything is strange : the elements, the minerals. We don’t know how all this works. People managed to discover their composition, to understand the reason how things are, but we do not know why they are as they are. And this small planet in this huge constellation, how does it work ? Everybody has once in his/her life asked these questions.



A Unique Platform for youth organisation But it is such a huge task that you should only start with it if you really believe in it, if you really feel that it is worth devoting part of your life to it, an important part of your life. Otherwise you better go home, where there is always something to do. There are always things to be repaired, there are always windows to be closed, children who break things. Maybe there should be no more windows, no more doors, and no more children. And progressively there would nothing at all any more. What a beautiful world it would be if there would be no more drafts, no water, no fire, no germs, no viruses. One could build a wonderful world, a little bit boring maybe. And you will make nobody enthusiastic about such a world : it is like a fairy tale. By chance, Europe is more lively, and it could be even more so, even if it is out of breath after 400 meters while it still has 8 kilometers to go. And this is where I need your energy, between the 400 meters and the 8 kilometres. Keep your energy safe, or try and recuperate it if you have lost it. I have participated in European Council meetings for the last 14 years. I followed their work in the years before this period. I know how it all works. I also know very well why sometimes it does not work. I have always been surprised to see that in the worst circumstances, when everything seems to be lost (during the discussion on the Single Market in Luxembourg in 1985, the situation was totally blocked). Ten minutes before the end, when there seemed to be no more hope, when everything had failed, suddenly there was a breakthrough. The countries that were against the agreement gave in. It was suddenly like a light over the place where we were, the light of evidence, maybe that of history. It is now up to you to defend these values. I wish you good luck.

A Unique Platform for youth organisation



A Unique Platform for youth organisation

A Unique Platform for youth organisation



A Unique Platform for youth organisation

A Unique Platform for youth organisation


Grégoire Audeguy — Signes


A Unique Platform for youth organisation

A larger Forum, a larger Europe


A Larger Forum, a larger Europe words by Renaldas Vaisbrodas

This entry is likely to be the closest I have ever been to writing an autobiography. However, I’d rather see this text as a testimony to those young people that the European Youth Forum (YFJ) represents. I shall focus on the years I served the organisation and what changes Europe and its youth underwent in that brief period. From the transition to democracy to the full membership of the European Union, the Central and Eastern European “Cinderella” story was mirrored in every sphere of societal life. Young people and youth organisations experienced similar developments from Communist youth to the emergence of vibrant civil society structures. I joined youth organisations unconsciously. At the time, Lithuania was building its democratic infrastructure, and civil society organisations were mushrooming all over the country. Young and old alike felt exhilaration over the re-establishment of Lithuanian independence. This represented a break with the past and was the right moment to cement our future. In those years, youth leaders were improvising by creating organisations and merging them while competing for the same target grou p. It was everything but boring. Volunteering, youth activism and youth advocacy were recognised unknowingly while hardly ever called by their names. It was sporadic, often opportunistic, but without doubt bona fide. One could end up as I did, among the founding members of three different youth organisations. Not because one organisation was not enough but because all of them were necessary and relevant, and the vacuum left by the Soviet past had to be filled. And filled it was. The NGO sector thrived, spurred by outside investment from various foundations, international organisations and foreign governments. At the same time, a phenomenon of MONGOs (My Own NGO) and GONGOs (Governmental NGO) took off with a detrimental effect and little sustainable value. European experiences were precious and still too few. Hence, being part of it made a difference. Travelling in Europe still meant visas ; most often, travel would involve lengthy hours on a cramped bus. Understanding the language, the functioning of European youth structures and being able to express oneself in a foreign language was yet another “wall” to be broken down. Young people in Lithuania were hungry for European experience, and the organisations were greatly committed to European youth cooperation. For many in my generation of youth activists, the first points of call were the Council of Europe’s European Youth Centres in Strasbourg or Budapest. These unforgettable evenings in the “Austrian room” or on the terrace overlooking the Danube made many feel much more European. These were the places where the European project was discussed and made real. For us in Lithuania, after the reestablishment of independence and following a lengthy Soviet occupation, the Council of Europe meant international credibility and dignity, yet everyone knew that the European Union was the final destination. Despite this fact, I found myself many times discussing with friends from EU Member States that the EU was not Europe ; the Council of Europe was. This debate is recurring, despite the increased overlap of the membership of the EU and the CoE. The European Union can still be seen as the arrogant construction that questions the European


A Unique Platform for youth organisation aspirations of Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia or Russia. Are the European aspirations of youngsters in Kyiv, Tbilisi or Ankara any different to that in Vilnius, Prague or Budapest in the late nineties ? The European Youth Forum and its membership were and remain open. In fact, the YFJ is one of the few organisations that build on difference. Its diversity is its strength. No matter your country of origin, specific interest or agenda, you have the same rights and same votes in the European Youth Forum. For an up-and-coming youth activist, this was a valuable lesson. In fact, this example determined the direction youth advocacy developed in many Central Eastern European countries.

Participation, human rights and diversity In the late 1990s, “youth power” awareness was to be discovered. Youth organisations in Europe fought hard to be heard and hoped to be listened to. The levels of emancipation of young people were growing, but their role in society was still minimal. To bring change to this phenomenon, youth organisations brought about an ambitious agenda, which is well represented by the slogan “Nothing about us, without us !” There again the Council of Europe was an example to look up to. With its co-management structures and the credible role that youth organisations played in defining policies, activities and even funding for European youth organisations, it was evidence to the fact that ambition was not based on empty words. The European Youth Forum, in all these processes, played an essential role. The fact that in Europe there was a structure that united youth organisations, no matter whether they were national youth councils or international youth NGOs, for common purpose and action representing joint interest was special if not exceptional. My first impressions of the European Youth Forum were overwhelming. I was 18. It was an Executive Committee meeting in Geneva in October 1999. Hundreds of youth representatives from all over the continent discussed highly charged issues, debated, disagreed, lobbied and drafted statements, resolutions and amendments ; it was a whole new dimension of civil society in action. Disagreement during the day was often accompanied by great fun during the night. Unforgettable. Being there and then also had a sensation of how privileged I was to enjoy this bunch of fun loving, hard working volunteers and at the same time the responsibility not to waste the trust vested in me as a delegate and represent my organisation in the best possible manner. Participation was not about Olympic spirit ; it was about democratic necessity. Building a fairer society required engagement and commitment by all parties. Confidence was yet to be built. It was quite fascinating to observe the difference in perceptions and evolution of the youth sector in different institutional milieus. In the Council of Europe, YFJ representatives and member states’ representatives took decisions together. In the European Union, YFJ representatives and member states’ representatives had a joint reception or a declarative session. Curiously enough, all the players on these two different “stages” played their script. Some member state representatives raised questions on the representativeness of the YFJ, though the same people accepted the YFJ’s nominated President of the CoE Joint Council for Youth Affairs. Arguments would go that the European Union needed time to get to where the CoE was. So it did. It took time. A White Paper, the Open Method of

A Unique Platform for youth organisation Coordination, a Youth Pact, a Structured Dialogue on Youth, etc. Effectively, the pretence of youth participation in the EU often had a negative spin on the exemplary cooperation existing in the Council of Europe. All in all, the struggle continues. Challenges that our societies in Europe face require something more than just a structural argument. It is about the commitment to respond effectively to these challenges, youth unemployment, demographic decline and the rise of extremism in Europe. Following 9/11 and the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, the debate in Europe was taken over by security. Europe seemed to be under threat, and the solution that was often discussed related to stringent border controls and effective re-emergence of “Fortress Europe”. In this light, those that were “different” became “alien”, and those views that before seemed extreme turned into mainstream. Racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia were on the rise across the continent. The European Youth Forum with its partners launched a campaign “All different, all equal” to confront the trends and to pursue greater participation, human rights and diversity agenda. Even if the impact and the scope of the campaign could not compete with the similar initiative of 1996, the fact that youth organisations made a conscious effort to identify a problem and take up responsibility to find a way of tackling it was meaningful. In many ways, the “youth rights” agenda that European Youth Forum pursues in this decade is derived from this campaign and the remaining urgency to promote greater awareness of society in general and young people in particular of the unequal opportunities and discrimination that mire Europe. The enlargement of the European Union gave a sense of justice to those that were destined to stay on the other side of the iron curtain after the Second World War. So on the 1st May 2004, as the fireworks covered the sky over Vilnius, the feeling that the European Union has a lot to celebrate, but is likely to have even more to overcome in the coming years, was ever present. Ten new member states gave a boost to the economy, to the political credibility of the European project and the long-awaited return to the European family of eight Central and Eastern European countries. The European Union on the 1st May 2004 was very different. Economic and social differences between the EU member states were significant. In these circumstances, being a new Member State meant being half way out not half way in. The ability to be equal was often undermined by glaring gaps in the economic and social development of our countries. This feeling was less evident in the Youth Sector, but even there integration meant some hard lessons. The youth sector in the Central and Eastern European countries that experienced a period of boom before the EU accession was averted. Unfortunately thereafter, or just before that, came the realisation that while European integration and EU enlargement was hugely supported by civil society organisations, accession also meant a runaway by number of big donors further East or down South to the Western Balkans. Central and Eastern European countries had to face hardly existent state funding for youth activities and fight for the resources provided in the Youth programme while hoping that one day they would be strong enough to have the capacity to participate in the European Social Fund funding initiatives. This heralded a relative decline or the consolidation of the NGO sector. As the youth NGO sector consolidated, governments discovered a powerful, yet underfunded and often undermined, lobby at their footsteps  ; at least this was the


52 Renaldas Vaisbrodas, born in 1981, is Lithuanian and holds a Master’s degree in international communication and a Bachelor’s degree in political science from Vilnius University. He is founder of the Lithuanian School Students Union (LMS), long time international secretary of Lithuanian Youth Council (LiJOT), 2003-2004 Vice President and 2005-2006 President of the European Youth Forum. Currently he is foreign affairs adviser in the liberal democrat group (ALDE) in the European Parliament, member of the President’s Guy Verhofstadt cabinet responsible for external relations. He is married to Neringa and has a son, Herkus Mantas, and a daughter, Grytė.

A Unique Platform for youth organisation experience in Lithuania. In this light, the training, partnership and co-operation that ensued were of great support. The young generation is changing politics. It is doing so in many ways today. The events of 2011 in the Southern Mediterranean are the alarm bell for European societies. In Europe, young people, though undoubtedly much more comfortable with their lives than anywhere else, feel squeezed by the lack of employment, education that does not result in sustainable career opportunities or a responsibility that will fall upon them due to massive ageing of our societies. Challenges transcend national borders, but the solutions remain ineffectively national and often are void of real deliverables. Problems persist, discrimination has not been overcome, obstacles are still many. But, the European spirit that dominated the European Youth Forum in the years of transition has not disappeared. Looking at it from this perspective, the YFJ at the time was quite sophisticated and fairly bureaucratic. It also was an incredibly professional and youth policy standard-setter. I bow to the people that led the Secretariat and those that worked there with so much dedication and love. I cannot avoid mentioning some people to whom I will remain forever grateful : Fidelma Joyce, a true mentor for all of us youngsters from Central and Eastern European countries and Katy Orr, a sharp policy eye and analysis best to none. For those many, of which I am one, who volunteered to lead the European Youth Forum, there was no greater gift than making friends, building relations and experiencing Europe at first hand. The European Youth Forum lives beyond the years of ones’ involvement into the friendships and generations of young people who are changing the world.

A Unique Platform for youth organisation

The President responds : interview to Romano Prodi Extract from Youth Opinion Issue 1 October 2003, P p. 15-17 The Convention was an open, participative democratic process in which young people’s organisations could contribute to decision-making. Do you believe that the work it accomplished -- in general and specifically as regards youth -- was satisfactory ? The European Union is going through a period of extraordinary progress. The draft Constitution put forward by the Convention has great symbolic value as this is the first time the Union’s foundations have been debated in an open, democratic forum by representatives of the peoples and States of Europe. Moreover, this innovative endeavour to build a new political reality is unprecedented and unparalleled in our history and it was certainly not a straightforward task. It brought much encouraging progress as well as some deadlock and some bitter defeats. We must draw the lessons from both the victories and the battles lost if we are to move ahead. “The quality of the input of youth organisations in the Youth Convention ensured that these consultations were not just window-dressing” The Laeken Declaration marked the beginning of a new period and set the Convention its main challenges of bringing the EU institutions closer to the people, particularly young people, and of making the EU more efficient, democratic and transparent. Any analysis of the Convention, which offers a new model as a constitution-building process, should take these goals into consideration. What is important is whether this process has managed to narrow the gap between the institutions and the people. The Union will face the challenge of proving this true in the future. On the question of young people, I welcome the fact that efforts by youth organisations to have stronger references to the role of young people in EU political life included in the draft Constitution were successful. This was achieved thanks in particular to the work of the Youth Convention. The quality of the input of youth organisations in the Youth Convention ensured that these consultations were not just window· dressing. I am convinced that politicians should encourage young people to get involved. That is why we are drawing up a special strategy within the scope of our responsibility. Our White Paper on Youth aims to foster partiCipation, information, voluntary service and mutual understanding. I am convinced that voluntary service in particular could be a big factor in promoting the active involvement of EU citizens. That is why it is a great step forward for the draft Constitution to have proposed setting up a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps for joint contributions from young EU citizens. I also believe that within the Union, the various agencies and the voluntary sector should set up networks and structures to make coordination and exchanges possible. What do you think of the way the IGC is dealing with the results of the political negotiation process at the Convention ? Clearly this Intergovernmental Conference cannot be compared with any previous IGC since it has the excellent work of the Convention to



A Unique Platform for youth organisation base itself on. But it still has its primary function, which is to allow the heads of State and government to exercise their political responsibility and present the final text for approval to the institutions and the people in their Member States. There are aspects of the draft Constitution that bear clear witness to the fact that the compromise reached is incomplete or does not go far enough and the result achieved to date is not the end of the line, as we had originally hoped. So the Member States, in whom sovereignty is ultimately vested, should be able to discuss it once more and see whether areas for improvement do not exist. The goal is to equip the Union For a larger number of members and at the same time to make it more efficient and more transparent and strengthen its democratic legitimacy. Over the past few months, the Commission has expressed its views on the future of Europe on a number of occasions. We have consistently pushed for an ambitious, high-quality text that can meet the challenges that lie ahead. The draft Constitutional Treaty prepared by the Convention provides an excellent basis for the final negotiations. This is good for Europe, it is good for our nations and peoples and it is good for the EU institutions. But it is now time to concentrate on the points where it still needs improving. As we speak, a new Europe is in the process of construction, Millions of young people will become part of an expanded European Union. How can these young people with their different cultural, economical and social backgrounds identify with the Union ? You are all as aware as I am of the scale of the challenges facing us over the next few months. The European Union will embark on its biggest adventure ever when it prepares to welcome in ten new members and to reshape its institutions and decision-making procedures. The goal is to equip the Union for a larger number of members and at the same time to make it more efficient and more transparent and strengthen its democratic legitimacy. The Union’s values should inspire the process of integration and should help citizens identify with the Union, regardless of their cultural and social backgrounds. Over the years we have noticed that those most convinced of the opportunities the EU offers in new Member States are the young people. Europe is becoming a common area of opportunities for education, for finding a career and for developing a new sense of citizenship beyond the borders of one’s own country. As the Draft Constitution states, peace and solidarity are founding values of the EU. So I believe in the idea included in the draft Constitution of establishing a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps for joint action by young Europeans as it fulfils the aspirations of many young people who wish to contribute to peaceful development in Europe and beyond. This may seem ambitious at the moment, but we believe this positive idea deserves to be explored further, and it could also bring further development of voluntary civilian services in a European framework. Young people need to be given the opportunity to offer their help and to learn through experience in Europe and abroad, thereby encouraging a sense of a shared active EU citizenshi p.  Statistically, young people are those who vote least. With the European Parliament elections due in 2004, how can the Union be brought closer to them and how can they be encouraged to vote ?

A Unique Platform for youth organisation “Your commitment, I am sure, will encourage young people to take part in the democratic system and cast their votes.” The Convention’s success has brought a lasting change in democratic life in the European Union. It was a great job well done and an unhoped-for result. The EU is in the midst of a new phase of constitutional development and is taking a fundamentally important step towards creating a political union. It will soon be the citizens’ turn to speak their minds, and all the effects and political implications of the process need to be explained properly, including the enlarged EU and the “wider Europe”, the new arrangements for running the EU and the Union’s role in the world. This process of discussion will have to be taken further than within the Convention, which opened a debate that must now be thrown open to all citizens so the foundations for a genuine European political area can be laid. In the light of these developments, I believe that you can play a very important role in the election process as organisations representing young people. You work directly with young people and the Union needs you to spread the message that each individual must take part actively so his or her opinion counts. Your commitment, I am sure, will encourage young people to take part in the democratic system and cast their votes. “Young people should not be mere spectators or addressees of decisions handed down by the Union, but protagonists.” How do you see the EU in 20 years’ time, when today’s young EU citizens wU/ be running and leading the Union ? To say that European integration is dedicated first and foremost to young people is not just an empty claim. The process of European integration is designed to benefit our youth, and its success depends above all on their involvement. As I said a couple of months ago when I addressed the European Parliament, what we need is a Constitution that lays the foundations for the Europe of many years to come while preserving what we have achieved so far for future generations. This is the Europe we have built and are in the process of consolidating. One of the challenges facing Europe and the world in general is to accept differences, which cause so much fear and mistrust. Young people need to make it possible for people with different cultural backgrounds, different ethnic origins and different economic circumstances to live together. It is a question of public responsibility and human commitment. This is why I am convinced that politicians should encourage our young people to get involved and why our White Paper on Youth aims to encourage participation, information, voluntary service and mutual understanding. Young people should not be mere spectators or addressees of decisions handed down by the Union, but protagonists. We should think of the European Union as our own concern. It is not an area to explore as tourists, but to be lived in as citizens. Learn the languages and history of the other countries. Take advantage of the opportunities the Union offers, starting with the Erasmus programme, which we recently proposed extending worldwide (Erasmus Mundus). The European Union is our -- and your -- chance for fulfilment. Its future depends on us and on you.



A Unique Platform for youth organisation

A Unique Platform for youth organisation

Interview with Margot Wallström Vice-President of the European Commission, responsible for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy Extract of Youth Opinion Issue 1 2007. In August 2004 Margot Wallström was appointed Vice President for Institutional Relations and Communication at the European Commission, a post created by ‘President Barroso in order to improve the way the Commission communicates ‘Europe’ to citizens. Vice President Wallström has been working in collaboration with the European Youth Forum in the framework of the Rome Youth Summit, held from 23-25 March 2007. 1. As the EU celebrates 50 years, what do you see as its main achievements and shortcomings ? As the Rome declaration states, thanks to the European buildingprocess we have been living in peace, freedom and prosperity for 50 years. We have a single market, a common currency shared by 13 Member States, and we are one of the biggest trading powers in the world. The European Union is influencing world events in a unique manner. The initial economic community developed into a ‘European way’ : a social market economy with an overall objective of sustainable development - showing that economic growth can be combined with social security and environmental protection. I can also speak about gender equality, anti-discrimination policies and protection of human and civil rights. Speaking about shortcomings, I think it’s high time that we end the elite-driven integration. That’s the objective of the communication policy we launched two years ago - a long-term and ambitious but highly necessary project. 2. What do you see as the main challenges for the next 50 years of the European project ? The major challenge currently facing us is the need to equip Europeans for globalisation. In a globalised world, the Member States have everything to gain from pooling their resources. It is clear that 27 Member States together are stronger to face the challenges of the 21st Century - terrorism, state-building, conflict resolution to name but a few - but they need the institutional wherewithal to do it. Further enlargement is also contingent on this. Energy security and energy efficiency will also be at the very top of the EU’s agenda in the coming years. I also think that sustainable development should be at the heart of all European policies.



A Unique Platform for youth organisation 3. The need to bridge the gap between the citizens and the EU institutions was stated in the White Paper on European Communication Policy - what is the Commission doing to reduce this gap ? We have launched several projects such as the European Transparency Initiative to make institutions easier to understand and bring the European processes closer to the people. We are trying to move closer [to the public] in the way we communicate our initiatives and ideas, by getting local authorities and local media on board. We are working to make our information tools for the public, such as Europe Direct, better known. I see three elements where more can still be done : firstly we should work on building up a European public sphere, where we have a stronger European political culture - we need European parties. Secondly, we need a media culture which is truly European. We have to give the media the resources to cross borders to report from neighbouring countries. Without, of course, interfering in the editorial independence we can at least give some support to journalists. And thirdly we need the meeting places to be able to debate European identity, or simply to get together and to get to know each other. In my view this is the best and easiest way to deepen Europe and to give back ownership to the citizens. 4. What is the main role of civil society, and in particular youth organisations, in the construction of Europe ? Europe belongs to its citizens. Civil society should be our main partner when launching new policies or discussing changes. Civil society organisations are here to help us respond to citizens’ expectations regarding the Union. Youth organisations have a particular role in that respect, as we draft tomorrow’s Europe : they are discussion fora necessary for real democracy. Civil society also has a role to play in the building of a European solidarity which is a necessary prerequisite to a real European citizenshi p.  5. How do you assess the process of the Rome Youth Summit ? And what do you think the consequences will be ? Further to the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Treaty of Rome, the Rome Youth Summit was a concrete step toward structured dialogue with youth. The Youth Summit turned out to be a real success thanks to the meticulous preparation through national and pan-European debates. The Rome Declaration shows an open and ambitious, yet realistic attitude of young Europeans towards the Union. The European Commission is already paving the way for the follow-up of this event. The dialogue will continue. 6. How do you see the situation of young people nowadays ? What role can the European Union play to improve the lives of young people today ? Today’s European young people are a key generation, the first one to live Europe on a daily basis, through their studies, their job opportunities, their friendships and leisure. They also have to face unprecedented problems such as environmental threats. The European Union is helping them out in many different ways. Through

A Unique Platform for youth organisation education, with the highly successful Erasmus program or the equivalency programs for studies and trainings. With real mobility - no matter if you are a student, or you want to find a job in another country. I think in the future, there will also be more scope for voluntary work thanks to EU programmes : I wish we had a truly ‘European solidarity’ corps ! There are so many young Europeans who want to have a say. They want to be involved. I am motivated by that. The European Union is also helping young people outside the Union and I think this is important ; as we are living in an increasingly globalised world, we cannot stay focused only on the European situation but need to be aware of what is happening elsewhere and be willing to engage and to hel p.  7. How could a young person get involved in European policy debates ? You have the traditional way : European Parliament elections, and getting engaged in European associations and political parties for instance. You also have the new tools we have developed in our communication policy such as the website ‘Debate Europe !’ or the meetings organised in Member States with European leaders. Above all you should go for the “non-institutional” way of debating Europe with other young Europeans you might meet… e.g. via the Internet. You can create or join a local NGO, and try to influence your local MEPs, the authorities. 8. How would you evaluate the cooperation between the YFJ and the European Commission ? How do you see it in the future ? I had a very positive impression of the first Youth Summit. Therefore I am looking forward to future cooperation with the YFJ - you are one important platform to reach out to young Europeans and make them interested in what goes on in Europe.


Hélène Bedouet — Définition de la jeunesse (Extrait ; ensemble dessins et textes)


A Unique Platform for youth organisation

Working in European Youth Forum Secretariats


Working in European Youth Forum Secretariats words by Luc Rummens

When I graduated from university, I started working as free-lance interpreter for ETUC and ETUC-YOUTH. The latter structure was a member of the Provisional Committee that was preparing the establishment of the Youth Forum of the European Communities. My contact person in ETUC advised me to follow the developments of this emerging structure, as they would probably need interpreters for their meetings. I dropped into the office at 66 Avenue de Cortenbergh and left my name and telephone number in case they needed translations or interpretation services. And on the eve of the first General Assembly of the Youth Forum of the European Communities in Brussels in 1979, they called me to see if I could help with translation (interpretation was not needed as the European Commission had offered to put its interpreters at their disposal during the meeting) as the workload had slightly ran out of control. This is how I got into contact with the Youth Forum. From then on, I was one of their two regular interpreters for all statutory and thematic meetings. As it was the habit to translate documents overnight during the meetings, I quickly started to feel a sense of solidarity with the two staff members who had to do this in addition to all their other tasks ; very quickly, they offered me a job as part-time translator. The first years were quite hectic ; there were two political staff, two and a half administrative staff members and no board. The two political staffs, a Secretary-General and a Deputy Secretary-General, each represented one of the two pillars, international non-governmental youth organisations and national youth councils. As they usually both ran for the same position of Secretary-General, the winner of the elections would become SecretaryGeneral and the defeated candidate became the Deputy. This most certainly led to significant tension in the office, a tension between INGYOs and NYCs that was also present in statutory meetings from the organisation’s creation in 1978 until, I would say, the late 1980s. This was mainly due to the fact that the Youth Forum of the EC was, in fact, a get-together of organisations that already had coordinating bodies (ECB for the international organisations and CENYC for the national youth councils) and that many organisations inside these two structures saw the Youth Forum as an intruder, which would get money from budget lines from which they would get their own funds. Several organisations did not see the added value that the Youth Forum would bring. But I will concentrate on what it was working in the Secretariat of the Youth Forum of the EC in 1981 and in the Secretariat of the European Youth Forum in 2011. The work and life at the Secretariat were completely different from what they are now. With four or five people and no Board, one can imagine that it was these people doing all the work and that there was more overlapping between the political and technical work. In terms of content, we worked on far less issues that we do now. There were three Permanent Commissions : - Permanent Commission 1 dealing with development cooperation ; - Permanent Commission 2 dealing with social affairs ; - Permanent Commission 3 dealing with education and culture.


A Unique Platform for youth organisation Each Commission met three times a year. The Executive Committee, now the Council of Members, met twice a year, and the General Assembly met every year. Although there were less member organisations than now, it is interesting to note that at the General Assembly, each national youth council was represented by six delegates and each international organisation by three delegates. The Executive Committee was composed of the nine national youth councils representing the nine countries of the European Community and nine international organisations elected by the General Assembly among all international organisations in order to guarantee the balance between NYCs and INGYOs. We now have a system of weighing the votes. As I said before, the CENYC/ECB tensions, contradictions, and differences in approach and philosophy very much dominated the whole work and the meetings. It was quite normal practice that a statutory meeting was interrupted several times to have separate CENYC and ECB consultations, thereby very much preventing any sense of ownership of the Youth Forum by its member organisations. The climax was an Executive Committee in 1985, which actually never started as there was a strong disagreement over the adoption of the agenda. About this period, I can say that the meetings were very political, very tense and that there were many different division lines : north-south, left-right, pro-EU and anti-EU, NYC v. INGYOs. All this sometimes turned the meetings into sessions that were quite tense, with many interruptions to find ‘corridor compromises’. They were a bit like the COMSOMOL meetings (the youth division of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) where the actual meeting time in plenary was shorter than the corridor sessions and where the habit was to work through the night. Let us say that the period between the creation of the Youth Forum of the EC in 1978 and 1983 was a difficult one, as the Youth Forum had to find its place next to CENYC and ECB, had to gain the confidence of the EC institutions and had to get recognised and respected both by youth organisations and the institutions as the voice of young people in the EC. After three Secretary-Generals coming from the National Youth Councils’ ‘family’, 1987 marked a turning point with the election of a SecretaryGeneral with a clear INGYO ‘hat’. But 1985 had also been the year where the Youth Forum decided to work with a political Bureau (now Board). This again was a development that required some time and adjustments in order to work smoothly. The stories we heard about the CENYC and ECB meetings were that everything was collegial, smooth and friendly there. It was quite frustrating to work for an organisation where, when these two groups of organisations came together under the umbrella of the Youth Forum, everything became more difficult. There was a lot of mistrust, suspicion and antagonism. But at the same time, it was also quite challenging. Until 1993, the system of a Secretary-General and Deputy SecretaryGeneral was maintained. Although this system had some disadvantages, it was also a guarantee that in the daily work, there was a political balance and a sort of shadow leadershi p.  The early nineties also saw the creation of the Student Forum inside the Youth Forum. This development very much happened following the more active role of student organisations in the Youth Forum and the fact that two successive Secretary-Generals came from student organisations.

A Unique Platform for youth organisation Halfway through the nineties, the three platforms CENYC, ECB an the Youth Forum started to realise that a lot of energy got lost in fighting against each other, and maybe the institutions also gave a sign that funding, though in different ways, three platforms would not be sustainable for much longer. There was also of course the fall of the Berlin wall and the opening to what used to be called Eastern Europe. The national youth councils of Eastern Europe were knocking on our door and integrating them in the Youth Forum of the EC was a bit difficult. In 1996 in Cork, the European Youth Forum was established, and ECB and CENYC disappeared. This was probably the most significant political move since 1978. Although the first years were a bit hectic, responding to the prediction of someone who was standing next to me at the moment of the vote establishing the European Youth Forum : ‘Welcome to Jurassic Park’. However, the positive was that there was only one dinosaur left, which reduced the risk that they would kill each other. On the Secretariat side, the merge of the platforms also led to the integration of three new staff members, two from CENYC and one from ECB) in the new platform. For them, it must have been quite a change coming from an organisation working with two or three staff members to an organisation working with 15 is quite different. I must say that after all this, the Youth Forum has found real stability, both internal and external ; the relations with the institutions and the credibility have improved considerably. The work inside the Secretariat has become much more professional, and the staff has increased to 22 staff members. However, the main change that I noticed in the content of the meetings is that, whereas in the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a very strong political debate on issues such as the Lomé Convention, the apartheid regime in South Africa, the unemployment situation in Europe, the poverty issue, the sovereignty issue, education programmes, the accent is now much more on EU programmes and budget lines on European presidencies and international fora and institutions. I would say that the Youth Forum changed from and opposition and counterforce (a sort of youth trade union), to a discussion partner for institutions. It is clear that this change also led to a more stable situation for the Secretariat ; we feel more trusted by the Commission. The period of uncertain budgetary situations, payment in provisional twelve’s and late payments by the European Commission were also resolved. As a conclusion, I would say that the Youth Forum of the EC had a difficult start and that at some point there were quite a number of people who were prepared to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But there were always enough people who realised the advantages of keeping the structure alive, by introducing some changes both in the structures and in the content. It is now a pleasure working for the Youth Forum, even after so many years. The high rotation of delegates and political staff is probably the reason why I always managed not to get bored and to pick up new challenges. I consider it an honour and a privilege to work for this organisation, which, in many ways, is more professional than most adult structures and private companies. The frustrating part might be that some ideas or projects come up, which I know that we already had and tried before and did not work. But, that is part of the game. Finally I would like to say that I have worked with some fantastic people in the Youth Forum, some of whom are still friends. I also hope that I have contributed, even if just a little, to raising the standards of this organisation.

65 Luc Rummens graduated as interpreter from a Brusselsbased high school for translators and interpreters. He worked for three years as a freelance teacher and interpreter before joining the Youth Forum of the EU as a part-time translator in 1981. In 1983, he became full-time employee of the Youth Forum and now works as coordinator of the Administration and Translation department.



List of the staff of the European Youth Forum 1996 − 2011 (as at 27/06/11)

Laura Alcovero Ines Alves Luis Amorim Estefania Asorey-Souto Marisa Atienza Laura Bacci Jan Bal Luiza Bara Tatiana Basarab Dagmar Beernaert Benoi tBenich John Blaschette Thérèse Boutsen Anne Brébart Nicole Burlet-Parendel Adelheid Byttebier Jorge Camara Pablo Camesele Brian Carty Klavdija Cernilogar Maxime Cerutti Mathias Christensen Maarten Coertjens

Norma Cohen Mary Creagh Mark Davies DeniseDe Beaufort Mark De Meyer Anne Debrabandere Jo Deman Anne Deneyer Finn Denstad Jan Dereymaeker StefaniaDi Paola Pedro Dias Richard Doherty Aymeric Dupont Barbara Engelstoft Erik Eudeline Gisèle Evrard Charles Faid Ana Felgueiras Noreen Fitzpatrick Tobias Flessenkemper Rafael Font Vania Freitas Letizia Gambini Anton Gazenbeek Martin Georgi Marta Gomez Maider Goni Stephen Grogan Suzanne Hanna Anja Hartwig James Higgins Pacal Hildebert Ludvig Hübendick Marianne Huusko Fidelma Joyce Emel Kaba Anna Keep Gillian Kelly Henriette Korthalz

Magdalena Kurz Louis Leblique Anne Lemaire John Lisney Anthony Lockett Ante Martic Alix Masson Linda Mc Avan Roisin McCabe Ad Melkert Antoine Mertzeisen Christian Meseth Henri Monceau Delphine Moralis Caroll-Ann Morris Silke Mueter Marie-Aimée Musanase Linda Musch Elizabeth Niland Daniel Nuijten Lauren O’Connor Helen O’Sullivan Pia Olsson Katy Orr Santa Ozolina Vera Pasynkova Mark Perera Marco Perolini Bengt Persson Agata Petcov Jessica Petter Hrönn Pétursdottir Ioannis Piliouris Diogo Pinto Ruxandra Poppa Giuseppe Porcaro Mateja Prosek Drazen Puljic Kelig Puyet Elisa Carlotta Quadri

Anna Ranki Tuula Ratia Philippe Renard Valérie Rive Kathy Robertson Roberto Rodriguez Ewoud Roes Donatella Rostagno Véronique Rousseau Julie Rowan Luc Rummens Wojtek Rustecki Patricia Sanchez Anna Sellberg Christopher Sharp Thomas Spragg Patricia Spreutel Kim Svendsen Julie Teng Gabriele Trapani Johnna Tzanidaki Sara Ulfhielm Cesar Valor Emmanui lVergis Gilbert Veron David Wahli Bénédicte Walter Nicole Wauters Paulette Weiss5 Patrick White Christopher Williams Marc Xhrouet Irene Zeilinger

Emilie Bruyere — Gobelet stagiaire


A Unique Platform for youth organisation

Engagement for Participation and Human Rights


Engagement for Participation and Human Rights – Is there a role for youth organisations ? Words by Bettina Schwarzmayr

On 10th December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the first article opening with the famous lines, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Yet, can we genuinely say that now – more than 60 years later – there is really respect for the inherent dignity and for the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as a foundation for freedom, justice and peace ? On 11th September 2001, a series of coordinated suicide attacks on the World Trade Centre in the United States of America took place. Almost 3,000 people died because of this terrorist act. The United States responded to the attacks by declaring a War on Terror, launching the invasion of Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had supposedly harboured al-Qaeda terrorists. Many other nations also strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Although the great majority of Muslim political and religious leaders condemned the attacks, numerous incidents of harassment and hate crimes were reported against Arabs or Muslims (or any individuals resembling media stereotypes of Arabs or Muslims). With the stated purpose of breaking up military cells around the world, law enforcers arrested many people and labelled them as suspected terrorists. In March 2003, a multinational coalition of forces, mainly American and British, invaded Iraq and has occupied the country since then. Millions of young people all over the world protested against this war. This was the state of the world in the spring of 2003 when the priorities for the upcoming three years for the Council of Europe’s youth sector were first discussed among the members of the European Youth Forum (YFJ) and the Advisory Council on Youth. This was the moment where the YFJ suggested organising a campaign for peace across the whole Council of Europe. The original proposal, then entitled “A Campaign to Promote a Culture of Peace”, was put forward by the YFJ as the optimum method to mobilise Europe’s youth beyond demonstrations against the war in Iraq. In its first concept note, the necessity of such a campaign was described as follows : “A Campaign is the only way to bring large-scale awareness in a dynamic manner, thus involving millions of young people around Europe. As said before, many projects have already been developed and realised to promote Peace in Europe, but nothing but a European Campaign starting at the local level can succeed in bringing millions of young Europeans under the same project to construct a European identity based on shared values.” Global responsibility of Europeans and international interdependence were at the core of the original initiative. Already in 2004, the idea of having a large-scale, pan-European campaign on peace was dropped as the working title. The first ad hoc working


A Unique Platform for youth organisation groups on the campaign at a Joint Council meeting in 2004 felt that the notion of “a culture of peace” might be considered too abstract. The title of the campaign finally adopted was “For Diversity, Human Rights and Participation”, which, to be honest, was not much more figurative. But there it was born, the second “All different – All equal” campaign for “Diversity, Human Rights and Participation”. The “All different – All equal” campaign pooled together thousands of young people all over Europe campaigning for a better Europe. However, it was surely only the beginning. As for youth organisations, they must be conscious of the risk of reproducing structures of exclusion and serving as the hothouse for the elites of the future themselves. In seeking to demonstrate that youth organisations are the leaders of today, we must embody the diversity of our constituencies recognising their heterogeneous needs and duly articulating them. For youth organisations, reaching out goes beyond quota systems, political correctness or ill-thought out idealism ; reaching out means providing excluded youth with opportunities for participation and access to those opportunities. Although this might entail vulnerability, it also signifies a true acceptance of the agency of young people to make decisions and act on their own behalf. Youth has always been at the front line of social change, and through this campaign youth organisations aimed to be the guardians, promoters and multipliers of the principles of diversity, human rights and participation. The emphasis was on the principle of universal and indivisible human rights, which must prevail in a real and genuine manner. Many public authorities and institutions still fail to provide adequate answers to severe human rights violations and discrimination. We believe that we must hold everyone accountable for their actions and their lack of action in promoting legal and social rights. Furthermore, youth organisations continued to be steadfast advocates for the participation and inclusion of young people in all levels of decision-making. The mainstream media continually portrays an image of young people as passive and apathetic. This is a simplistic view and not reflective of our true diversity, potential and passion ; yet, youth organisations need to be provided with the means and the space to use ideas and the energy of young people constructively. There are also widespread stereotypes of stuffy, bureaucratic and unreachable public authorities, and it is up to youth to challenge these views, to open up to civil society and to prove those clichés wrong. Many instruments are already in place ; there is a relatively high level of political commitment, declarations, in the shape of nice words on patient paper, but to achieve sustainable improvement we have to work together and at least on the following three different levels : 1.We have to work on a legal level – guaranteeing rights, prohibiting discrimination and assuring access to, for example, infrastructure, goods and services. 2.We have to work on a cultural level – raising awareness of problems, changing hostile attitudes and being agents of this change. 3.We have to work on the level of individual support – enabling and empowering the marginalised and discriminated to make choice possible.

A Unique Platform for youth organisation Although there has surely been social progress and better standards of living, many more countries live in self-determination and democracy. The iron curtain fell, and civil rights increased all over the world. The preamble of the Human Rights Declaration talks about freedom from fear, and unfortunately we are still far from this. Fear is the true barrier between people and nations and, sadly, a fuel for racism and xenophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, sexism and homophobia. Even for the people who do succeed, questions of race, racism and sexism continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways ; the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away nor have the anger and the bitterness. Those feelings and memories need to be treated equally seriously and with respect. Glass ceilings prevail almost everywhere power and money lies. We need to break the cycle of those in power by merely reproducing their power. Where underdevelopment, corruption or poverty reigns, human rights will never be realised. The decisions taken by the majority are becoming less reflective of young people’s views and expectations. Lowering the voting age to 16 could ensure a broader representation of young people in collective decisions affecting them. Young people between 16 and 18 years old often have responsibilities as employees, taxpayers or parents ; lowering the voting age to 16 would restore the balance between their rights and responsibilities. A minimum representation of young people in elected positions should also exist in order to lower this demographic ga p. Any political strategy for youth cannot succeed without the engagement of young people themselves. An investment and empowerment strategy for young people is what we need to overcome all these current social challenges. After all, youth prosperity is everybody’s responsibility. Through protests and struggle on the streets and in the courts, civil disobedience or through innumerable campaigns, many courageous women and men have tried to narrow the gap between the promises of these ideals and the reality of their times. Although young people are often seen as those most susceptible to influence and of having their opinions and ideas swayed by trends, it is young people, in fact, who commit to democratic movements and cling to a long-held vision of peace and cooperation. Sustainable development must be the basis for all our political work. Yet, inhuman treatment, modern slavery, social dumping, discrimination in schools and at the work place, unfair trade conditions and integration policies that permanently put pressure on the already oppressed and extend the notion that migrants are just not good enough are, despite everything, a dismal reality for many people. Although the list of problems that need to be tackled continues to grow, the willingness and enthusiasm of young people and youth organisations to contribute to the global partnership for development remains unbroken. Politicians too often resort to stereotypes or amplify the negative to the point of distorting reality, falling short on providing solutions through which all can progress in their lives. Politicians might exploit anger and fear to divide electorates along racial lines or social class to make up for their own failings. Fading welfare policies might have, for many years, worsened the situation and widened the gap between those with access to resources and opportunities and those left excluded.



A Unique Platform for youth organisation Young people, who are more likely to have dubious work contracts, be unemployed or be highly indebted due to student loans, face many fears, though society expects them to settle down and contribute to the prosperity of their countries. This pressure is enormous, and if our efforts do not pay off, populist answers are often welcomed. “Foreigners” then serve as a simple target for all problems and fears, but the true front lines are not between ethnic lines. They remain between those with opportunities and resources and those who do not have access to them. Ignoring and/or manipulating fears have far too often shaped the political landscape in history. Similarly, it does not help to dismiss legitimate discussions of injustice and inequality as mere political correctness ; intellectual dishonesty self-evidently also blocks the path to understanding. Youth organisations act as true learning spaces for democracy. We need to make urgent investments in better health care, better schools and better jobs, especially in times of financial crisis. We need to enforce civil rights laws and ensure fairness in our criminal justice systems. Establishing lasting peace and combating poverty and unemployment demand an emphasis on education, as well as economic and social cooperation. It is unfortunately the case that many people seem to be stuck in a lifetime of disadvantage ; the problems they face are multiple, entrenched and often passed down across generations. To break such enduring cycles of adversity and lack of human rights, action is needed that will allow every person to realise their aspirations and potential. Such action implies the genuine extension of opportunities to the most marginalised in society in order to enable them to exercise the power that the rest of society takes for granted. For youth organisations, this means reaching out to oppressed youth and making sure they are provided the space to speak for themselves, as well as a space where they are listened to and heard. It is high time to provide this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable to previous generations. Such investments will eventually be to the benefit of our entire societies, and it might help us to rise above the divisive, conflicting and cynical politics. Human rights will remain a dream to many if they cannot get a decent job and, therefore, a decent living. In the past 60 years, the world has not only changed economically. Globalisation has brought migration streams from further away than neighbouring regions, which is a particularly new phenomenon for countries without a colonial history. This has challenged the openness of every society and many individuals. Clothing styles that were only known through books or TV documentaries now appear in local neighbourhoods ; religions that we only read about and exotic food that seems alienating are all becoming more prevalent in our everyday lives. These influences are also affecting our patterns of consumption, our behaviour and our experiences. These social developments show the fluidity of culture as a set of values and norms. They also point to the multiplicity of our own identities. As youth organisations, we can help young people to navigate these oftenconflicting traditions and values. We need to enable young people to find a way between feeling comfortable with their initial cultural roots and these new influences, no matter if they are introduced to us by moving to another country or by new people joining the neighbourhood. Often, widening cultural influences are seen as a threat to tradition and customs. But inclusive and open youth organisations can offer a perspective of opportunity. Young people have to be empowered to be

A Unique Platform for youth organisation confident and daring but also capable of making positive choices to enable them to recognise and realise all these new options. The empowering role that youth organisations can play is also about enabling and showing young people how they can engage in society, become active citizens and recognise the validity of their role in the community and for society. As long as people are scared and feel the appearance of other cultural traditions in their immediate environment as a threat to their own culture, youth organisations have the responsibility to build mutual trust and respect. Youth organisations must be ready to support intercultural learning where the understanding of “the other” is complimented by the understanding of ones own culture, where the development of a common learning practice and living strategy is wanted and stipulated. Intercultural learning must aim at the development of competences that enable people with different cultural backgrounds to find solutions from the local to the global level when living with each other and that enable the preservation of ones own cultural experiences and rituals, as well as the further development of one’s own cultural identity to find new strategies for living together. Interculturalism must denounce cultural separatism and fundamentalism, as well as any kind of global monoculturalism. There is something about Europe, this continent that is at once grand, solemn and sentimental, that is moving. When recalling the idealism and faith shown by the founders of the European project and their vision of a peaceful Europe, I know that today – more than 50 years after the treaties of Rome were signed – this is not enough to justify the EU to young generations. An appeal to sentiment is an unsatisfactory basis on which to solve the practical, contemporary challenges Europe faces. Europe today needs to reconnect its priorities and preoccupations with the challenges its people face and policy answers to these challenges must be determined. Establishing lasting peace and combating poverty and unemployment demand an emphasis on education and cooperation, and we must remain cognisant that these will not be easy tasks. Whatever solutions we come up with will require consensus among groups with divergent interests. That means everybody has to contribute, and this is why, in the interest of all European youth, the work of each of us, individually and collectively, is so fundamental for the achievement of these goals. Still, it needs to be repeated that many of us are not satisfied with the world as it is today. Wealth is atrociously unequally distributed ; discrimination, violence and hostility are an all-too-common phenomena. We are all hindered in our development because of outdated and rigid role models that we should follow but that no one will ever be able to live up to. Young people are committed, engaged and motivated to address these difficult but life-changing issues. We all have different stories but share common hopes – a better future for us and our families, living a life in dignity and without fears. Let’s work together to get there.

75 Bettina Schwarzmayr was born in 1979 in Salzburg and active in the school students organisation “AKS” from 1994 to 1998. From school students representation she moved on to higher education student representation. Among others she worked in the international office of the national Union of Students in Austria (ÖH) member of the European School Students Union. Bettina was in the bureau of the European Youth Forum from 20052008, the last two years as President. In Vienna she studies social and cultural Anthropology and is district councillor since 2001 for Vienna’s district Penzing. Currently Bettina is working for wienXtra, the equivalent to a youth agency for the city of Vienna, and is responsible for international youth work.


A Unique Platform for youth organisation

A Unique Platform for youth organisation

Opening address by the Vice-President of the European Youth Forum, Bettina Schwarzmayr at the official launching ceremony of the “All Different, All Equal” Campaign (12h30, Thursday 29 June 2006) Ladies and Gentlemen, The idea of having a campaign was developed when working on the future work priorities of the youth sector of the Council of Europe. It was the suggestion of youth organisations as a contribution to furthering the priority of intercultural dialogue. So standing here today, at the official launch ceremony, is a great testament to that original idea. Yet it is crucial to remain conscious that this is just a starting point to realising the vision and ambitions at the centre of the European campaign. ‘All different - all equal’. Youth has always been at the front line of social change, and through this campaign, we are aiming to be the guardians, promoters and multipliers of the principles of Diversity, Human Rights and Participation. We have many ideas on how to work with our peers to ensure true intercultural dialogue and social inclusion for all. Several projects have already taken place and many more are planned all over Europe. We want to reach out to more young people and also to those who remain unconvinced that the core values of the Council of Europe are still valid, relevant and should serve as the basis for contemporary societies. We wish to emphasise that the principle of universal and indivisible human rights must prevail in a real and genuine manner. Many public authorities and institutions still fail to provide adequate answers to severe human rights violations and discrimination. We believe that we must hold everyone accountable for their actions and their lack of action in promoting legal and social rights. Furthermore, we continue to be steadfast advocates for the participation and inclusion of young people in all levels of decision-making. The mainstream media continually portrays an image of young people as passive and apathetic. This is a simplistic view, and not reflective of our true diversity, potential and passion ; yet we need to be provided with the means and the space to use our ideas and our energy constructively. There are also widespread stereotypes of stuffy, bureaucratic, and unreachable public authorities, and it is up to you to challenge these views, to open up to civil society and prove those cliches wrong. To transform all the ideas on which the Campaign is founded into action we need to work together. Moreover, any actions undertaken will not have impact or be sustainable if they are one-offs ; so they need to be done jointly between public authorities and youth organisations. Changing hostile and humiliating attitudes will be a lengthy process and there is still a need to provide more support ; both politically and in terms of adequate resources. Fears are the real frontiers in Europe ; today’s borders



A Unique Platform for youth organisation are in our heads. I do not want to be afraid of who I am and I am sure that you all agree that no one should be. The reality though, is that in many places and situations I do have to be afraid of who I am, afraid of being open about my faith or who I am in love with. I want to dare to be who I am, otherwise I will not be able to live up to my aspirations. This Campaign has then, also to address difficult and often controversial issues : this is the only way to assure real impact. Europe needs a daring campaign to fight the fears of its own citizens, and it is us - together - who have to realize it. Our differences can be our strength if we build this Campaign on shared values. We young people are committed, engaged and motivated to address these difficult but life changing issues and we’ll also have some fun running this campaign : a Campaign that matters and that can make a difference. We have to be the change that we want to see.

A Unique Platform for youth organisation

Racism and its impact on young people – call for a renewed youth commitment In European Youth Forum Report 2008 Foreword by Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Racism, xenophobia and discrimination continue to be serious problems in all parts of Europe today. They are often manifested through the discriminatory treatment of minorities and migrants in education, employment, housing and access to health care. Racism may also be compounded by multiple forms of discrimination when members of ethnic and religious minorities become victims of discrimination on additional grounds such as their gender, disability, age or sexual orientation. While patterns of discrimination and intolerance continue, there are also reports about violent hate crimes against minorities. Such incidents include crimes related to racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Gypsism, Islamophobia and homophobia. Black Africans have been stabbed or beaten to death ; Roma groups targeted in mob violence ; Jews physically attacked ; synagogues and cemeteries vandalised ; Muslims have been assaulted, and their mosques and Islamic schools damaged ; gay and lesbian demonstrators and persons with disabilities have also been targets of hate crimes and violent attacks. Physical attacks on individuals from minority groups are often perpetrated in communities where extremists have spread hate propaganda. I have personally seen examples of how minor incidents under such conditions can ignite mob tendencies against, for instance, Roma communities. The long-term result is continued discrimination, inter-communal tensions and segregation. These are situations in which politicians and other opinion leaders as well as the society at large must stand up and defend democratic values and human rights for everyone. Youth organisations can make a real difference. A vibrant civil society could provide a “vaccination” against racism. The European Youth Forum has taken up the challenge and this report serves a multiple purpose. Not only it documents manifestations of racism affecting young people but it sets out an agenda for youth organisations to fight racism. Through awareness raising and inclusiveness in their activities, youth organisations strive towards a democratic way of life without discrimination and violence. They can also empower young people from minority communities by informing them of their rights and offering them a platform for participation. Peer support to young victims of violence is yet another way to act against racism. I hope that this report reaches all the young people who need it and that its message is widely heard and responded to. National governments and international organisations bear a particular responsibility for creating an enabling environment for youth organisations to act. Alternatives to extremism must be supported.



A European (Youth) History The Grand Anti-Fascist Alliance, 1941 to 1945 Geopolitics of youth policy in post-war Western Europe (1945-1967) European Youth Policy from the 60s to the 90s Youth organisations and the European Communities Building blocks for a European Youth Policy Architecture No Rights, No Way !



A European (Youth) History

The Grand Anti-Fascist Alliance, 1941 to 1945


The Grand Anti-Fascist Alliance, 1941 to 19451 words by Joël Kotek

The Great Patriotic War By launching his troops against the USSR, Hitler pushed Stalin into the same camp as England. By declaring ‘war on the United State six months later, he managed to create the coalition which would at last get the better of him. The defence of the USSR was of course the supreme objective of the Comintern, so once more the machinery was thrown into a 180° ideological reversal. So far the war had been described as ‘imperialist’ and ‘unjust’ : now it was ‘anti-fascist’ and ‘just’. The new order of the day was to form popular fronts, side by side with those who had up to that point been denounced as the agents of British imperialism. The communists of France were summoned to collaborate with de Gaulle, those of Yugoslavia with Mihailovic, those of Czechoslovakia with Beneš - and those of the youth movements with non-communist youth, in the common struggle against the Hitlerites. All people of good will were mobilised for the defence of the USSR. When on 3 July 1941 Stalin addressed his people, he called them ‘brothers and sisters’, no longer, as before, ‘comrades’. The churches were reopened and the Orthodox Holy Synod was restored. Marxism seemed firmly buried. In September 1941 a meeting of all the allied governments in London subscribed to the principles of the Atlantic Charter. Ambassador Maisky spoke in the name of the Soviet government : the USSR supported the fundamental principles of the Charter ; and he added that his government defended the right of every nation ‘to independence and territorial integrity’.2 A few weeks after the invasion of Russia, in the summer of 1941, the first Pan-Slav Congress met. In the presence of eminent ‘Slav’ intellectuals, the ‘Russian’ author Alexander Fadeyev read out an Appeal to the Slav Nations. In October 1941 a Pan-Slav Committee was set up in Moscow, which would help to organise Pan-Slav organisations in the United States (at Detroit, on 25-26 April 1942) and elsewhere.3 Also, in October 1941 Lavrenti Beria had two Polish Bundists, Henri Erlich and Victor Halter, released from the Gulags and asked them to set up a World Jewish Committee to mobilise all Jews, especially those of America, against Hitler. Erlich and Halter would be executed in the night of 3 to 4 December 1941 ; but that would not prevent Stalin from creating, in the following April, a Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee under the presidency of the comedian Salomon Michoels. The USSR needed all available help ; and of course the youth organisations were also immediately mobilised.

Youth and the reversal of June 1941 For young communists, Operation Barbarossa was a blessing in disguise. Though they had been too disciplined to show it, they had found the HitlerStalin Pact hard to swallow ; but now they and the various front organisations they controlled could revert to their pre-Pact anti-fascist speeches and

1 This article is an extract from Kotek J. (1996), Students and the Cold War, London, Macmillan Press, p p. 44-61. 2 Zeman Z. A. B. (1989), Pursued by a Bear : the Making of Eastern Europe, London, Chatto & Windus, p. 175. Ibid., p. 189.

84 4 Lash J. p. (1964), Eleanor Roosevelt : A Friend’s Memoir, New York, Doubleday, p. 790. The Canadian Youth Congress likewise straightaway sent a message of anti-fascist solidarity to British youth, Challenge, 16 August 1941. 5 During the annual congress of the AYC in 1940 a resolution was carried there condemning American rearmament. A genuine antifascist motion gathered a mere 10 votes against 533. After that Eleanor Roosevelt broke off all official contact with the AYC : whatever their reasons, she wrote to their leaders, the resolutions of the congress appeared to her to be too close to the theses developed by the communists. 6 Ibid. p. 770. 7 Ibid. 8 British youth had of course been mobilised by the government since September 1939; but Challenge now issued its own call under the heading ‘Another Nail in Hitler’s Coffin : British Youth Turn on the Heat’. The opening paragraph boasted that, in addition to the already impressive panoply of sailors, soldiers and airmen there must ‘now’ be added the youth of the country which, numerically at least, could be considered as Britain’s principle weapon. Without mentioning the true reason for this call – the enormous danger in which the Soviet Union now found itself – the various articles in that issue led one to understand that henceforth everything would be done to mobilise British youth. 9 Youth News, November/ December 1941, p. 2. 10 Kit Meredith in Students Abroad, vol. 6, no. 5, p. 16.

A European (Youth) History slogans as if these had never been abandoned. In the United States ; as soon as the invasion of Russia was known, the American Youth Congress (AYC) contacted Mrs Roosevelt and invited her to support its campaign to help the USSR : They even sent me a telegram saying, ‘Now we can work together again.’ The war was suddenly no longer an imperialistic war, and the pickets were called off at the White House.4

But the First Lady declined to work with them after the support given to them back in 1939 and then manipulated in 1940 to endorse anti-war positions of AYC5. The frustrated AYC militants protested that she was being ‘badly misinformed’ about them.6 In September 1941 the AYC asked to be received by the President so that it could submit to him ‘several ideas on how to combat the “appeasement” forces at work in the United States which were holding back the strong anti-Hitler sentiment of our generation’.7 On his wife’s advice, Roosevelt declined their advances. In Britain the communists instantly forgot their vitriolic attacks against Lord Halifax, who had previously been denounced for having called on British youth to mobilise against German youth. As Challenge wrote in its issue of 16 August 1941, Britain could count on her young people in the fight against fascism.8 There were no more campaigns against the Hitlerisation to which British youth had been said to be subjected. Now Challenge criticised the public authorities for the feeble results of their mobilisation efforts. All that would change, ‘now that the young people had decided to organise themselves’ - meaning now that the communists had decided to take matters in hand. It was all as if the young communists had never given up the struggle against Nazism ; and when Challenge expressed solidarity with the ‘enthusiastic proposal’ of the Canadian Youth Congress that a Third World Youth Congress be organised, there was no hint that the original summons for such a congress dated back to a period when the communists had planned to use it to denounce an imperialist war. Youth News, of course, took the same line as Challenge. This periodical, which had started life as the organ of the now defunct British Youth Peace Assembly, carried an editorial in its issue of November/December 1941 which reads strangely when one remembers its previous campaigns against the Hitlerisation of British youth : At last the government have realised that youth has an important task to play in the war effort. Everyone between 16 and 18 is to be registered and given a chance to train for national service.9 Its new masthead replaced the two young footballers with two young women and three young men in uniform or in workmen’s clothes ; the message was the need for general mobilisation, in the factories as well as in the barracks. University Forward, the organ of the University Labour Federation, which had been expelled from the Labour Party in 1940, followed the same line. In the month before the invasion of Russia, it had attacked the imperialist war and praised the American students’ fight for pacifism.10 Now, just as emphatically, it espoused totally opposite ideas. It sent a special envoy to the youth of America : Arnold Kettle, an official of the NUS and the future (second) husband of Margot Gale (Carritt). He reported back :

A European (Youth) History In Philadelphia in the first week of July the annual conference of the great American Youth Council went on record as supporting the fullest cooperation between America, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union for the defeat of Nazi Germany… President Roosevelt thinks the Youth Congress worth addressing ; Mrs Roosevelt has given it her time and - as a rule - her warmest sympathy.11 In fact, the Roosevelts had wanted nothing more to do with the AYC after the manipulating episode back in 1940. University Forward also altered its anti-colonialist rhetoric. In February 1943 we read that only the clearest anti-fascist lead can show the Indian people that the way to independence lies not with the disruptors, the hooligans, the provocateurs.12 It demanded that the authorities should ‘scotch the Fifth Column’13 which prevented the total mobilisation of Britain and thereby prevented the opening of a Second Front. Times had certainly changed. The National Union of students of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (NUS) also dropped its anti-military rhetoric of the two preceding years. The theme of its congress in Birmingham in 1942 was Students Against Fascism. The Czech Jew Eduard Goldstücker, who presided over one of the workshops, was at last free to denounce Fascism. From June 1941 onwards, then, the communists showed themselves the most resolute opponents of Nazism. Indefatigable as organisers, it took them only three months to create new front organisations to attract the elite of British youth.

First stage : August 1941 - the creation in London of the Anglo-Soviet Youth Alliance On 31 July 1941 Betty Shields-Collins’ headed a delegation ‘representative of the leaders of British youth’ which deposited at the Soviet Embassy a message of solidarity with their Soviet Colleagues : We welcome the youth of the Soviet Union as our brothers-in-arms. We greet the peoples of your country now suffering with us the horrors of war. Your magnificent resistance to the invading Nazis has inspired all freedomloving people.14 This delegation really was a representative one, since by the side of the crypto-communists like Shields-Collins there was a whole clutch of personalities across the political spectrum : the socialist Lena Shivers (NUS), the young Tory Estelle Login, the future minister Hector McNeil (Labour), the Liberal Mark Bonham-Carter, etc. Following on from this visit to the Embassy, the Anglo-Soviet Youth Friendship Alliance was formed. When he had been ambassador in Moscow, Sir Stafford Cripps had become friendly with Maurice Hookham ; and it was on Cripps’ advice that Maurice’s wife Kutty Hookham, a young NUS activist, was made (General) Secretary of the new body.15 Without being aware of it, Cripps had introduced the wolf into the sheepfold. Like so many others, Kutty Hookham was a Party ‘submarine’. Her Party membership has been confirmed in numerous interviews with the author, and also by a document of the Cold War period, drawn up by the US State Department : Kutty Hookham, whose full name is Hilda Henriette Hookham, née Kuttner, is a British subject who was born in Hampstead on 22 May 1915. She is a member of the Communist Party, as is her husband Maurice Hookham, with whom she visited the USSR in 1936. She became organiser for the National Union of Students in 1937.16

85 11 University Forward, vol. 7, no. 2, December 1941, p. 18. 12 University Forward, vol. 8, no. 3, February 1943, p. 3. 13 This expression was used by William Rust in The Road to Victory, ibid., p. 7. This William Rust is the future editor of The Daily Worker, and is not to be confused with the President of the NUS. 14 Youth News, August 1941, p. 5 15 ‘A Report on the Development and Activities of the WFDY’, FO 924/674, p. 1 16 National Archives of America (NARA), 800 4089/12-547, 5 December 1947.

86 17 ‘Youth Against Hitler. Appeal and Report of the Youth Conference held in Moscow, 28 September, 1941’, published by the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee, Buckingham House, London. 18 Spelt thus in the official brochure. Challenge of 4 October calls him Hans Muller. 19 Ibid., p p. 9-10. 20 Challenge, 4 October 1941. p. 10. 21 Interview, and Youth News, October 1941. 22 Interview with the author. 23 See the article by Lubo Havel in Pejskar J. (ed.) (1982), Posledni Pocta, pamatnik na Zemwelé Cseskoslovenko Exultanty Vletech, 1948-1981, Switzerland, Konfrotace, p p. 144-5. This work is a biographical dictionary in Czech of the Czech victims of communism. 24 Interview with the author in London.

A European (Youth) History The terrible times through which Britain was passing naturally created what would under other circumstances have been unnatural alliances and solidarities ; but the initiatives came heavily from the Soviet side. The USSR sought to enrol world youth by setting up new ad hoc bodies. The first step was the creation in the autumn of a new youth organisation which would be more attractive than the Komsomol. So on 28 September 1941, in the famous Hall of Pillars of the Soviet Trade Union House in Moscow, there was an ‘International Meeting of Anti-Fascist Youth’.17 The heroic combat of Soviet youth, which ‘was taking the brunt of the blows of the Fascist troops’, was extolled to an audience of 1500 people by prestigious young anti-fascists such as the Russians Nikolai Mikhailov and Eugene Fedorov, the Spaniard Ruben Ruiz Ibarruri (son of La Passionaria), and the German Hans Mahler.18 Their message, Appeal to the Youth of the World, would be reproduced in all the crypto-communist periodicals. One passage reminded young Americans that ‘the struggle against Hitlerism is the struggle also for the freedom and independence of the peoples of America’ and that ‘Peace for the young people of America will not be guaranteed as long as Hitlerism exists.’19 A vast unitary anti-fascist movement was born. To place it on a sound basis the Soviets created a new organisation, the Youth AntiFascist Committee, and, in May 1943, they dissolved the Young Communist International (KIM). The new body looked more broadly based than the KIM had been. After 1941 the Komsomol was rarely mentioned ; but the AntiFascist Committee was of course, like its predecessor, the foreign section of the Komsomol and was totally subordinate to it. Almost all visiting Soviet delegations abroad now declared themselves to represent the Anti-Fascist Committee rather than the Komsomol ; and all references to Marxism were once again proscribed.

Second stage : 1 October 1941 - creation of the International Youth Council (IYC) The message was received loud and clear by the British communists. Less than a fortnight after the Moscow meeting, Challenge announced a great International Youth Rally for Victory, to take place at the Albert Hall on 11 October. There ‘British and Allied Youth will answer the call of Soviet Youth in London.’20 Betty Shields-Collins was once again entrusted with the task of setting up the Preparatory Committee.21 The former General Secretary of the World Youth Congress was the ideal person for this new undertaking. ‘She was an extraordinary young woman,’ Eduard Goldstücker remembers, ‘very active and persuasive… and she applied all the tactical and strategic tactics of the Centre.’22 She ably fulfilled her task. She used the worldwide network woven in the 1930s, and within a few weeks she had involved particularly well-known people with the Preparatory Committee : Sir Stafford and Lady Cripps and Mark Bonham-Carter from Britain ; and from Czechoslovakia Eduard Beneš, Jan Masaryk and Vaclav Palaček, a former official of the International Student Confederation who was now in exile in London.23 Phyllis Williams, one of Shields-Collins’ assistants, recalls : She contacted Lady Violet Bonham Carter, a very well-known Liberal figure, and Sir Stafford Cripps. She also contacted the Czech government in exile, whose support was essential for our work. Beneš not only financed us but put his embassy at our disposal ; and until we moved to the International Centre,

A European (Youth) History we worked at the Czech Embassy in 18, Grosvenor Place. I knew Beneš and Masaryk very well. Masaryk was particularly wonderful, a real charmer. You know, I was very young, only just twenty, and he liked to call me ‘his blue-eyed secretary’. I worked there every day.24 Whether Phyllis Williams was a Party member or not is a mere detail.25 What matters is that at this period she behaved exactly like a communist. She had believed that the Moscow trials had revealed the truth and she had accepted the necessity of the German-Russian Pact. But the fact that at that time she behaved like a communist did not mean that she was a fanatical Stalinist or a cynical agent of the Comintern. Far from it : she was a sincere idealist who did not hesitate to sacrifice time and money for causes she believed to be just. In the author’s view, she and her husband were rather ‘fellow-travellers’. As in the case of her friends and colleagues - Marian Wilbraham, Margot Gale/Kettle, Joan Peel and Elizabeth Shield-Collins - it was the Spanish Civil War and the growth of Fascism which had driven her to become an activist for several organisations to which she wholeheartedly devoted herself. She worked with the Spanish Aid Committee, and took into her own home young Czech refugees and young Britons who had been tortured in Spain. Politically she retained sufficient independence of mind to find herself gradually replaced ‘in the various crypto-communist structures by Kutty Hookham. The Preparatory Committee, once again representative of various ideological and national groups, was bound to be widely , attractive.26 Among the patrons of the Albert Hall Rally were the Archbishop of York, Victor Cazalet MP, Dame Katherine Furse and Dr Julilian Huxley, who would become the first General Secretary of UNESCO. Personal messages were received from : King George VI and Sir Winston Churchill ; the Belgian Colonial Minister, De Vleeschauwer ; the Foreign Minister of China, Dr Kuo Tai Chee, and his ambassador in London, Wellington Koo ; the President of the Czech Republic, Dr Beneš, and his foreign minister, Dr Ripka ; Maurice Dejean, the Free French Foreign Minister, and Professor René Cassin, the Free French Justice and Education Minister ; Emmanuel Tsouderos, the Greek Prime Minister ; R. A. Butler, British Education Secretary ; the President of the Polish Republic, Wladyslaw Raczkiewicz, and his Prime Minister, General Sikorski ; King Peter of Yugoslavia ; and finally, the Soviet ambassador in London, Mr Maisky.27 There followed messages of support from a host of Allied youth organisations. The Rally began with the reading out of all these official messages, which was then followed by a speech from Ernest Bevin, Minister of Labour. Then, interspersed with folk dance displays (from Czechoslovakia and Poland) and songs (from Chinese partisans, Polish soldiers, Belgian and French sailors, etc.), there was a parade in which anti-fascist representatives filed past in military uniform, national costumes, or working clothes (factory workers, nurses, etc.) The climax of the Rally came when the thousands of delegates rose to pledge themselves to the ‘Declaration of Purpose’ : We swear that… we will never rest until the world has been freed from the plague of Nazism and Fascism.28 The communists had gained their objective. After the Anglo-Soviet Youth Friendship Alliance, they were in a position, less than three months after the invasion of the USSR, to create their second front organisation. According to plan, then, the Preparatory Committee dissolved itself at the end of the Rally, to be reborn under the name of the International Youth

87 25 Her friends had no doubt that at that time she was a Party member, and she for her part has not denied it. 26 The complete list of the Committee members is on the cover of the souvenir brochure, International Youth Rally, 11.IX.41, Grosvenor Place, London, 24 p p. India had only one representative, the young communist p. N. Hansar, a regular contributor to Youth News. 27 Note the tone of Maisky’s message : ‘it is obvious that at this precise moment the most important sector, the most decisive battle in our common cause, lies in my country. Here our gallant Red Army, supported by the entire people, men, women, and even children... risks everything, sacrifices its soldiers, and defends not only its motherland but also the freedom of independence of other countries... That is why at this moment there can be no task more urgent or more important than to see the slogan “All Help for the USSR” inscribed everywhere and translated into reality” (International Youth Rally, p. 23). 28 Betty Shield-Collins, ‘International Youth Council’, Youth News, November / December 1941, p. 15. See also the souvenir brochure, International Youth Rally, 11 October 1941, Grosvenor Place, London S.W, 27pp.

88 29 Shield-Collins, ‘International Youth Council’, o p. cit. 30 Interview with the author 31 Douglas Cooke (ed.) (1944), Youth Organizations of Great Britain, 1944-45, London, Jordan & Sons, p. 288. The text relating to the IYC was supplied by the IYC itself. 32 One major organisation refused to join it : this was the Standing Conference of National Voluntary Youth Organisations or SCNVYO. The SCNVYO would not take part in a body it knew to be under communist control. 33 Marian Slingova (1968), Truth Will Prevail, London, Merlin Press, p. 24. 34 Half-dandy, half politician, the socialist-national Palaček, then aged 40, was an ideal target for the young communists. He was a former university tennis champion and former leader of the non-political International Student Confederation. He had come to London with the remnants of the Czech army in France, and presided over a Union of Czech Youth and Students in exile. He was close to Beneš and to Masaryk, and worked for the Ministry of Finance in exile. He was at the time the lover of the socialist Vice-President of the NUS, Lena Shivers. In 1941 it was he who brought together the communist and In 1941 it was he who brought together the communist and non-communist groups who, up till then, had been enemies. 35 The French Communist Party followed the same course when the député Fernand Grenier arrived in London and declared that the French communists wanted to join the Free French forces. 36 Interview in Brighton with the author.

A European (Youth) History Council in Great Britain (IYC), a body ostensibly representative of the twenty allied nations present in Britain.29 Phyllis Williams recalls, ‘The London Conference created the International Youth Council in Britain. It goes without saying that we had been well organised before its formal creation and even before we were installed in the Czech Embassy in Grosvenor Place. The Albert Hall meeting did not appear out of thin air.’30 On the Council were to be represented ‘five representatives from the youth organisations set up in Britain of each of the United Nations and five from each of the democratic youth groups supporting the Allied cause, such as the Free German Youth’.31 Clearly the IYC was nothing other than the old British Youth Peace Assembly, whose periodical, Youth News, it took over. It also assumed the BYPA’s responsibilities for looking after young refugees in London. Its prestigious patrons had, to paraphrase Karl Marx, created an organisation without knowing the organisation they had created. Their blessing caused the IYC to be widely perceived as representing British anti-fascist youth.32

Third stage : December 1941- creation of the International Council of Students (ICS) in Britain The communist students similarly did not remain inactive. For them, too, the opportunity for great unifying initiatives had arrived. The NUS - more than ever under communist influence and at last liberated from the German-Soviet Pact - quickly harnessed itself to the task. As in the youth movement, so in the student movement it was the Czechs who were the most dynamic element in the grand coalition. Czech communists and non-communists had resumed relationships after the Germans had invaded the Soviet Union ; and young communists had joined the Czech army en masse.33 Eduard Goldstücker recalls : The Nazi attack allowed the Czech communists to modify their position vis-a-vis the Beneš Provisional Government in London. Until then there had been no question of us joining the Czech army in exile : The Czech Communist Party had its own military structure in London which refused to participate and forbade its members to do so. After June 1941, the communists joined it en masse. Having been reconciled with Beneš, they were also permitted to join the Central Union of Czech Students. This had been established in London by former Czech student leaders, like Vaclav Palaček, 34 who had been fighting with fragments of the Czech Army in France and had been evacuated from Dunkirk. I became the Vice-President, while Palaček, who had led the Central Union before the War, was officially its President.35 It was as on Goldstücker’s recommendation that the Czechs instituted World Student Day to commemorate the execution of the Central Committee of the Czech students and the closure of their universities on 17 November 1939 : A few weeks later I proposed to Palaček that we should initiate the commemoration of November 17th. In November 1941 some students, I don’t know from how many nations, were already celebrating it as Student Day… That idea could never have come from Palaček himself. Only the communists were then thinking in terms of National or International Days.36 International Student Day, which until 1989 was the chief event in the student calendar throughout the world, was a success right from the

A European (Youth) History beginning : all round the world, students rendered ‘homage to the Czech comrades who had been sacrificed by the blood-stained Nazi hordes’. In December 1941 the NUS took the initiative in organising an International Council of Students in Great Britain (lCS),37 on the model of the International Youth Conference (IYC). The NUS lent its premises and technical assistance to the ICS throughout the war (the Secretariat of the ICS was generously taken on by Margot Gale/Kettle). The following points figured in the ICS programme : contact between England and the student groups of China, the USSR, the USA and occupied countries ; help to British students and to allied refugees in Britain ; cooperation with the International Youth Council and the World Youth Council ; and discussion of student problems that would arise after the war. But the absolute priority of all front organisations was to urge the Allies to open a Second Front as soon as ever possible. Margot Gale/Kettle recalls that the Soviet delegate, Bogatyrev, insisted that the ICS programme should specify the precise number of tanks which the Allies were to send to the Second Front. University Forwards, the organ of the University Labour Federation, would attack until 1944 the refusal of the Anglo-Saxons to open the Second Front in Europe instead of in North Africa.38 Despite the communist influence, tradition still weighed quite heavily in the NUS. As a result, the ICS turned out to be less political and less militant than its two counterparts in the youth movement. The ICS would last until the end of 1944. Then, according to its Secretary, Margot Gale, it dissolved itself ‘to give way to a new and better form of student cooperation’.39 But while it lasted, the ICS had strengthened emotional and psychological ties between the allied youth leaders. These relationships would be very important after the war, when new youth and student organisations would be formed.

Communists Legitimised : The role of Sir Stafford Cripps In Britain the main advocate of the Anglo-Soviet Alliance was Sir Stafford Cripps, formerly British ambassador to Moscow. Cripps entered politics very late in life - in 1931 when he was over 40 - and when he did, he was the odd man out in the British political landscape. He came from a strictly Anglican and Conservative family - his father had been a Tory member of parliament. Cripps was profoundly religious, but politically he immediately positioned himself on the left wing of the Labour Party. Austere and idealistic, he seemed fascinated by Stalinist Russia. Between 1936 and 1939 he was the chief advocate in Britain of a Popular Front ; and for this purpose, in 1937, he founded Tribune, a weekly paper that was progressive and pro-Soviet to the point of attacking the Trotskyists. In January 1939 Cripps, together with Aneurin Bevan and George Strauss, was expelled from the Parliamentary labour Party. When Britain and the Soviet Union did become allies after 1941, he was sent as ambassador to Moscow in 1942. Back in England he held various ministerial posts and was, within the coalition cabinet, the most ardent defender of the Anglo-Russian alliance. In a speech to the Youth Alliance in the spring of 1942 he spoke of a Soviet Russia in which ‘a religion based on idealism was practised seven days out of seven’. The world should acknowledge the valour of Soviet youth which had come to the rescue of the entire world. Without being aware of it, Cripps made himself the best champion

89 37 ‘International Council of Students in Great Britain : A Report of its Work from its Inauguration to its Close’, (London, 1945), p. 2. 38 Rust W. (1943), ‘The Road to Victory’, in University Forwards, vol. 8, no. 3, February, p. 15. 39 International Council of Students in Great Britain, p. 2.

90 40 Soviet Youth Calling, A-SYFA, 104 Wigmove Street, London WI, p p. 2-3. 41 ‘Soviet Youth at War’, published by Hutchinson & Co. for the Anglo-Soviet Youth Friendship Alliance, p. 3. 42 Blumenau R. (1953), The Fringe of Politics, p. 6. 43 We learn this from a Foreign Office note, which greatly astonished her daughter, Peggy Cripps. The note says that Lady Cripps was the anonymous donor whose gift made possible the foundation of the International Youth Centre in Pont Street (FO 924/674, 19 April 1948). The Crippses organized, among other functions, a grand reception at the Czech Embassy in Grosvenor Place, in the presence of Lord Bennett of Canada, the Queen of the Netherlands, Lady Astor, and even the Queen Mother (interview between the author and Phyllis Williams). 44 On 10 June 1945 the IYC organized a mock election prior to the General Election of that year. 36 votes went ‘directly’ to the communists, 46 to Labour, 16 to the Liberals, II to the Conservatives, and 6 to the non-Marxist socialists. I say ‘directly’ because it seems certain that some of the submarines would have abstained from showing their real preference; ‘Democracy at Work’, in Youth News, published by the IYC in the summer of 1945.

A European (Youth) History of the Moscow-orchestrated campaign to blot out the memory of the Pact, bring about a Second Front and prepare for the postwar period. The AngloSoviet Youth Alliance, sponsored by Cripps, published dozens of pamphlets such as ‘Soviet Youth Calling’ : Already thousands of the young people of Britain have given their lives in the Allied struggle… but the news from Russia is a constant challenge. To every farm and factory, to all the Services, to every boy and girl in Britain comes the call for greater and greater efforts… And while [the Russians’] bitter sacrifices continue, we are able to have a breathing space. Our comparative safety, even if temporary, is being paid for with the blood and tears of the Russian people… Let the question be for every reader : ‘Am I a worthy ally of these boys and girls ?’40 In 1943 a new pamphlet of the Alliance stressed that ‘Soviet youth has already given 5 million of their number for the order and peace of the world’.41 That the Soviets were paying and would continue to pay the heaviest burden in the antifascist war cannot be denied ; but that the British people should feel guilty, when they had stood alone against Hitler until the summer of 1941, is more difficult to accept. However this implication of guilt was almost taken for granted. In an unpublished typescript, the young Jewish refugee from Germany and future vice-president of the NUS, Ralph Blumenau, wrote as follows : All of us… experienced a tremendous feeling of relief and incredulity when, in July 1941, Hitler attacked to the East instead of to the West. The Russians, whom we had reviled so bitterly for the deal they had made with the Nazis and for their attack on tiny Finland, became overnight our allies. It did not take long before we gave them our unstinted admiration. In particular, I well remember the reports from Alexander Werth on the BBC… They painted a picture of the undying heroism of a simple and peaceful people… When one thinks back on those broadcasts today, one remembers how vast was the store of good will for the Russians in almost every household of the British Isles, and how difficult it was for many of us to believe after the war that the rulers of Russia were not the simple and lovable characters of Werth’s reports.42 It was largely thanks to Sir Stafford and Lady Cripps that the IYC could create in 1942 a recreation centre, intended to provide comfortable surroundings for the many foreign exiles in London and for those young Britons who wanted to meet them. The couple personally raised the necessary funds and contributed handsomely themselves. ‘M. Smith’, the generous anonymous donor who offered £5000, was almost certainly Lady Cripps.43 This International Centre was a veritable haven of peace for the many refugees in London. It was run by Michael Wallace (the husband of Betty Shields-Collins), Kutty Hookham and J. B. Priestley. It offered its members (about 3000 in 1944) a restaurant and a bar and provided many recreational activities : conferences, dances, bridge and chess tournaments, exhibitions, films and so on. Michael Kaser, who was then a young Liberal activist and is today an eminent Sovietologist at Oxford, remembers that the centre was one of the few well-heated places in London during the war.44

A European (Youth) History Early suspicions of the British authorities In certain government circles the IYC was almost immediately suspected of being a cryptocommunist organisation. The files of the Home Office and MI5 remain closed, so it is difficult to form a very precise idea. But the archives of Sir Stafford Cripps and the Foreign Office enable us to speak of a real battle between departments. Opposing the IYC were the Foreign Office and the Home Office, the latter under Herbert Morrison, the most anticommunist of socialists. Supporters were the Ministry of Information and Sir Stafford Cripps. On 20 May 1942 a Foreign Office official wrote to Cripps : My dear Cripps, When I came to see you the other day, you asked my views about what our attitude should be towards the International Youth Council. I have looked up our records and find that the Home Security Executive decided in December last that all government departments should decline invitations to assist the International Youth Council on the grounds that it was a communist-penetrated organisation… You may perhaps care to raise it with the Home Security Executive ?45 This struggle led to the first Cabinet meeting intended to clarify the government’s attitude towards those youth organisation believed to be communist. In particular a conflict had arisen in January 1942 between the Ministry of Information and the Foreign Office on whether the IYC should be involved in BBC radio programmes that had ‘the double object of thwarting German efforts to woo European youth to the ‘New Order’ and of countering communist propaganda’.46 For the Foreign Office, there was no question about what line to take, as we can see from an internal note on the folder of the dossier. It could hardly be more critical of the Ministry of Information, which had suggested involving the IYC when the Foreign Office had already shown that ‘(i) the IYC was highly suspect of communist sympathies ; (ii) the Security Executive had ruled that it should be refused any official recognition or support’.47 Matters did not rest there. Presumably at the request of Sir Stafford Cripps, the question of the attitude of government departments towards youth organisations was taken up at war cabinet level. Sir John Anderson, the Lord President of the Council, had drawn up a preparatory memorandum for the Cabinet. This presented the issue not so much as a matter of principle - ‘that no grant of public money or other forms of assistance should be afforded to youth organisations connected with a political party’ - as of its application. That was a problem particularly with ‘youth organisations of an international character such as the AngloSoviet Youth Friendship Alliance and the International Youth Council… These organisations are not connected with any political party, and their avowed objects are unobjectionable. Some of the persons concerned with these organisations are, however, believed to have connections with the Communist party’.48 So as not to divide the Cabinet on such a relatively minor matter, and particularly so as not to attack Sir Stafford Cripps who was then Lord Privy Seal, Sir John Anderson’s conclusion allowed the benefit of the doubt to the two suspect organisations : I have discussed this question with some of my colleagues, and we have come to the conclusion that assistance should not be withheld from such organisations merely because some individuals connected with them also have, or have had in the past, connections with the Communist Party. Organisations of this nature are bound to appeal to persons who, at one time

91 45 Private papers of Sir Stafford Cripps, Nuffield College, Oxford, Box 10. The signature on the letter is illegible. 46 Letter of 26 January 1942, Foreign Office to Sir Neville Bland, FO 371/30861. 47 Commentary of Bruce Lockhart, February 1942, in ibid. 48 War Cabinet : ‘Attitude of Government Departments towards youth organizations’, secret memorandum by the Lord President of the Council, 19 May 1942, Ref. CAB. 66/25, copy no. 29, p. 85.

92 49 Ibid., p. 85. 50 Conclusions of a meeting of the War Cabinet held at 10 Downing Street on Monday 8 June 1942 at 5.30 pm. War Cabinet 72(42), 72nd conclusion, Secret, Ref, CAB.62126, 9th decision, p. 110. Also see letter (‘most secret’) from Sir John Anderson to Brendan Bracken MP, in FO 371/30861. 51 p. F. Magnelia (in The InternationaL Union of Students, University of Geneva, Thesis 184, Peninsula Lithograph, 1967) is mistaken when he writes that the World Council replaced the International Council. 52 The BBC broadcast a substantial part of the proceedings. 53 It seems that none of her biographers have pointed out that Mrs Roosevelt had once again allowed herself to be manipulated, despite her unfortunate experience with the American Youth Congress. The role of Mrs Roosevelt is confirmed by an exchange of letters between John Winant, the American ambassador to London, and the White House (US National Archives, Washington, doc. no. 58-B). 54 ‘Call for Action’ (p p. 10-11) and Maisky’s speech in Youth and the Fight for Freedom, London, International Youth Council, p. 19. 55 Historical section of Forward for our Future, official report of the World Youth Conference, London November 1945 (Paris : World Federation of Democratic Youth, 1946), p. 112. 56 Not only can one draw a legitimate conclusion from their respective biographies (for example what their attitude had been to the Pact); but their membership of the party has been confirmed to the author by their former party comrades. Other proof can be found in the biographical notes produced during the Cold War by various Western intelligence agencies, for example State Department document NARA 800 4089/12547 (1948) relating to the Indian representative Kitty Boomla. 57 Interview with the author in Jerusalem, II December 1994. Fischel emigrated to Israel after the Prague cou p. Under the name Avigdor Dagan he has had a diplomatic career (and is also the author of many novels).

A European (Youth) History or another, may have been attracted by Communism ; and to discourage the organisations on that account would, in our opinion, be to invite them to seek from the Communist Party that guidance and assistance which they were denied by the Government… In our view the test should be whether or not an organisation is in practice controlled or materially influenced or directed by a political party or is being run to serve the interests of a political party.49 If that were not the case, it ought to be treated in the same was as any other organisation. The War Cabinet of 8 June 1942 was attended by Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Ernest Bevin, Sir John Anderson, Sir Stafford Cripps and Herbert Morrison. It decided that the two suspect organisations should be subjected to a rigorous investigation by the Security Executive at the Home Office.50 They should not be allowed any benefit of the doubt. These suspicions notwithstanding, the IYC continued to make progress and to attract ever more young people and personalities of standing ; and in the winter of 1942, after the second International Youth Rally for Victory, it created yet another front organisation : the World Youth Council (WYC).

4th stage : November 1942. The creation of the World Youth Council (WYC) To refine their strategy of infiltration yet further, the Soviets created, on 14 and 15 November 1942, the World Youth Council. The International Youth Council (IYC) remained in being and became to the World Youth Council what the British Youth Peace Assembly (BYPA) had been to the World Youth Congress - namely its sole British section.51 400 young people from 29 countries took part in the WYC.52 Among them was an American delegate, Louise Morley, specially chosen by Eleanor Roosevelt,53 Svend Beyer-Pedersen from Denmark and Fritz Walter from Austria ; and also President Beneš, American Ambassador John Winant, Sir Stafford Cripps, and the Free French Ministers René Cassin and M. Boucher. The opening reception was organised by the ‘les Français de Grande Bretagne’ at Grosvenor House, which the Czech embassy had generously made available to the IYC as its headquarters. Officially the World Youth Council was created to supervise the distribution and application of the Mobilisation Appeal adopted at the conclusion of the IYC’s second International Rally. The text gave fulsome due to the USSR and priority to the question of the Second Front : We are filled with the desire to share in the sacrifices, to take some weight off their shoulders… We must continue the great offensive on the European Continent and strike the German Army where it will hurt it most and where it will have to split between two powerful fronts. In this way we will help our Soviet Allies.54 The new organisation was made up of one representative of each nation and five representatives of the IYC. It immediately set up a secretariat with executive powers. A non-communist, Vaclav Palaček, became President of the WYC, but the real power was concentrated in the hands of the communists. Of the nine members of the Executive Committee at least seven were cryptocommunists or close to the Communist Party, as was the Treasurer :

A European (Youth) History from the USSR, Captain Vassily Bogatyrev, from ‘British India’, Kitty Boomla of the All-India Student Federation, from France, J. F. Chabrun, of the Forces Unies de la Jeunesse Democratique, from Britain, the ever-present Margot Gale/Carritt/Kettle, from Yugoslavia, S. Komar (Anti-Fascist League of Yugoslav Youth), from Mexico, E. Madero (Confederation of Mexican Youth), from ‘Free Austria’, Fritz Walter, from ‘Free Siam’, S. Tanbunyuen (Treasurer). Apparently because the Americans were not in a position to send anyone at that time to represent them on the Executive, the place allocated to the United States was left unfilled ; so only the Dane Svend Beyer-Pedersen (a fellow traveller who at the time was pro-Soviet) and Vaclav Palaček were not under Party control.55 In addition, the General Secretary was Kutty Hookham, the NUS militant who had been a clandestine member of the Communist Party since 1935 and whose friendship with the Crippses had recently led to her appointment as General Secretary of the Anglo-Soviet Youth Friendship Alliance. Like Betty Shields-Collins before her, Kutty Hookham, by her dynamism and devotion to the cause, soon established herself, together with Beyer-Pedersen, as the driving force of the WYC.56 From various interviews, it emerges that Palaček owed his presidential position to his unbelievable political naïveté. Interviewed in Prague, Josza Grohman described him as ‘a naïve person who loved honours’. Viktor Fischel, who was Masaryk’s secretary during their London exile, confirmed this : ‘There was nothing of the communist about Palaček ; he belonged to the socialist-national party ; but in my opinion there was nothing to him’.57 And Phyllis Williams recalls : ‘Palaček ? We made him President. On the one hand because he was neither too left-wing nor too right-wing ; on the other, because he enjoyed the full support of his government, which was very generous to him’.58 So, to make the organisation seem respectable, Palaček was systematically paraded by it. Because of his bearing and position in the Finance Ministry of the Czech government, he was the ideal person to guarantee the legitimacy of a body like the WYC and to secure its financing. The Czech government paid for his triumphal tour of North America (2 August 1943 to 10 January 1944) to bring the work of the WYC to the attention of young Americans and Canadians.59 The pamphlet commemorating this tour shows his extraordinary stamina : in those five months he visited 39 states in the USA and Canada, travelled some 14000 miles, took part in 167 discussions and made 40 speeches. What is more, he carried a letter of recommendation from Sir Stafford Cripps, which won him productive meetings with Eleanor Roosevelt and Vice-President Henry Wallace. The pamphlet devoted six of its 13 pages to two gatherings in which Palaček had not taken part : the Youth Conference of the Western Hemisphere and the annual meeting of a new federation of American youth organisations, American Youth for a Free World.60 The promoters of this body - the American Young Communists - intended the new organisation to replace the American Youth Congress, which had been irretrievably damaged by its support for the Pact. By devoting such a long description to those two gatherings, the communists legitimated those cryptocommunist organisations that were to join the World Youth Council in London - and in fact the 300 participants from

93 58 Interview with the author. 59 ‘Youth of the World : Reports of the Tour to America’ (London : World Youth Council, (944), p. 1. 60 The American Youth Congress disappeared in the course of 1942, soon to be reborn under the name of American Youth for a Free World. Cf. Youth, issued by  the National Youth Commission, Communist Party, 35 East 12th Street, New York. That pamphlet is reproduced in extenso in Communist Tactics in Controlling Youth Organizations : Hearings Before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee of the Judiciary, US Senate. 61 Forward for our Future!, official report of the World Youth Conference, London, November 1945 (Paris : WFDY,1946), p. III. 62 Cf. Earl Browder’s speech at the Convention, quoted in ‘Report on American Youth for Democracy’, investigation of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, US Congress, House Committee on Un-American Activities, Washington DC, 80th Congress, 1st session, 17 April 1947, p. 2.

94 63 Youth. An issue of this ‘communist’ magazine is quoted in extenso on p. 242 in the Report on American Youth for Democracy : Investigation of UnAmerican Propaganda Activities in the United State, US Congress, House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, Washington, 80th Congress, First session, April 17 1947. US GPO 1947. 64 De Launay G., Murat C. (1948), Jeunesse d’Europe, Paris, Pion, p. 152. In France the communist appeal was the stronger for having no competitors. Apart from the Young Communists, there was practically no other political youth movement. The socialists, whose youth section had played a great role before 1939, had not been able to keep going. The movements on the right were barely organised : the youth of the RPF (the Rassemblement de la Jeunesse Française) was not a significant body. Only the Catholic and/or Christian movements were able to compete with the communists. L’ Association Catholique de la Jeunesse Française, which had been founded in 1886 by Albert de Mun, was some 350 000 strong, and was made up of La Jeunesse Ouvrière Chrétienne, La Jeunesse Etudiante Chrétienne, and similar groups. 65 On 30 July 1944 Eisenhower sent Kutty Hookham a letter of thanks for a consignment of morphine sent by the WYC for wounded soldiers. A facsimile of this letter is reproduced in the first (undated) of a series of newsletters under the letterhead of the World Youth Council. 66 National Archives of Canada, Ottawa, External Affairs Records, file No. 4554-4. 67 Eleanor Emery (Dominion Office) to Ignatiev, ibid., Ref. Z.524, secret, Dominion Office 20 March 1943. 68 ‘A Report on the Development and Activities of the WFDY’, 6 undated and unsigned pages, p. I. FO 924/674. 69 Ibid. 70 De Launay and Murat (1948), o p. cit., p. 60.

A European (Youth) History 14 countries in the Western Hemisphere Conference did decide at the end of their meeting to cooperate with the London body.61 The pamphlet ended with a message from the President of the Soviet Anti-Fascist Committee, Eugene Fedorov, congratulating Palaček on his excellent work in promoting the unity of Progressive Youth.

4 May, 1943 : Dissolution of the young communist international (KIM) On 15 May 1943 the members of the Comintern executive signed a resolution announcing the dissolution of their movement. At the time speculations were rife about the reasons for this move. Probably Stalin had become aware that the organisational form fashioned in the 1920s no longer corresponded with the realities of the alliance with Britain and the United States. This tactical change corresponded precisely to the general tendency of Soviet foreign policy : to gain and to keep the good will and the cooperation of the Allies in the great antifascist alliance. The dismantlement of Comintern did not of course mean the release of communist parties from Soviet tutelage. The Twenty-One Conditions that the Comintern had adopted at the time of its birth remained fully in force. All that was happening - as the text of the resolution indicates - was that the organisational structures were being modified, that they had to adapt and modernise themselves to take account of the new world situation. By disguising the pro-Soviet and internationalist character of the various communist parties, the Russians hoped to allay the anxieties created by the spectre of an international communist conspiracy, and thus make it possible for these same communist parties to participate in antifascist fronts after the war. What was true of the Comintern applied even more so to the KIM, which had been created in 1919 to contribute to the impetus of world revolution and then to the expansion of the leading communist state. It was dissolved at the same time as the Comintern, in May 1943. It was not a question of the KIM having fallen into disgrace : on the contrary it had been particularly efficient and disciplined, had made remarkable advances among large sectors of world youth, and had faithfully conformed to every twist in Stalinist policy. But the Soviets now regarded the World Youth Congress as the ideal type of organisation, and rightly so from their point of view : that type seemed better suited to win over non-communist sympathisers and thus contribute more substantially to the victory of communist propaganda. The time was right for ‘decommunisation’. So the American Young Communist League changed its name and, at its convention in Manhattan on 15 December 1942, transformed itself into American Youth for Democracy. This group described itself as ‘a united anti-fascist youth organisation’62 or as ‘a democratic, non-Marxism organisation including both communist and non-communist youth’.63 The Australian Communist Party followed suit when the local Young Communists transformed themselves into the EUREKA Youth League. In France the Young Communist Federation dissolved itself ‘spontaneously… out of devotion for the youth of France’ - and immediately formed the Union de la Jeunesse Républicaine de France, the UJRF. This new movement, which officially did not have a political label, was created by the communists to bring together all the Resistance movements. It became an umbrella organisation for a host of subgroups, for example les Jeunes Filles Patriotes, Ie Front Patriotique des Jeunes and les Jeunes Paysans Patriotes.64

A European (Youth) History

Conclusion : The World Youth Council as a substitute for the KIM (1942 to 1945) The Soviets managed to convince people such as Sir Stafford Cripps, Eleanor Roosevelt, and even General Eisenhower65 that the World Youth Council was a kind of League of Nations for the younger generation. Some in the British establishment, however, became suspicious of the WYC from the beginning of 1942 onwards. We can see this from some Canadian Foreign Office documents, such as the telegram sent on 23 March to his Secretary of State for External Affairs by Vincent Massey, the Canadian High Commissioner in London : No.  615. Confidential. Your telegram No.398 of 11 March. International Youth Council. United Kingdom does not propose to give any support to World Youth Week. This Week is being organized… by World Youth Council. The latter body, although its membership is open to youth of all shades of opinion, is connected with subversive organizations.66 This telegram reproduced, almost word for word, the confidential note that a Dominion Office official had sent to a diplomat at the Canadian High Commission.67 There are other indicators of suspicions about the WYC. For instance, during his extended stay in the United States, Beyer-Pedersen was interrogated at length by the FBI on the subject of Palaček, whose naïveté (or else opportunism) caused him to be thought of as a Party ‘submarine’.68 Pedersen went straightaway to the Danish embassy in Washington to complain about this interrogation and was told ‘that the Council was in fact working for the Communist Party’. Of course Pedersen refused to believe a word of this ; but on his return to London, he had to admit that Kutty Hookham must be working for the communists.69 What seems scarcely credible is that despite all these indications that the WYC was a Moscow set-up, important individuals continued to give it their support. Even Jacques de Launay (normally so swift to denounce a communist, on occasions even wrongly) allowed himself to be hoodwinked by the apparent neutrality of the WYC. In 1948, while denouncing the ideological drift of the World Federation of Democratic Youth, he in effect expressed his regret at the passing of the late antifascist WYC which, he thought, had had been able ‘to remain above partisan struggles during the war’.70 The name of the World Federation of Democratic Youth been launched, and that enterprise deserves closer study.

95 Joël Kotek teaches at the Free University of Brussels (ULB) and the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris. After completing research at St. Antony’s College at Oxford, and one semester of teaching a course in Europe’s Political Systems at the University of Ottawa, he successfully defended his doctoral thesis at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris (IEP). The thesis was published in French as ‘La jeune garde’ in 1998 and a short English version, titled ‘Students and The Cold War’ was published in 1996. In 1983, he was chairman of the European Union of Jewish Students (EUJS), when the organisation became member of the European Youth Forum.


A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History


Anne-Claire Humblet — Les pots de verre


A European (Youth) History

Geopolitics of youth policy in post-war Western Europe (1945-1967)

A European (Youth) History


Geopolitics of youth policy in post-war Western Europe (1945-1967)1 words by Giuseppe Porcaro

The institutional landscape of European youth movements is a fascinating field of research which has yet to be completely disclosed, but undoubtably offers interesting reflections in various fields : from the history of European integration to the evolution of social movements, from the rise of a transnational civil society at continental and global level to the changing notion of citizenshi p. The list could go on and on. In this short article, I will invoke an approach that combines history with political geography. In particular, I will outline how the emergence of a European Youth Policy field has been influenced by the power relations embedded in the system of international relations. At the same time I will describe how, almost paradoxically, this geopolitical situation laid the basis for the consolidation of an independent youth civil society as one of the main features of the youth policy landscape in Europe. This is only a first attempt to approach this issue from this perspective. In this regards it constitutes mostly a seminal work that would require further intellectual and historical investigations.

(re)Construction The initial youth organisations, which emerged in Germany towards the end of the 19th Century as marginal social movements in reaction to the problems of Wilhelminian society but without a political agenda for reform, gradually became in the first half of the 20th Century, under influence of the more disciplinary British youth movements, engaged in the national politics of societal reform. As they became powerful elements of mass culture, their political importance culminated in the 1930s with their adoption by the modern state. In their efforts to influence society through the practices of hiking and camping, the youth movements in pre-World War II Europe can be understood as key elements in the project of modern governance, employing the cultural meanings of landscape and community to mobilise youth at national level, and to eventually reproduce them as governable subjects. This incorporation by the modern nation state of youth movements led to political distortions and manipulations that became evident after World War II. Lessons were drawn from the most evident cases of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, but also with the incorporation of youth movements in the Soviet regime and its satellites. In this context, it is not surprising that most of the Western European governments pulled out from active engagement in youth policy development, and left the field to youth organisations themselves. At the same time, something was happening at international level : the incorporation of youth organisations by the system of international relations. In London in 1945, the youth movements from the states that had signed the UN Charter formed the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY). The dream of a unified world youth constituency, suddenly collapsed however with the beginning of the Cold War. Almost all Western organisations pulled out of WFDY due to it being controlled by Soviet-aligned socialist

1 Methodological and Bibliographical Note : This is only a first contribution to the research on youth policy in this specific historical period. Further research is required on the past 60 years of the History of European Youth Movements and Youth Policy. I will not give an extensive bibliography but some guiding references. Concerning the role of youth movements in the building of the Modern Nation State it is worth reading the works on the Nationalisation of Masses by George Mosse. On the European Youth Campaign very little has been written so far, but it is traceable in many books speaking about the history of the European Movement International. A lot of information is also included in the golden mines of the archives of CENYC, which are hosted at the European University Institute in Florence.


A European (Youth) History and communist parties. In 1948, a World Assembly of Youth (WAY) was established, this time only with the movements that were outside the Soviet sphere of influence. This clearly set two sides in international youth affairs and tied them up with the geopolitical reality of the time. International youth work was definitely in the realm of foreign policy and youth organisations became sensitive actors and forerunners in keeping the channels of communications between the two sides open.

Campaigning for Europe The big absent actor of this first period was Europe. Europe was a construction site (and still is). First of all, it was divided, thus entirely immersed in the Cold War logic. However, the European project was about to take its first steps, and from the European Movement International and the World Assembly of Youth itself came the first big wave of Europeanisation of youth organisations : The European Youth Campaign. This campaign, launched in 1951, supported a series of conferences, cultural events, and support to youth organisations aimed at promoting a European identity among youth from all over the (Western) part of the continent. The campaign was funded as a part of the post-war reconstruction, by the American Committee for a United Europe, again in the context of the Cold War to consolidate Western European democracies and co-operation within the “free” Europe. The campaign was definitely a success for the dissemination of books, events and creating a cultural humus for European cooperation. At the same time, the decolonisation process with the subsequent change of the scope and of the geopolitical balances fostered the European Committees of the World Assembly of Youth to gather more closely together. In this climate, a major date to be remembered is 1958, when the French committee pulled out of WAY as a consequence of the positioning of the platform towards the war in Algeria. This environment led to an informal WAYEurope grouping to be established, creating the conditions for the creation of the first European Youth Platform. The Council of European National Youth Committees (CENYC) was eventually founded on 23 March 1963 in London as a voluntary association of eleven National Committees of the World Assembly of Youth (WAY) (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom) and the two National Youth Councils of France and Luxembourg. Italy and Switzerland participated at the founding meeting, but only decided later to participate in the CENYC. The principal tasks of CENYC were to serve as a forum for the exchange of information, to collect and study material concerning youth problems, to co-operate and obtain assistance from organisations and institutions active in the field of youth work and education, and to support national youth committees in activities aiming at European unification. The creation of CENYC constitutes the bridge towards the next phase of development of European youth policy. If on the one hand it allowed the achievement of a coordination among “western” National Youth Platforms in the frame of the WAY, it also crystallised two important principles. Firstly, the independence of national youth councils from their governments ; which was to become one of the constituting pillars of the youth sector of civil society. Secondly, the institutional dialogue towards the new European

A European (Youth) History institutions ; one of the first resolutions of CENYC, already in 1964, asked the Council of Europe for the creation of a European Youth Centre.

The young, the student and the C.I.A. By the mid of the 1960s, the system was quite consolidated. But this was soon shaken. A first explosive article was published in the Californian magazine Ramparts in 1966, and on 15th February 1967, it was the New York Times publishing another article with a self-explanatory title “Foundations linked to C.I.A. are found to subsidise 4 other youth organisations”. Nothing really new was revealed, but it was now public. In particular, the article showed how the “Foundation for Youth and Students Affairs” subsidised the World Assembly of Youth, the United States Youth Council and the International Student Conference (western counterpart of the soviet-led International Student Union). The echo of the revelations crossed the ocean very fast. Both European governments and youth organisations could not stay silent on the matter. Most youth organisations wanted to clearly mark the distance and their independence from the C.I.A. funding. This resulted in a first disempowerment of the WAY and the consolidation of CENYC as an independent self-funded platform. European governments, which so far had pulled out from mixing too much with international youth policy, started to seriously play a more proactive role. Youth was suddenly re-discovered as a crucial actor. This was not only the consequence of the confrontation between East and West and the role played by youth groups. Only few months after the C.I.A. affair, students and young people were marching on the streets in 1968. The “youth issue” was definitely a priority for internal policy as well. These years were a turning point towards a new phase. A European Youth Policy was about to be set up (with different approaches) by the Council of Europe and, a bit later on, by the European Communities. However, the Cold War continued to play crucial role until the end of the 1980s. East/West relations were one of the main focuses of the pan-European youth dialogue that was developed after the Helsinki Agreement in the mid-1970s. But this time, the West European field was definitely acting more independently from the US than in the earlier phase, were we saw the direct intervention and support.

(partial) Conclusions What is the sense of looking back at what happened 60 years ago now, in the second decade of the 20th Century 2010 ? There are several lessons that we could already draw from this short introduction. Firstly, this historical moment reminds us that investment in the youth sector of civil society (or the lack of) is a strategic choice of governments and institutions. This should, in my opinion, serve as a reminder for these actors to continue to provide the necessary support to youth civil society, especially in a moment of the individualisation of public life. Secondly, this episode traces the origin of dialectics between the actors and the origin of an independent youth civil society, which is now, decades later, institutionalised and re-balanced. In particular, it stands at the very beginning of a story that


104 Giuseppe Porcaro was born in 1979. He is the SecretaryGeneral of the European Youth Forum since June 2009. He previously worked in the secretariat of the Forum as United Nations and Global Youth Affairs Coordinator, between 2007 and 2009, and as Youth Specialist for the World Bank in Kosovo, in 2006 and 2007. He volunteered in youth movements in his community since the age of 7. He represented the World Organisation of the Scout Movement between 2003 and 2007 in various European and global events and chaired the Advisory Council of Youth of the Council of Europe between 2005 and 2007. He holds a PhD in Political Geography, he researched and worked at the Geography Department of the University of Naples “L’Orientale”.

A European (Youth) History would lead to the creation of the European Youth Forum in 1996. Last (but not least) it shows how youth policy had, and still has, a role in challenging the concept of the Nation State, contributing to the creation of an international European scale. I think these three lessons are today important to strategically plan the future of youth work and youth policy in Europe. In a period of economic crisis, young people are becoming more and more subjects of policy-making. Policy consumers, not policy producers. The recent launch of the new European Commission flagship initiative : Youth on the Move is an example of this trend. Participatory youth work risks being challenged and investments on participation and on the youth sector of civil society might be sidelined to the advantage of other important priorities. In this situation, the delicate balance among actors can easily break to the advantage of state-oriented top down policies. It is perhaps time for brave decisions. Besides the different size in numbers, the positive value of the contribution to European societies of independent youth organisations is definitely as strong and strategic as 60 years ago.

A European (Youth) History

Foundations Linked to C. I. A. Are Found to Subsidize 4 Other Youth Organizations Funds identified as go-betweens One Student Group, a Rival of Soviet-Controlled Body, Was Established in 1950 By Neil Sheehan Special to The New York Times WASHINGTON, Feb. 15- Foundations identified by officers of the National Student Association as channels for money from the Central Intelligence Agency have also been helping to subsidize at least four other youth organizations. It seemed clear that some portion of the subsidies came from the C.I.A., but inquiries here failed to determine exactly how much, if any, was given to each group by the intelligence agency and how much was given by private sources, either independently or at the request of the agency. The four other youth organizations are the International Student Conference of Leyden. the Netherlands ; the Independent Research Service of New York : the United States Youth

Council of New York, and the World Assembly of Youth of Brussels. Officers of the two foreign-based organizations could not be reached for comment. Eugene A. Theroux. a graduate of the Pratt Institute and director of the Independent Research Service, said in a telephone conversation that his group had received funds from the Independence Foundation. He said, however, that he had not been able to talk to officers of the foundation to ask whether the funds came from the C.I.A. James D. Fowler, president of the United States Youth andStudent Council, acknowledged in a. telephone interview that his organization had obtained money from the Foundation for Youth and Student Affairs, but he said he had no reason to believe that his group had been “covertly funded.” Neither he nor the other officers have a “relationship with the C.I.A.” he said. Mr. Fowler said he had called the foundation and had been told that the funds his group received did not come from the C.I.A. According to records uncovered today. all of the organizations have been receiving funds from the Foundation for Youth and Student Affairs of New York, the Independence Foundation of Boston and the San Jacinto Foundation of Houston. Those are the three foundations named by officers of the student association as conduits for funds from the C.I.A. to their organization.

Funds to Women’s Group A fourth foundation with apparent C.I.A. connections, the J. Frederick Brown



A European (Youth) History Foundation of Boston, Mass., has been making contributions to a New York-based women’s group called the  ? Committee of Correspondence. The committee works with women’s groups in foreign countries. The most important of the four organizations is the International Student Conference, a confederation of student unions from 80 non-Communist countries. It has served as a counter-poise in international student affairs to the Sovietcontrolled International Union of Students. The organization was founded in 1950, shortly after the outbreak of the cold war when it became apparent that without an effective rival, the Communist organization would dominate international student politics. It finances international student conferences and such publications as the multi-lingual magazine, The Student, as well as holding student seminars and financing student exchange and scholarship programs. It has taken a liberal but almost always pro-Western position on world issues.

Analysis of Support According to a study of the International Student Conference’s financial statements for 1964-66 made by the Canadian Union of Students, the organization received most its support during this time from the Foundation for Youth and Student Affairs and the San Jacinto fund. In this period, only about $45,000 of the conference’s yearly income came from dues and contributions of member student unions, while about $650,000 a. year was supplied by foundations, most of the funds by the two C.I.A.-connected foundations. The San Jacinto fund for example, paid the $125,000 yearly costs of the magazine, The Student, and half of the expenses of the organization’s conferences in 1984 and 1966, which cost about $270,000 each. The Foundation for Youth and Student Affairs paid for most of the other conference projects during those years, including many seminars and student meetings. The Canadian Student Union estimated that between 80 and 90 per cent of the total conference programs were financed by funds from American foundations. Officers of the International Student Conference could not be reached today for comment. Arthur Houghton Jr., president of Steuben Glass of New York and also president of the Foundation for Youth and Student Affairs. obliquely acknowledged in a statement issued today by his office that the foundation had cooperated with the “Government,” but he refused to elaborate. “It at any time I have cooperated with our Government on matters affecting the national interest, that is my own affair,” the statement said. Mr. Houghton asserted that the foundation had “never placed conditions on the grants that it has made.” Harry H. Lunn. secretary of the foundation and a president of the National Student Association. in the 1954-55 period. denied today that he was an employe of the C.I.A. He declined to say, however, whether he had served as an intermediary between the agency and student groups. Mr. Lunn has been identified by student association officers as one of their principal contacts with the C.I.A. After his student work in the mid1950’s, Mr. Lunn is reported to have served as a research analyst for the Defense Department. He then was assigned to the political section of the American embassy in Paris, and later worked for the Agency for International Development before joining the foundation.

A European (Youth) History Denies C.I.A. Funding He also denied that foundation funds originated with the C.I.A. and said that “all the money has come from the Houghton family and members of the board.” The Houghton family has a major financial interest in the Corning Glass Company of Corning, N. Y. Mr. Lunn acknowledged that the foundation had made substantial contributions for many years to the four youth organizations. The San Jacinto Foundation of Houston, the other major contributor to the International Student Conference, has not registered with either the Internal Revenue Service or the state authorities in Texas. Its officers have been unavailable for comment for several days. The World Assembly of Youth, the other foreign-based organization that has been receiving funds from the Foundation for Youth and Student Affairs, is a confederation of 51 youth groups from Western and non-Communist countries. It publishes pamphlets and a monthly magazine called Way, finances youth seminars and youth leadership conferences and international youth meetings. While the International student Conference competes in international student affairs with the Communist-controlled International Union of Students, the World Assembly of Youth counters the World Federation of Democratic Youth, which has its headquarters in Warsaw. The World Assembly of Youth was also founded at the outbreak of the cold war, in 1948. The United States Youth Council of New York, a coordinating body for 37 American youth and student groups ranging from the left wing Students for a Democratic Society to the Young Democrats and major religious youth organizations, has reportedly sent delegates to World Assembly of Youth meetings. The Independent Research Service, the other New York-based organization that received funds from the C.I.A.connected Independence Foundation of Boston, has existed almost solely to finance thesending of delegations of American students and intellectuals to Communist-sponsored international youth festivals. The organization was founded in 1958 by Paul Sigmund, now a professor at Princeton, and Gloria Steinem, a New York journalist, just before the Vienna youth festival of 1959. In 1962, the Independent Research Service sent a delegation of more than 100 students, teachers and intellectuals to the Communist youth festival in Helsinki. A report filed by the independence Foundation with the The Massachusetts State Attorney General’s Office in Boston shows a grand of $125,000 to the Independent Research Service that year.

Disruptive Element National Student Association officers have said that the foundation was one of their sources of C.IA. Funds and that its trustee, Paul Heimut, was one of their contacts with the intelligence agency. Mr. Heimut, a member of the prestigious law firm of Hale & Dorr, has, according to his secretary, been at meetings for the last several days and unavailable for comment. The delegation sent to the Helsinki festival was liberal and did not reflect official United States policy at the time, but the delegation did serve as a disruptive element in the festival. It published a newspaper, ran an information bureau and participated in a number of the forums and seminars. As a result of its efforts, delegations from a number of countries, including Ceylon, Uganda and Nigeria, left the festival to protest the attitude of the Communist youth groups and the festival’s sponsoring committee. W. Dennis Shaul, a former Rhodes scholar who was head of the Independent Research Service in 1962



A European (Youth) History and president of the National Student Association during the same period, said in a telephone interview today that he was uncertain whether the C.I.A. had indirectly financed the research service, but that he was certain most of its funds had come from legitimate foundations. As a president of the NationalStudent Association, Mr. Shaul would presumably have known that the Independence Foundation was a conduit for C.I.A funds. Both current association officers and State Department officials have said that two to three senior members of the student association knew each year of the C.I.A. subsidy.

Still Gets Funds Although the Independent Research Service has been relatively inactive in public since 1962, it has continued to receive funds from the Independence Foundation. In 1965, according to foundation records, the Research Service received $20,000 from the foundation. Mr. Helmuth is also the trustee of the J. Frederick Brown Foundation of Boston, which is reportedly said to have offices at the same address there as the Independence foundation. The J. Frederick Brown Foundation made contributions in 1962, 1963 and 1965 according to Internal Revenue Service records, to the Committee of Correspondence of 345 East 46th St., New York. The contribution in 1965 was $15,000. Public affairs organizations, a reference work, describes the Committee of Correspondence as “not a membership organization,” but a “committee of 18 American women and 12 associates.” The purpose of the committee, the reference work says, “is to strengthen voluntary and professional organizations and to encourage women to exercise local, national and international leadership among women outside of the United States. “Through personal correspondence, printed materials and travel by committee members and staff, [it] maintains communication with about 6.000 women in more than 100 countries and territories. [It] holds leadership training seminars in the U.S. and other countries ; supports a leadership training specialist in Africa.” The committee also publishes a bimonthly newsletter and a monthly bulletin. The executive director, Anne B. Corlius, could not be reached today for comment.

Scope of Control Uncertain It was difficult to determine what control, if any, the C.I.A. exercised as a result of its use of funds. The current officers of the National Students Association have said that they believe the C.I.A. exercised some control over their programs after the subsidy began in 1952 because the programs were approved by C.I.A. representatives or go-betweens before the money was given. They also say they are reasonably certain that some, although not a large number, of the association’s officers over the years were recruited for work with the C.I.A., once their service with the association had eded. They note, however, that their programs and policies were often at variance with official United States policy. They feel that the C.I.A. probably supported the programs because it believed them to be in the national interest, however they may have varied from Administration policy. The New York Times Published : February 16, 1967 Copyright © The New York limes

A European (Youth) History

The European Youth Campaign Extract from Hugh Wilford, David Caute (2003), “The CIA, the British Left, and the Cold War”, London, Routledge, p.239 (…) Other ACUE Activities in Britain Combined with the mounting evidence that Winston Churchill’s new Conservative government was no more interested in European federation than its Labour predecessor, the failure of the Mackay Plan in the summer of 1951 added further impetus to a new trend in the federalist campaign, already apparent in Paul-Henri Spaak’s leadership of the European Movement, away from the cultivation of élite support and towards the agitation of mass opinion. This shift of emphasis was reflected in the domestic campaigns of the American Committee on a United Europe, which shifted up several gears in 1951. Its clearest manifestation was the creation of the European Youth Campaign (EYC), a unity drive amongst western European youth devised by Retinger, Spaak and André Philip, with the encouragement of such Americans as Shepard Stone, in particular youth support considered that, after 1951, the majority of ACUE funds earnmarked for Europe were spent on the EYC, which used them to conduct ‘a massive propaganda campaign of conferences and exhibitions, cinema shows, radio broadcasts and a large array of publications.’ The Launch of this youth campaign in Britain was greeted with some suspicion. Ìn the early days, the EYC was subject to attack and ill feeling by various youth and student organisations ; Barney Hayhoe, President of the organisation’s British Committee, told a visiting ACUE officer in 1957. This might have been a veiled reference to the decision of the Labour League of Youth (LLY), the youth section of the Labour Party, to disaffiliate from the EYC in 1952 due to suspicions about the source of its funding. Later, however, according to Hayhoe, the EYC was ‘accepted’ and its programme ceased to be a ‘matter of controversy’. Indeed, from the mid-1950s the Campaign mounted an impressive range of activities in britain, including, for example, the organisation and financing of ‘an extensive young adult debate competition on European issues’ and the mounting of conferences for ‘young business executives’ on various aspects of the European economic union. This improvement in the EYC’s fortunes was due in part to the hard work of its British Secretary, the future Labour MP and minister Maurice Foley, who was generally recognised as ‘an able man… doing an excellent job’. Another important Labour supporter of the EYC was the MP Geoffrey de Freitas, an ardent federalist who sat on the Campaign’s International Commission.” (…)


Mathieu Lautredoux — Kit-Cycle


A European (Youth) History

European Youth Policy from the 60s to the 90s


A glimpse into European Youth Policy from the end of the 60s till the end of the 90s words by Laurence Eberhard Harribey

In 1972, the Council of Europe created the European Youth Centre and the European Youth Foundation. This marked the starting point of a European youth policy that would eventually develop in a rather original way. A few years later, within the framework of the European Community, a certain number of actions and programmes came to complete the process that had been initiated by the Council of Europe - the creation of a Youth Forum of the European Communities (1978) and the launch of a youth exchange programme (1988), amongst others. Similarly, the necessity for an approach to youth was quite frequently included in other policies : in the fight against unemployment, in training, and in the reflections on mobility and citizenshi p. More recently, after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Council of Europe’s interest in youth issues was further strengthened with the opening of a second European Youth Centre, in Budapest (1995). So what is the picture to be taken of these forty years of European youth policy (1970-1999) ? Questioning the nature of the policies that were developed and their evolution within both the Council of Europe and the European Community also enables to measure the importance of youth related issues in the shaping of Europe, as well as in the assertion of a European society that is based on democracy and the respect of human rights. A question all the more interesting as this European youth policy firstly developed ‘internally’ at the international level - independently from the territorialised national policies. Hence, a first question : how can European policy be “fabricated” ? And can this policy build a meaningful political space or not ? Second interest related to this historical panorama : the institutional duality Council of Europe/European Community, within which this European youth policy developed. We thus have two institutions with different foundations, and this means inevitably different conceptions of youth policy. Can we distinguish a long-term trend in European youth policy over this long period, from the beginning of the 1970s till the end of the 1990s ? In fact, over 35 years, European youth policy really seems to have changed. From an exclusively institutional conception of youth - where participation in democratic institutions seemed to be the means to insert youth into adult society –, we moved to a conception of youth that was caught in the logic of economic insertion – one in which young people were linked to demands and needs, to which public actors sought to respond, offering them specific action programmes. This evolution happened in three rather distinct steps, even though the borders that separate them were not always straightforward : A first, initial period, which covers the 1960s and most of the 1970s. In a global context, marked both by the Cold War and the crisis of 1968, “youth policy is dominated by an institutional and transnational logic of a relatively closed system of actors”.


A European (Youth) History A second period, from the end of the 1970s till the end of the 1980s, which relates to the progressive reconsideration of the institutional model. In a global context marked by the economic crisis, the concern about youth was one of economic and professional insertion. Programmes were multiplied and the “youth” public was fragmented. Indeed, this period is characterised by the modification of the game theory and in the assertion of the Community in relation to the Council of Europe. A third period, which covers the end of the 1980s and the 1990s, marked by two major events that had clear repercussions on youth policy : the creation of the Single Market and the European Monetary Union, with a view to the Single European Act and Maastricht Treaty on the one hand, and to the Cold War, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, on the other. A period which, from the youth policy point of view, was notable for a certain number of changes : the territorialisation and “nationalisation” of actions, the revitalisation of the institutional framework, the diversification of the set objectives, and a more open system of actors.

1. The “first age” of European youth policy (1960s and 1970s) : A conception of youth that is “caught” at the level of the institutions. Several factors are going to foster the emergence in this period of a European youth policy of an institutional nature. The handling of the post-war years and of the Cold War incited states to refuse an interventionist model for youth policy. In the post-war period, the still vivid memory of ideologically motivated youth policies (notably in France, the Vichy’s legacy) led to the rejection by youth movements of all attempts by the public authority, however weak they were, to implement a unified and centralised youth policy. This contradiction perhaps explains the fact that, at the time, youth was both largely present in the ideology of reconstruction, yet so absent in concrete policies. Second important element : the reassertion of the Western model of representative democracy compared to the East. The West’s approach was, therefore, one of an opposing and alternative model to that of the management of youth in the communist countries. Both governments and parliamentarians were unanimous in considering that any youth policy had to be based on the promotion of youth organisations, which were recognised as an ideal framework to promote democratic participation and as offering, through their diversity and autonomy, the necessary conditions for the absence of governmental control of youth. This conception was intended to be promoted by Western Europe in terms of its contribution to democracy and to the respect of human rights ; a conception that was nourished by the recent experience of youth indoctrination by the fascist and Nazi powers, and characterised the “Western” approach, in opposition to the way in which youth was organised in the communist States at the time. The display of independence and internationalism of INGYOs (International Non Governmental Youth Organisations), when facing their governments, all the more enhanced the latter’s position on the issue. At the beginning of the 1960s, few of them existed on the European scene, yet they often predated European institutions, and could easily be “classified”.

A European (Youth) History International organisations coming from the Scout movement (of British origin - with Baden Powell, beginning of the 20th century) : the European Scout Movement Organisation dating back to 1907, and its feminine counterpart, born in 1919. European organisations coming from churches or from the Christian circle of influence : YMCA (Young Men Christian’s Association – 1855), CMP (Christian Movement for Peace, 1923), IYCS-IMCS Europe (International Young Catholic, 1956, and International Movement of Catholic Students 1921), YCW (Young Christian Workers, 1925), MIJARC (International Movement of Catholic Agricultural and Rural Youth (IMCARY),1954). Organisations coming from political movements : IUSY (International Union of Socialist Youth – 1907), and IFM-SEI (International Falcon MovementSocialist Educational International- 1922). IFLRY (International Federation of Liberal and Radical Youth- 1947), EDS (European Democrat Students – 1961), DEMYC (Democrat Youth Community of Europe – 1964), EUYCD (European Union of Young Christian Democrats – 1947) and JEF (Young European Federalists – 1948). Organisations coming from trade unions : the “youth” section of the ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation – 1948).

The crisis of 1968 and the emergence of the “Youth seen as a generation” concept The way the youth issue was perceived partly explains the answer that was given to it. In the 1960s, youth was seen as a “generation”. Youth was considered as a mobilised group or as a group that could be mobilised. The crisis of 1968 is best described as the unrest among a generation, as illustrated in the debate held on the 24th September 1968 at the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on the Report by Marcel Hicter1, devoted to “a world sick with its youth”. With youth crises spreading to many European countries, youth participation becomes a recurrent theme in the political debate. At the same time, one could note the desire of politicians to link youth to European issues, as if European construction was the legacy that the post-war generation wished to pass on to the next. For the Council of Europe, a Western conception of human rights and democracy needed to be defended. For the Community, however, ensuring the dissemination of the European idea and the perspective of the EEC enlargement was a priority. All this for the sake of peace in Western Europe and for the sake of defending Western Europe’s social model. Hence, the historical situation was characterised by two quite different aspects of it : on the one hand, the inheritance of a movement of dissent, which Bourdieu would qualify as a “fighting age class”2, the 1968 years, and on the other hand, an international context that leads to the “instrumentalisation” of youth. The will to institutionalise social dialogue in the industrial society of the 1960s : the economic situation and the functioning of the 1950s and 1960s industrial society provided a context that fostered the development of this model. As underlined by Menschaert’s report3, the political system of these two decades generated a social cohesion, which built itself upon

115 1 De Launay and Murat (1948), o p. cit., p. 60. 2 Pierre Bourdieu “La jeunesse n’est qu’un mot”, Questions de sociologie, Paris, Edit de Minuit 1980 p 143-154. 3 Daniel Menschaert, “Etude sur les politiques et les activités du secteur jeunesse du Conseil de l’Europe”, expert consultant of the Secretary-General, Strasbourg, 27 August 1997.

116 4 Etienne Grosjean, high civil servant of the Belgian government, representing Belgium towards the Council of Europe for youth and culture issues during 25 years.

A European (Youth) History the institutionalisation of social dialogue between hierarchical social classes, through intermediary representative associations. The report also stated that “youth organisations take part in this social dialogue… This is the shared conviction, whereas social progress is linked to economic progress, and the ongoing construction will give way to a society based upon a greater social justice. The associative life’s participatory model is conceived as a way to reach this objective”.

It is in this context that an institutional framework for youth participation emerged. Following May 1968, the Council of Europe’s Consultative Assembly (known today as the Parliamentary Assembly) included in its agenda a systematic review of the European policy in relation to youth. The debate of the 24th September 1968 on Marcel Hicter’s report dedicated to “ a world sick with its youth” led to a new meeting (1969), during which a second report was discussed that was devoted to the review of European policy in relation to youth. In 1972, a resolution by the Committee of Ministers set up the European Youth Centre (EYC), followed by the European Youth Foundation (EYF, established in 1973). “Therefore, the creation of the EYC and the EYF are the expression of a dual political awareness. On the one hand, of the necessity to provide youth with a real space for creation and participation in society, and, on the other hand, of the new steps of European construction in which not only governments, but also the society as a whole, were called to take part in.4 To consolidate this perception, the EYCs and EYF were then created, based on the co-management between representatives of youth organisations and of governments. In this sense, the organisations represented completely new experiments, which did not have any equivalent in existing international bodies. An institutional group, composed of the EYC, EYF and co-management was born, and has since always been considered as “one” if not as “the” essential character determining the angle with which to approach any debate on youth policy. On the Community side, another approach to the issue prevailed. In 1960, the Kreyssig Fund was established, devoted to youth information. In 1966, a debate took place in the European Parliament for the creation of a European Youth Office to replace the Kreyssig Fund. The crisis of 1968 relaunched this debate on youth, and in 1969, the final declaration of the Heads of States and Governments stated, in what concerns the adoption of the Community’s enlargement principle, “the necessity to ensure the active youth participation in the ongoing transformations and in the important enterprise of the European construction”. Following this statement, the Commission tried to involve youth organisations in the implementation of a community youth policy. A youth colloquium took place in Brussels in June 1970. However, the enlargement perspective led the Community bodies to postpone the setting up of such a policy. It was only in 1978 that a Youth Forum was born in France. Compared to the EYC and the EYF, its nature was completely different. It was a platform financed by the EEC, which could be consulted on youth issues, but which did not have any particular status within the EEC. Nowhere was it question of comanagement, nor of the institutionalised participation of youth organisations. On the other hand, independently from the Forum, the Community developed

A European (Youth) History a policy of financial support to youth activities, through DG ICC (Directorate General Information Culture Communication / the current DG X). This difference was logical, seen the different nature of both institutions. Since the Council of Europe answered a political and cultural challenge, i.e. the “promotion of a democratic model”, the existence of independent youth organisations was one of the characteristics of this democracy. On its side, the Community answered an economic logic of integration and focused its action on information and mobility programmes.

2. The second era or the transition period (end of the 1970s – end of the 1980s) : The progressive reconsideration of the institutional model of participation. We progressively moved from youth representation, seen as a “potential deviation” that needed an insertion through politics, to an image of “victim of the economic crisis”, which required economic and social insertion programmes. The rise in social malfunctioning, coming from the urban and industrial development, slowly modified the youth image. “Young people no longer represent the idealised future of society ; on the contrary, they represent the potential ferment of social disaggregation”5. We could then refer to a “socialisation rupture”. Indeed, “…social workers are going to take over from volunteers coming from youth movements”. This uneasiness became stronger from the beginning of the 1980s, with the aggravation of youth unemployment, which completed the transformation of the image of youth. From a potential deviation, youth became the victim of the economic crisis. All countries recentralised their youth policies, targeting youth employment and professional insertion : “the question of economic insertion will supplant the one of youth ways.”6 On the European level, this transformation of national youth policies resulted in a progressive contestation of the institutional model of youth participation, put in place within the Council of Europe and in the reconsideration of the traditional representativeness of youth organisations. First pointer : the creation of CAHJE (Ad hoc Committee on youth questions), which became the CDEJ in 1988 (European Steering Committee for Youth) : “the need to see the advance of a youth policy that is common to the European plan requires the creation of an intergovernmental cooperation structure”7. Within the context of the International Year of Youth, in 1985 the CAHJE organised the first conference of European Youth Ministers, which, although devoted to the topic of participation, reaffirming the role of international youth organisations, also emphasised the new situation of economic crisis and the need to involve young people at all levels (local, regional, national and international).8 It was the emergence of the concept of “unorganised youth” that gave way to the “reserve” of 5% of the funds to be allocated to the European Youth Foundation, for projects linked to “new youth representation modes”, and to a seat in the co-management bodies for the representation of these new movements. One major event here was the European Youth Week, organised in Strasbourg, which was a specific contribution of the Council of Europe to the International Year of Youth. A mass meeting (almost 1.000 young people) with a high media coverage, which was totally new compared to the traditional activities of the EYC and EYF. On the occasion of this big event,

117 5 Olivier Galland, “Sociologie de la Jeunesse” Edit. Armand (Colin, 1997, p. 92). 6 Op cit. Olivier Galland, p. 53. 7 In briefing document prepared by the Council of Europe’s Youth Directorate Secretariat for the 5th Conference of Youth Ministers, Bucharest, 27-29/04/98, “25 years of youth policy in the Council of Europe”, May 98. 8 Final text of the first Youth Ministers’ Conference, Strasbourg, 17-19 December 1985.

118 9 It will be followed by a second programme “Youth for Europe II” in 1991, then by Youth for Europe III that covers the period 95-99.

A European (Youth) History local associations and more or less informal youth groups took the floor and participated to the debates and activities. It was the start of a progressive opening-up to new youth organisations.

This change in the governments’ discourse found a hook in the community context. The majority of community actions in the youth field had until then been limited to the financing of programmes by DG ICC (Information Communication), which became DG X, mostly on information topics. However, this conception of “youth information” was systematically questioned by most of the international youth organisations, which saw in it a technical and instrumental approach to youth. They believed that the only valid information was transmitted through training. As soon as the enlargement process became effective, the debate on the reality of the community policy in the youth field was back on the agenda. The theme of mobility was brought back as a way to integrate the enlarged Europe. This completed the one on information. It was a theme that appeared in the Community in the 1960s, notably in the final declaration of the Heads of States and Governments Summit of December 1969. Youth exchange programmes were to be put into place, first in the field of “Young workers exchanges”, involving young workers organisations amongst others. With the second and third wave of enlargement, this theme of mobility reaffirmed itself in the context of the Single European Act. In the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, youth is depicted as one of the central engines for the realisation of the Single Market and as one of the vectors of the free movement of people. The Green paper on Social Europe tackles youth employment and insertion, and the need for a more open training on Europe and the European dimension of the employment market. The Charter of Youth Rights in Europe identifies a certain number of rights, such as the right to work, to housing, to training and to leisure time. It therefore seemed logical that most of these elements were to be part of the considerations that preceded the decision by the Council creating the youth exchange programme “Youth for Europe”. This programme, implemented following the decision by the Council 88/348/EEC9, generalised the principles of the youth exchange programme for young workers to young people outside the school circuit. The objective was clearly to enable the biggest number of exchanges possible. A simple international partnership was necessary, whereas this partnership needed to be formalised in the framework of the Council of Europe. On the other hand, the objective of economic and social cohesion also became obvious, in particular the issue of youth unemployment and its consideration in the community programmes. Two references were almost systematic : “unorganised youth and underprivileged youth” ; two criteria that modified the terms of implementation. To reach out to the unorganised and underprivileged youth, the Commission favoured local partners and fostered a decentralised and “nationalised” or regionalised implementation. This could be translated by two joint phenomena : The development of national technical agencies, quasi-public agencies for youth, and the use of local groups. The actors in the youth policy field were thus less and less international and territorial policies. The diversification of the actions for youth through decentralised

A European (Youth) History and dispersed credits by the Structural Funds (ESF, FEDER, notably through the obj. 2-3 and 5b or through the PIC) that enabled the emergence of other types of actors in the field of youth, in particular local administrative or political authorities according to the programmes and the territorial organisations of countries. This change in the global context provoked a mutation of youth organisations, which were striving to adapt themselves. As soon as resources were available, more and more already existing organisations and new organisations (established under the influence of European policies) applied for funds and sought the membership of coordination bodies (CENYC and ECB) and of co-management authorities. Three types of organisations appeared  : many exchange organisations, which structured themselves on the European level in order to have access to European funds ; in the same way, one could see the move towards the “Europeanisation” of the youth sections of a certain number of big popular education associations ; a third type concerned the organisations that regrouped young people around precise themes, revealing new preoccupations - the “federation of conscientious objectors”, the “federations of young lesbian and gay people”, organisations of underprivileged youth, etc. Simultaneously, one notices the formation of national youth committees where they did not yet exist  : new Member States of the Community, Greece, Spain, Portugal, but also Member States of the Council of Europe, such as Cyprus, Malta, and San Marino.  Thus, at the end of the 1980s, there was a relatively conflicting situation : the reconsideration of the institutional model of participation, at the benefit of the logic of programmes, stigmatised a certain number of balances of power, while also creating new ones. It fuelled, at first, the rivalry between national youth committees and international youth organisations. East-West relations became the priority of CENYC (European Committee of National Youth Committees), whereas the International Youth Organisations prioritised their capacity to negotiate with the European institutions for funds for their activities. Then, it also fuelled the rivalry between political and nonpolitical organisations within International Youth Organisations : the birth of a European youth policy at the beginning of the 1960s was nurtured by a political discourse, and was marked by confrontations between political youth organisations. The multiplication of technical or thematic organisations changed the debate : there was a transition from a political confrontation to the “management of resources allocated by the institutions”. This inevitably resulted in a increasingly conflicting situation between governments and youth organisations, but not in a Manichean way, as the disagreements were the same between governments. This mainly came down to the confrontation between countries that reconsidered the “narrow and privileged” nature of the policy developed within the Council of Europe (the United Kingdom in the logic of Thatcher’s government, France, but also the Netherlands) and the Nordic countries that remained both outside the European Community (except for Denmark, which was nevertheless still just as critical towards the Community) and fervent supporters of the Council of Europe, revealed to be stronger and stronger. There was a divergence in the conception of youth policies, as shown by C.G. Lazos, in a study ordered by the European Commission10. In Northern European countries, the responsibility of actions in the youth field

119 10 C.G. Lazos, 1995 “Youth policies in the European Union ; structures and formation”, Edit. European CommissionStudies n°7, Luxembourg 11 “25 years of youth policy in the Council of Europe”, Briefing document prepared by the Secretariat of the CoE Youth Directorate for the 5th Conference of European Youth Ministers, May 98.

120 12 Alain Borredon “Young people and social change”, review Futuribles, April 97 n° 219.

A European (Youth) History fell to non-governmental organisations, and public authorities were in charge of organising this space of responsibilities. On the contrary, in Southern European countries, the responsibility of youth policies fell to the State and public administration. Logically, this led to a last type of rivalry : the inter-institutional rivalry between the Council of Europe and the European Community. From the very first Conference of Youth Ministers in Strasbourg in 1985, the Ministers recommended to maintain and encouraged an ongoing cooperation with the European Union in the youth field. Nevertheless, 13 years later, the civil servants of the Council of Europe’s Youth Directorate were rather pessimist11 : “In spite of the promising perspectives, this cooperation remains at the stage of a reciprocal sending of observers to meetings, notably because of a certain reluctance of the Union to consider the Council of Europe as a genuine partner”. It is actually the fall of the Berlin Wall and the following upheavals that enabled a certain number of deep modifications in European youth policy.

3. The third age (end of the 1980s and 1990s) : A youth policy settled in the economic logic where young people are linked to a demand End of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, youth actors faced two issues at stake : The fall of the Berlin Wall redistributed the European cards. What was at stake for the Council of Europe was no longer to defend the model of participation that was proposed as an alternative to the undemocratic model, but was rather the integration of Eastern and Central European countries in the Council of Europe. In the youth sector, it was translated by a will to develop European youth policy in those countries. Thus, in 1990, the 3rd Conference of Youth Ministers in Lisbon recommended the possibility to create a second European Youth Centre in Eastern and Central Europe. The same year, a training session for youth leaders was organised in the ECE. In 1992, the Committee of Ministers decided, in principle, on the creation of the Centre, and in 1993, the 4th Conference of Youth Ministers, which was devoted to “Youth in the bigger Europe”, accepted the proposal by the Hungarian government to create a Centre in Budapest in 1995. Finally, in 1998, the 5th Conference of Youth Ministers took place in Bucharest on the theme “Young people, active citizens of the future Europe”. One could think of a logical prolongation of the great historical themes of the Council of Europe, such as democracy, human rights, cultural dimension, etc.. but, in reality, the situation is quite different, seen the second issue at stake : the evolution of the situation and the behaviour of young people in all European countries. If one examines and assesses what happened in a certain number of European countries in 1986, 1990 and 1994, one notices that young people had been the actors of important social and student movements. However, what is most interesting is the new shape of mobilisation through coordination. “A short-term mobilisation, although the commitment may be strong… the object of the struggle is limited and is not asserted in terms of political or ideological interpretation and affiliation”12. Facing both challenges, which were, on the one hand, the need to answer European enlargement and, on the other, to find forms of actions that took into account the new reality of youth, a certain number of governments

A European (Youth) History deemed it necessary to develop a new European youth policy. Two expert reports determined the nature of these changes : A first expertise on “Young people and associative life in Europe”, assigned to a group of sociologists under the direction of Martine Vanandruel (Belgium) and commissioned by the Governing Board of the EYC/EYF (November 1995) ; A second expertise on “The study of the policies and activities of the Council of Europe in the field of youth”, accomplished under the direction of Daniel Menschaert (Belgian high civil servant) and commissioned by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe (August 97). Both reports concluded with the need to change the actions’ approaches and to adapt to the new situation, “don’t stick an old model to a new situation” (Daniel Menschaert). This new context generated a revitalisation of the institutional framework characterised by the “marginalisation of the institutional participation issue” at the benefit of the reinforcement of a logic of programmes. Youth organisations were the first to experience this mutation. After 1989, CENYC (European Council of National Youth Committees) went through an identity crisis for two main reasons : CENYC had as its main goal to position itself as the privileged framework of East-West relations. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the successive membership requests by national youth councils of Eastern and Central Europe to CENYC certainly increased the number of its members, but led it to lose a part of its purpose. Second reason : the perspective of the enlargement of the EU to the Nordic countries, which limited the interest of these countries in CENYC, since when becoming members of the Union, they could also become members of the Youth Forum of the European Communities. Until then, they could not and were using CENYC (and largely financed it) as the bridge that enabled them to participate in the European debate. It is within that context that one may understand the union strategy of youth organisations and the fusion of ECB (European Coordination Bureau of INGYOs), CENYC and the Youth Forum of the European Community in one single organisation, named the European Youth Forum. Its main objective consists in positioning itself as the representative of young people, both towards the European Union and the Council of Europe, and to be as present as possible in the programmes elaborated by the European institutions. In parallel to that, the European institutions also drew the lessons from the new European situation - in particular in the Council of Europe, with the reform of the youth sector. This reform could be summarised in three main points : the marginalisation of the co-management system in the administration and management of the budget of the EYC and EYF activities, the reinforcement of the intergovernmental side, and the validation of new partners that opened the way of European youth policy to themes such as research, information and networking. This opening confirmed the evolution towards a policy that was focused on the development of youth “services”, rather than towards a policy of participation. On the Community level, one notices an institutional dispersion, such as programmes around three issues : youth mobility (Youth for Europe III and the European Voluntary Service with DG 22), training and the fight against unemployment, together with actions in favour of underprivileged youth (DG 5, through the different programmes for employment and the decentralised


122 Laurence Eberhard Harribey is Doctor of Political Science from IEP Paris and holds a Master of Advanced Studies in Public Law. She is currently research professor at the Bordeaux School of Management, responsible for the Chair “Sustainable Development and Global Responsibility of Organisations”. Before embarking on a career as research professor, she served as SecretaryGeneral of an international non-governmental youth organisation, President of BEC/ECB, Policy Officer at the Mutual Bank and Head of development projects in a regional development agency. She is an expert analysis of European public policies and their impact on national and regional policies. In recent years she has worked particularly on the question of the emergence of a benchmark for Global Responsibility and Sustainable Development in these policies and on territorial governance issues involving private actors and public actors.

A European (Youth) History actions), and, finally, the relations with the Eastern and Central European countries through specific programmes.

4. Conclusions As a conclusion of this little story of European youth policy from the end of the 1960s till the end of the 1980s, one can summarise its long-term evolution in the following way : as long as the way to conceive the insertion of young people in society was of a political nature (i.e. involving young people in the structure of democratic representation), and this in the European context of the Cold War, the system of co-management and institutional participation implemented by the Council of Europe prevailed. From the moment when the problem became one of youth unemployment, the fight against the exclusion and marginalisation of young people in a more and more open Europe, the programmatic logic of the European Union became stronger and imposed itself, also modifying the actions of the Council of Europe in the process. Globally, this change was characterised by two other important changes : The transition from a system of actors, founded on representative democracy (youth organisations are then considered as representative) to a system of actors rather legitimised by their competence (it was the people who “deal with” youth who are representative). This happened through the parallel assertion of both experts and technical services for youth, to the detriment of traditional forms of representation. Whoever wants to reflect upon European youth policy and its role in European integration, and the assertion of a European society project funded on democracy and human rights, could not do so without an in-depth questioning on these deeper evolutions and their meaning.

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History

Parliamentary Assembly Assemblée parlementaire Recommendation 592 (1970)[1] on youth problems in Europe The Assembly, 1. Having regard to the report presented by its Committee on Culture and Education on youth problems in Europe (Doc. 2610) ; 2. Recalling its Recommendation 531 (1968) adopted by the Assembly on the basis of a report on the present crisis in European society (Doc. 2432) ; 3. Considering that the student unrest which led the Consultative Assembly to pass Recommendation 531 (1968) is in fact only one expression of a world crisis of society ; 4. Noting that this process is characterised in the political sphere by an increasingly acute conflict between the growing and often arbitrary demands of state organisation and an unreasoning attitude of total protest, and in the social and economic sphere by an increasing imbalance between artificially stimulated individual consumption and the requirements of providing collective facilities ; 5. Convinced, therefore, that what are generally called youth problems are in the final analysis only the “youth” aspects of a global problem, that of the reform and consequently of the future of society ; 6. Being convinced of the urgent need for appropriate measures to maintain, or to re-establish, dialogue and then to overcome the negative consequences of this conflict, in order to achieve the necessary reforms ; 7. Convinced that the Council of Europe has an important part to play in this field, and that the action it has already taken represents a step in the right direction ; 8. Noting with satisfaction, moreover, the appeal addressed by the nongovernmental youth organisations to the Council of Europe and that, when consulted on this subject, they manifested their approval for dynamic initiatives in this field ; 9. Considering that youth problems can be solved only by a comprehensive, forward-looking policy based on scientific data, a methodology and cultural options common to the member states of the Council of Europe ; 10. Being of the opinion that it would be advisable for the Council of Europe to arrange a European symposium on interdisciplinary problems in European society regarded in their youth context ;



A European (Youth) History 11. Emphasising that, in the long run, no reform of society can be effective without a thorough going reform of education ; 12. Considering, therefore, that there is urgent need for reform in education, in which it must henceforth be regarded as the teacher’s primary task to stimulate his pupils and not merely to expound knowledge ex cathedra, that this reform must be carried out in an integrated system of permanent education, and emphasising once more the need for a European long-term cultural development programme ; 13. Recalling the growing importance of the role of youth in an ever more rapidly changing world, and the crucial importance of permanent dialogue with youth and of the effective participation of young people in political, economic and social life ; 14. Being of the opinion, therefore, that all possible steps must be taken, especially by providing material assistance, to help youth organisations in their work, not only at European and national level but also at regional and local level ; 15. Considering, moreover, that a special effort must be made in the field of European civic education, and being of the opinion that the question of lowering the voting age must be examined in the light of recent experience ; 16. Recalling its views on the desirability of giving the European Youth Centre a role which goes beyond pure and simple socio-cultural leadership, and emphasising once more that this body is by its very nature a forum in which all kinds of problems relating to the lives of young people can and must be discussed ; 17. Considering also that a body must be created at European level which is capable of co-ordinating and promoting the united activities of youth organisations, and welcoming in this connection the results of the meeting of the ad hoc working party of government representatives held in Bonn on 8-9 January 1970 on the subject of the proposed creation of a European Youth Office ; noting furthermore with interest the statement by Mr. Westphal, Parliamentary Secretary of State of the Federal Republic of Germany, 18. Recommends that the Committee of Ministers : I. invite the governments of the member countries :

A European (Youth) History and especially the Council for Cultural Cooperation (CCC), to co-ordinate the separate vertical projects of the various international organisations, projects which should be replaced by comprehensive horizontal projects, in the elaboration of which all interested parties should take part ; 3 - to grant youth organisations, national, regional and local, all the material assistance they need to pursue and develop activities which they alone are able to carry out ; 4 - to accelerate the reform of systems of education, adopting methods and aims which truly meet the demands of present-day life in society ; such reforms should be particularly concerned with the following points : (a) permanent education, permitting especially man to overcome social, scientific, aesthetic and physical “illiteracy”, and to adjust to successive changes in society ; (b) the new role of the school, whose efforts must be directed towards the acquisition of method by its pupils rather than the accumulation of knowledge ; the school must help to form the character of young people and must both prepare them for working life and train them to make choices in the consumer society ; it must be the centre where the child’s creative ability is developed from an early age ; to that end, the child should be encouraged to participate in decision-making ; (c) the training of teachers, which must be re-orientated to produce teachers capable above all of stimulating their pupils ; (d) leisure activities, for which a leisure policy must be elaborated which will make leisure an opportunity for creative activity and for man’s development as an individual and as a member of society ; (e) civics, in connection with which appropriate steps should be taken to develop young people’s civic sense ; 5 - to examine the advisability of lowering the voting age ; II. 1 - to call under the Council of Europe auspices a European social and human science conference of experts on youth problems, such as sociologists, psychologists, biologists, doctors and lawyers, to be assisted also by representatives of the Assembly, for the purpose of : (a) studying the “youth” aspects of the problems of present-day European society in a comprehensive forward-looking light ; (b) working out a co-ordinated plan of research into the youth problems thus brought to light, concentrating essentially on the points most valuable for the enlightenment and guidance of public authorities ;

1 - to take the necessary steps to ensure a more strictly scientific approach to youth problems by better co-ordination of terminology and methodology ;

2 - to give the European Youth Centre a dimension enabling it to play the role of a forum where all kinds of problems concerning young people can be discussed between representatives of youth organisations and governmental and parliamentary representatives ;

2 - to maintain the closest possible contact with all the international organisations which are concerned with the same problems and are seeking adequate solutions, and to encourage the Council of Europe,

3 - to provide the Centre with a type of organisation inspired by the will to engage in dialogue and the need for participation, these being the prerequisites for dynamic action ;



A European (Youth) History 4 - to instruct the CCC to consider as quickly as possible, in the light of the results of the meeting of the ad hoc working party of government representatives held in Bonn on 8-9 January 1970 at the invitation of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, ways and means of meeting the demand formulated by the non-governmental youth organisations for the creation of a European Youth Office (Foundation). [1]. Assembly debate on 26 January 1970 (21st Sitting) (see Docs. 2713 and 2610, reports of the Committee on Culture and Education). Text adopted by the Assembly on 26 January 1970 (21st Sitting).

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History


Louise Mollard la Bruyere — Manif altermondialiste


A European (Youth) History

Youth organisations and the European Communities


A Case Study of transnational linkage and “engrenage” of non-governmental actors in the European Community The remarkable case of youth organisations words by Richard Corbett

In the aftermath of the student upheavals of the 1960s, a rapid development of European structures of youth and student organisations took place. Initially, this development was facilitated by the setting up of two unique agencies at the Council of Europe level, but subsequently, and after considerable conflict among the youth organisations themselves, a “Youth Forum of the European Communities” was established providing a vehicle for contact and interaction with the European Community. In going through the somewhat complex, though fascinating, history of these developments, one can illustrate a number of processes that have been considered significant by integration theorists and others that have not been subject to academic attention. This case study sheds light on 1) How actors who initially perceived little direct interest to themselves in Community affairs can become caught up and, ultimately, devote a large proportion of their activities to Community affairs ; 2) How actors who are initially hostile to European integration can nevertheless be brought in reluctantly to a bargaining process ; 3) How the supranational authorities themselves can stimulate and manipulate the process through financial stimulants, seeking allies and playing on divisions ; 4) How a perceived lack of relative influence does not hinder the development of activity by the actors ; and 5) How the European Community has built on a basis laid down by the Council of Europe.

Significance attached by theorists Integration theorists of many schools (neofunctionalist, transnationalist, federalist and others) have frequently attributed considerable importance to the process whereby actors and pressure groups begin to react and interact directly with supranational institutions, by-passing national governments, sometimes on a transnational basis. For example, Philippe Schmitter, in his revised theory of regional integration, constructs a model whereby integration proceeds in successive cycles, in which he suggests that in a third phase of transforming cycles “subnational actors each with their respective strategies, will combine into stable

144 1 Philippe Schmitter « A revised theory of regional integration » in Lindberg and Scheingold Eds. Regional Integration Theory and Research (Harvard University Press, 1971, page 260). 2 Donald J. Puchula : « Of blind men, elephants and international integration » - Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 10, No. 3 1972, page 278. 3 Juliet Lodge « Loyalty and the EEC : the limits of the functionalist approach » Political Studies Volume 25, No. 2, page 244 onwards. 4 Report to the 6th European Congress of the Executive Bureau of the Jeunesse Européenne Fédéraliste (Brussels, 1981). 5 See in particular their pamphlet « An opposition for Europe » (Brussels, 1978). 6 Leon Lindberg « Political intégration as a multidimensional phenomenon requiring multivariate measurement » in Lindberg and Scheingold ibid. page 75. 7 75. 8 O p. Cit. page 78. 9 Ibid. p p. 106 and 107. 10 There are numerous examples but among the more striking are Wilfried Martens, current Prime Minister of Belgium and Enrico Berlinguer, former PCI leader.

A European (Youth) History transnational coalitions of support and opposition1. Donald Puchula sees as one of the most interesting features of his “concordance system” model that national governments are not the only important actors2. Juliet Lodge develops an argument that public loyalty towards the EC will only develop with an increase in the possibilities for citizens’ participation in Community activities3. Federalists have argued that the development of “transnational movements constitutes a strategic objective for federalists in order to create a European political culture”4. Other observers such as the Agenor Group5 have developed arguments that can be interpreted as perceiving the development of transnational issue-based and left/right cleavages, with a corresponding decline in national cleavages, as being the salient factor in integration. Such a line of argument is not far removed from transnationalists, such as Deutsch, who have argued for the development of compatible sociological communities with unbroken lines of social communication as a prerequisite for a political community. Leon Lindberg in his impressive construction of a multivariate measurement of political integration6 argues that the development of nongovernmental actors is important in a number of respects. For example, it is important in creating a “demand flow” for collective political action that stimulates governments, which “articulate at least some of their expectations and aspirations in terms of the collectivity” and “do not just constitute a source of stress but represent the leading edge of the integration process”7. It is also important to measure how far interest groups come to identify the furtherance of their interests with the creation of a community decisionmaking capability (i.e. with an extension of the scope or capacities of the system). He suggests that students of integration should measure the rate at which new interest groups are set up at the level of the collectivity, the growth in their staffing and budgets and the increases or decreases in the volume of their activity8. He repeats his assessment when assessing the outcomes of collective decision-making9 attributing importance to how interest groups might alter their political strategies. He says they might turn from national to transnational lobbying activities at the same time causing large numbers in the general public to develop awareness of and effective orientations towards the system and its works. He calls for more empirical research and conceptual clarification of these relationships and those who are affected by them. Thus, whatever the particular emphasis and perspective, a wide variety of theorists have attributed some degree of importance to the development of the position of non-governmental actors and especially to their development of transnational groupings corresponding to the supranational organisations that have been set u p. 

Youth and student organisations To the uninitiated, “youth organisations” evoke an image of a boy scouts’ cam p. However, the world of youth organisations is in fact highly politicised. Among the most active are the youth sections of political parties, which, in central Europe and Scandinavia, tend automatically to include all party members under the age of 35 and form an important part of the career structure of politicians. The JUSOS in Germany and the Young Christian Democrats in Belgium, for example, are never long out of the headlines. Many party leaders made a rapid transition from chairman or secretary-general of the youth section to leadership of the national party10. At EC level, several of the MEPs elected in 1979 came directly, or within a few months, from

A European (Youth) History occupying positions as president or secretary-general of international youth organisations11. Even organisations that proclaim their non-partisan nature are inevitably caught up in political issues ; the Scout Movement has to handle delicate negotiations with governments in a number of developing countries and has to decide where to place Israeli and Arab tents at their jamborees and whether to continue to recognise their South African section. The leadership of the Scout Movement in Geneva is, thus, a politically sensitive body, conducting delicate negotiations. The leaderships in most educational, pedagogic and social youth organisations are similarly well-versed in political skills, and such organisations, though usually avoiding party politics, often take an active part in campaigning on particular issues. In almost every western European country, the youth organisations of all denominations are grouped together in a national youth council that take positions on “youth issues”, such as youth unemployment, exchange programmes, education policy, vocational training, etc., and determine common positions for negotiating with government ministries on subsidies for youth organisations. This involves them all in detailed policy discussions and bargaining. In the Scandinavian countries, Germany and the Benelux countries in particular, these national youth councils are involved in a very wide range of QUANGOS and government consultation procedures, and, in addition, substantial public funds are devoted to youth organisations in these countries.

The development of youth organisations at the European level Until the 1960s, only a few youth organisations possessed a European or international structure bringing them together with like-minded organisations in other countries. The International Union of Socialist Youth (IUSY) could boast of its continual existence since 190312 and remained a predominantly European organisation. The European Union of Young Christian Democrats (UEJDC) had come into being in the early 1950s. The World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY), which was set up as an all-purpose organisation by the Allies at the end of the Second World War, had become de facto the Communist Youth International with the withdrawal of the western organisations at the outset of the Cold War. But, other party-political youth organisations had only sporadic contacts with their counterparts. Among nonparty-political and European structures with considerable financial resources, the focus was mainly on exchange activities. The Young European Federalists had made quite a mark in their first years after the war by burning down frontier posts, but their international structure collapsed not long after the split in the Federalist Movement in the 1950s. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) set up a Youth Committee of young trade unionists, but its status as a youth organisation was questionable. Few others had any form of European structure. Until 1968, neither the Council of Europe nor the EC had in any extensive way developed programmes or policies to which internationally organised youth organisations could respond, react or participate. Although some proposals, particularly from Scandinavian governments, were on the table in the Council of Europe framework, they were not taken up because most governments were satisfied with the existing national or bilateral schemes they had at the time13. A combination, on the one hand, of the

145 11 E.g. Mr Brok (Christian Democrat), Mr Fich and Mrs Wieczorek-Zeul (Socialist) and Mr Spencer (Conservative). 2 Among the participants at its early congresses were Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, Leon Trotsky and others. 13 The most impressive bilateral scheme is the Franco-German Youth Office, set up Under the Elysée Treaty which finances exchanges of young people, teachers, classes, etc. between France and Germany.


A European (Youth) History student militancy around 1968 and, on the other hand, at a major scandal involving the acceptance by many non-Communist youth organisations of money originating with the CIA had the effect of shaking governments. But out of their complacency, it seems, in retrospect, to have shocked them into taking up the Scandinavian proposals and agreeing to schemes that in normal times would surely not have received assent. These schemes were the European Youth Centre and the European Youth Foundation. The European Youth Centre (EYC), established in 1972, is a research and educational centre in Strasbourg with accommodation and conference facilities. It provides international non-governmental youth organisations (INGYOs) with the possibility to hold seminars, colloquies, conferences and training courses on subjects that they themselves choose, with participants that they themselves supply and with experts or pedagogical input that they themselves select with the assistance of tutors from the Centre‘s staff. Such conferences are financed almost entirely from the Centre’s own budget. The most striking innovation of the Centre is the “co-management system” by which it is run. The governing board consists of eight governmental representatives (rotating among the 21 governments in the Council of Europe) and eight seats for INGYOs (rotating according to systems devised by the main INGYOs themselves). In addition, there is an advisory committee composed exclusively of INGYOs. Within the limits of the budgetary and the staffing constraints laid down by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, it is the co-management organs of the Centre itself that decide on which organisation will be entitled to hold seminars in the Centre, on the type of training courses to offer and on the other main activities of the Centre. The Centre also houses a library, which includes a unique collection of the main publications of youth organisations and of many research documents on youth-related issues. It has excellent audio-visual production facilities. The European Youth Foundation (EYF), established in 1973, disperses grants to international youth organisations for their activities and to cover their infrastructure costs. It can also give grants to national youth organisations for international activities. Formally the EYF is not part of the Council of Europe, though the latter does provide its secretariat facilities. Like the EYC, it is run on a co-management basis with an advisory committee composed of youth organisations, an intergovernmental committee composed of youth organisations and an intergovernmental committee composed of member governments each electing eight representatives to the governing board. There is, however, one significant difference with the EYC ; the youth side of the co-management formula is shared equally between INGYOs and National Youth Councils (NYCs). In theory this difference reflects the fact that the Foundation can also give grants to national youth organisations, but in fact it reflects the fact that National Youth Councils in the member states had woken up to the fact that they were missing out on some important developments at the European level and wished to participate in the co-management formula. Having close relationships to many of the national governments, they were easily able to persuade these to modify the co-management formula to include them. They did not succeed in attempts to change retrospectively the formula as it applies to the EYC. The INGYOs strongly resisted these moves, arguing that national organisations have their main sources of support, as well as their main tasks at the national level, whereas it is up to INGYOs to act at the international level.

A European (Youth) History Here is not the place to analyse the development of the EYC and the EYF, though much could be said about the evolution of the co-management formula and the trans-group coalitions that developed, as well as some of the more interesting events supported by the EYF and the EYC. Suffice to say that the cooperation between what tended to be rather left-oriented youth organisations (at least in the 1960s and 1970s) and rather conservative governments has not been as conflicting as one might have expected and has led to fruitful creative tension, which has been one of the more lively areas of the Council of Europe’s work and one that ventures beyond its traditional intergovernmental approach. Our interest here is that these bodies transformed the world of European youth organisations and created the basic infrastructure, which the European Community was later able to benefit from. The combined effects of the EYC and the EYF on European structures of youth organisations were dramatic. Within a few years, new organisations14 sprouted up bringing together like-minded organisations in different countries, old organisations were revived or strengthened15, and European sections of world organisations were created16. In 1973, there were 11 INGYOs with members in seven countries or more ; in 1987, there were 4317. Many European INGYOs were for the first time able to set up full-time secretariats. The circulation of their newsletters and magazines was extended to reach beyond the national secretariats of member organisations, often being sent directly from the European office to regional and local branches. Contacts among members ceased to be the privilege of a few national leaders, either at statutory meetings or at conferences, seminars and other events organised with the assistance of the EYC and the EYF. These sorts of development were seen by many governments to be in themselves fulfilment of the goal sought by establishing the EYF and the EYC. The bringing together of young people from different countries for meetings, the gaining of international and intercultural experience and the regular exchange of information and ideas (together, perhaps, for some, with the channelling of youthful enthusiasm into constructive channels) were the be-all and end-all of the EYF and the EYC. Others, though by no means underestimating the importance of these aspects, foresaw and understood that activists of INGYOs would not simply be content to meet regularly but would seek to pursue the aims of their respective organisations at European level. In particular, full-time members of the secretariats of INGYOs would be seen on the lookout for issues and projects that could develop their own role. A whole process had been set in motion. One of the first developments to take place, indeed concurrent with or even preceding the final establishment of the EYC, was of structures to defend the collective interests of youth organisations at the European level. Reference has already been made to the existence of national youth councils in each country. These joined together in 1963 into an organisational forum know as the Council of European National Youth Committees (CENYC), which, in addition to providing a means of contact and of exchanging information between national youth councils, also lobbied for their interests at the European level in particular during the creation of the EYC and the EYF. On the INGYO side, the major organisations established a liaison bureau in 1971 that became one year later the European Coordination Bureau of International Youth Organisations (ECB). This was also to defend their collective interest visà-vis European and international institutions but was at least partly in response

147 14 E.g. European Confederation of Youth Clubs (ECYC), International Youth Federation for Environmental Studies and Conservation (IYF), European Democratic Students (EDS). 15 e.g Jeunesse Européenne Fédéraliste (JEF). 16 E.g. The European national sections of the American Field Service (AFS) at last having the means to set up their independent body European Federation for Intercultural Learning (EFIL). 17 According to EYF Secretariat.


A European (Youth) History to the pretence of CENYC to represent, by virtue of the fact that it included all the national youth councils, European youth. ECB made specific provision in its statutes for CENYC to join it as a single international youth organisation, as bait it was offered three votes (instead of the usual one per organisation) and other privileges. CENYC, however, preferred to remain unaffiliated to ECB and regarded itself as a separate representative body. This division, which continues until the present day, was to be a vital feature in the establishment of European youth structures. For many, the division was one of principle. Some national youth councils argued that they were in fact more representative of youth organisations than were the internationals, as only a minority of organisations had at that point developed international structures. Most work of youth organisations is carried out at the national level, closer to the grassroots, and national youth councils have years of experience of working with governments and ministerial departments. On the other hand, some international organisations pointed out that INGYOs had been specifically created by those organisations wishing to be active at the European level. These had already developed policies, attitudes and working relations with European institutions, whereas the NYCs were set up primarily to act at the national level on national issues. They felt that any coordinating body to act on behalf of the collectivity of youth organisations at the European level should bring together organisations active at that level, just as national youth councils in a particular country normally brought together youth organisations active at the national level and were not a sum of regional youth councils. The NYCs were free to participate through CENYC as single organisation. In addition to these arguments of principle were clear clashes of interest. Reference has already been made to the conflict between INGYOs and NYCs over the composition of the statutory organs of the EYC and the EYF. This conflict was to resurface periodically at such times as the appointment of new officials in these bodies and occasionally in the allocation of resources. As we shall see, new areas of conflict were soon to emerge. The relationship, however, was rendered more complicated by the fact that a majority of NYCs. Therefore, CENYC itself were dominated in the 1960s and 1970s by the political centre-left, and there was considerable overlap among persons occupying positions of responsibility both in the NYCs and national sections of IUSY or other socialist INGYOs. On concrete issues, it was not infrequent to see a convergence of positions between CENYC and the socialist-inclined organisations within ECB, and this in turn led IUSY and some of its allies to perceive it to be in their interest to have a strong presence of national youth councils in certain youth fora.

Youth organisations at the EC By the mid-1970s, youth organisations of all the main political families, pressure groups and sectorial interests were established on the European scene and strong enough to take part in lobbying activities vis-à-vis European institutions. In fact, however, European INGYOs paid little attention to the European Community with the exception of those with a particular interest, such as Young European Federalists (JEF), the ETUC Youth Committee and the Young Farmers. This can be attributed to a number of factors :

A European (Youth) History (1) The fact that an important part of their funding came from the Council of Europe had led to a) a concentration on Council of Europe activities, which indeed are largely in the youth/education/culture area and b)the establishment of European INGYOs on wider geographical basis than the EC,18 which meant that any undue concentration on EC affairs was unlikely to be of interest to those national sections from non-member states of the EC. (2) Many INGYOs did not perceive the EC to be particularly relevant to the issues they were dealing with. For example, virtually all the main INGYOs were involved in protracted negotiations with East European youth organisations following the signature of the Helsinki Agreement in 1975, which had specifically called upon the youth organisations to set up a framework for East/West youth and student contacts. Many organisations had policies giving high priority to supporting détente and wished to devote a considerable proportion of their time and resources in developing these contacts19. Furthermore, many youth organisations did not perceive the EC as being particularly relevant to “youth issues”, though this was partly due to lack of information. (3) There was considerable anti-EC feeling among a large proportion, possibly at times a majority of youth organisations, at least as far as EC involvement in youth politics was concerned. This was due to (4) a.the strength and influence of the Nordic youth organisations who feared a division within Western Europe between EC countries and the wider Council of Europe and who consistently argued for as many matters as possible relating to youth, social affairs and cultural exchanges to take place within the Council of Europe framework and sought to minimise contacts, even on other issues, with the EC. It was also due to the strength (in terms of membership numbers, finance and facilities) of youth and students’ organisations in the Nordic countries – they almost invariably played a very strong role in any given European organisation20 – and b.hostility from the left, notably British, Danish, Greek and some German and Dutch left-of-centre organisations, which, together with Nordic and other non-EC sections, could form an anti-EC majority in left-of-centre INGYOs. c. As a result, non-political youth organisations and also national youth councils were often reluctant to become too embroiled in an area that promised much controversy, preferring to concentrate on their more settled relationships with the Council of Europe, UNESCO, etc. These attitudes were compounded by the EC position on finance for youth organisations. Since the mid-1960s, the Commission had at the disposal of its Directorate-General for Information a small fund, known as the Kreyssig Fund21, which was devoted to information activities for the benefit of young people. A small part of this fund was used to subsidise international youth organisations for certain activities related to the EC. These funds were allocated purely by administrative decision within the responsible directorate

149 18 The EYFF funding mechanism for infrastructure support awarded extra points to INGYOs for every country in which there existed an affiliated national section within the Council of Europe plus Finland. 19 The account of these negotiations and of the roles played by CENYC, ECB, WFDY and others would in themselves be Worth a lengthy article. 20 Of particular interest was the Secretary-General of CENYC from 1975-1980, Bjørn Hansen, who rose the prominence within the youth world as the leader of the students’ movement for a « no » vote in the Norwegian referendum on EC membership in 1972. 21 Named after the member of the European Parliament who first proposed it.

150 22 Point 16 of the Final communiqué

A European (Youth) History of the Commission. INGYOs did not fail to note the contrast with the comanagement formula of the Council of Europe that involved them in such decisions and very soon strong criticisms developed of the “paternalistic” and “bureaucratic” methods of the Commission. The Commission pointed out that, unlike the Council of Europe instruments, the Kreyssig fund was not set up for the benefit of INGYOs but was set up as part of the Commission’s own information policy, and it refused to be drawn into any discussions on comanagement, though under pressure from ECB it did eventually reveal more details about which organisations received how much. In itself, however, this information only worsened the conflict. It was revealed that more than half the funds went to three other organisations : the Youth Committee of ETUC, JEF and ECB itself. In other words it appeared that the Commission was deliberately using this fund to support those organisations that it perceived as being more useful to the Community. The difference in the level of support for ECB and CENYC (the latter receiving about one-tenth of the amount of the former) was fuelled the controversy between internationals and national committees, though the arguments by the ECB secretariat to the effect that a higher level of subsidy to them was justified because INGYOs. With relatively few sources of support at the international level, they could not be expected to finance their activities to the same extent as NYCs with their relatively high national sources of finance did not go down well with all of its own member organisations, many of whom did not receive anything from the Kreyssig fund. In short, although the Kreyssig fund enabled some youth organisations to finance some important activities on EC affairs, its overall impact on INGYOs was rather small. If the Commission had hoped to purchase the goodwill of INGYOs, it certainly failed. Even the generous subsidies given to the ECB had little impact on ECB policy ; it enabled the ECB to survive financially and, therefore, to exist and to carry out its activities largely at other levels (Council of Europe, European, United Nations). Yet although its overall effect was to alienate the youth organisations still further from the Communities, it did introduce a note of caution in the policy of ECB, and the prospects of financial benefit from a reformed Kreyssig fund were not without interest for a number of organisations.

The proposal for an EC Youth Structure The 1969 European Summit in The Hague, which influenced like the Council of Europe at that time by the recent student revolts, had adopted in its final declaration22, a reference to the need to involve young people more closely with the process of European integration. It was on this basis that the Commission was to put forward proposals, which, though only after many years of negotiation, were completely to transform the relations between the EC and the youth organisations and were to refocus the attention of youth organisations on the EC. The Commission was not interested in proposing a new means of assistance to youth organisations, preferring not to duplicate the tasks of the Council of Europe’s specialised agencies in this field (and probably not interested anyway in setting up a system in which it would itself have had to share control on how money was actually spent). Instead, the Commission put forward a proposal for a consultative body on youth affairs that would advise it on issues relating to youth policy. “Youth policy” was not clearly defined but was generally understood to relate to matters such as youth unemployment,

A European (Youth) History training schemes, equivalence of diplomas, youth travel, exchanges and education. In view of the lack of interest or open hostility shown by most youth organisations, as described above, which became apparent during a seminar the Commission organised with them in 1970, the Commission first put forward in 1972 a proposal for a body set up on a governmental basis. Governments of each member state would nominate experts in the field to sit on this body. Predictably, this proposal met with the hostility of the youth organisations. Although they had shown little interest in participating themselves, they were certainly opposed to another body being set up composed of government-nominated experts supposedly knowledgeable about youth affairs when they themselves claimed to represent youth in Europe. In the climate of the time, youth across the continent was up in arms against “paternalistic” attitudes, of which this seemed symbolic, all the more so at a time when the Council of Europe was launching its co-management structures. National Youth Councils put pressure on national governments, and the proposal was rejected in the Council. The Commission then came forward with a proposal for a “Youth Forum” that would be composed of youth organisations themselves. Finance was obtained for a “temporary secretariat” for this Youth Forum, which would be charged with preparing the statutes, etc. This placed the youth organisations in a dilemma : on top of the generally hostile attitude referred to above, many pro-EC organisations had also reasons to oppose the establishment of such a body. The ETUC Youth Committee, for instance, under pressure from its adult section, was reluctant to see another representative body established in the Community with pretensions to speak on such issues as youth unemployment and vocational training. Others feared that once the Forum was established, financial support under the Kreyssig fund would cease and all sums being swallowed up by the Forum itself. Nevertheless, few organisations felt able to take a position of opposition on principle to the creation of the Forum. This was firstly because, having successfully opposed the creation of a “paternalistic” committee of youth experts, they could hardly turn around and say that they themselves were not interested. This would reopen the prospects for such a committee of experts. Secondly, some organisations did favour the establishment of the Forum and, though they did not say in public that they would be willing to participate in it by themselves without the majority of youth organisations, such an eventuality was considered to be feasible. Thirdly, even within the organisations hostile to the establishment of the Forum, minorities existed that were favourable, for example within CENYC, the French and Italian National Youth Councils within IUSY the Belgian, Luxembourg, French, Italian and later Spanish sections. Fourthly, some organisations wished to maintain goodwill towards the Commission, either for financial considerations or because they were involved in joint projects, and did not wish to appear to be too negative. These pressures led to an overall negotiating position by the youth organisations, thrashed out through ECB and CENYC, which agreed to enter into exploratory talks with the Commission in view of setting up the Forum provided that certain conditions were met. These were principally : (1) that the Forum be granted adequate rights of information, consultation and initiative on Community policies related to youth, (2) that it be financed entirely out the Community budget,


152 23 The controversy was reopened some three years after the establishment of the Forum by which time an increase in the number of affiliated INGYOs had tipped the balance in the General Assembly strongly in favour of the internationals. In the end, the issue was settled by bringing in a voting system guaranteeing absolute parity between the groups.

A European (Youth) History (3) that it must not be at the expense of existing funds for the benefit of youth organisations, (4) that the Forum be involved in the allocation of grants under the Kreyssig fund (initially the demand was for co-management). This negotiating position was tolerable both to those supporting the establishment of the Forum, who were pleased that talks were at least getting underway, and those who were hostile, who felt that the conditions were so stringent that the EC was unlikely ever to be able to meet them, e.g. it was inconceivable that the Forum be given a right of initiative, which even the European Parliament does not possess. This was a sufficient basis on which to establish the temporary secretariat in 1975. In fact this did not consist of a secretariat but of a small working group composed of ECB and CENYC (providing the secretariat facilities) the Danish, Belgian, French and Italian National Youth Councils, IUSY, UEJDC, ETUC and YMCA. This represented a delicate balance of national committees and internationals, political and nonpolitical, pro-Forum and antiForum. The secretariat reported to periodic general meetings at which all ECB and CENYC member organisations were represented. One of the first issues to be resolved was a conflict among youth organisations themselves, once again the old issue of INGYOs versus NYCs. The arguments put forward were along the lines of those described earlier in this paper. The divisions among the internationals were also along the lines described but reinforced the fact that anti-Forum internationals welcomed CENYC and, in particular, certain national councils as allies and supported their presence in the Forum. It was, therefore, established right from the beginning that both sorts of organisations would be present. However, there was still much scope for argument over the position of each in the structure and on voting power. This was finally resolved when a structure for the Forum was agreed whereby in the general assembly NYCs were each to have six representatives and INGYOs three (given the respective numbers of each, these figures gave a very small majority to the internationals23. In the Executive Committee one seat would be given to each NYC, and an equivalent number of seats were granted to the internationals to be filled by election among them. This compromise, which was highly favourable to the national committees given that they each sat permanently on the Executive Committee, was only achieved after much wrangling. Naturally, some organisations involved that were not particularly enthusiastic about the establishment of the Forum did not hesitate to prolong the discussion. Similarly, other discussions over the structure, working methods and conditions for membership of the Forum were also protracted. Statutes for the Forum were ready only after three long years of negotiations. They included a controversial clause to the effect that the Forum would only start operating and formally come into existence following a vote by a two-thirds majority in a plenary meeting of all the youth organisations. Obviously, such a vote would only take place when the conditions laid down by the youth organisations had been met. Significantly, a one-third minority would be able to block the establishment of the Forum ; clearly the organisations hostile to its creation felt that they would be able to secure such a blocking minority. With statutes and other preparations finalised, there was no issue other than the fulfilment of the youth organisations’ conditions on

A European (Youth) History the finance and rights of information, consultation and initiative for the Forum still preventing its establishment. A general meeting in December 1977 charged the Temporary Secretariat (which was renamed “Provisional Executive Committee”) with finalising the negotiations in time for a general meeting in June 1978. By this meeting, the Commission had drawn up its final offer on these matters in the form of a letter from the President of the Commission (Jenkins) to the Youth Forum24. In this letter, the Commission stated that it was ready for “dialogue” with the Forum on matters of concern to young people and youth organisations but that this “would not imply a right of consultation”. On the other hand, the letter contained undertakings that “individual members of the Commission will seek the views of the Forum on a case by case basis” and that “the relevant Commission services (will) make a point of developing a close working relationship with the Forum” and “enable the youth organisations to be well informed on the progress of Community activities”, as well as that “the Commission will be ready to propose to the Budgetary Authority, the Council and the Parliament, a reasonable regular contribution to the running costs of the Forum”. He stated that he awaited “with great interest the initiatives which the Youth Forum will take and present to the Commission”. These undertakings, though important, clearly fell short of the conditions that the youth organisations had laid down. Nevertheless, the necessary majority was obtained by one vote for the formal creation of the Youth Forum. How had such a shift in position come about ? First, it should be remembered that the youth organisations’ original demands were a compromise, and some organisations saw it at most as an initial bargaining posture. The tougher aspects of which were a sop to the more hard-line youth organisations25. Second, the Commission officials had carefully explained why the youth organisations’ requests could not be met for legal and constitutional basis, an argument unlikely to carry weight with organisations opposed to the Forum’s creation but which did have some impact on the middle ground. Third, interest in the potential of the Forum was growing among organisations because youth related issues were becoming more important in the Community at that time (e.g. Youth unemployment measures, young workers’ exchange programme, discussions on a “European Foundation”). Last but not least, the process of creating the Forum had developed its own momentum ; after years of negotiations and preparations many of the individuals concerned were interested in something coming out of it. Expectations had been born in other circles, and names of possible candidates for Secretary-General and President of the Forum were already beginning to circulate. This latter aspect generated its own momentum, and anti-Forum or reluctant organisations knew that their candidate would stand little chance if they had been too strongly opposed to the Forum. The results of all these factors were to create a climate of expectancy at the General meeting such that less than one third of organisations held out against the Forum’s creation. As soon as it was created, the Forum entered into a bitter election. The first ordinary General Assembly was held in December 1978. Attention focused on the election of the Secretary-General and the deputy, as well as the President of the Forum and the Chairmen of the three “Permanent Commissions”. ECB and CENYC had agreed to share these posts equally, but the various organisations, political tendencies, and pro-Forum and anti-Forum factions hotly contested the posts within the balance. The ultimate outcome of the various alliances that took place was to defeat both of conspicuously

153 24 Letter reprinted in Youth Forum brochure May 1981 (Unitex, Brussels). 25 Some pro-Forum organisations such as the JEF, which had built up their credibility among other organisations by taking a tough line on the conditions, skilfully shifted position at this stage. 26 Article 50 EEC Treaty. 27 Ad Melkert, now a member of the Dutch Parliament. 28 Strengthening of the young workers exchange programmes, launching of ERASMUS, COMET and YES projects, development of Commission publications directed at youth, etc. 29 Indirectly, far more young people were involved in events organised under the auspices of the EYC and the EYF, but these activities were usually those of the individual organisations, not of the institutions themselves. 30 With Gorbachov’s “Glasnost”, it has now been revived. 31 When the Portuguese National Youth Council was established, it joined the Youth Forum before joining CENYC.

154 Richard Corbett, born in 1955, Southport, Lancashire is currently working in the Cabinet of the President of the European Council. He was a Member of the European Parliament for the Labour Party for Yorkshire and the Humber, serving between 1996 and 2009. Corbett was educated at Farnborough Road School in Southport, the International School of Geneva and Trinity College, Oxford and later did an external doctorate at the University of Hull. He coordinated the Oxford student “Yes” campaign in the 1975 referendum on membership of the European Community. He was part of the youth board of the European Movement in Britain and then to the international presidency of the Young European Federalists (JEF), a post he held from 1979 to 1981.

A European (Youth) History pro-Forum and anti-Forum candidates for the Secretariat (two low-profile candidates were elected by a narrow majority), the election of a pro-Forum President and the election of two anti-Forum Permanent Commission Chairmen out of three.

The impact of the Youth Forum Having had a delayed and difficult birth, how did this initially unwanted child develop ? Very soon, and in spite of its weak or lukewarm leadership, the Forum developed a high level of activity and participation by youth organisations in its events. The three Permanent Commissions dealt respectively with political, economic/social, and cultural/educational matters. Within two years, the political commission had taken up such matters as the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention, EC-South Africa trade, Youth rights, enlargement, and the reform of the CA p. The social commission had worked on the Commission proposals for linked work and training, Social Fund aid for youth employment schemes, the young workers exchange programmes26, and the social situation of young workers. The third Commission had looked at problems of equivalence of diplomas, access to higher education, illiteracy, youth exchanges and the position of foreign students. The Forum also organised a successful public hearing on the employment of young women. This range of subjects was not without controversy in the Forum itself ; the Danish Youth Council opposed Forum discussion of educational and cultural matters, just as the Danish government did within the Council. Some political issues were deliberately avoided. Some used the South African issue as a way of discrediting the community. Nevertheless, once a functioning instrument existed, the natural dynamics of those involved was to use it and to expand its activities. Individuals holding positions of responsibility had a vested interest in being seen doing a useful job on behalf of their membership, and they consistently sought new themes to take up the classic way of lobbyists. The actual influence and impact of the Forum on the Community was another matter. The Forum was granted observer status and allowed to speak at the meetings of the European Parliament’s Youth Committee and Social Affairs Committee (thanks partly to influence exerted via members of party-political youth organisations on political groups in the EP). The Forum developed a network of contacts with the Commission and its relevant Directorates-General. A newspaper “Youth Opinion” was created by its second Secretary General27 in 1982 and widely circulated in the EC institutions and among member organisations. Nevertheless although these things are by nature difficult to assess, the impact of the Forum on policies of the Community was probably minimal except where they related to matters of direct concern to youth organisations themselves, which is where it did contribute to the major development of Community policies on youth and student exchanges in the mid-1980s28. Yet, the modesty of its impact was hardly relevant. The structure had been created, vested interests were there, and the youth organisations were embroiled in something they could no longer sto p. The impact and influence of the Forum was at another level, on the youth organisations themselves. The Forum altered the international youth scene within a few years. It involved a large number of people from INGYOs and NYCs in its activities. Each Commission met three times a year involving leading officials of member

A European (Youth) History organisations. With the annual General Assembly, they involved a far greater number than those involved directly29 in any of the existing frameworks. It involved them, as representatives of their organisations, in policy discussions and meant that for the first time youth clubs in Denmark, Scouts in Belgium, young Socialists in Germany. All the other organisations had to discuss a variety of EC matters and come up with policy positions for their delegates. EC affairs were placed firmly on the agenda of young political activists in all the Member States, not just in terms of general notions in favour or against the EC but in terms of a variety of EC policies or potential policies. Many organisations were for the first time put in contact with the Commission and found they could develop fruitful activities with it. In turn, more and more of the time and resources of the various INGYOs and NYCs were devoted to Youth Forum matters, both because of the high level of Forum activity (which generated increasing demands but also gave more raisons d’être to the Secretariats of INGYOs and NYCs) and because of a relative decline in some of the other international youth frameworks : the East-West “AllEuropean” framework entered a period of deadlock in 1981 caused ostensibly by a dispute over membership but in fact reflecting the deterioration of EastWest relations in the early 1980s30 ; the EYF and the EYC statutory organs had settled into rather routine management procedures, as well as being constrained by budgetary restraint at Council of Europe level. UNESCO was preoccupied and handicapped by the withdrawal of the USA. From being, ten years earlier, an inconvenient distraction, the Youth Forum had become the main focus of the work of many INGYOs and NYCs in Europe31.

Conclusions Looking back at these events, it is clear that they illustrate the five processes outlined on page one. The shift in the focus of attention of youth organisations took place despite initial lack of interest, despite the fact that one can question what real influence they have on Community policies and despite the internal problems caused for INGYOs whose geographical basis is wider than the EC. This development has taken place with the active connivance of the Commission, which was able to use the ground laid previously by the Council of Europe. Political, financial and other incentives or threats, as well as the natural dynamics of pressure groups and institutionalised structures, were among the instruments available to the Commission. As a result, the “youth elite” of the 12 is embroiled in Community affairs to a significant degree. Furthermore, this embroilment has contributed to a shift in attitude of youth organisations and was illustrated by the fact that the Forum lent strong support to the European Parliament’s draft European Union Treaty, something unthinkable just a few years before. Many young political activists, and others, now spend part of their formative experiences on European issues and become familiar with the workings of the Community.

155 Corbett was SecretaryGeneral of the European Co-ordination Bureau of International non-governmental Youth Organisations (BEC) from 1977 to 1981, representing youth organisations in the Council of Europe’s European Youth Foundation and European Youth Centre, helped to set up the Youth Forum of the European Community and represented western European youth organisations in negotiations with Eastern European organisations pursuant to the Helsinki Treaty (as well as at the World Festival of Youth in Havana in 1978 along with Charles Clarke and Peter Mandelson). He worked with Altiero Spinelli MEP on the latter’s proposal for a draft treaty establishing a European Union, adopted by the European Parliament in 1984.


A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History


Sébastien Salord — Carrés flottants


A European (Youth) History

Building blocks for a European Youth Policy Architecture


Building blocks for a European Youth Policy Architecture words by Jan Dereymaeker

“The authorities keep telling us ‘Don’t panic, we’re building Europe and we’re thinking about you’. But we must tell them that we do not want Europe served up on a plate, given to us like a present ; we want to build Europe ourselves. We want to be involved in the construction process, put forward our own ideas and suggestions and take part in the creation of a genuine European area in which freedom, democracy and human rights for all young people are respected. “ Antonio Seguro, Youth Forum President at the 8th YF General Assembly, March 3-5 1989. “Merci papa” were the famous words that were sent by telegram to Council President Harmel as a thank you note for organising, in the aftermath of the social unrest that rocked Europe in 1968, a “youth conference” in order to seek support from the stone-throwing European youth for the European construction, and offering them more civilized channels for dialogue. That this “Merci Papa” made it into the European Parliament for interpellations by worried conservative MEPs on “how the Commission spends its money talking to derailed youngsters”, is part of history’s fait-divers, but the crux of the matter was that, despite all good intentions by the European leaders, this was obviously the wrong way of going about it.

Getting the basics rights It took nearly ten years before the European decision makers finally understood that youth organisations are much more than service providers to young people or watchdogs of policy, they are fully responsible and selfgoverned social actors in their own right. There was no way they would accept a Commission-driven, ill-focussed, pseudo-“participation”-structure. Even after the agreement with the Commission in 1978 to launch and finance an autonomous and self-governed platform of the national youth councils and the international youth organisations, the Youth Forum had to fight in Parliament, year after year, right up until the end of the 1980s, due to the unwillingness of the Commission to make the necessary provisions in the draft budgets for the working of the Youth Forum. There was no “legal base” for this was the ultimate argument. It would be the standard opposition argument to all new policy proposals that came to the table for the next decades. We indeed had only Article 50 in the Treaty of Rome (“Member States shall, within the framework of a joint programme, encourage the exchange of young workers”). However, looking back, this same article allowed us, through the most creative readings and interpretations, to get major youth and student exchange programmes and stepping stones for youth policies on the rails in the 80s. Eventually, we won the budget battles with the help of the Parliament, and we gained an essential part of the enabling environment for youth organisations : not only the recognition but also the support from public


A European (Youth) History authorities for the social relevance and essential contribution of organised youth to the functioning of our democratic societies, support for the Youth Forum’s annual budget and, later also, support for individual European youth organisations. Not that this “recognition” was in any way achieved easily. The European Community (EC) at the time was expanding from six to nine Member States, and in the 1980s to twelve. As youth organisations we made, it was very clear from the beginning that the institutional borders of the EC were not our political borders as Europeans. The longstanding cooperation at European level through the Strasbourg-based European Youth Centre and Youth Foundation under the Council of Europe generated intensive and strong network of youth policies and youth cooperation that would last for decades. Those networks helped overcome the the mistrust that some had for youth organisations (“what/who do they represent ?”, “who gives them their mandates ?”, “these are the privileged : what about the unorganised ?”, etc…), the political opposition and the institutional adversity. The European Community, and the Commission in particular, realised that they needed to respect youth organisations as actors in their own right and build upon this respect, putting aside its institutional pride and superiority discourse. Although the above may create the perception that we were merely focussed on our institutional statutes, the reality was exactly the contrary. Whilst the Commission sought an “advisory” type of role in order to “legitimise” its policies, youth organisations sought to put young peoples’ real problems on the agenda. We had major campaigns on youth unemployment, vocational training for young people, initiatives to improve the situation of young women and girls, anti-racism campaigns, drug prevention activities, self-employed initiatives for young people, east-west relations in Europe and North-South (ACP-EU) cooperation amongst young people. These were the real issues that we wanted to be tackled at European level. We quickly realised that the institutional framework, by itself, would not allow for this (see the discussion on Article 50 above).

A European (Youth) History for youth affairs in the EC/EU and a renewed attention for the contribution of youth organisations to the European construction. In the second half of 1988, the Greek Minister of Culture and Youth, Melina Merkouri, called for the first ever informal European Community Council for Ministers of Youth. It was the first success following a long struggle with the institutions. “It is a scandal that it never happened before, in 30 years !” Merkouri proclaimed at the press conference when presenting the outcomes of the first informal council.It was but a small victory, as the bottleneck for any EU policy, let alone youth policy, was the unwillingness of the Commission to take initiatives and propose action. The creation in the same year of the Task Force on Human Resources, Education, Training and Youth, within the Commission under Commissioner Vassa Papandreou, was therefore a timid first step into a more proactive approach. However, our demand for a Youth Commissioner never materialised at the time (again, the argument of the “legal basis”…). In 1989, the French Presidency endorsed the Greek initiative and organised a further Council Meeting, inviting not only the Youth Forum but also allowing each minister to bring along representatives of the national youth organisations. The Ministers endeavoured to call for a first formal meeting of a Youth Ministers Council in the EU, under the upcoming Luxembourg Presidency in 1990.

Setting the agendas Meanwhile, the “Twelve stars” programme for European Youth, presented at the occasion of the European Parliament Elections in 1989, again listed the concerns of Europe’s young people :

Fighting the way through the institutions : Council of Ministers for Youth and the Youth Commissioner ? It was therefore important to create political leverage, and the visionary Jacques Delors’ Presidency of the Commission in the mid to late 1980s proved to be the fertile soil for planting the seeds of change. Although youth policy will always remain a fringe “priority” on the political agendas of many, we felt at the time that it was worthwhile trying to create our own institutional and political decision-making channel. The Parliament had long since a “youth committee” (and much more, but, to a certain extent, it was truly committed to being “the EP Youth Committee”). However it was especially at Commission level and in the Council that the roadblocks and stumbling stones were to be found. The Commission had a self-centred, unilateral, and at times arrogant discourse in its short-term institutional programming ; and the Council had no overall youth policy agenda as such. The entrance of Spain, Portugal and Greece to the Union in the mid-1980s changed the political sensitivity. At a major conference on the accession in Madrid, which was opened by Javier Solana, the Spanish Minister of Youth at the time, the leadership of the Spanish, Portuguese and Catalan youth councils confirmed the pre-existing integration of Southern Europe networks in the European youth organisations. This represented a major boost

Supplement to Youth opinion Nr. 24 July 1989 p.1


242 Jan Dereymaeker was European Secretary of the International Young Christian Students from 1975 to 1984 and, as such, member of the provisional and “official” Executive Committee of the Youth Forum of the EC. He was elected General Secretary of the Youth Forum in 1986, after having served as Deputy SG from 1985. After his mandate at the YFJ, he joined the Organising Committee of the Barcelona ’92 Olympics. Between 1990 and 2006 he was Head of the International Department at the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions in Belgium. He is currently Senior Advisor for Development Cooperation at the International Trade Union Confederation, where he was appointed since its foundation at the end of 2006.

A European (Youth) History The Twelve Stars programme did not limit itself to the daily small-print project-policy by the Commission, but essentially addressed the broad political concerns of young people in Europe, starting with the lack of democracy and accountability in the EU - more than ten years before the European Convention, leading to the Treaty of Lisbon, ever started. The agenda also addressed, way beyond the narrow market-based EC agenda, the need to come to grips with the borderless environmental challenges and to address the North South divide, as essential for the future of Europe. The Youth Rights Charter that was adopted at the Youth Forum Symposium in the early 1990s, with the presence of Commission President Jacques Delors and Danielle Mitterand, President of the France Liberté Foundation, was another stepping stone in the uphill fight of European youth organisations to set a meaningful and politically relevant European agenda for addressing young people’s needs with a rights-based approach.

The ice melts down, the wall falls,… the irrelevancy of the Europe of the 12 ? The events in the night of November 10-11th in Berlin transformed Europe and, as from that date, European history would have to be rewritten. The European Community of the 12 doubted and struggled to understand both its contributions the response to the disintegration of the old and to the building of the new Europe, and its sudden irrelevancy as a sub-continental grouping. Although youth organisations were again at the forefront, through the Framework for Pan-European Youth Cooperation, the dramatic changes inside countries and across the continent also called for new responses and forms of organising youth representation in the new European context.

Looking backwards. My personal involvement in European youth organisations over nearly 16 years ended in the beginning of the 1990s, at this historic turn for Europe. It was a privilege and an incredible source of experience to have lived through all this. From the poor resources, understaffed, semi-voluntary work in one of the “grass-root” European youth organisations, to the well-structured and organised joint Youth Forum platform. It was a tremendous experience in political and organisational know-how, and, experience showed, in no way less effective and professional than the “adult” environments. To the contrary, the youth organisations, unlike many others, showed their ability to be respected in their own right and to construct participative structures allowing them to set the agenda and demand the institutions to address the real issues. They were able to manage their diversity, politically and culturally, and to make of it the strength of their collective action. It may not have been the most spectacular page of European history, but it has certainly contributed to shaping Europe’s approach to young people and, for many today in positions of responsibility throughout national and European and international institutions, it was a formidable training ground for meaningful policy making. Besides that, it has indeed also created great camaraderie, and was a source of lasting friendships across European and international borders.

A European (Youth) History

The wall is tumbling down Editorial, in Youth Opinion, December 1989 The events of the night of November 10th - 11th in Berlin were without a doubt symbolic of a turning point in Europe’s future. Politicians are increasingly bewildered as events move faster than anyone had predicted. In European Community circles, there is consternation as awareness grows that the Community of 12 may be merely a transitory phase. European history is indeed being rewritten in these last days of 1989. But is Western Europe and in particular the European Community able to meet the new challenges ? This is not a rhetorical question, coming as it does at a time when the negotiations with the ACP States on the Lome IV Convention are deadlocked. Of course the two situations are quite different, but can the liberal economic system, so dear to the Community insofar as it works within the EC, offer a credible and realistic solution to the problems of development, whether they be in the South or in Eastern Europe ? Should not the changes in Eastern Europe lead to changes in the West so as to avoid endless moralising and triumphalism about the virtues of liberal democracy and to prevent a situation in which the Eastern countries become aid-dependent. Yet, if we are to prevent the development of aid-dependent societies, we must mobilise local human resources and therefore, both in our objectives and mechanisms, strengthen democracy within civil society. One key element in this process will be in the voluntary and community sector which guarantees and symbolises Western democracy and the EC should envisage action in this area. Youth organisations throughout the continent must work to build on the foundations laid since the creation of the Framework for Pan-European Youth Cooperation following the Helsinki agreement. With the support of the EC, we can and must strengthen our dialogue, cooperation and common initiatives. This will enable us to leap over the ruins of the Wall towards the Common European House. Jan DEREYMAEKER



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History

Speech by Antonio Seguro, President of the Youth Forum of the European Communities, at the Youth Forum Symposium on Youth Rights, Avignon, 1990 Dear Friends, It is difficult to take the floor after the excellent presentation by Laurence, which not only summarized our three days of work in this Symposium, but al~o gave an overview of our work and experience regarding the European dimension. I would first of all like to apologise for my French, obviously my Portuguese is much better, but speaking French is one of the conditions of the closing session of a European meeting. I would also like to thank Mr Guy Ravier, Member of Parliament and Mayor of Avignon for hosting this Symposium, the Secretariat of the Youth Forum, the volunteers from Avignon for their help, the participants, and also of course Madame Mitterrand for the excellent co-operation between the Fondation France-Libertés and the Youth Forum since April 1989. Together we have demonstrated that when working on the development of the European Community, we can exchange experiences and at the same time do some useful and political work in relation to E.c. social and cultural policy. To speak about youth rights and human rights is not new, but these topics still remain topical. We should stop talking however and start implementing a genuine policy which will guarantee real access to rights. All of us in this room have the possibility to buy a Rolls-Royce, but how many of us ca.n really buy one ? We do not want rights to be guaranteed on paper, and then in reality find that only a small minority has access to these rights. The debate on youth rights inside the Youth Forum started a longtime ago. This topic has been a major concern in our work on the European dimension. 1992, the Single Market and its impact on young people has been a priority for the last two years and this Symposium in Avignon will not be a one-off event ; it is only a step, a tool for discussion on the basis of our knowledge and our expertise and a way of making our own contribution to this new Europe that we have the right and duty to help develo p.  This is why we should also take concrete measures in favour of children, minors, immigrants ; improve the situation of employment and training through joint actions between the European Social Fund and the PETRA Programme. There is also a need for action to combat marginalisation and special attention should be given, as Laurence pointed out, to housing for young people as this is a means of promoting young people’s independence and puts young people in a position to make their own decisions about their future. There should also be a debate on a guaranteed minimum income, following mutual recognition of diplomas and vocational training qualifications. But Europe is not just a Single Market, it is much more than that ; it is about creating the conditions that will enable us to live together ; it is making sure that European citizens have the possibility to learn about the history of other countries, to accept the differences that exist in Europe. This is why a fair knowledge of history, of ways of living and of thinking are



A European (Youth) History key elements for European construction. In this respect, mobility is very important. We know that there are several European programmes on youth mobility in general and for students in particular. But it should be stressed that these programmes affect 2 to 3% of Europe’s youth. It is not possible to build Europe when the priority is given to products and when goods are treated better than people. Is this the type of Europe that we want ? There is of course a difference between what people say and what they actually do. A survey carried out by the National Youth Council of Ireland indicated that only 12% of young Irish people know how many countries are members of the European Community. An IFOP study (French polling institute) indicated that 40% of young people, if they had the possibility, would want to work in the U.S and 36%, if they were given a chance, would wish to study in the U.s. We should create the best conditions for living together in Europe, and most of all we should make sure that Europe is open to others and that it becomes a Community where human rights are respected and serve as an example for the whole world. I would like to conclude by addressing myself to you Mr Delors, in your capacity of President of the Commission of the E.c. As President of the Youth Forum of the European Communities, I would like to say how glad I am to have you with us in a Symposium on youth rights. It is the first time in Youth Forum history that we have this opportunity, and if you allow me to say so, I’d say that your presence shows a will to build stronger links between the Commission and young people, who do not want to remain passive in tomorrow’s Europe, but rather be active from today on. We cannot block motorways, we cannot organise demonstrations or go on strike, but our strength stems from our ideas, our experience and our approach to European construction. So I would like to state Mr President, that we are prepared, in co-operation with the services of the Commission to continue working on harmonisation of youth rights. But even today, a young Greek could not come to the meeting because he is a conscientious objector and the Greek authorities took his passport. I know that this is not your responsibility, but it is our common responsibility to prevent new cultural barriers from slowing down European construction. Mr President, I would like to conclude by putting a very clear request to you. I am requesting your support for youth organisations as places where young people learn the principles of democracy and your support to make sure that under the Italian Presidency, on 27 November, the E.C holds its first FORMAL Council of Ministers responsible for youth. We do not want to imitate senior politicians, but we believe it could be an excellent experience at least to try and involve young people more deeply in European construction than they are at the moment. I thank you.

A European (Youth) History

Speech by Jacques Delors, President of the Commission of the European Communities, at the Youth Forum Symposium on Youth Rights, Avignon, 1990 Ladies and gentlemen, Madame Danielle Mitterrand asked me to participate in this Symposium organised by France-Libertes and the Youth Forum of the.C. Also present are some Commission officials who follow closely the work of the Youth Forum. We have studied carefully the results of your meeting and workshops during this Symposium, as well as the Synthesis Report prepared by Laurence Eberhart. This is the first time that a President of the Commission of the E.C has attended one of your meetings, and listening to what Antonio Seguro said, I think I understand what you expect from us : to develop a closer and more positive relationship between youth, which may be a rather vague and noble concept, but which has been held by the Youth Forum, and the institutions which are involved in European construction since 1978. The participation of France-Libertés, and of its President, Madame Danielle Mitterrand, gives a special dimension to your work. I understood you well, what you are demanding, and the principle in which young people find their motivation and enthusiasm, is the refusal of all forms of exclusion, general exclusions but also selective exclusions whereby people end up being totally cast aside, marginalised to the extent that we do not know they live or all they do is just survive. But as I am closely involved in all these developments, I feel I should explain the stage we have reached with European Union, what its limitations are, without ignoring what has been achieved, and to conclude I try and respond to the demands of youth. I worked with several Heads of governments, and when I was a young civil servant, I was very often invited to write speeches for Ministers or Prime Ministers who had to address an audience composed mainly of young people. I always refused, as I felt unable to do so. So I will speak about what I do, and trust that there will be some aspects of our work which will be relevant to what you are doing. First of all, the state of development of European Union. Let’s imagine that we are in 1982 and that there is a European Youth Forum. What would you be talking about ? Probably of your expectations, as you are doing today. But what would those who at the time were building the new Europe, be talking about ? About the family quarrels between the ten member states of the Community ? Or else they would talk about the light at the end of the tunnel, because European economies had been in a situation of crisis for almost nine years and unemployment was rising. Although everything may not be perfect in Europe today, the old days are definitely over. About family quarrels ; should I remind you that it was Francois Mitterrand who, under French Presidency in 1984, put an end to them. As François Mitterrand reminded me some time ago, there were nine bones of contention, and if they had not been solved, it would not have been possible even to propose the 1992 objective, and certainly not possible to change the Treaties. While Europe was on the decline some years ago, it now seems to be quite attractive to several countries and the climate inside the E.C has changed.



A European (Youth) History We can see how attractive it is by the number of countries which want to join the E.C and those who want to work with us. But we are also criticised : just listen to all the attacks.coming from the United States and Japan, or from other countries. But the main thing which has changed is the atmosphere : you no longer find a press cutting talking about Euro-pessimism, now the newspapers talk about Euro-dynamism. Americans have re-discovered Europe. Just listen to the difference in the way the new American President, George Bush, talks about Europe compared to the former one, Ronald Reagan. Just look at who the Eastern countries are addressing themselves to in their difficult process of transition towards freedom and democracy and in their efforts to adapt their economy. You probably know that the E.C, and more particularly the Commission, was charged with the coordination of cooperation and aid, initially to Poland and Hungary in July last year. Since this period we have given some 6 billion ECU in financial aid which is only a small part of the total aid we are giving. As you can see, Europe has gone through quite a number a changes, but a lot remains to be done. However, we should also be aware of our limitations, but at least the picture is a bit more optimistic. We are no longer talking about the economic decline of Europe but rather of how competitive our enterprises are. We are actually creating jobs now but I’ll come back to that later. Of course all this is not enough. I would like to remind you that the founding fathers of Europe spoke more in the style of Antonio Seguro and Laurence Eberhart than myself. They were talking about a common ideal, of a Europe where there should never again be civil war, of a Europe which would regain its traditional values, the ones which Madame Mitterrand also mentioned. They were talking about politics. Unfortunately or fortunately, we have used the economic way around to restore Europe’s confidence. And as I said before, in spite of this new dynamism, a lot remains to be done ; and to be quite honest with you, nobody ever fell in love with a Single Market, and this Single Market is only a way of uniting and associating nations. In this respect, I see very clearly what the Youth Forum, which unites young people, can and should do. But Jean Monet only used one of these two ideas ; he said “Uniting nations”. I added “associating nations”. Because 32 years of European history have demonstrated that all those who wanted to build Europe by erasing national traditions, had to overcome impossible obstacles. And they were wrong. All of Europe’s differences contribute to its richness, and this should remain the same in the future. This is why, beyond the starting point of the Single Market, what we are actually trying to do is to build a common economic, social, financial, monetary, possibly even cultural area. I hope that we will be able to add a common political area through increased cooperation between the States. But we had to start or re-start somewhere. After all the work done by François Mitterrand to reconcile the ten.C. countries, then the access of the two new countries, we had to build on from the existing common denominator, the common feeling. And the only thing on which we all agreed in 1985 is that we were threatened by economic decline. So let’s assess where we are today and let us not forget what we have already achieved, even so much still needs to be done. we look at all the attempts that were made in the past to try and unite the future of various nations, either imposed by force, which never lasts for very long, or through mutual agreement, we must come to the conclusion that 32 years of Community history is not very much. 32 years with only two distinct dynamic peaks, 1957-1962 and 1984-1989, is

A European (Youth) History not very much at all. We still have a long way to go. But this does not mean that young people should water down their demands, but we should know that time is our ally ‘in this field. So where do we stand  ? Before we relaunched the European construction, the annual growth rate of the European economy was 1.5%, compared with 5 to 6% for Japan and 4 to 5% for the U.S.A. Between 1989 and 1990 it has gone up to 3.5% in Europe, which is more than in the U.S.A and equivalent to that of Japan. Still for the period 1982-1984, i.e before the economic recovery, investment in Europe was stagnant, which means that we had lost our economic dynamism and had stopped creating jobs. Between 1988 and 1990, investment has increased by 7.5% per year. Finally, in terms of employment, between 1982 and 1984 in the 10 European countries, some 1.8 million jobs were lost, which had to be added to the millions that had been lost since 1973. Between 1988 and 1990, some 5.3 million new jobs will be created in Europe ; this means that since 1985, i.e the economic recovery period in Europe, some 8 million new jobs will have been created in the Community. This of course is still not enough and youth unemployment remains at a level which is much too high, particularly long-term unemployment which is one of the major causes of marginalisation. Still one should be aware of what has been achieved. We are not limiting ourselves to establishing a Single Market. Through common policies, we are taking action in the field of training ; indirectly with development programmes for regions either lagging behind or in a conversion process ; or directly and here I would like to mention our two priorities in the field of employment : access of young people to the labour market and the fight against long-term unemployment. Of course, as Laurence Eberhart remarked, with a budget of only 1 % of the total wealth of the Community, we cannot do very much. Let me just remind you that in France, public expenditure represents 42% of the national product. But at least we are initiating actions and the total amount of aid to regions lagging behind or in a conversion process is higher than the Marshall Plan after the war, and therefore it is of great help to these disadvantaged areas. In the social area, we are trying to improve working conditions with an upward harmonisation. This was included in the European Single Act, i.e the revision of the Treaty of Rome. Finally, during the French Presidency, at the initiative of François Mitterrand, a European Social Charter was adopted. is not a binding charter, but I refer to it, it is because you are preparing a Charter on Youth Rights, and I will come back to this point at a later stage. This European Social Charter without binding effects will give a new impetus to our Community social policy. I repeat once more that we are not building an Internal Market, but rather a common space where equal priority should be given to social and economic considerations but also to solidarity and to the development of responsibilities. In terms of concrete action, already this year we will present the Council of Ministers with legislation aimed at limiting the creation of unstable jobs which are mostly taken on by young people, and at trying to get rid of the most useless training schemes, which do not improve workers’ ‘qualifications, where young people loose all their confidence and enthusiasm. is obvious that when you have attended one or two training courses and you still cannot find a job, you don’t want to hear people talking about training any more. There are millions of young people who have had this experience. We will also table a piece of legislation on re-organisation of working time, and here we will duly take into account the principle of equality



A European (Youth) History between men and women in order to avoid unfavourable working hours which interfere with family life and indeed life in general. And finally we will table a proposal which will give rise to a political battle, and I hope that you will be on our side, on information to and consultation with workers in enterprises and in companies which have branches in various European countries. When the administrative headquarters are, for instance in Frankfurt, and the company has branches in the U.K and France, who will be consulted when a change is coming up which will affect employment, and the working and living conditions of the workers ? These three pieces of legislation be discussed as a consequence of the adoption of a Social Charter. This charter is therefore a political event, even though ,t is not binding. As you can see, even if a lot remains to be done, our European Community is not just a Single Market, and in fact I would refuse to work for it, be it only for one week, the ultimate goal was to create an Internal Market. But I know what the advantages and assets of this Internal Market can be. Through i~creased competition we have regained some dynamism. But what would be the purpose of this competition if at the same time we were not developing co-operation ? Co-operation in the field of research and technology, co-operation in order to better understand the problems of youth and facilitate their transition to adult life, cooperation between macro-economic policies to make sure that competition does not tear us apart, that it would not become the story of the fox in the henhouse. This is the type of Europe that we want to build, and is also the type of Europe that is in line with the traditions of our countries, even if, from time to time, some ultra-liberal lobbies try and divert us from our goal. But Europe is also a type of civilization where one tries to make sure that society does not crush the individual, and that in return, the individual contributes to society and is aware of his duties. This is why, I was the only one to decide, there would only be charters of rights and obligations, and not simply charters of rights. But anyhow all this contributes to the type of society that has always existed in Europe, i.e with a balance between society and the individual, which does not exist in the U.S and Japan. This is the type of common background that we should revive. But we can only revive it we exist. our economy is weak, you do not look after our security and leave it up to others, how can we defend our culture and our values. Only recently some intellectuals have come up to me saying “We should develop a cultural Europe”. And I always answer quite aggressively, “Can we really talk on an empty stomach ?” Well now we have made sure that we have something to eat, we can start to discuss and develop a cultural Europe. The reason why I said this, and I am not going to repeat what Laurence Eberhart said, is because I believe that you should keep up the level of your demands. Of course we need to be criticised, we need to be stimulated and when I say we, it is not only the Council of Ministers, the governments, the European Commission and the European Parliament, but all those who belong to my generation and know why we are building Europe : it’s because we do not want any more wars between us, we want to promote fraternity, to be more united, we have a common heritage to protect. But I have to admit that we are not involving you enough in our work. The results of the European Elections have clearly indicated this. Whatever the other reasons are for low participation in the elections, there is one which we should take into account : Europe as we are developing it at the moment is

A European (Youth) History only understandable for politicians, at least for those who are interested, for people who are active in professional, agricultural work, for employers, tradeunion organisations, for those in youth organisations and for a part of the population which has received higher education. But it is not understandable for the public at large. And this is what we call a two-tier Europe. And I must admit that up to now we have not succeeded in getting the message across these limited circles. This is why I understand that you want to keep up the level of your demands and try and make sure that young people do not limit themselves to watching us building the European Community, but are closely involved in its development, as they are the future of the European Community. we fail, it is they who will be denied the right to make their voice heard at international level, both regarding security and prosperity. we fail, it is 4 billion people who live in what we call the “South”, who will make one billion people, who live an almost decent life (although there are some poverty areas here too) feel uncomfortable. So you have to keep pressing us, but you must not forget that at Community level at the moment we can only do three things : propose new or brilliant ideas such as 1992 ; change the Treaty ; and finally encourage member states to co-operate and help all those who need assistance. In this respect, I can already assure you that the European Commission will back up the proposal of a FORMAL Council of Ministers for Youth and if you come up with a charter of rights which is based on an agreement between the twelve states, I am convinced that will help us, just as the Social Charter did, to enter new areas of work. Of course you might hear some people saying that the Community has no competence on youth policy, but the Community had no competence on health isSues either, but we nevertheless managed to get useful programmes off the ground, programmes recognised as such and not only by us. I refer mainly to the programmes on cancer and AIDS. We have produced information which should reduce by half the risk of cancer, which is not negligible. The reason why I am saying this is because the dynamism in Europe today is such that the Community should not limit itself to its Treaty. Because a Treaty is something which is there to be changed. But before we change it, young people in Europe should see what we are doing, they should be informed through their Minister for youth, education, sports or leisure (according to the country) that the twelve ministers who are responsible for youth are meeting and are preparing legislation which will give us a new impetus. A new impetus, but not in the form of a youth policy. Just incentives which will have a horizontal impact and inject new blood in all our policies : the structural development policies which I mentioned earlier, the social dimension of the Community. This new momentum should also be an opportunity to learn from each other, from our different experiences. Because as I said before, with 1 % of European wealth, we cannot take over all the national tasks. But at least the European institutions can create an environment which will promote economic dynamism, equal opportunities for all and allow our education and training systems to improve, then we have laid down the foundations. will then be up to you to continue building in the years to come. I thank you.


Carole Stoltz — Ronds bleus des ages (Extrait ; ensemble images et textes)


A European (Youth) History

No Rights, No Way !


No Rights, No Way ! words by Dominique Geeroms

A European Community is a vital concept, a democratic and intercultural space based on the values of peace and reconciliation, an open window on the world where human development and hospitality are core values. Among the major achievements of the EU since the Declaration of Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950, we can mention the creation of a community of common policies and rights while at the same time integrating an increasing number of countries, the reorganisation of the coal and steel market, the abolition of the dictatorships in Greece, Spain and Portugal, the resistance to the cold war strategy and to the American hegemony, the smooth transition of Eastern and Central European countries towards democracy after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the guarantee of stability for a community of 500 million inhabitants, the creation of a single currency (the Euro) which reinforces the position of European economies on the international market. But Europe is more than that. It is also a number of institutions based on democratic decision-making which, even though still unsatisfactory, nevertheless allow a public debate and give power to the citizens through European elections and referendums, but also through the national elections whereby each country can send Ministers to the European Council meetings and to the meetings of the Heads of States and Governments. But what is required is an even more democratic and participatory Europe with a real European public space for debate. However, we have to admit that at the moment, Europe does not arouse enthusiasm. It is facing a crisis that again awakens old fears and fosters isolationism, encourages sub-nationalistic attitudes inspired by the past and by populism. In such a context, it is quite difficult for European citizens to grasp the challenges and above all the advantages of the ongoing European construction. The European model is very often questioned. However one should not mix up criticisms against capitalism and globalisation with the European construction. Europe should not be a tool at the service of world markets. Europe is about having a vision and a soul, and that vision is the community of people and civilisations with a view to building a better future, a better world based on progress and pluralism. The European Union is the ideal place to take up the social, environmental and economic challenges. But this requires better governance focussed rather on European co-operation than on economic competition.Regulating capitalism also requires investing in European policies. Political integration is a pre-requisite for the development of a conflict prevention policy in Europe and for the development of a policy that can regulate globalisation and encourage a drastic change of our modes of production and consumption. We want to promote quality jobs in a social Europe and give workers rights that at the same time do not put them in competition with workers from other countries. We must promote a fair taxing system in Europe and put more money and efforts in research and development, in training, in integration and culture, and ensure a smooth transition of our economy towards a more sustainable and socially fair model, develop fair trade in order to guarantee food safety. We also want a Europe where mobility of citizens is an asset, by giving all individuals equal rights of residence, in terms of social security, work, health and education.

256 Geeroms DOMINIQUE, born on 3rd March 1956, is currently Federal Secretary of the MOC (Christian Workers Movement) Hainault Centre in Mons-La Louvière, Belgium. He is a former Secretary-General of the Youth Forum and has been active in several European and international platforms, responsible for several European projects, and has various political roles in the field of social policy.

A European (Youth) History It is in this spirit that the European Youth Forum organised a Symposium on Youth Rights in Avignon (France) from 22 to 24 February 1990 in presence of Mrs Danielle Mitterrand (Fondation France-Libertés) and Mr Jacques Delors (President of the European Commission at the time). The Charter on Youth Rights was meant to allow all young people top have access to these rights and to be active partners in our society. The topics dealt with during this Symposium are still on the agenda today and still require strong social actions mainly in the field of youth (transition from childhood to adulthood, political commitment and youth participation, the rights of women in the fields of training and employment, youth from ethnic minorities and multicultural relations, the role and values of the education system, the legal protection of minors, homeless young people, young people and employment, social and professional integration, European identity etc.) In the Autumn of 1990 I had the opportunity to write about all this, in the middle of the process of drafting a Youth Rights Charter in the editorial of the Youth Opinion (n°29, September 1990). The words written so long time ago reason still of an incredible force of inspiration for the current and future action of European Youth :

Why bother with a Youth Rights Charter ? “A veritable challenge to democracy, the question of youth rights shows the absolute necessity to identify the fundamental basic rights recognised in each EC Member State. The Youth Forum is currently drafting a Youth Rights Charter which will be launched in Rome in October under the Italian Presidency of the European Community. But why have a Charter ? The concept of “Youth” is not taken into consideration in Member State legislation. People are either minors and totally dependent, or adults and totally responsible for their actions. This principle, that reaching the age of majority would give people their rights and obligations as well as the maturity to deal with them, is divorced from social reality. In some cases, the young are recognised as responsible people, the clearest example of which being the recognition of youth as consumers. They are encouraged to open bank accounts and to spend their money, yet have no power to take a shop-keeping to Court. However, this idea of the age of the majority is outdated, young people nowadays gradually take on more and more responsibilities well before the age of majority. This process makes them more independent, and likely to face legal problems when trying to make their own way in life. This can be seen with regards to parental authority, social obligations, employment rights, unemployment benefit, rights to justice, military service, the handling of property, etc. Young people want to build a society open to new ideas and which highlights the human dimension to life. This must guarantee that everyone has a decent quality of life. In order to maintain this quality, we as a collectivity should guarantee a number of services to everyone. This Charter should lead to the application of some concrete measures to give young people access to rights, additionally it should lead to a comprehensive information policy in conjunction with various youth organisations. Giving every one rights will allow young people to be actors in our society.”

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History



A European (Youth) History

A European (Youth) History

European Charter on Youth Rights, 1993 Introduction The adoption of a Youth Rights Charter at European Community level is both necessary and inevitable. The confidence of this assertion comes from a growing recognition throughout the Community of the needs and aspirations of a generation which represents the Community’s future. As the European Commission has itself noted - identifying that of the 340 million people in the EC, 130 million are under 25 : “It is on these young people that the future the Community will depend”. The Youth Forum of the European Community is the recognised political representative of those young people and it is out of its pioneering youth rights work that this document has emerged. The publication of the Charter forms part of the Youth Forum’s ongoing work towards the development of a coherent policy for young people at EC and the broader Council of Europe level. Inspired by a Youth Forum conference in February 1990, addressed by Jacques Delors, President of the Commission of the European Communities, this document represents the culmination of a year of research and consultation among young people and youth organisations, and of discussion and debate with politicians, the Commission and the legal profession. It aims to set in statue - in the form of political directives or statutory regulations - the rights and standards which young people need in order to fully realise their potential in an emerging Europe. Charter on Youth Rights For quite clearly, young people do not enjoy the same rights as those in an older age grou p. Many forms of legislation discriminate quite blatantly against young people. More often, however, the discrimination is less obvious : young people being denied access to jobs… Article 1 Under the present Charter, the terms “youth” and “young people” shall be considered to comprise all persons between the ages of 15 and 25. Article 2 The signatory States commit themselves to recognise the rights and liberties as defined in the present Charter to all young people who fall under their jurisdiction. Article 3 The enjoyment of the rights and liberties which the signatory States commit themselves to recognise under the present Charter has to be ensured, without any distinction whatsoever, based notably on gender, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinions, nationality, national or social origin, belonging to a national or ethnic minority, physical or other aptitudes, wealth, birth or any other situation.



A European (Youth) History Article 4 Young people have the right to appropriate professional training which responds to their aspirations and which respects their freedom of choice. In view of the recognition of this right, the signatory States will duly take into account the capacities of each beneficiary, in order to reduce the social and cultural inequalities among young people. Article 5 The signatory States commit themselves to ensure to young people a free and good quality education at all levels, including at university level. Article 6 The signatory States commit themselves to guarantee to young people adequate information and advice in order to facilitate their free choice of the type of vocational training or education which suits them most. Article 7 The right of young people to work should be guaranteed, under reserve of article 23. In view thereof, the signatory States will notably take all necessary measures to allow the creation of stable jobs, in the framework of an employment policy which is specifically designed for young people. Particular attention has to be paid to non-qualified young people. In this respect, the need exists to turn atypical jobs into stable ones and to encourage companies to contribute to integration/training programmes for the least qualified. More generally, young people should benefit from concrete and effective measures aimed at their harmonious integration into social and active life. Article 8 Without prejudice to the provisions of articles 4 and 5, the signatory States commit themselves to provide all adequate aid to young unemployed, long-term unemployed or those threatened with unemployment. Article 9 Young people should be protected against all forms of labour which are potentially threatening their health, their education or their physical or moral development. The signatory States will recognise and promote the taking of training leave during working hours, by means of appropriate measures. Article 10 Young people who do not have access to a suitable job, have the right to a sufficient minimum income in order to allow them to live a dignified and decent life. This income has to be paid at regular intervals and over a sufficiently long period of time in order to ensure indispensable security for the beneficiary to follow a training course and to be able to find a job or a new job. Article 11 Young people have the right to quality health treatment, irrespective of their income of social situation.

A European (Youth) History In this respect, all young people have the right to adequate social security protection. Article 12 The signatory states should guarantee to young people access to decent and quality housing. Access to social housing should be given with priority to young people with low income and the rent should be adapted accordingly. Article 13 Young people have the right to live in a clean and health environment, as well as the right to inform themselves and to be informed by the public authorities with regard to the evolution of the state of the environment. Article 14 The signatory States recognise that all appropriate measures should be taken in order to ensure the effective participation of young people in political, economic, social and cultural life, in the framework of structures like partnerships at schools and enterprises, or through youth organisations or any other platform. In view thereof, young people will more particularly have the right : a) to choose their own forms of organisation with a view to defending their interests in the best possible way, and to establish links of cooperation among themselves or with other areas, irrespective of boarders. b) to create places where they can express themselves and learn about democracy, national and international youth organisations having to be recognised as privileged training places. c) to participate, on a level of equality, in the development of policies which affect them, especially by becoming active partners in the comanagement of their interests in all areas which influence their lives, like school, the workplace, public life at all levels (local, regional, national or Community level). Article 15 The signatory States will do their utmost to accord to young foreign migrants, who are legitimately on their territory, the same rights and obligations as their own young citizens. Article 16 The signatory States commit themselves to recognise the freedom of movement in and between all EC countries to their citizens and to the citizens of non-EC states who are legitimately on their territory, whether these citizens have been authorised to establish their residence in one of the signatory states of not. Article 17 The signatory states commit themselves to recognise that all non-EC citizens who have have legitimately resided in an EC country for at least five years, have to enjoy, in that country, the right to vote, at least in the local elections.



A European (Youth) History Article 18 The signatory States commit themselves to recognise the rights for young migrants to choose the nationality of those country which they live, following five years of continuous and legitimate residence. Article 19 The signatory States commit themselves to ensure the continuous training of trainers and decision makers who deal with young people. Article 20 The law has to guarantee to young people the respect of their private and family life, as well as the inviolability of their residence and correspondence. Article 21 The integrity of young people is guaranteed against all treatment which threatens to affect their healthy and normal physical, intellectual, moral, spiritual and social development in free and dignified circumstances. Article 22 No young person should be submitted to torture nor to inhuman or degrading sanctions or treatments, even id these sanctions or treatments were to be inflicted by members of the family. Young people have to benefit form special protection against the treatments mentioned in the previous paragraph, taking into account their specific condition. Article 23 The signatory States will ban, without delay and permanently, work for young people under the age of 16. Article 24 Young people have the right to be raised in their family of origin. Article 25 The placement of young people in care is a serious measure which affects their right to a family life. The public authorities will only exceptionally impose such a measure, if all the measures of support to the family and the other accompanying measures appear to be ineffective. Article 26 In no way should minors be imprisoned. Article 27 The signatory states will create as many specialised pedagogical institutions as necessary. The placement of young people into those institutions can only be imposed by the competent authorities, which are legally established, and only for purposes of care, protection or treatment aimed at facilitating the social reintegration of the young person in care. Article 28 All young people places into a pedagogical institution under Article 27,

A European (Youth) History have the right to a regular review by an independent committee of the legitimacy of their placement, notably in order to verify whether the circumstances which motivated the placement continue to exist. Article 29 Young people have the right to social security. Article 30 Young people have the right to conscientious objection against military service. The conscientious objector has to have the choice between various alternative services, which should not contain any heavier obligations than military service. Article 31 The signatory States commit themselves to provide sufficient structural and financial measures in order to develop genuine policies I solidarity with and in favour of young people. These policies have to contain specific measures in favour of disadvantaged groups in order to ensure equal opportunities for them. Article 32 Young people have the right of free access to pluralist and reliable information, with full respect of ethical considerations. This right comprises the right to free, independent, clear, easy, accessible and qualitative information, provided in one’s own language. Article 33 The signatory States commit themselves to provide logistical and financial support to critical information. Article 34 The signatory States commit themselves to put at the disposal of young people a list of all their rights, in a clear way which is comprehensible to young people. Article 35 The signatory states will appoint a mediator responsibly for providing information to young people about the legal problems with which they are faced. Article 36 All young people whose rights and liberties, recognised in the present Charter, have been violated, shall have the right to an effective recourse before a national or supranational authority. To this effect, young people will have the right to benefit from free legal advice and to get free representation by a solicitor of their choice.



Back to the future, youth policy in the 2000s Youth policy and advocacy development in the 2000s EU White Paper on Youth European Youth Convention The Structured Dialogue Co-management and the Council of Europe The European Youth Forum Acting Globally



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Youth policy and advocacy development in the 2000s


This article will not tell you everything you wanted to know about… Youth Forum policy and advocacy development in the 2000s words by Luiza Bara and Klavdija Černilogar

Writing about the policy and advocacy development of the European Youth Forum (YFJ) in the 2000s is almost an impossible task. The multitude of actions undertaken makes it very difficult to choose the ones to put forward. In an attempt to give a taste of the policy making and advocacy undertaking of the YFJ, we are subjective. Unfortunately we will not be able to mention every single activity of the YFJ, as each of them constitutes a piece of a huge puzzle. Young people have been setting up or joining existing youth organisations continuously. Reacting to social injustice, health and environmental challenges, human rights disrespect and discriminations is often the cause for young people to take an active stand in society. But, most of all, young people are critical about the environment they live in and care about their present and future. They take their share of responsibility, and they act, react and engage on a growing number of issues, which are evolving as fast as their access to new information and their interest in new issues. The European Youth Forum (YFJ) is an expression of all of that. The policy and advocacy work of the organisation has evolved over the years as a consequence of the youth engagement in new areas and the expertise built up by different generations. While the core policy business of the European Youth Forum has always been centred around education, human rights and participation with a view to develop a meaningful youth policy, over the years the YFJ developed expertise and opinions on new topics : employment, migration, health, climate change and sustainable development – to only quote a few. This impacted the networking activities of the YFJ with new alliances and partnerships being built at the civil society level, as well as with European and international organisations and their institutions. The Youth Forum, however, always acted in a political context, often being considered as a policy-maker given its active involvement in the shaping, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the European and global policies relevant for young people. Connected to the institutional agenda of the European Union, Council of Europe and the United Nations System, the YFJ also reacted to the major policy developments that impacted the lives of the young.

A glimpse at the advocacy work of the European Youth Forum Always ambitious. Always ready to challenge. Always aiming high. The European Youth Forum has enjoyed a privileged position in the European and global policy-making landscapes. A constructive though


Back to the future, youth in the 2000s critical partner for policy-makers, the YFJ has been present on the key arenas for youth policies or policies that impact youth in various European Union settings, e.g., presidency events, EU summits and celebrations, policy development consultations and conferences, as well as regular meetings ; within the Council of Europe, e.g., nominating two-thirds of the Advisory Council part of the co-management of the Directorate for Youth and Sports, summits and conferences ; and within the United Nations, e.g., the General Assembly and civil society consultative structures but also relevant settings of the UNESCO, UNPFA, UNICEF and others. The European Youth Forum also cooperated with other high-level organisations and institutions, including the Ibero-american Youth Organisation, the League of Arab States, the AsiaEurope Youth Foundation, the World Bank and many others. The very high-level presence at the YFJ General Assemblies and Council of Members is only a reflection of the recognition for the organisation’s constituency and work. Was there a tradition set up in the ‘90s when French President François Mitterrand addressed the YFJ General Assembly (GA) ? In the 2000s, the practice if not the tradition was continued. For example, Guido di Marco, President of Malta, addressed the YFJ GA in Malta in 2002 ; JoséLuis Zapatero, Prime Minister of Spain, welcomed the participants at the YFJ General Assembly in 2004 at his residence in Madrid and spent several hours with the young delegates ; and Valdas Adamkus, President of Lithuania, spoke at the YFJ GA in 2006 in Vilnius. Looking back at the very high-level politicians that the YFJ had the opportunity to meet with and discuss policies relevant for youth is simply breathtaking : Romano Prodi and then José Manuel Barroso (Presidents of the European Commission), Josep Borell (President of the European Parliament), Giuliano Amato (Vice-President of the European Convention), Terry Davis and Thorbjorn Jagland (Secretary Generals of the Council of Europe) and James D. Wolfensohn (President of the World Bank) to only count a few. When the YFJ went on a study visit to Israel and Palestine, a meeting with Yassir Arafat took place. Opportunities to meet politicians continued with several European Commissioners and leading Members of the European Parliament attending various YFJ events, high level representatives from the Council Presidencies being present at every Presidency youth event and Heads of State attending crucial Youth Summits that defined European and global youth policies.Looking at the Annual Reports of the organisation, names of those met are barely mentioned. The focus is on the meetings between the youth organisations and the decisions taken, and this is how it should be. As the authors, we agreed to only mention a few highlights of the YFJ’s advocacy work, though this is an extremely difficult exercise. The multitude of events and YFJ interventions in policy making makes you feel so small and at the same time raises a level of pride that is difficult to explain in words. Being an almost insignificant part of the YFJ giant is though so rewarding. Each part of the youth puzzle can lead to huge achievements when put together. The European Youth Forum has been tireless in its efforts to advocate for better living conditions and rights for the youth. In the 2000s alone, the European Youth Forum was present as an organiser, co-organiser or key partner at very high level events : the European Youth Convention in 2002, the Council of Europe Youth Summit in 2005, the Africa-Europe Youth Summit in 2007 and 2010, the Rome Youth Summit celebrating the 50th anniversary of the European Communities in 2007, the World Youth Festival in Barcelona 2004 and the World Youth Conference in

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 2010, the Asia-Europe Young Political Leaders Conference in 2005, the EUChina Year of Youth 2011, the World Bank Youth, Development and Peace Conference and many, many others. The advocacy strategy for most of these processes was to secure a youth event prior to a major summit, which would constitute an opportunity to gather youth views in a document that would then input the final outcome of the political leaders. Let’s take the example of the Rome Youth Summit. Fifty years after the signature of the Treaty of Rome, hundreds of young people gathered in the same room where the leaders of the six founding Member States signed the Treaty. It was a celebration moment but, most of all, an opportunity to reflect on the progress made so far and the shortcomings. It was an opportunity to shape the future and an opportunity to propose changes that will bring positive impacts on young people’s lives. The challenge is as big as the opportunity. The need to put forward the right demands is huge. The process to achieve that is huge, as well. During the Pre-Summit, which brought together representatives from the National Youth Councils and other youth organisations from the 27 Member States, candidate countries and European organisations set up the process. A massive consultation, which was coordinated by the European Youth Forum, started taking into account policy demands from all corners of the EU and further to national debates and European consultations. The negotiation of the final text, which was done during the Youth Summit itself, led to clear requests despite the diversity of youth interests and opinions. Communicated to the top representatives of the European Institutions, these demands remained in the history of the European Union and certainly of the Campidoglio. In terms of advocacy, the YFJ has experienced change in almost all its forms. Starting with Treaty modifications. One of the major achievements in 2003 was the inclusion of the Youth Article in the EU Draft Constitution, which was the basis for the Lisbon Treaty later on. The Youth Convention and its leadership had been successful in convincing the Praesidium of the European Convention that a new Europe can only built with its foundations : young people. And the most prominent result was the amendment of the third part of the draft Constitution that made specific reference to the participation of young people in the democratic life of the European Union. Securing funds for youth organisations not only in the format of project grants but also mainly through administrative grants has been at the core of the advocacy work of the YFJ, in order to allow youth organisations to simply function in an independent way and carry out actions to improve the policies that concern them. Consolidated action at the national and European level led to tens of millions of euro for administrative grants for youth organisations and a lot more for projects secured in the Financial Perspective 2000-2006 and the Financial Framework 2007-2013. The number of declarations the YFJ fomented is immense. Each of them constituted one more step forward in accumulating policy demands and commitments to improving the lives of young Europeans and their fellows around the world. The Rome Youth Declaration, the Tianjin Declaration, the Warsaw Youth Summit Final Declaration, the Euro-Arab Ragusa Declaration on Youth, Migration and Development, the Tripoli Declaration from the AfricaEurope Youth Summit, the European Parliament Written Declaration on Youth Empowerment are few examples of texts to which the YFJ has contributed. Prior to the European elections in 2004, the European Youth Forum engaged in a sustained campaign, in close partnership with the youth party



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s political organisations, in order to ensure young elected representatives to the European Parliament and, most of all, defenders of youth rights and youth friendly policies. YOUth DECIDE was the title of the action, which mobilized young people and their youth organisations all over the European Union. Similarly, the Get-out-the-vote campaign in 2009 coordinated with members, as well as aimed at boosting youth participation in the 2009 EP elections and putting youth issues higher on the agenda. Following these elections, an intergroup on youth was established, which is becoming another advocacy channel for the YFJ. But the YFJ always stayed closely connected with the EU, CoE and UN’s institutional agendas. In this framework, the organisation was the voice for the young Europeans in the decision-making processes and on policy-making tools as diverse as possible : Open Method of Coordination, regulations and directives relevant for youth (on anti-discrimination issues, mobility, sustainable development, etc.), white papers, communications, Council conclusions, written declarations, recommendations, CoE conventions, charters and recommendations, UN resolutions, etc. For every single process, a consultation with the members was organized. In the late 2000s, the European Youth Forum realised that a lot had been achieved through political declarations. Demands had been put forward and commitments made. The YFJ never forgot those. But have the politicians always remembered them ? The YFJ started using them as frameworks for a much more technical expertise provided to the European and international organisations and institutions in order to support them to develop concrete tools for the implementation of those promises. Although the YFJ always carried work at a technical level, this was now recently intensified with the “youth mainstreaming in all policies” direction. While high-level meetings continue, the focus, however, is now to advise public authorities and policymakers in general to move on with concrete achievements. The framework demands had been crucial, though, in order to situate the YFJ as a relevant actor in the scene. This permitted the elaboration of policy contexts essential for carrying out the work of the YFJ nowadays, achieving every single day a new step forward, as its constituency has been demanding. Looking back at the past decade, it was exactly the combination of highlevel and working-level advocacy, with sometimes the former or the latter taking the lead, that has brought the YFJ to its current, respected position in the European political landscape. This strategic switch in the advocacy work of the European Youth Forum was only possible with the steady development of intelligence gathering, analysis and policy proposals articulated into more and more sophisticated policy documents, which were always drawing on the expertise and the needs of young people and their youth organisations and being supported by dedicated and qualified staff.

A glimpse at policy (not only politics) Policy development and advocacy are a bit like two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other. It is impossible to say on which side the coin came first.. Whiles being an astute advocate for the youth interest, the YFJ saw its own policy development work as no less of a priority with the aim to express the views of its members on a wide variety of pertinent issues.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s When it comes to participation in institutional processes at the EU level, the year 2001 definitely marks a change. The focus on youth issues has grown with the adoption of the White Paper : A New Impetus for European Youth. It and the subsequent processes developing a youth framework in EU’s policy-making have been supported by the Forum, albeit always with a critical eye on the needed improvements and with the requirement to include youth in the debates about the policy that was supposed to work for their benefit. The first years of implementing the open method of coordination in this field faced some challenges in terms of effectiveness, in terms of putting theory into action and in terms of developing evidence-based youth policy. The Forum was consistently vocal about the need to improve and invest even more in order for the EU to really give the promised impetus to European young people. For the purpose of contributing to the improvement of the process, the YFJ, based on its members’ contributions gave inputs on both the structure and the content of the “dialogue”. Among other things, it commissioned a study on the evaluation of the open method of coordination in the youth field and also produced shadow reports on the OMC’s priorities. With a cautious approach, the YFJ then addressed the legacy of the framework of cooperation, which ended in 2009, and mobilised Member Organisations to take part in the evaluation and in gathering proposals for the new cycle. The on-going cooperation in the field of youth witnesses a stronger structured dialogue, but it remains to be seen in which direction the implementation will go in the next years to come. It is to be hoped that the structured dialogue will develop into a solid practice with clear goals, with involvement of youth organisations, while always leaving the space for evaluation and improvement. At the same time, the engagement and active participation of young people in the Council of Europe framework has continued through these years based on co-management and with involvement of YFJ membership in the Advisory Council on Youth . The YFJ also developed closer cooperation with bodies beyond the Directorate of Youth and Sport, its “natural” partner, all in an effort to mainstream youth issues throughout the Council of Europe and, more recently, to advocate for better legal recognition of youth rights ; however, youth participation in decision-making on youth policy and programmes at this level has remained crucial. The Forum has both benefited from and contributed to a range of soft-law instruments adopted by the Committee of Ministers, as well as from other measures. If there is one challenge that remains to be implemented with more vigour, it is the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life. It is an important document, which, albeit not binding and thus left to the goodwill of decision-makers, contains a vast array of good principles and recommendations. It is hoped that 10 years from now, youth organisations and local and regional authorities will be able together to report on many good practices emanating from the Charter. It would be a loss to let it pass unnoticed, which happens to so many policy documents. In this sense, the European Youth Forum and its Member Organisations can still do much to revive its value. Within the United Nations (UN) System, the YFJ has enjoyed consultative status with the Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC) since 1996. Thus it has been able to take part in a range of meetings and be recognised as a stakeholder by a number of agencies. While it does not have a global constituency and can speak on behalf of its European membership, it has always been concerned with global issues and has cooperated



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s with partners at the global level, as well as with those from other regions of the world. The Forum would like to see more attention to be given to youth issues within the UN and would like to see the implementation of the World Programme of Action for Youth in close connection to the realisation of Millennium Development Goals. Through direct advocacy at high-level meetings, through side events organised together with Member Organisations and partners and through working-level exchanges and other means, this message continues to be passed. Moving from institutional processes to internal strategy, it is interesting to note that in 2006, a landmark framework was adopted by the Forum for its internal policy development : a long-term vision on strategic priority areas for youth organisations. Until the end of 2012, the main concern was decided to lie with education, youth work development, participation and youth policy mainstreaming, human rights, and employment and social affairs. Correspondingly, advocacy plans were included in the strategy to fully support these policies. While more detailed Work Plans delineate two-year foci within these strategic priorities, it is important that the platform have a solid, long-term vision, which enables it to deepen expertise on a manageable set of issues and thus become a more solid partner with thought-through opinions. At the same time, it gives the opportunity to Member Organisations to build capacity in these same areas and to become effective multipliers at their levels. We chose some highlights from the various areas the Forum has developed expertise in during the past decade, those that we felt would illustrate both the variety of issues and approaches to advocating for them. Since its foundation, the European Youth Forum acted and was recognised as a key stakeholder in education policies. The challenge to advocate for the recognition of non-formal education along formal education and informal learning has always been one of the most difficult ones. In a sustained manner, the YFJ further developed every year the content of its policy on non-formal education with new policy and position papers providing more and more content and put them to the attention of the European institutions. Notwithstanding the lack of institutional progress towards giving non-formal education its deserved place in the European educational landscape, the YFJ continued engaging with its members on improving the quality of non-formal education they provide and on giving it proper recognition by developing a quality assurance process. First adopted in principle by the Member Organisations through a policy paper, the process has so far passed the first implementation phase in a pilot group of members and is moving towards a fully-fledged, peer-reviewed system of quality assurance in nonformal education. Non-formal education was also mainstreamed into other policy areas. Almost every policy document of the YFJ shows the potential it has to channel knowledge creation and participation in processes for young people. Cases of NFE advocacy in other documents “A key element is education, including its formal, non-formal and informal components. As highlighted by the experience of youth organisations, specifically their educational work (including intercultural and inter-religious dialogue) is crucial both in times of peace and in phases of conflict or conflict latency. Youth organisations are key providers of non-formal education opportunities and have a strong impact on raising civil society’s awareness of a culture of peace.” (2009 Policy Paper on Peace and Non-Violence)

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s “Concretely, it is vital to have school student representative bodies in all schools (also in primary education) where the students elect their representatives and engage in the democratic governance of schools. Such a culture can also be developed through improving and enhancing formal education curricula through the integration of non-formal education methodologies. Youth-led organisations can back public efforts and be the think tanks and examples of best practice for new approaches in this regard.” (2008 YFJ approach to child policy) “Alongside the formal education system, non formal education contributes to the development of young people, empowering and enabling them to actively participate in a rapidly changing environment. Volunteering within youth organisations should be recognised by society as a relevant experience for the labour market.” (2005 Embracing the Future : Bureau Position Paper on the Green Paper on Demographic Change) “The YFJ defines youth training as a non-formal education process, based on values such as volunteerism, autonomy, independence, participation, solidarity and inclusiveness, and one aimed both at ensuring the development and the sustainability of youth organisations and at providing young people with knowledge, skills, competences and the space to develop their attitudes.” (2007 Policy Paper Youth Training – Sustainability of Youth Organisations through Volunteering) When thinking about the efforts invested in quality of all forms of education and learning, one of the major obstacles the Forum has faced was related to the difficulties that young people come across when entering the labour market. They very often realise that formal education systems are largely incompatible with labour market reality and that their non-formal experience does not count. The onset of the economic crisis in the last years has prompted the European Youth Forum to again be vocal about the consequences these developments have had on the situation of young people in the labour market and on their inclusion in the society. The crisis was the occasion to highlight the need not only for emergency measures but for structural changes in the system, so the quality formal education and recognition of skills gained through non-formal education would give every individual the opportunity to enter the labour market without having to face precarious conditions. The discussion on “flexicurity” has re-emerged and has prompted the YFJ to strengthen its advocacy efforts based on both the counter-crisis measures and the plans for the post-Lisbon agenda. Nevertheless, it was not the crisis that first sparked the YFJ’s interest in economic matters that heavily affect young people. Employment and social inclusion have always been among the main concerns of youth organisations. This has been reflected in numerous positions  : “Social Inclusion through Youth Participation” in 2006, “Youth Employment” in 2007 and “Towards adequate, sustainable and safe European pension systems” in 2010. As youth is a time of transition from the relatively protected state of childhood into adult life, it also marks the struggle to find stable employment and social security. Correspondingly, then, when the EU flew on the high expectations the Lisbon strategy promised in 2000, youth organisations were concerned with a lack of attention given to young people, as workers, citizens and simply as individuals. The European Youth Pact from 2005 aimed to patch up the missing link. While its content was good, its implementation was not. Youth organisations were disappointed to see that the good principles of the Pact were not properly followed up through national measures. What is more, the Pact had no special reporting mechanism in place, which would



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s have made Member States report on the implementation. In this sense, when the Lisbon strategy came to an end, youth organisations were unable to make an assessment whether the European Youth Pact had any impact on the lives of young people at all. Therefore, the YFJ called for a renewed and updated European Youth Pact when the post-Lisbon agenda was discussed in 2009. It proposed to widen the scope of action and to improve implementation and monitoring, thus mainstreaming youth in the new strategy. In this sense, the Europe 2020 strategy does take a step forward and does include young people more clearly and with more ambition. The European Youth Forum does not necessarily agree with all the proposed measures and is critical at the low ambition of some of them. Nevertheless, at least at the European level, they are part of the main documents and not of appendices. At the national level where the concrete implementation of measures will take place, it is to be seen whether the youth cohort will be given any particular attention. This is a task for both the YFJ and even more so for its National Youth Councils to ensure that the youth aspect does not get lost in the general statistical measurements of progress. The Forum and its members will not sit idly but will surely continue working on this area of concern. On the one hand, the YFJ has already in the past years included a range on new issues in its work, which now also feature in the post-Lisbon agenda  : quality internships, youth entrepreneurship, overcoming of poverty but also the above-mentioned quality assurance and recognition of non-formal education. On the other hand, recognising the need to showcase what youth organisations can do themselves, the Forum launched a Youth Employment Action in 2009, a transnational consortium of its Member Organisations that works to improve the position of young people in Europe with regards to their access to the labour market, enhancing their employability and making them aware of their working rights. That young people should have all their rights recognised has long resonated along the corridors when the Forum discussed youth matters with its institutional and civil society partners and specifically together with the Advisory Council on Youth. The Forum has produced a range of important documents to this end : Policy Paper on Equality and Diversity, the Opinion Paper on Multiple Discrimination and several positions and opinions on antidiscrimination. For a long time, the institutions probably thought that this was another temporary matter that would go away. It didn’t. Instead, the advocacy process towards stronger recognition of the rights of young people has developed further and has led to serious discussions within the membership before the YFJ finally endorsed the idea in the Work Plan 2009-2010 to call for a Convention on the rights of young people to be developed by the Council of Europe. This battle is far from won, but several smaller victories have been recorded thus far. It is also an example of how the European Youth Forum’s research and policy making are intertwined with advocacy. It takes an enormous amount of day-to-day communication with the Council of Europe bodies, people of the secretariat and elected officials. It takes highlighting the issue at important meetings, it takes developing a communication approach, and it of course takes finding strong arguments. In this specific case, the argumentation combines specifically past work on youth autonomy, fighting multiple discrimination, and ensuring equality. Moving a bit from the European to the local level, the European Youth Capital is an example of how the European Youth Forum tries to reach

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s into daily life of European youth. This initiative, concretised in a Resolution adopted in 2008 and implemented from 2009 onwards, is directly linked to the principles of the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life, adopted by the Council of Europe’s Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. It is an approach to boost awareness of youth issues and participation of young people in the lives of European cities and towns and to showcase good examples that can perhaps be multiplied elsewhere. It is important that the local level is the principal one in this process and that cities large and small, within or outside of the European Union, can compete on an equal footing. The European Youth Capital has immense potential to bring change to the way young people are considered in processes developing local policies and will hopefully develop ever further and ever better. While selecting a European Youth Capital is something the YFJ can influence, there are other issues that it cannot, which it nevertheless needs to take on. Inevitably, intergenerational solidarity is one which is step-by-step taking an ever greater piece of attention from the side of the European Youth Forum. Despite demographic change being a looming reality, rendering Europe ever older and more dependent on the work force of migrants, the need for intergenerational solidarity has risen in prominence only in the past couple of years with 2008 marking the first step in this direction. The annual EU day of intergenerational solidarity celebrated on 29 April is the outcome of efforts of an NGO coalition of which the Forum has been a part. Mentioned already in its position on the European Social Model earlier, the YFJ reiterated in its Position Paper on Solidarity between Generations that “every year, greater numbers of Europeans reach retirement age : the European Youth Forum believes that the retirement of older people without a useful transmission of their knowledge is a waste of valuable human resources. The European Youth Forum therefore calls for the design of an ‘intergenerational learning scheme’. Such a scheme should accommodate job-sharing between older workers who want to move progressively towards retirement and younger people in the process of entering or moving within the labour market.” Obviously, the European Youth Forum has invested considerable energy in developing its policies also in areas that, at first sight, might not seem to be of its core business. Nevertheless, in line with the conviction that youth has a stake in all issues relevant for the society and in line with its call for a cross-sector approach, it has become pertinent to also have a say on issues such as sustainable development and climate change, e-society, global governance and other areas. With this, the Forum has shown in practice that young people and their organisations feel that they are relevant stakeholders in the development of public policy and that their opinions should be heard whenever decisions are being negotiated, implemented and evaluated. In reaction to the European Commission’s campaigning work against tobacco, the YFJ decided first to consult its members, starting from the standpoint that it does not act as a public health organisation and needs to represent the views of its members. Through a large project focused on young people and tobacco consumption, the YFJ organized large scale consultations via its members at the national level. Youth organisations came back to the YFJ with a clear message : youth organisations are against tobacco. A manifesto calling for a life without tobacco thus came into place with the Youth Forum having a mandate to advocate for tobacco control policies from a public health perspective and in full respect of the views of its



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s members. This process developed in parallel to the elaboration of YFJ policy and position papers in other health areas, including alcohol-related harm and action in the field of sexual reproductive health and rights, which culminated in 2007 with the adoption of the “Health and Well-being of young people” policy paper which now constitutes the framework of the YFJ action in the field. Another important area in which the engagement of youth is absolutely crucial is sustainable development and more specifically climate change. Youth organisations have been aware of it just like the rest of the world. They have consistently included debates on contributing to sustainable development in their meetings, events and policy demands and with the adoption of Millennium Development Goals, another incentive was brought up for the engagement of youth both locally and globally. The YFJ has played its part in awareness-raising, policy development, mobilisation and advocacy for sustainable development. Be it the guidelines for its policy work on sustainable development from 2005, the subsequent policy paper in 2006 and the Position Paper “What kind of global deal do youth deserve” from 2010, as well as related institutional events. Be it the mobilisation of a huge number of young people to take part in the 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen, the participation to several meetings of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, the coordination with its partners from other regions or the kick off of the preparations for the Rio+20 conference due to take place in 2012. The YFJ ensured that the concerns of youth were heard by decision-makers. At the same time internally among Member Organisations, capacity building, engaging and progressively changes to a more sustainable manner of work and life have been taking place. The rather recent work of the YFJ on new media is an example of how developments in a specific area challenged the platform to both develop a policy approach and to engage its members in a new process, which is in line with its strategic priority of advocating for youth participation and mainstreaming of youth policy. Not only was the institutional push mentioned later on, a clear sign that a policy sector not directly working on or with youth recognised the need to have one of the main stakeholders involved, but also it was first and foremost an opportunity for the YFJ to show that there are both expertise and interest in venturing into areas, which are growing in importance. From policy development to membership empowerment Recent years have led the Forum to not only advocate but to actively empower youth organisations in having the capacity and the opportunity to, themselves, take the floor in such relevant discussions. The 2011-2012 Work Plan, for example, foresees stronger engagement of Member Organisations in policy debates at the institutional level on health, sustainable development and new media. For this purpose three distinct databases have been created, giving Member Organisations the opportunity to bring together young experts in the mentioned areas, in order to allow the YFJ to draw upon their knowledge as well as to give them a chance to participate in relevant meetings and events. This should also partly reflect the general understanding that the Forum is only as strong as its Member Organisations are and should consequently contribute to strengthening this indispensable link between the members, the Board and the Secretariat.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s Youth - not just a sector Is youth policy something that is really so inferior that it deserves to be put as an appendix to other more important portfolios in national ministries, be it education, family or social affairs, or sports ? Or should it actually feature far more prominently as a transversal issue that should have a say in all matters pertaining to young people ? Should young people not have a say in how the pension reform is formulated ? It will be them bearing the consequences. Should young people not be asked what they think about climate change policies ? It will be them and their descendants who will be affected most. The Forum has always believed in the transversal, crosssector character of youth policy and has devoted a good part of its policy development and advocacy efforts to persuading decision-makers that transversality is the direction to take. Internally, this approach can be seen through the gradual widening of policy areas, as outlined above. Without the self-confidence of young people and youth organisations to know that they do have things to say on matters outside the strict scope of youth policy, there would have been far fewer inputs to institutional processes on, for example, Millennium Development Goals, climate change, the economic crisis, e-society and so on. In the sense of mainstreaming, the situation within the Council of Europe is a bit different. Strictly speaking the co-management bodies, which are composed of both governments and youth organisations, have a much better legal basis and allow youth to be a full-fledged partner in developing youth policy and determining the way funds are spent in the youth sector. Practically, however, it is not always self-evident that the co-management bodies will get consulted whenever some other part of the Council of Europe develops policies related to young people. The European Youth Forum has over the years tried to increase such practice through advocacy with other bodies of the Council of Europe. In some occasions this effort was more successful than at other, but it is worth mentioning at least one : The first Council of Europe Conference of Ministers Responsible for Media and New Communication Services in 2009 was a landmark not only for its topic, tackling a new area, but also for the initiative of Member States to involve young people in this event, in the discussions and in the follow up processes. It was the European Youth Forum that organised a youth event prior to the conference and involved the Advisory Council on Youth, and it was the Forum that delivered the messages of young participants to the ministerial meeting. Young delegates were able to participate in the conference and engage with national representatives also during informal moments. This was an event similar to conferences of youth ministers within the CoE, but importantly, another sector recognised that youth might have a relevant say and thus decided to engage young people, through the Forum, in discussions. Subsequently, the YFJ has developed its own position on e-society, has taken part in several CoE-related events on this topic and has set up a database of youth experts on new media, thus enabling youth participation in relevant processes. Such engagement of the European Youth Forum strengthens the principle of cross-sector youth policy and brings a variety of benefits for young people, for youth organisations and consequently also for the co-management system. For one, youth aspects get integrated in such processes, thus paving the way for interpretation and implementation of the



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s outcomes also with consideration of young people’s concerns. This is how opportunities are created for youth organisations to use such documents also in their own advocacy, if they so wish. What is sometimes less obvious to youth organisations is that achieving the adoption of a document that includes youth concerns is only the beginning of work. Implementation, especially of Council of Europe documents, is largely voluntary and not bound to sanctions. Member States are one obvious actor, but the civil society is another one, especially when it comes to advocacy for implementation at the national level. Youth organisations have the immense potential to be vocal about issues that the Council of Europe stands for and promotes, and they can help to advocate for their implementation.

Does youth work work ? Youth work in youth organisations is an indispensable element of the development of European society. The YFJ is aware of that and of the need to support the sustainability of youth organisations –both its Member Organisations, as well as organisations and networks which aspire to become members in the future. The work of the Forum is guided by a clear youth work development strategy, which outlines a proactive approach, responding to the needs of youth organisations while being in line with the YFJ’s priorities. When it comes to current members, the YFJ works along four main lines : capacity building, tailored support, increasing youth organisations’ sustainability and regular monitoring of the situation through the membership survey. All these can take place through YFJ events and activities in which Member Organisations have the space to exchange, share experience, find solutions to common concerns and also support each other. The membership contact system, which aims at bringing the Board closer to the day-to-day reality of Member Organisations, is a potentially immensely valuable channel for the YFJ to increase its sensitivity to specific needs of its members and to better take into account national, regional or subject-specific needs. However, the YFJ does not only work and advocate with the aim to support its existing Member Organisations ; on the contrary, the platform has been actively supporting youth work development throughout Europe and sees this as one of its main priorities. The YFJ consistently advocates for youth organisations’ financial, political and content sustainability. Moreover, it engages in supporting youth initiatives that are at the inception stage of their development, be they international youth NGOs or aspiring National Youth Councils. This is in order to render youth work more inclusive, reach out to more young people and achieve more recognition and stronger support from the authorities and the rest of the civil society Europe-wide. As determined by the YFJ, youth work comprises actions, activities, processes and projects, which are undertaken by, with or for youth with the aim of providing a space for young people and their personal development and for their needs. There are still regions in Europe, in which a vibrant youth sphere exists but is not consolidated. In such countries, the YFJ first conducts research and information gathering, which might take the form of study or support visits. This helps to establish contacts with youth actors, such as NGOs, authorities, relevant international stakeholders, and detect opportunities for cooperation all with the aim to strengthen the voice of youth in shaping the political agenda. Assessing the relationship between domestic authorities, international actors and youth organisations and obtaining information about

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s the state of youth policy in the country helps the YFJ to see whether there is interest in working towards the establishment of a National Youth Council. At the moment, the Forum has successfully mapped all the countries in the Western Balkans, has conducted study visits and has thus created an all-encompassing range of reports that give a quite detailed overview of the situation. In certain of these countries, the Forum supported capacity building and was happy to see that some National Youth Councils have eventually been established. In others, more work needs to be done, and more time is needed for a consensus on the need for and form of a national coordinating structure for youth organisations to emerge. Balkan Youth Project It is worth mentioning the good practice that paved the way to the development of youth councils in the region : the Balkan Youth Project, which ran between 2002 and 2005. As one of the pioneer projects, it focused on regional youth cooperation in Southeast Europe and was very successful in reaching the wider youth population nationally and regionally with its activities. The project was unique in its approach because it was flexible towards the region’s youth needs and combined various actions under European Commission YOUTH Programme Support measures in a coherent format in order to have larger impact with implemented activities and to enable youth groups to benefit from the implemented activities.

It would be false to assume, however, that the Forum goes into a country and establishes a National Youth Council almost by decree. This is neither its right nor its wish. Unless there is impetus from the national level from the myriad youth actors, the European Youth Forum cannot even hel p. The strongest support it can provide, if the national actors so wish, is to share good practice of its existing National Youth Councils from the region or from a similar background to help networking through national-level members of its International Youth Organisations and to support national level contact-making and capacity building. However, the Forum will not invite itself to the party ; the invitation must come from those wanting to strengthen youth work in a country. The Forum also does not assume that Member Organisations, once on the list, no longer need support. The Eastern Europe and Caucasus (EEC) is one such case in point where Member Organisations identified the need for more networking between National Youth Councils and International Youth NGOs and have thus followed this up through the European Youth Forum. The Youth Work Development Fund on the one hand and the EEC Project Group are only two such recent examples. The knowledge and the capacity, as well as the willingness to work together, come from the Member Organisations themselves, and the Forum is indeed only a platform enabling them to mutually support each other and to strengthen their presence and sustainability. Strengthening issue-specific youth organisations is another approach that Member Organisations themselves see as a priority. In the past, a Faith-based Expert Group, for example, brought together both faithbased members and non-members among youth organisations in order to develop capacity together and to work towards inter-religious dialogue in a joint manner. Another case is the wish of Member Organisations to themselves become more inclusive, focusing on young migrants and young people with migrant background. Not only did the members work on strengthening



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s their own capacity, they also mandated the Forum to explore ways towards establishing a platform of European youth migrant organisations. This led to a project, which was run with the support of the European Programme for Integration and Migration, to set up such a platform with on-going activities throughout 2010 and 2011. Whether the platform will apply for membership in the Forum is to be seen. It would definitely be welcome but will be left up to the platform itself to decide. The most important point is that it becomes a sustainable network that is capable of advocating for the rights of its constituency at the European level. It is also worth mentioning at this point that the YFJ constantly revisits its own approach to inclusiveness. A set of guidelines exists that put forward relevant assessment questions and action proposals on how inclusive an organisation is and what it can do to improve its track record. Concrete tools and ideas have been developed in these guidelines, which are valid for youth organisations from the grassroots to the European level and which the Forum itself strives to adhere to. Another useful way of demonstrating the willingness and capacity to reach out to young people is through collecting good practice among the Forum’s membershi p. Such cases can be found in several publications, which have been developed over the years. While most of them have a specific thematic focus, the examples contained in them can definitely be an inspiration for other youth workers and youth activists. Since 1996 and in line with the United Nations recommendations concerning development aid, the European Youth Forum dedicates one percent of its annual budget to finance concrete development projects involving young people. This commitment is geared at promoting the experience of youth organisations in the field of development co-operation at the global level and promoting representative, democratic and sustainable regional youth platforms that act as models to strengthen youth work development in other continents. The fund also aims at contributing to the implementation of the World Programme of Action for Youth, the Millennium Development Goals, the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and the plan of implementation adopted at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development.

All these policies and youth work… who influences them ? The Member Organisations of the Forum are the ones who initiate, influence and finally adopt policy measures with the strong support of the experts in the secretariat. Member Organisations have at their disposal a wide variety of means to contribute to the development of policy documents of the Forum. It is their right and duty to give input on areas they find most relevant and that touch them most directly. Moreover, the YFJ needs such inputs from the national and international perspectives, as the only way to develop a paper that will be useful and efficient is for it to come from those most directly concerned with individual issues. It needs to be taken into account, however, that most Member Organisations have limited resources and that the requests from the Forum come on top of their usual workload and in addition to their own national or international priorities. Therefore, the feedback might vary a lot. Inputs to strategic documents such as the Work Plan will typically attract more reactions than drafts of policy documents. Both of these get to be discussed and amended also at the statutory meetings, so the input is guaranteed sooner

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s or later. When it comes to documents that tackle specific areas and that are given for consultation by the Board before it adopts them, contributions are naturally fewer and mostly come from those Member Organisations, which work closely on the topic in question. Engaging the membership in policy development Consultation meetings  : Consultations on the Work Plans 2007-2008, 2009-2010 and 2011-2012. About a third of member organisations have attended each of these two meetings, organised in Brussels. For the further elaboration of the Work Plan and for the clarification of potential misunderstandings, this was an extremely useful exercise, which would not be as successful if the entire consultation had taken place online. Working groups at statutory meetings : These are used in two ways : Firstly, six months prior to foreseen approval of a policy document and to discuss the content and directions such a document should take. This is an important exercise that helps in drafting a paper for it to be in line with members’ needs and aspirations. Secondly, at the meeting where the decision on a document is foreseen, another working group takes place this time to discuss the already solid drafts of policy documents before going for approval at the statutory meeting in order to ensure ownership of the document by the members. Online consultations : Knowing the limited time youth NGOs often have to give input to institutional processes, the online approach to gathering inputs sometimes turns out to be the most practical route. The YFJ has used this for several reactions and contributions that were then submitted to the EU, CoE or UN. While there is never an abundance of contributions received from members, they do give important added value by ensuring that the views of either the national context or inputs from specific areas of expertise are taken into account. Working structures : The YFJ has, for several years, consistently used working structures to support the implementation of the Work Plan. These can take the form of working groups, expert groups, project groups, advocacy teams, etc. Because they bring together experts in specific areas from a number of members, they can really be the catalyst of knowledge and ideas and can in this sense be of added value not only to the YFJ but also to the Member Organisations themselves. \ Resolutions : Another channel for Member Organisations to point out a pressing issue that requires the attention of the entire YFJ membership are in resolutions. Statutory meetings are an opportunity for Member Organisations to put forward resolutions, which, if they receive sufficient support, will be followed up either through advocacy actions or, if needed, development of new policy approaches. Some resolutions that have led to or underscored existing advocacy are, for example Resolution on a youthproofing campaign from 2006, Resolution on EU funding for international youth NGOs from 2007, Resolution on lowering the electoral age to 16 from 2006 and several resolutions asking for the removal of visa obstacles for young Europeans, to name but a few.



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s The evolving structure of the YFJ Secretariat The role of the Secretariat has always been the same in the YFJ landscape, supporting the Board and the Member Organisations in the implementation of the Work Plan of the organisation. However, its actual structure evolved over the years, as it needed to be adapted in order to ensure proper implementation channels for the provisions of the Work Plan. In the beginning of the years 2000, the Secretariat of the YFJ consisted of teams dealing with finances, translation and administration, as well as two departments clearly identified in the organigramme of the Secretariat : the Youth Policy Department and the Youth Work Development. Each of them was dealing with separate policy actions and activities, and the capacity-building work was concentrated in the latter one. A few years later, the two departments were merged with a view to ensure more synergies between the capacity-building work and the policy and advocacy actions. Also, while policy officers could have held in the beginning responsibilities on one or several policy areas combined with a coordination role in relation to a European or international organisation, the task division was made clearer in 2005. The portfolios of three staff members were then focused on the implementation of the management of the YFJ relations with the European Union, the Council of Europe and the United Nations and the other members of the Policy and Advocacy Department focused on specific policy areas. The line between policy development and advocacy action is thin, though. All staff members were involved in both aspects of the work of the organisation. But the split, which was operated in terms of denominations at that moment, represented maybe a wish to underline the need to structure further the Secretariat’s composition. This would allow the Secretariat to better respond to the challenges posed by the implementation of the more and more demanding Work Plans of the YFJ both in terms of policy development and in terms of advocacy achievements. Later still, with the Work Plan taking a less detailed form and allowing the implementation mechanisms to be developed by the Bureau/ Board together with the secretariat, the Policy Development and Advocacy Department attempted to work in implementation teams. While the idea needed a certain time to develop and solidify, by the entry into force of the Work Plan 2011-2012 the approach of mirroring the main priorities within the staff structure had been fully achieved and also showed the flexibility of the secretariat. The Policy Development and Advocacy Department are now sub-divided into three chapters, which are coordinated by three respective coordinators, in order to ensure the implementation and communication to be as smooth as possible and that each of the three chapters receives sufficient attention also in terms of human resources. The capacity-building aspects and the institutional relations aspects are fully integrated into this structure.

We practice what we preach Youth organisations often ask policy makers to apply what they stand for in their policies. The Forum is similarly strict to itself and is not satisfied simply with demanding ever more and ever better approaches. It does not leave policies on paper but actively works to put them into reality also in the daily life of the platform. This applies to several areas and next to setting a good example to supporting development through its 1% Solidarity Fund mentioned

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s above. The Forum also takes seriously its other policies  : sustainable development, quality internships, (gender) equality, etc. Following the adoption of the Policy Paper on Sustainable Development in 2006, an environmental plan for the Secretariat was set up and is being followed through in matters ranging from buying fair-trade coffee or tea, non-use of disposable cups, energy-efficient handling of lighting, computers and other gadgets, use of recycled paper and green electricity. When it comes to internships, in line with the Forum’s policy of preventing exploitation of young work force, interns who join the YFJ outside an educational programme are remunerated according to the expected workload, have guidance and several among them have had the possibility to continue working for the Forum with a full-time contract at the end of their internshi p. These and other recommendations are included in the Forum’s Opinion Paper on Internships from 2009 and form the basis for a wider advocacy, which is not only for internal implementation. Gender equality is another important goal of the Forum. One hears very often, how women are less visible in decision-making bodies and at higher levels of organisational and business structures. It is sometimes a challenge also in the YFJ, especially at its statutory meetings to ensure equal opportunity to speak and contribute for both women and men. For this purpose, the Forum has introduced an approach to monitoring gender balance or imbalance at its Councils of Members and General Assemblies. The results show a mixed picture ; however, presenting the outcomes to the delegates has sometimes worked to achieve a more balanced outcome. This and other actions are based on the Policy Paper on Achieving Equality between Women and Men from 2007 and moreover on related Internal Guidelines. Similarly, gender equality is sought when selecting members of YFJ working structures and participants at YFJ events, and it is not the only balance that needs to be considered. Ensuring equal opportunities is fundamental, not because it is included in most of the Forum’s policies, but precisely because it is one of the platform’s main principles. In this sense, though solving the puzzle of balance between experts and non-experts, National Youth Councils and International Youth NGOs, between different European regions and between genders is quite a tough one to solve. It is nevertheless an exercise that is worth taking in order to ensure equality, quality and representativity. Moreover, it helps the YFJ to empower more multipliers that will be able to take the newly acquired knowledge and skills to their daily environments. This is particularly the case with the Pool of Trainers and Facilitators, in which also less experienced individuals get the opportunity to learn, grow and increase their skills. Reconciliation of family, private and professional life has been a transversal policy demand of the European Youth Forum to the EU institutions. When formulating this demand into a public statement (with the publication in 2006 of the European Youth Forum “Bureau’s contribution to the European Commission’s Consultation on the Reconciliation of professional, family and private life”), the YFJ had already had in place for years an internal document securing provisions for its staff members from this perspective. Moreover, the guidelines for the advocacy work developed in the framework of the “YFJ Policy Paper on achieving equality between women and men” indicated the need to advocate for a fully paid maternity leave. Published in 2007, this document did not call for action that the YFJ had not implemented internally first, thus indicating a model in employment policy from this point of view.


290 Luiza Bara, born in 1978, worked for the European Youth Forum between 2002 and 2008 and was Head of the Policy Development and Advocacy Department between 2005 and 2008. A Romanian national, she holds an MA in European Policies and a BA in Political Science. She is now Director for Policy and Strategy of the European Public Health Alliance. Klavdija Černilogar has worked as the Head of the Policy Development and Advocacy Department at he European Youth Forum since late 2008. A Slovenian national, she holds an MA in Human Rights and Democratisation and a BA in International Relations. She has been employed at the Forum since 2006, after having worked for the Council of Europe Office in Belgrade.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s Women becoming mothers during their employment with the YFJ had the opportunity to receive support from the European Youth Forum, a responsible employer who compensates financially the pay loss during the maternity leave of its employees.

A flavour of what it is to be a YFJ Secretariat member Being part of a structure where policy demands are actually implemented internally first is of course motivating. But has this been the main reason for our long term involvement in the secretariat of the European Youth Forum ? The answer is rather simple : No. Although continuously challenged to put into practice the many demands of the members of leaders of the YFJ, we have always kept a natural smile on our faces. We have been enjoying this. Being part of this gigantic organisation and of the European and global processes the YFJ has been engaged in is a wonderful learning, professional and personal development exercise. Maturing in an organisation like the YFJ sets strong principles and values in terms of doing the right thing for the society and in a continuous belief that change is possible. We cannot end this article without mentioning how important the contribution of the various staff members has been over the years. The excitement, curiosity, motivation and engagement that builds on strong expertise leads to excellence. We owe this article to all our colleagues that we have had the pleasure to work with in the department over the years. We would have had little to write about without them. Yes, we realise that we have both been particularly spoiled. We had the chance to work together with magnificent professionals and wonderful people. And this is the most precious souvenir we take from our engagement with the European Youth Forum.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s


Thierry Thioux — Le funembule


Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

EU White Paper on Youth


EU White Paper on Youth 2001 New élan - but not without battles words by Henrik Söderman

Forever young Young people are looking for acceptance and recognition. From their parents, teachers, the opposite sex, from other young people. Without recognition, a young person becomes desperate, ready for anything. The need for recognition can lead to heroism, rebellion, revolution, responsibility, innovativeness, courage or self-sacrifice. These powerful motivations are intrinsically associated with being young. Like individuals, entire generations also aspire for recognition. That much greater quest is even more difficult to respond to. A young generation, in order to feel satisfied, needs to achieve something significant, something that sets it apart from the previous generations. The cause must be commensurate with the dimensions of the challenge. This eternal phenomenon, the permanent will of youth to do something remarkable, is also beneath the story of the EU White Paper on Youth. “EU White Paper – a New Impetus for European Youth” was adopted by the European Commission in November 2001 after a vast youth consultation exercise. The White Paper took the development of European youth policy to a new level of ambition and provided for an increased recognition of youth perspective in EU policy making. It was also an engaging experience for thousands of young people everywhere in Europe who participated in the consultations leading to the White Paper. As president of the European Youth Forum during this period, I had the privilege to live directly this process and witness the birth of a European Youth Policy.

European Youth Policy, a long-standing demand of young Europeans The demand of a cross-sectoral, holistic European Youth Policy had been one of the long-standing demands of the Youth Forum and its predecessors, subject to numerous documents and declarations in the years that preceded the White Paper process. The demand for a European Youth Policy arose from the gradual emergence of the EU as a political framework of increasing relevance to youth organisations. The EU funding for youth and student exchanges offered fantastic opportunities to young Europeans. The concept of European citizenship had been launched. Mobility and reduction of borders within Europe opened up wider horizons for young people. Generally, young generations were enjoying the benefits of increased European cooperation. Nevertheless, the opinion of youth organisations about the EU was not only positive. EU appeared as an economic project, with few opportunities to participate and engage with youth in a political sense. Youth was tired of being mentioned in speeches but lacking the opportunities to speak itself. Compared with some good examples of national youth policies and with the decades of solid youth policy work by the Council of Europe, the EU seemed to be behind and ignorant of the aspirations of the young generation.


Back to the future, youth in the 2000s The Youth Forum had adopted its own Youth Policy Document in 1997, setting out a comprehensive vision for a youth policy in Europe. As many of the Youth Forum’s policy papers, the achievement of the goals was uncertain. The Commission seemed satisfied with the funding programmes targeting young people and didn’t appear enthusiastic to develop a European youth policy. The legal basis in the EU Treaty was extremely narrow ; it only spoke of exchanges of youth workers. The EU institutions could hardly be required to open a new policy area on such a weak mandate. The programmatic approach could be justified by legal constraints.

Commissioner Viviane Reding takes up the challenge The appearance of a White Paper on Youth on the European stage took place in autumn 1999 after the European elections in June 1999. In the hearings for new Commissioners at the European Parliament, the Luxembourgian Commissioner-Designate Ms. Viviane Reding set to take the youth portfolio and told the MEPs that one of her aims as Commissioner would be to develop a European youth policy by publishing a White Paper on the topic. There it was. The announcement of a European Youth Policy on a high political level was enthusiastically endorsed by the youth organisations, even if they perhaps didn’t initially have a clear view on what a White Paper was exactly. The idea of a White Paper had not appeared in Youth Forum’s demands, but it was Commissioner Reding who brought the idea to the public. In any case, the demands of the youth organisations had been finally heard. Quickly the youth organisations also understood the significance of choosing White Paper as the instrument ; a high-level political document of the Commission was what was needed to push the boundaries of EU integration and to open a new policy area, even in the absence of a strong legal basis. A whole horizon was opening to take youth policy in Europe to a new level.

Europe-wide consultations to prepare the White Paper In order to prepare the White Paper, the Commission organised a vast consultation exercise in 2000 and 2001. Young people were the main invitees, and they responded enthusiastically. Youth conferences were held in Member States, and youth events were organised together with the EU presidencies in Paris, Umeå and Ghent. Countless debates and workshops were arranged to collect the suggestions of young people. The other EU institutions also engaged in the process : I spoke at hearings in the European Parliament and in the youth working party of the Council of Ministers ; the European Economic and Social Committee prepared a positive opinion, drafted by Jillian Hasset who was the only youth NGO representative in the EESC and to which the Youth Forum also contributed. Numerous positions papers and written contributions were submitted by the Youth Forum and its member organisations. The main ideas that were advocated from the side of the European Youth Forum were a truly cross-sectoral policy encompassing various policy areas and departments, not only the narrow field of youth exchanges ; a strong focus on youth participation in order to make youth the subjects and

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s not only the objects of the new policy ; recognition of non-formal education and of the role played by youth organisations ; and robust mechanisms on the European level guaranteeing the implementation of the policy, not just a declaration of good intentions. The Commission officials in charge visited all Member States and met both youth administrations and youth organisations. In some countries, this opened up a new level of recognition of youth also towards their national administrations. Youth researchers contributed with elaborate submissions. The large number of proposals was a clear proof that there was a strong underlying demand for more European action in the field. The difficulty was going to be to choose on what to focus. Overall, the most impressive feature of the period was the commitment demonstrated by the young people who took part in the unprecedented consultation exercise both nationally and in the European events. It is fair to say that no other EU process has generated as much energy, positive debate and contributions to an EU issue. In this sense the White Paper fulfilled the role of a generational ambition : the idea that the EU was finally going to recognise the needs of young people and put its weight behind solving them by establishing a European youth policy that captured the imagination of young people. Everything that the national administrations had not managed to do, all the difficulties to engage adequately with youth representatives, the shortcomings in the living conditions of young people. The EU was going to force all national administrations to take the issue seriously and raise the youth issues to a new level. With such a level of expectations, it was foreseeable that the end result would have difficulties to live up to the hopes.

White Paper in danger Obtaining the approval of the White Paper was in the end not as smooth and peaceful as had been planned. In May 2001, alarming rumours reached the Youth Forum : the White Paper had encountered opposition and was not going to be published ! This was surprising because the reception of the idea had been triumph during the consultations. The rumours soon became more specific ; there was internal resistance in other Commission departments against publishing a White Paper on an unimportant topic such as youth. Perhaps the status of the paper could be lower, even though the content would not change ? The Youth Forum reacted swiftly. It was clear that in addition to the usual institutional lobbying something more visible was needed. After all, countless young people everywhere in Europe had contributed to the shaping of a White Paper. For them, a paper by any other name would be a disappointment. The status of the document had become a symbol. The Youth Forum, therefore, decided to organise demonstrations in Brussels and in the national capitals in defence of the White Paper. To my knowledge, this is the only street demonstration (or “manif” as they are called) that the Youth Forum has organised. The date chosen was 28 May 2001, the day of the meeting of the Council of Youth Ministers in Brussels. We were there in front of the Council building with a big banderole and with a group of 30-40 young people. The attention was intense. The ministers going into the Council building knew many of us from the consultations and stopped to say hello and discuss. Minister Britta Lejon



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s from the Swedish presidency said she fully agreeing that a White Paper was what was needed. Journalists were intrigued by this odd event : young people who were demonstrating on the street, asking for an EU document and being friendly with ministers ? Not the usual story. In the Member States, the recommended place to demonstrate was in front of the Commission representations, which in turn surprised the EU civil servants, who used to inform citizens about the EU but not be the target of protests. Perhaps an unavoidable result of the EU’s increasing political significance ? The Youth Ministers “unanimously voiced political support for the elaboration of a meaningful White Paper”. This was very important news for the youth organisations. A few days later, Romano Prodi, president of the Commission, declared at a Youth Forum’s 1st Youth Convention on Volunteering that the Commission was going to publish a White Paper. The downgrading of the White Paper had been avoided.

Adoption of the White Paper The Commission adopted the “EU White Paper – a New Impetus for European Youth” on 21 November 2001. This was a landmark event bringing the twoyear process to an end. Essentially, the document proposed an Open Method of Coordination in the youth field in order to improve coherence of youth policies on European and national level. Secondly, it advocated for increased mainstreaming of youth into other policy areas. The key topics identified were participation, information, volunteering and greater knowledge of youth. The youth organisations welcomed the important step in the development of European youth policy but at the same time expressed that they would have liked a more ambitious document. Indeed, compared with the many far-reaching proposals that had been collected at the consultations, the final document only contained a limited number of moderate proposals. Nevertheless, everyone recognised that the White Paper was a useful first step and that the future years would show the full potential of the new policy.

Impact of the White Paper The White Paper established a cycle of European coordination in youth affairs for the future years and set the agenda for increased youth cooperation in Europe. Apart of its impact on the strengthening of youth issues on the EU level, the White Paper also provided support for national youth policies. In the context of the EU enlargement, the existence of an EU policy was a powerful argument to take the youth issues up in the accession countries and also in many old member states. The White Paper concept became a landmark in the development of international youth policies. For the European Youth Forum, which was at the time still a new structure emerging from a prolonged internally-focused setting-up period, the White Paper challenge was a major development stimulus. Coordinating a process and liaising with all stakeholders placed the Youth Forum at the centre of the political landscape and forced it to put advocacy and policy work first instead of focusing on its internal organisational life. The difficult moments with the Commission gave the Youth Forum additional self-confidence but also made it clear that the platform needed to be set up politically and financially in such a way that it could survive even a potential political tension with the Commission.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s The realisation that youth issues were being constrained by lack of adequate legal basis in the EU treaty led the Youth Forum and the youth organisations to work for an increased EU competence and for a youth article in the EU Constitution. Mrs. Viviane Reding became one of the longest-serving Commissioners, starting her 3rd five-year term in 2010 as Vice-President of the Commission in charge of justice. Mr. Joao Vale de Almeida, the director for youth affairs who piloted the White Paper process, became the head of cabinet of President José Manuel Barroso. The thousands of young people involved in the consultations lived a transnational political experience, a generational project aimed at making a change. They succeeded in leaving their mark in the development of the EU and in improving the focus of the European institutions on the living conditions of young people. Disclaimer : The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author.

299 Henrik Söderman, born in 1976, was President of the Youth Forum 2001-2002 ; Bureau member 1998-2000. Represented the Finnish Youth Council (Allianssi) and the World Organisation of the Scout Movement – European Region (WOSM) in the European Youth Forum. Current occupation : official at the European Commission, DirectorateGeneral for Competition in Brussels since 2006. Previously worked i.a. as a bank analyst in Helsinki, at the World Bank in Paris and at the World Scout Bureau in Geneva. Master of Science (Economics) in 2003. Current involvement in non-governmental organisations : Scout Movement ; vice-chairman of the European Scout Committee. Union of European Federalists ; member of the Federal Committee.


Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Speech of Romano Prodi at the Ist Youth Convention on Volunteering Brussels, 21 May 2001 Dear young people : It gives me great pleasure to be here today. For twenty-five years I taught students, and I love being in touch with people of your age. Your energy, enthusiasm and freshness of imagination are tremendous assets for Europe. I am impressed that so many young people are willing to commit their time and energy to working for others. And you are involved in an extraordinary number and variety of community service projects. These projects meet all kinds of needs in our societies. Needs that are recognised by the public authorities but cannot adequately be met by the public services. So the work you are doing is very important and greatly appreciated. The European Commission wants you to know this, and I assure you that we shall continue actively supporting you through our Youth Programme. We also want to make sure European policymakers take real account of the concerns and wishes of young people. That is why we have spent a lot of time consulting youth organisations and holding youth conferences to find out what people your age think, want and are most deeply concerned about. Later this year, in a White Paper, we shall announce what we intend to do to answer your concerns and to improve life for young people in Europe. This brings me to an important question. What sort of EU will you be living and working in, ten years from now ? A dozen or more countries may have joined the EU by then, making it a much bigger and more diverse Union. So, what sort of European Union do we want to build together ? Whenever I get the chance to discuss this with young people I hear that you want, above all, a just, inclusive society where every individual is valued and rewarded. A tolerant society where people of different cultures and ethnic origins respect one another, and diversity is regarded as a positive asset. A genuine family of European peoples in which the different nations states, regions and social groups show real solidarity with one another. Well, I have news for you : that is exactly the kind of Europe I want too. Youth organisations and the other associations that make up “civil society” have an extremely important part to play in building that fair and caring society. Civil society is often in the front line of action when it comes to social work and protecting the environment. That is why the European Commission wants civil society to become much more involved in helping us design EU policies and programmes. After all, the EU exists for the people of Europe, and they need to have a real say in how it is run. This is especially true of your generation. The future of Europe is your future. So my message to you is this : get involved in the debate ! You are already very involved in practical projects : so you have



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s important, practical things to say about the kind of European Union you want to help us build. Tell us ! I assure you, the European Commission will give serious attention to your suggestions. Moreover, you are the decision-makers of tomorrow. The future of Europe will soon be in your hands. Start discussing it today ! Thank you.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s


Sophie Vanderveken — Préservatif sonor


Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

The European Youth Convention


The European youth Convention, or how we convinced the Union to put Youth in its Constitution words by Giacomo Filibeck

“We can indeed dream of Europe and persuade others to share the same dream ! We must embark on our task without preconceived ideas and form our vision of the new Europe by listening constantly and closely to all our partners but also to those who have no other identity, as they are just as part of Europe as the rest of us. In listening, we must pay special attention to young people, for whom I would like us to be able to organise a “Convention for the Young People of Europe”. With these very few words in his inaugural address to the European Convention on 28 February 2002, President Valery Giscard d’Estaing opened one of the most important historical chapters of the Convention on the future of Europe : the European Youth Convention. Recalling this event with Giscard’s words, if on one hand it offered the possibility of paying homage to the historical protagonist of the “convention” experience, on the other, it gave me license to comment with a critical point of view, his approach, as well as that of the political world and the European Institutions, with respect to the dialogue with the youth world. The reason for these pages are in fact, twofold : remembering a passage of the European Youth Forum (YFJ) history and reflecting more in general on the hardcore business of the youth world organised in Europe and its representation and its participation. I believe, after many years of political activity at the European youth level, that very few past experiences of YFJ’s life have known such hard confrontation on what was the true meaning of youth participation and representation as the ones that came out of the European Youth Convention.

A question of representation It was the year of consulting the Youth White Book proposed in 2000 by Commissioner Viviane Reding. Under the guidance of Henrik Söderman, the YFJ bureau experienced dialogue with the European Institutions, particularly the Commission. During the organised consultations with the Commission for the drawing up of the White Book we often found ourselves, as representatives of structured organisations and associations, in the position of having to defend ourselves from the critique of being capable of representing. The elements of the matter in question were very simple : In European society the majority of youth are “unorganised” compared to those “organised” in associations, voluntarism and/or political parties. Because in politics numbers count, many in the Institutions sustained that on the basis of a quantitative analysis it was inappropriate for the European Institutions to limit themselves to an exclusive structured dialogue with the European Youth Forum. Our answer was just as simple : If it were true that few young people got involved through associationism and organisations, then it would make sense to support them in expressing all of their potential in order to multiply

330 1 From the inaugural address 28th February 2002 “to organise a “Convention for the Young People of Europe”, which would meet using our own model as their basis [...]”. Using their Using their same model resulted in being quite complicated to imagine.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s rootedness in their society rather than limiting their tools and acknowledgment just because they were a minority. After all we were not aware that an anthropological difference between youth that are involved in an NGO and youth that are not has ever been proven. The only difference was that when the Institutions wanted to dialogue with the youth world they might have found themselves talking with a single individual who in “the best of cases” expressed his own ideas “uti singuli”. Instead when they dialogued with the young representatives of youth associations, they might have found themselves in the “worst scenario” to have listened to the ideas and proposals shared by a plurality of subjects. We have to remember, though, that those were the years when on one side the European youth unemployment was starting to rise, and on the other the alter globalist movements conquered the headlines in the international press. Thus, the political world found itself without the proper tools to respond to such requests, and we who continued to believe in our so called “zipper function” between the decision makers and our generation matured the awareness that the goals in sight were in danger. The youth question then like now remained always a rhetoric priority, but rarely it was transformed into a political priority. Thus, just the fact that the president of the French Republic had anticipated what would later become a request for involvement on behalf of the youth movements of the YFJ in the drawing up of what should have been the last treaty and the first Constitution of the European Union had a surprising effect for most of us. After Giscard’s announcement to the Bureau of the Youth Forum and to the European youth organisations, there was great ferment. On one side the wait took shape while the idea of youth being the protagonists of a Convention’s session. On the other was fear. The fear was based on Giscard’s same words1 that the same composition of the youth assembly in itself was not really a reflection of the principles of representativeness and legitimacy. The opportunity was surely of historical proportion. Being able to contribute on behalf of a generation to the project of a constitutional treaty for the European Union, which was on its way to opening up to 10 newer members, didn’t have any precedents. The final proposal, prepared by the Convention’s secretariat led by Sir John Kerr, together with the Commission and the PE was approved by the Praesidium on 27th March 2002. It foresaw the participation of 210 youth between the ages of 18 and 25 selected directly from the titular and temporary members of the European Convention representing the national Parliaments and Governments (a total of 168 members, six per country), 32 from the European Parliament’s representatives, four nominated from the representatives of the Commission and six from the Praesidium. The only element that we were able to affirm in that phase was that in the designation the senior conventional would be invited to keep into account the proposals made by the active youth associations at national and European level, such as the National Youth Councils and the YFJ. In the majority of cases the seniors followed these indications and involved the National Youth Councils respectively, or they selected among the youth movements of the political parties of origin. In other cases, they would have competitive entrance examinations on a national scale, and a minority would choose for the co-optation of youth close to them but not directly involved in politics.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s The final composition of the group was thus very heterogeneous for the diverse cultural and political paths. However, among this varieties of experiences, you would recognise the majority group who shared the culture of a democratic youth participation on the basis of which the same membership to the YFJ was founded. In those years in Italy, a National Youth Council did not yet exist and thus to comply with the deficit of preparation and coordination, inevitably lacking due to direct and name designation from the Italian2 members of the European Convention, preparatory meetings were held and promoted by the Observatory on the European Convention3. Even if not fully satisfied with the whole designating procedure, as the Youth Forum we offered the Convention our availability to partner up in the organisation of the event. The intention was, on one hand, to offer our know-how on the topic of youth meetings to the Institutions and, on the other, to avoid the risk that the entire event would be nothing other than a media affair. This cooperation allowed us to participate to the last few weeks of preparation and to attend the secretariats of the Convention and of the European Parliament, which both involved with the DG EAC of the Commission, and allowed us to discover that some of our fears were more than justified. We came to know that at the 13th June 2002 meeting the Praesidium dealing with the last minute preparations of the event noticed with satisfaction that the numerical balance between men and women was in favour of the latter and taking this into consideration it would have been logical to elect a woman as a chairperson of the youth Convention. Furthermore, the Praesidium hoped that the chairperson in question would not be from the Brussels-based machinery. Exactly the opposite of what we had thought inside the YFJ with the representatives of the political European youth movements. It was in fact a common agreement that the best candidacy, in competition with whomever else, woman or man, to the leadership of this exercise was entitled to the highest representative of the youth platform present on the continent : in other words, the President of the European Youth Forum (then being Henrik Söderman). Even though Söderman was a few months over the age limit fixed by the Praesidium, he was allowed as in president of the YFJ to take part in the same way as the other juniors. Moreover, we considered certain arbitrary positions as an insult to the idea of free and independent participation, of which we had always been promoters. Nevertheless we were told on the last useful day, just before the beginning of the proceedings, that Giscard d’Estaing was inflexible on the inadmissibility of Söderman’s candidacy (officially) due to anagraphical reasons. Because other candidates were present, there was no risk in being without leadershi p.  That was the moment in which the representatives of the liberal, people’s and socialist youth organisations asked my availability to stand as a candidate in the name of both unity and self-government of the YFJ. Honoured, I accepted the request and strength of the support that went beyond the political movements, involving also the youth of the European Trade Union’s Confederation (ETUC), the Scouts and other NGYOs. I was thus elected president together with the two vice presidents Ellen Trane Norby, Dane and liberal, Roberta Tedesco Triccas, Maltese of the people’s party, eight other members of the presidency and the three speakers of the group proceedings.

331 2 In my case it was the Euro representative Elena Paciotti to select me on the basis of the indications received from the Left Democratic Party and its Left wing youth organisation. 3 Instituted by the Minister for European Affairs, Rocco Buttiglione, and coordinated by Francesco Tufarelli, the Observatory on the European Convention constituted an open table, one where many political, institutional, academic and associative realities which dealt with Europe, could make comparisons. During the period of the Convention and of the Italian semester of Presidency of the Union, it was the laboratory for numerous initiatives on the entire territory and addressed to every social sector.

332 4 Tuesday 9th July : end of the afternoon, introduction session, election of the president and of the Praesidium; Wednesday morning, 10th July : opening of the CEG proceedings ; afternoon : meeting the press and work groups ; Thursday morning, 11th July : continued proceedings in groups and a plenum on the group results ; afternoon : Convention joined session and Convention, beginning of the amendment voting; Friday morning, 12th July : final presentation of the findings to the Convention and press conference ; afternoon : closing session of the Youth Convention. 5 The speakers of the three groups were, respectively : 1) Akos Komassy (Ecosy, young European socialists) ; 2) Jan Kreutz (Jef, young European Federalists) ; 3) Eric Varadkar (Yepp, Youth of the European People’s Party).

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s The Convention takes off The first act of the YC ended just as described above but in the evening hours the proceedings continued happily for most of us in order to make sure that, even with a program4 prepared on such short notice, we could succeed in developing a political proposal for the future of the Union that would be considered in itself worthy. The YC started officially on the morning of the 10th and among the speakers at the opening ceremony, Giscard wanted to be the protagonist giving a “winged” speech “We need you (appealing to the youth).… the real treasure of man is the green youth(quoting Ronsard, the poet).…You can conduct your proceedings in whatever way you see fit. The only rules are tolerance and freedom of expression… Tell us what your dreams are for the next twenty years… Become builders of dreams on our side ! You are the citizens of the future Europe.” Half way through the “poem” a young Italian conventionalist Samuele Pii stood up from the back of the hall and yelled out to leave the platform to the youth members of the praesidium elected the night before, asserting that the platform belonged to us. That wasn’t the first or last signal of suffering, will and determination showed to those who wanted us there merely as props on the world media stage, which took place during the path of the youth convention. The applause that followed Samuele’s call was the proof that the convention was ours and that we would have not allowed anyone, even Giscard, to predetermine or influence our results. We considered that pondering the idea of the “Dream” when the European reality offered very little of oneiric was an ulterior signal that we were running the risk of being considered unpredictable and over ambitious with our ideas. Instead we decided that our mission was not any different and of the same importance as that of the senior convention. The main questions were already clearly outlined in Laeken’s Declaration on the future of the European Union : “The Union has to become more democratic, more transparent and more efficient. She had to also answer three essential challenges : How to draw up citizens – first of all youth – to the European project and to the European institutions ? How to structure political life and the European political space in a broader Union ? How to transform the Union in a stability factor and in a point of reference in a new and multipolar world ?”

The proceedings and the outcomes To answer those questions we structured our proceeding in three work groups : one, missions and visions for the European Union, two democracy and participation in the European Union – For a European democracy and three, Europe in a globalised world.5 After two intense working days, the final document was voted in the middle of the night between 23 and 24 hour. The voters were 146 on 210 who had active right to vote (64 absentees). For the high number of amendments to vote (about 100), the final vote took place at two in the morning, thus the morning of 12th July. The entire document was composed of an introduction, the resolutions of the work groups included in three distinct parts and the conclusions. Presenting briefly the main proposals : The introduction opened by quoting the three main challenges defined in Declaration and continued on with stating the will to contribute and

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s fulfil “what the generations before considered a dream : A political European community which would live in peace, it would be able to resolve conflicts on the basis of law and no longer with force, and it would be a model for the rest of the world. Therefore the youth ask… ambitious reforms”. The first part defined the democratic values of the Union. It concentrated on European citizenship, “which compliments and does not substitute national identities”. After the common market and the Euro, it was necessary to build a true common citizenship and through which a “cultural European space”. For that purpose, it was proposed to increase exchange programs for youth, to recognise diplomas, professional qualifications and to teach the history of European integration in all of its schools. In asking for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, we hoped to see in the very near future an immigration and asylum policy so that Europe could truly become a welcoming land. It was also asked to develop a European welfare system and an environmental policy, dedicating thus an ample space to the Union’s budget. To increase the financial resources “a system of European taxation” was suggested, “which foresaw a consumption tax”. In the second part we had the outline of the institutional reforms. We identified democracy, transparency and efficiency as the main objectives of a Union that should have a tendency in establishing a federal model, founded on parliamentary control and on a clear balance of power. Most of all we emphasised how important it was to abolish the right to veto and to a have a parliamentary form of government, an evolution of the Council in a second chamber and the transformation of the Commission in a true European executive branch that would be responsible in front of the Council and the Parliament. We advanced the hypothesis of a European referendum on the results of the Convention “because the citizens should have the last word on the future of their Europe”. If they only would have listened and voted it on the same day of the European Parliamentary elections of 12th and 13th June 2004, I had no doubts that the referendum would have passed with a great majority and that the debate that would have preceded would have been captivating and centred on the European vision rather than the national questions. The third part stated the values which distinguished the international relations role of Europe : democracy, freedom, equality and respect of human rights. To be able to face global challenges (the gap between North and South, disarmament, terrorism, environmental protection) Europe had to operate together with the supranational institutions, and of the utmost importance it should have a common Foreign and Safety policy. “Foreign policy has to become exclusive competency of the European Union. Safety and foreign policy should integrate with the choices made by the European Parliament and Council. A single Foreign Affairs Commissioner to execute common policies”. In addition, it was added that a “European Army would be less expensive and militarily more efficient”. Lastly, it was pointed out that the European Union should speak with one voice within international institutions and should also promote regional integration in the other areas of the planet6. In the conclusions we urged to open a debate on the future of Europe to all of the citizens and take the responsibility in bringing in their contribution. In the morning of 12th July together with the two vice presidents, the Dane Ellen Trane Norby and the Maltese Roberta Tedesco Triccas, we presented in front of the plenum of the Convention the youth proposals.7

333 6 Rethinking European division on the invasion of Iraq which would have followed up in a few months and to the difficulties on the subject which we continue to encounter, we had to recognise that the clarity in the analysis and in the proposal was considerable. 7 It’s possible to consult the integral text of their speeches and of the entire subsequent debate, on the site of the PE in the session of 12th July 2002.

334 8 It was known that Jens Peter Bonde had followed up close the proceedings of the EYC as an external coordinator of the anti-European branch of the assembly. Particularly, since the first session, Sam Dobbyn and others started out by critiquing the non transparent composition of the Convention, the funding of the youth organisations represented and on the methods for the proceedings, putting the secretary, represented by Annalisa Giannela who was at the presidency due to the fact that the junior Praesidium elections hadn’t yet taken place, in a difficult position. In that case, it was possible to consider the Euro-sceptic the only true organised group of the Convention.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s Particularly presenting the intense work done, I justified the voting choice for the final document with far-sightedness : “Voting implies a majority and a minority. We, as youth, see the future of Europe this way. We cannot proceed with a consensus or unanimously. We have to be brave enough to confront with one another, so to try and imagine the future of Europe according to the opinions of a minority and a majority. This is fundamental for us, otherwise, Europe, which is a grand project, will not be able to progress any further”. After which, Ellen Trane Norby described, together with the youth policies, the institutional proposals : “The majority of us believe that a federal structure based on the Union of citizens is the only one feasible for the future of Europe”. At last, in her speech Roberta Tedesco Triccas explained her ideas on the role of Europe in the world developed by the third group and the above mentioned. After the last words that invited the Praesidium and the European Youth Forum to continue on cooperating “to prepare a second session of the youth Convention”, the word was then passed on to the representative of the Danish government, Mrs. Thorning -Schmidt. She intervened on the merit of an initiative promoted from the Danish Presidency of the EU involving youth. The event “Youth 2002” foresaw the participation of 1000 European youth gathered the week before the youth Convention in order to formulate their own proposals on the future of the Union. In her presentation, ThorningSchmidt underlined various common elements with the conclusions of the Youth Convention, especially the request, “the omen”, of a federal Europe for the coming years of the continent. In the subsequent debate, numerous conventionalist intervened, encouraged by youth suggestions. Many raised blue cards forced the president of the session, Jean-Luc Dehaene, to grant only a minute each. The Honourable Duhamel was the first to congratulate for having proved that the European Youth Convention wasn’t a media operation as some had suspected ; he then returned on the idea of the European referendum and promoted the initiative of 21st March 2003 on “Europe’s Spring” (read ahead). Decisively the critical tone of the speech of a junior conventionalist, the English Sam Dobbyn who presented a minority report signed by 50 participants. He criticised the “non democratic” condition of the Youth Convention and was inspired by “factional interests”. As he read the short text of the report, Dobbyn listed a series of observations related to the antiEuropean theses (from the British tabloid), underlying the “little legitimacy” of the Youth Convention in not truly being representative of European youth.12 Of the same spirit the words of Bonde, who intervened thereafter and was the only one to resume on Dobbyn’s critique.8 Instead, the conventionalist who appreciated the federalist inspired proposals were Duff, who reaffirmed the importance of strengthening the transnational political parties underlined in the youth document, the Danish MP Skaarup, Elmar Brok and the eurorepresentative Maij-Weggen. In closing the debate, Dehaene (Giscard left him the presidency) invited the president and the two youth vice presidents to follow, as observers, the proceedings of the European Convention and with regards to the request of a second session. He stated that the Praesidium would evaluate the request. It might be of interest also to point out some of the reactions of the political world to the youth message. Especially of those who were among the promoters of the event : Valery Giscard d’Estaing. The president didn’t seem to be very satisfied with the outcome of the youth Convention. In an announcement he stated that “it was exploited by

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s the federalist. Chosen according to arbitrary criteria and immediately handled by the political parties, our young conventionalist spent much enthusiasm and talent without being able to express an authentic generational sentiment”. The hypothesis of a federal minority organised within the assembly seemed to be quite groundless. In reality within the EYC, a convergence of the majority of the participants, who were inspired on the federalist project, took place independently from the different affiliations and places of origin. The generational element prevailed over the national and political one. Without dedicating too much time to the question at hand, it was difficult to understand fully the reasons for that criticism. To have a youth convention with the same political balance of the adult one was a logical consequence being that the selection criteria of the participants were proposed by the Praesidium and the ad personam nomination favoured, in great number the conventionalist, a choice of trust within the youth context of their political family. Furthermore, it was natural that the transverse component of active youth in the various organisations operated from the eve to guarantee a productive unwinding of the proceedings. Isn’t finding an agreement of the political world ? Given such short time, 3 days in the program, 2 days of actual work, the risk was making the event chaotic, losing a precious opportunity to send a message. The alternative could have been a document less characterised by a political point of view, which would have probably exposed the Youth Convention to the critique of being representative of a youth movement without ideas and ideals. It remains still difficult to imagine what kind of conclusion Giscard hoped for “his” Youth Convention.9 Lastly, the generational element was to be considered. Why did 210 European youth, born between the ages of 1976 and 1984, have to have the same vision of the French statesman on the future of Europe ? We, in fact, highlighted a generational difference precisely among those like Giscard, who believed the federal prospective settled thus coinciding with the plans outlined in the treaties of Rome, and those like us, the youth Convention, who saw the unity of Europe as a way to build the very first supranational democracy in history. Essentially we proved that the values, the objectives of the dream and the Founding Fathers’ European project lived on more than it seemed in the imaginary of our generation. The youthful events that followed that first Convention, were the proof. The value of the experience of the European Youth Convention, besides the message, was in fact the multiplying factor which generated similar initiatives, which were then picked up by our National Youth Councils, from schools to universities in various countries of the European Union It was a demonstration of how that initial event was not done in vain.

And the follow-ups The youth involved in Portugal, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Italy, France and Malta reaffirmed and enriched our proposals. Many were the demonstrations all over Europe for consulting citizens, students and youth, of which I mentioned only the main ones. Giscard, on the occasion of his speech in Bruges, 2nd October 2002, tried it again by asking the students of the European College to express themselves on the future name of Europe. Once again the results of the consultations disappointed the expectations of the President of the Convention. In fact, a large majority of the students preferred

335 9 In the letter that Giscard wrote on 17th June 2002 visiting the EYC, to every young conventionalist, it stated that : “On the occasion of my inaugural address, I hoped that a Youth Convention would gather, so that your generation, from 18-25 years of age, would make their opinions of today’s Europe known, but especially so that you could point out the elements which you think essential to a long term prospective. In fact, it is your generation that will exercise the responsibilities in the future Europe. You have the right to imagine it and build it promptly. I count on your enthusiasm and motivation. I am convinced that your works will be of great quality and that they will be a useful contribution to those of the Convention”.

336 10 Once again the results expected from the youth consultations were to be considered as colored contributions rather than substantial ones, but often youth are more realistic and serious than one believes them to be. 11 Samuele Pii, Ginevra del Vecchio, Francesca de Marinis, Giorgio Ialongo, Lucia Pasqualini, Riccardo Provini, Salvatore Greco 12 Our amendment did non pass entirely but it became the basis on which we compromised for the adoption of the new arrangement.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s not to change “European Union” (76 percent)10 while only a small percentage expressed themselves in favour, as indicated by Giscard, of “United Europe” (6 percent), instead those in favour of : “United States of Europe” (7 percent), “European Community” (7 percent) and “other names” (4 percent). Furthermore, 21st March 2003 was the day dedicated to the Spring of Europe. Every high school was invited to organise a debate, a conference, and a lesson on Europe. The initiative, promoted by the members of the Convention, took part thousands of schools in the entire Union. In Italy it was of particular interest to observe how the students were involved, which was a unique experience per intensity and diffusion. According to the mandate received in Brussels, the 9 members11 of the Italian delegation organised in cooperation with the Observatory, a national session of the European Youth Convention. Numerous preparatory meeting preceded and announced the event in the entire peninsula. The Italian Youth Convention took place in Rome from 10th to the 12th January 2003. The 210 young participants, between the ages of 16 and 29 years old, represented a real “Parliament”, one that reflected the Italian youth world from the entire peninsula. The assembly was truly representative. Besides foreseeing the spread of the age span (from 16 to 29 instead of 18 to 25), the participants were also the expression of 65 youth organisations, student councils from all regions and provinces, university post graduate schools and all those who were selected through the process carried out among the participants of forums at the local level and the auto-candidacies via the Internet. De facto, in that venue it came to us that it would have been what we know today as the National Youth Forum (FNG). Even though I took on the presidency of the YFJ for the 2003-2004 term, I continued to dedicate most of my attention to the political debate which livened up the convention’s proceedings. In those months together with the vice presidents of the Youth Convention Ellen and Roberta, we took part to the collective assembly with a double objective. Our mandate was on one hand was to try in fact to influence the convention’s proceedings so that our proposals wouldn’t die out and on the other hand was to use our presence to insert in the constitutional draft an unequivocal reference to the youth world which could then be used as new legal basis for the future of the YFJ and of the European NGYO’s. With respect to our political affiliations, we used the liberal, socialist and people’s party group meetings that took place regularly on the sides of every plenum meeting of the Convention to carry on our mission. In my case I took part to the socialist family meeting presided by Giuliano Amato, who was together with the people’s Jean Luc Dehane, vice president of the same Convention. It was an honour and a must on that occasion to recognise that without their help it would have been very difficult to succeed in the passing of the amendment to the body of what we know today as the Youth Article of the Lisbon Treaty.12 In order to be able to fulfil our objective, it was necessary to keep the tension and the interest high and in agreement with the forum of the youth bureau we organised the second session of the Youth Convention without having received a true authorisation from the same Convention’s Praesidium. In fact, due to Giscard and the Convention’s Secretariat’s resistance, it was not treated as a real second session but as an assembly restricted to some national delegation’s representatives which participated in July 2002. Forty delegations coming from 28 countries took part at the meeting of the Youth

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s Convention from 20th to 21st May 2003 at the PE’s HQ in Brussels. The practical mandate to this follow-up was the exam of the preliminary project presented by the Praesidium at the end of October 2002 to verify if it was in correspondence with the proposals of the final document of the YC. The opening debate, 20th May, took part pointing out their respective positions on the Praesidium’s proposals Paolo Ponzano, a temporary member of the Convention, in representation of the Commission ; the vice president of the same Convention, Jean Luc Dehaene and the President of the Commission for constitutional affairs of the European Parliament, Giorgio Napolitano.13 The afternoon and the day following 21st May 21st, were dedicated to discussing in three groups, respectively on : the missions and visions of the Union, the institutional assets and the role of Europe in the world. Critiques were moved to Article 2 of the project because it did not clearly recognise peace as a central value of the Union. The intention to create a European volunteer service for humanitarian aid, was valued positively. In regards, youth added the proposal of establishing a European civil service. The most heated debate was on the new institutional asset of the Union, and it reaffirmed the subject matter of July’s proceedings : a request for a strong role of the PE in being the central legislative power next to the Council as a second chamber of the States. An extension of the co-decisional procedure and the right to initiate legislation was proposed for the PE. Furthermore, the PE should propose and elect the President of the Commission, though the Council should limit itself to approving the choice. A negative opinion was expressed on the idea of a People’s Congress. Once again it was reasserted the importance of the Convention’s method and the European referendum was proposed as a more useful tool to legitimise the going into effect of the Constitutional Treaty. With regard to the third group, the Union had to promote a true foreign policy and develop its own defence identity with the creation of a European army and a European armament and strategic research agency.14

Conclusions The debate on the future of the Union and, especially on the method of the Convention, helped the involvement of citizens and opened a brand new phase in the European integration process. Nevertheless, it would be an error to overestimate this participation. In fact, there has not been really a people’s movement that changed the positions of governments. On the contrary, the opening to the citizens often took place only to legitimise the positions of political summits. The governments at the end of the Convention were able to state that for the first time Europeans were listened to.15 Such is the development of democracy in the Union that this statement in itself will be enough to make national governments seem closer to their citizens. Actually a European democracy has to yet mature. It needs new tools, and the context of the Convention had probably only created the premises. All the more so for the youth, many of whom have met politics for the first time in the past years together with Europe. This is the main change : Europe and politics for our generation often goes together ! A transitional period is under way. Today, as in the past there are many youth ready to pick up the values and objectives of European unity. Today, our youth, differently from the past, live a new and different historical context, appreciate the freedom to move within a space of 15, now 27 countries as well as enjoy the possibility to study within the Union and the

337 13 A privilege to be able to remember the clarity of the President of the Italian Republic, in his analysis, his European faith assumed a greater significance this year with the 150th anniversary of Italy’s Unity. 14 The conclusions of these two days are collected in the document CONV 788/03. 15 The same message of peace, against the war in Iraq, of the demonstrations of 14th February 2003, was a shock for the “European people”. A spontaneous but deep moment, not really welcomed from any of the great political families, nor from the heads of State or of governments, only in appearance from France and Germany.


Back to the future, youth in the 2000s opportunities offered by the Euro to travel the world. Only to quote some aspects of daily benefits and privileges that are difficult to quantify but are expression of values consolidated in time, such as peace and democracy. To these opportunities and ideals European youth are not ready to give up, quite the opposite rather, on all of that they seem ready to build. The Convention project gathers all of these elements within a constitutional frame and reenforces it. The youth involved by the Convention’s wave had courage and vision capability. They were aware of the historical opportunities (maybe criticised for them). From the reading of the proposals emerged that their documents offered a look onto the world and were open in addressing their peers and citizens. Inspired by the desire to conquer most people with their ideas, these youth seemed to want to show that. Today more than yesterday the battle for European democracy is even more possible and essential for the planet. It is always easier to conduct an analysis in retrospect, but I can’t help but think. If the final wording was passed by the Convention and was delivered to the Intergovernmental Conference of Rome in 2004 contained more similar measures to those proposed by us on the subjects of social policies and institutional reforms to favour integration and our role on the international scene, then today we would find ourselves in a very different world. Unfortunately instead, the near-sightedness of national governments of that period (and of those prior in the 90’s) brought to a bigger “European Union” yes but also more divided within its borders and with a lesser extrinsic influence. The basis for the success of modern anti-European populism led by the illusionists of the national fortresses were put in those years where instead of thinking to the future European leaders stopped in the present. They were trying to earn domestic consensus by criticising European integration instead of dedicating themselves with far-sightedness spirit to improving the less useful aspects of the lives of European citizens. We have to start off again from those who failed before us and the job of that Youth Convention generation and of those who followed thereafter will be to express the future executive classes in the countries of the Union. It is the ambition of those who will want to prove their talents and will have to include themselves in European society, working in another State of the Union, by choice, for training andfor necessity. Who living in a supranational dimension will want to see the same rights of citizenship that he or she enjoyed previously recognised or, with time, acquired ? Which “foreigner” wants to become “citizen” ? The energies of European democracies could be born from the charge of these ambitions and visions. These could be the elements that could overcome the inertia phases of the integration process. On the other hand, resistance is not lacking. It is dynamic and transverse. Still today it is inevitable to notice a gap in European political representation for the expectations of the citizens and the ambitions of the youth. I would like to give a heart-warming thank you to the secretary general of the YFJ Giuseppe Porcaro for giving me the possibility to put on paper the memory of the events above mentioned (verba volant scripta manent) not yet gathered in an organic presentation. Also I would like to thank Samuele Pii for having helped me “remember”. As far as it is the 15th anniversary of the YFJ, the objective is not only to celebrate youth participation which, even though uncommon, still remains compared to the great numbers, a minority, but also to leave signs,

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s traces of a path which can inspire others after us. At the end of this experience, surely the most significant of my political commitment, the proof of the work done through the previous years by other youth still remains, with the hope that it all had sense. Having succeeded in influencing, even if in a minimal part and below expectations, the composition of the text which then became treaty and thus law in effect erga omnes had an historical importance. On the Youth Article in fact I hope that the YFJ and its members will build a strong political initiative for the participation of youth. This result, though, cannot in any way be ascribed with exclusive merit to the individuals who actually made it come true. Our capability, if anything, was to succeed in using the accumulated work done through the years by the various generations of youth committed in the political organisations and youth associationism. This teaches that even when reality frustrates our ambitions and our projects don’t see the light, in reality we are sowing the seeds of a harvest, of which the fruits will be picked by others, who like us believe in the same values. Thus, my dear friends of the YFJ, carry on and remember that good ideas do not have an age. They do not exist in one historical moment ; they instead have a great future.

339 Giacomo Filibeck, born in 1978, has been politically involved in student movements since high school, holding leadership positions both at the national and european levels (OBESSU). He has acquired a vast expertise on youth issues, being the former President of the European Youth Forum (2003-2004). He has provided political input on behalf of youth in many of the most relevant national, European and global processes related to youth within the EU, the Council of Europe, the United Nations system and the World Bank. Giacomo is now member of the Foreign Affairs office of the Democratic Party in Italy. He has been President of the Youth Convention on the Future of Europe and took part as an observer in the plenaries of the Convention drafting the Constitutional Treaty. Giacomo is also a journalist and the Director General of the Centre for Mediterranean Europe Foundations – MESEURO, whose aim is to facilitate the challenges of the Mediterranean cooperation.


Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

European Youth Forum Contribution to the European Convention : Bringing Europe closer to its young citizens Introduction The Declaration of Laeken has defined the mandate of the European Convention which will consider the key questions for the European Union’s future development and try to identify possible responses. The Convention will be an important step in the history of the European Union. The European Youth Forum welcomes the fact that the issues at stake are addressed in this form as it will allow for a public debate on questions that concern all citizens in Europe. The Convention has set up a Civil Society Forum and youth organisations have declared their commitment to making a contribution to the work of the Convention. The Laeken Declaration pointed out that one of the key challenges of the Union – and therefore for the Convention – will be to find ways of making sure that young people do not feel alienated from the European project, that they are motivated to participate in the construction of Europe and that it actually becomes possible for them to participate. We call upon the Convention and all involved in EU affairs to take this question seriously : how to bring Europe closer to its young citizens and how to bring young people closer to the European Union, to its objectives and institutions. With this resolution the Youth Forum would like to contribute to the discussion on this question and hopes to stimulate further discussion - and hopefully action - by the Convention, the EU institutions and among young people.

Tackling the Concerns of Young People – with young people It is clear that acceptance of and identification with the European Union depends to a considerable extent on whether young people feel that the Union tackles issues that concern them - and how it tackles them. The Union needs to reinforce and make its role more visible for policies related, for example, to youth unemployment, or the sustainable use of natural and economic resources, more equitable economic relations with developing countries and political responses to globalisation. The European Convention will not deal with all of these issues to the same extent but they are at least partly related to the attribution of competencies between the EU and the Member States. The Youth Forum invites all its members to engage in these discussions and to facilitate the involvement of young people, be it by making contributions to the Convention or be it in the Fora that have been established on national level. Issues that concern young people more than other sections of society should be tackled by a cross-sectoral youth policy. The Youth Forum has developed numerous recommendations during the consultation process on the Commission’s White Paper on youth,i which it would like to see taken into account also in this context.ii The European Union should assure that policies for young people are developed in all Member States and that these policies draw on the examples and experiences that exist in other Member



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s States. Where necessary, the policies should be developed with more coherency across the Member States. This pertains particularly to aspects touching on transnational youth work. Here there is a clear need to strengthen the EU’s competency in terms of policy co-ordination. Along with globalisation and increasing mobility of the work force, education is an issue that requires European answers, as has been recognised by the European Council.iii At the same time the Bologna processiv has taken on a dynamic outside of the EU framework. This is worrying, because democratic control is very limited in such an intergovernmental process. This has been especially vivid in the exclusion of student organisations from active consultation in the process until recently. The Convention should therefore consider carefully if and how to integrate this process into the EU framework. Young people want to participate in making the decisions that concern them and the more responsibility they are given, the more they are ready to participate and will eventually identify to a greater extent with the decisions and the institutions. This is particularly pertinent to EU actions specifically aimed at young people such as the mobility programmes. If the Union wants to become more democratic and closer to its young citizens it should measure itself against models of good practice that exist in terms of co-management of youth related programmes in Member States and other international organisations such as the Council of Europe.v Legal obstacles to such comanagement practice within the EU should be removed. It is important for the EU to recognise that participation is more than consultation on pre-defined questions. As the Laeken Declaration makes clear, the Convention needs to establish a broad dialogue with young people and with youth organisations, to ensure public support for its work and the greater involvement of the citizens in shaping the future European Union. The planned Youth Convention can only be one of the many forums where young people can make their contribution, and should be part of a much broader and more inclusive process to allow young people’s voices to be heard. The European Youth Forum encourages all of its members to involve themselves in an open and continuous debate on the future of Europe, and in the framework of the dialogue with Civil Society. The basic treaty of the EU which the Convention will draft should include a revised article concerning youth and education policy (replacing Art. 149 EC Treaty). The EU should be given a clear complementary competency in this The objective of EU youth policy should be : to strengthen European co-operation and co-ordination in trans-national youth work ; to strengthen fundamental, social, economic, cultural, civil, and political rights of young people ; to improve coherency in the further development of national youth policies ; to develop minimum standards ; to enhance the mobility of young people ; to enhance equal participation of young women ; to allow for greater participation of young people in the EU and to ensure that young people’s needs are taken into account to a greater extent in other policy areas. It should also allow for an effective system of youth-proofing to be established in other EU policies, meaning that the impact of EU policies on young people and future generations is assessed systematically. The integration of the Bologna process and other intergovernmental processes into the framework of the European Union would develop both political and democratic accountability and control. This would not negate the need for consultations with relevant expert youth organisations, which should be part of the framework.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s Common Procedures for elections at all levels should define the voting age and the right to stand for elections at 16. The right to vote on all levels should also be given to non-EU nationals who have been resident in a Member State for a period equivalent to the one laid down for EU-nationals in the detailed arrangements referred to in Article 19 EC-Treaty. Parties should actively promote young candidates for seats in the European Parliament election.

A Europe of Encounters, open to the World The Youth Forum is convinced that young people will identify more strongly with the project of making Europe grow together when they feel that this Europe has something to offer for them and when the integration process is not only economical but one that brings together the people that live in Europe. In its “Resolution on Mobility of Young People in Europe” the Youth Forum stated : “Living in another country for some time, intercultural exchanges and training put young people in a position where they can reflect on their cultural background and come to a proper appreciation of the diversity of Europe. They can learn to co-operate with people of different cultural backgrounds, which is a skill already highly valued by employers and which will most probably become more important in the future. (…) The benefit of such an experience is not exclusive to the individuals involved in the exchanges. Through their interaction, they promote intercultural learning, both in the hosting community and in the one of origin (…) Mobility is a right enshrined in the treaty (Article 18 TEC). The Community and the Member States have to take the appropriate measures to safeguard that all citizens have adequate resources and support in order to allow for equal opportunities in making use of this right. Currently this right remains theory for most young people.“vii More than a decade ago the European Parliament set the objective to make it possible that “at least 10% of young people and students in Europe” can take part in mobility programmes for young peopleviii. This objective is still far from being reached, mainly due to a lack of resources. Despite some improvement, the opportunities for young people to take part in mobility schemes are still to limited and the recognition of mobility is insufficient. Although the European Parliament has made considerable efforts in the past, the current decision-making procedures do not seem to allow that this issue is prioritised also in financial terms. It is also important to note that there is evidence that exchanges – of groups of Europeans from different countries - with third countries contribute substantially to developing a European identity and that therefore third country exchanges should be further promoted. Furthermore, we recall that the Laeken Declaration poses questions regarding Europe’s role in the world, suggesting that Europe has a “leading role to play in a new world order, (…) Europe as the continent of humane values (…) of liberty, solidarity and above all diversity, meaning respect for others’ languages, cultures and traditions. (…) Now that the Cold War is over and we are living in a globalised, yet also highly fragmented world, Europe needs to shoulder its responsibilities in the governance of globalisation. The role it has to play is that of a power resolutely doing battle against all violence, all terror



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

and all fanaticism, but which also does not turn a blind eye to the world’s heartrending injustices. In short, a power wanting to change the course of world affairs in such a way as to benefit not just the rich countries but also the poorest. A power seeking to set globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development.” We believe that Europe can only play this role if it is open to the rest of the World and particularly its neighbouring regions. Therefore the Union must encourage exchanges of young people in Europe – who do not want a “Fortress Europe” – and young people of other world regions. It is therefore crucial that obstacles to such encounters, be it in forms of youth exchanges or voluntary service or academic exchanges, are abolished in all countries of Europe. The EU should ensure that all young people have the means and the opportunity to spend a period of 3 months or more in another country if they wish so. The resources available for the support of young people’s mobility need to be tripled over the next years (public-private partnerships should be set up to achieve this objective). In order to extend the opportunity of longer-term mobility to a greater number of young people including those who do not take up university studies, the EU should also launch initiatives encouraging and supporting the mobility of second level students as well as those undertaking further and higher education and training. European countries should abolish visa and facilitate the procedures of obtaining the residence cards and similar documents for young people regardless of their origin. The origin of a young person should not be a selective mechanism and mobility must not be taxed in any way. The European Union should revise the budgets available for the Socrates, Leonardo and Youth programmes prior to enlargement becoming effective. The European Parliament needs to be given the full “power of the purse“, i.e. the elected representatives of the people should be fully responsible for the entire EU Budget.ix

support is questioned.xi And while the European Company statute has been finally adopted, the creation of a European Associationxii statute has been shelved, contradicting all talk of a Citizens Europe. Furthermore, there is also worrying tendency to reduce the role of civil society organisations to functional operators of public policy rather then recognising their contribution to democracy and active citizenship.xiii The European Convention should include in its draft of the EU’s future fundamental treaty an article that recognises and promotes the freedom of association in an affirmative manner and acknowledges the role of civic organisations in the construction of a more democratic and participatory European Union. The Convention should include the Charter of Fundamental Rights as an integral part of its proposed draft treaty. The Council should quickly adopt the statute of the European Association. European Parliament should encourage the Council to speed up the process and not to delay it any further. A European Association statute would facilitate the work of international NGOs which now, despite their international membership and their transnational activities, are subject to national laws on NGOs, which differ from country to country. The EU should recognise the specific nature of International Youth NGOs and their vital contribution to connecting young people with the EU, to reaching marginalised and excluded young people and in providing intercultural experiences for young people all over Europe. International Youth Organisations are a vital part of European Civil Society. The participation of Civil Society and the European Parliament in the Open Method of Co-ordinationxiv should be more clearly defined. Provisions shall be made requiring that the European Parliament and representative NGOs are consulted at all relevant stages in the cycle of the Open Method of Co-ordination.

A Europe in association with its citizens

It is widely acknowledged in the Member States that the European Union is often perceived to be removed from the realities and concerns of its citizens. Its institutions and decision making is seen as complex and incomprehensible. Also often politicians on the national level find it easy to blame “Brussels” for decisions that have been taken jointly. The EU has developed a number of measures to make its working more transparent and accountable. More remains to be done. Access to documents is still difficult even for the initiated and even if available most of them are hard to understand for the common citizen and even more so for young people. This contributes to the perception that Europe is run by an elitist circle using a code that prevents citizens from questioning and understanding the decisions taken on their behalf. The ongoing reform of the European Commission is a positive step and efforts should be reinforced to make the European public service more open and friendly to the citizens that it serves. The composition of the staff of the institutions should, more than it is today, be a reflection of the different social realities and experiences that exist in Europe in the different policy areas on which the Union acts. The decision-making procedures of the EU must be clarified and made more transparent and less complex so that every citizen understands them.

The reform of the EU to cope with enlargement and to make it more democratic and efficient is an important endeavour. In this the EU needs to recognise that the institutions cannot overcome the problem of scepticism towards the EU, its objectives and its current institutional setting unilaterally. Reconnecting with the citizens requires engaging with citizens where they are. Voluntary associations of citizens are an important element of democracy and the European heritage. The European Union should more fully recognise the potential that exists in the non-governmental sector and that building a European Civil Society is more difficult - but even more important - than forging a Common Market. Building a European Civil Society requires a vision and a lasting commitment from the institutions, at least as much as creating the Economic and Monetary Union. This vision and this commitment is not always visible nor always pursued with the same consistency even though the Commission has recognised the role that non-governmental organisations play in “giving voice to the concerns of citizens.”x For example, while politically the role of European NGOs in democratic governance is recognised their financial

Citizen-friendly Institutions and Information



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s The Council should act only as a legislative body, acting as a second chamber together with the European Parliament and all its deliberations should take place in public. Documents of the Council must be accessible to citizens well in advance of the actual decision on them, and at all stages of the decision-making process. Furthermore citizens have a right to know what position their governments’ representatives take in the Council, at all working levels. All institutions – in particular the Council, the Commission and the Parliament – should provide citizens-friendly information on the major decisions and discussions such as Council meetings, Commission communications, EP reports. Youth NGOs should be recognised as important partners in producing and disseminating information about the European Union to young people, in particular in the candidate countries. Young people have a right to be informed in a timely manner about the decisions by which they are effected in a way that is clear and transparent and avoids unnecessary jargon. The more seriously the Union takes young people the more trust it will earn. European countries should include the history and functioning of international institutions acting at European and global level (EU, Council of Europe, UN) in the school curricula. The recruitment procedures of the EU institutions should be reformed in order to open up the European public service to a greater variety of professional and social backgrounds, including people with valuable ‘grassroots‘ experience in specific policy areas.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s


Caroline Wolewinski — Youth right circle

(Extrait ; ensemble images et textes)


Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

The Structured Dialogue


A Structure that holds them all Towards a structured dialogue in the youth field words by Tine Radinja

As a thin fabric of youth participation was weaved over the past half century, it became more and more crucial to give youth participation a structure that would hold it all together. The Structured Dialogue on youth was most notorious for its genius comparison with the Loch Ness Monster, i.e. the creature that was never seen, yet everybody spoke about it. However, it now relates to the change that brought significant progress that I am everyday happy for. The first official mention of the Structured Dialogue was most probably in 2005 in the Resolution of the Council of Ministers that invited the European Commission and EU Member States to develop a structured dialogue with young people and their organisations, as well as with researchers in the field of youth and other policy makers. The Resolution had a very long and dull name : “Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on addressing the concerns of young people in Europe — implementing the European Pact for Youth and promoting active citizenship”. What was telling in this was that the European Youth Pact was still a very strong project. At that time it was somehow both a buzz word and a fuel for change as it had significant political backing. I still reckon this was one of strongest Resolutions ever made in the field of youth. Its implementation, however, is as always another story. The institutional documents, which can be considered the grandparents of the Structured Dialogue, were the other steps towards the Structured Dialogue. They were the policy pioneers that explored the terrain and laid out the grid. It started with the European Commission’s White Paper, “A new impetus for European youth”, November 2001 as the oldest and continued with the first ever Council resolution on the topic, on 27th June 2002, which established a framework for European cooperation in the youth field. This was followed by the European Youth Pact, which was adopted by the European Council as the instrument in the youth field that should contribute to the achievement of the Lisbon objectives of growth and jobs. The Pact focused on three areas  : employment, integration and social advancement ; education, training and mobility ; and reconciliation of working life and family life. This was followed shortly by the Commission’s communication on European policies concerning youth : “Addressing the concerns of young people in Europe — implementing the European Youth Pact and promoting active citizenship”, which also addressed the issue of the participation of young people and their organisations in the processes and in policy making. These were the gradual steps towards the 2005 Resolution, but by no means were they the end of the road. The official mentioning of the


Back to the future, youth in the 2000s Structured Dialogue was only the start of what was sometimes a curvy path towards the Structured Dialogue as we know it today. There was not much content in the Resolution itself, which partially explains why we needed to put so much effort and time in its follow up in order to come up with a single common understanding of it. Among other things, the Resolution called upon Member States to continue to implement the common objectives agreed under the Open Method of Coordination on Youth, as well as to ensure the effective followup of the European Youth Pact when implementing the Lisbon Strategy, for example by setting measurable objectives. And finally, the Resolution called upon Member States to develop a Structured Dialogue with young people and their organisations at national, regional and local levels on policy actions affecting them. To the Commission, the Resolution called for the development of a Structured Dialogue with young people at European level on policy actions affecting them, e.g., by making innovative use of information technology and holding regular conferences between young people, their organisations, researchers in the youth field and policy makers. Out of this, many perspectives on what actually needed to be done were born. Youth organisations had their own perspective. We asked for the widest and most participatory dialogue that would involve youth organisations at all levels. We asked for youth organisations in which youth would have their say on what was important for them and not a top-down approach of dictating limited topics. The involvement of youth researchers did not add to the clarity of this point in my opinion and caused some minor clashes. There was constant pressure from youth organisations to make something meaningful out of it. When this need for a structured dialogue was formally supported by a Council Resolution in November 2006, as well as by the Commission Communication on “Promoting young people‘s full participation in education, employment and society” in September 2007, it was time to move forward. Thus, the need was well-documented and agreed upon. But there was still not an understanding of what this need consisted of. The first required change was to the paradigm. I heard this too often in the corridors of the institutions : “Let’s bring X number of young people to Brussels, and we will have a splendid dialogue with a young people !” When we all failed miserably in our first attempts to make such exercises meaningful, we luckily did not listen to advice like that of Homer to his son, Bart, in The Simpsons : “Trying is the first step towards failure”. Instead, we challenged the concept and created clear guidelines of what youth organisations expected from this structured dialogue. We wanted nothing more than to have the rules of the table settled when we sat down, to be able to call it structured and to know who is speaking and on whose behalf. These are the topics of the discussion and what would be the follow-up, i.e. how this would feed into the big picture of youth policy. All this was – and still is – the basis of youth participation, but it needs time to develop as we can see. This is an exert from a Commission document from 2008 : Youth participation in democratic institutions and in a continuous dialogue with policymakers is essential to the sound functioning of our democracies and the sustainability of policies which impact on young peo-

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s ple’s lives. The Commission recently called on Member States to continue their efforts to increase youth participation and formulate coherent information strategies for young people. The Commission also launched a genuine dialogue with young people, structured from the local through to the European level which needs to be fully implemented. The European Youth Summit “Your Europe” held in Rome in March 2007, the European Youth Week and regular Presidency Youth events are positive steps towards such a structured dialogue with young people.

This is a passage from Youth Forum communications from the same period : The YFJ calls for effective mechanisms to be clearly defined, beyond these two proposals. A cross-sector approach to youth policy should always also include youth participation. All new structures and mechanisms must involve youth organisations. This should be clearly linked to the development of the concept of structured dialogue to ensure its crosssector nature.

In the following years we continued this dialogue quite a bit. I am sure that well-researched, well-intended and high-level proposals, strategies and communications from the decision-makers were flying short on one subject : how to really include young people in a way that there will be also a feeling of true inclusion. As I said once in reply to the proposed participation tree in the Strategy from the European Commission : “The Strategy as proposed in the Commission communication is high and wide. We are glad for that, as it will be possible to carry many fruits and its shadow will be far reaching. However, we came up with some recommendations for its growth and well-being. If the tree wants to reach high and wide, it has to be well-rooted. We cannot imagine anything as its roots, other than youth participation. Youth participation shall be the life flow of this strategy and should be as deep and as wide as the tree is. Without deep and wide-reaching roots the tree will fall. There are two important messages : the first on is the call for youth participation in all areas of the strategy and that is orchestrated together with young people. If this strategy aims to be a strategy with young people, then their participation has to be ensured in each and every part of it, and we see the structured dialogue as the most important instrument to achieve this. rThe structured dialogue should be a coherent dialogue between EU institutions and youth organisations, involving young people throughout the policy cycle, across all areas, with a deep bottom up approach that includes participation of more and more diverse young people”.

Then, there was also the constant call for better recognition of the role of youth organisations. For this, we promoted a double role of youth organisations. First, youth organisations are the ones that constantly reach out to young people and ensure the channel for youth participation in the structured dialogue. Secondly, they also have the important role of achieving the objectives of the policies and ensuring the policy cycle. Therefore, it is



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s important to continue to invest in youth organisations and young people. This also became our most important call during the efforts to end the crisis in a way that will not weigh down on the future generations. With all this in mind and through all these processes and documents, we arrived at the contemporary understanding and role of the Structured Dialogue. The Structured Dialogue on Youth at European level is a ongoing process between the European Commission, the Member States and the National Youth Councils, as well as the European Youth Forum, and takes place during the European Youth Weeks, Youth Conferences organised by the EU Presidencies and the Informal Fora organised on the fringes of the meetings of the Council of Youth Ministers. During these European events, young participants discuss topics related to EU youth policy with politicians and officials of the EU institutions and Member States. Youth organisations have a vital role to play in the Structured Dialogue, as they speak on behalf of a great number of young people. The main partner of the EU institutions is, therefore, the European Youth Forum. The Structured Dialogue aims at addressing all young people, including those with fewer opportunities or those not formally organised. Hence, youth organisations are invited to try to reach out beyond their members and to involve an even larger diversity of young people. I believe the biggest milestone was the start of the renewed framework for European Cooperation in the youth filed that was approved in late days of 2009. It put many of the policy issues of youth participation on the agenda and set a long-term goals all the way to 2018. In addition, it was also very precise on the Structured Dialogue : “The Structured Dialogue with young people and youth organisations, which serves as a forum for continuous joint reflection on the priorities, implementation and follow-up of European cooperation in the youth field, should be pursued and developed. The themes of the dialogue should be aligned with the overall objectives of European cooperation in the youth field and the priorities for each work cycle. Clear objectives and realistic procedures should be established for each cycle of dialogue in order to ensure continuity and follow-up. The dialogue should be as inclusive as possible and developed at local, regional, national and EU level and include youth researchers and those active in youth work. Structured dialogues with young people and youth organisations in other policy fields should also be supported.” This gave us, at the time, the fuel to call for and finally establish a fully functioning steering committee. At European level, the European Steering Committee for the Structured Dialogue coordinates the implementation of the process. It is composed of representatives of the Ministries for Youth Affairs from the Member States of the Trio Presidency, National Youth Councils and National Agencies of the Youth in Action programme, as well as representatives of the European Commission and the European Youth Forum. The European Youth Forum is the Chair of the European Steering Committee. At the European level, the table is now set. The challenge that remains is to set it at the national and regional levels, as only then will it be able to meaningfully fit in the European picture and be a well-supported structure. In our view the “Structured Dialogue means that the relevant institutions and actors are involved, leading to a common goal, with mutual respect for the partners, that the process is participatory and meaningfully

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s structured. To ensure ownership of the dialogue process by all the actors involved, its agenda and priorities should be decided together.” And with this, the European Youth Forum set the foundations for the European Steering Committee that oversees the implementation of the Structured Dialogue in this spirit. More importantly this was to promote it and spread around member states as a participatory practice that will get us far. To implement theses consultations new structures have been created at national and European levels. In order to reach out to young people at local, regional and national levels, Member States were invited to set up small National Working Groups composed of, among others, representatives of Ministries for Youth Affairs, National Youth Councils, local and regional youth councils, youth organisations, those active in youth work, diverse young people and youth researchers. Member States are encouraged to, whenever possible, give National Youth Councils a leading role in these groups. These National Working Groups have the task of organising consultations on youth employment in the Member States in order to feed into the EU Youth Conferences and to be organised on the same theme by each Member State of the Trio Presidency. Already, in the first cycle almost all Member States had a functioning National Working group. Still the story of youth participation history will not be closed by this successful chapter of the Structured Dialogue. We need to think beyond and invent new ways of participation than enable even more and different young people to participate. This includes those who are not used to it and those who do not know about it. We need to love and further develop comanagement, the Structured Dialogue and youth policy but also to always challenge ourselves to approach things differently. These are not the final answers but mere contemporary solutions.

365 Tine Radinja was born in 1980 and was the President of the European Youth Forum between 2009 and 2010. He became active in his life path in Scouting. Through involvement in several youth organisations, he became especially passionate about youth participation, volunteering and non-formal education. He was a vice-president of National Youth Council of Slovenia and external representative of the World Organisation of the Scout Movement. Currently he is serving as vice-mayor of his town and enjoying life in nature.


Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Co-management and the Council of Europe


A unique space of youth participation Co-Management in the Council of Europe words by Georg Boldt, Antonia Wulff and Guillaume Legaut

Among the different adventures that brought European youth organisations to play a key role in creating a European youth policy and to push forward new models of governance in international organisations, the youth sector of the Council of Europe stands out for its uniqueness and the long-term commitment as an Institution that really puts young people in the drivers’ seats of the policies that affect them. In a previous chapter, we explored some of the landmarks of this story with the creation of a European Youth Centre in 1971 and subsequently the introduction of a revolutionary system to include young people in the decision making : co-management and co-decision. The current evolution of the system is to be traced back to the reform of the youth sector in 1998. It was a timely moment considering the recent creation of the European Youth Forum and the demand for stronger co-management. It is a simple idea. Youth organisations were called to design and run the activities of the youth sector of the Council of Europe together with the institution, as well as play a political role in setting up the priorities of such activities together with the representatives of governments. There are two Committees that work on this task. The Advisory Council on Youth is composed by youth organisations of which 20 are selected democratically among the European Youth Forum Member Organisations and 10 are selected by the secretariat of the CoE. The European Steering Committee on Youth, which gathers representatives of the Ministries responsible for youth from the 50 countries that have signed the European Cultural Convention. The two committees together form the Joint Council of Youth in which decisions on the allocation of the budget and the priorities are taken under the mandate of the Committee of the Ministers of the CoE by consensus. Simple but challenging. Old but youthful. This started more than 40 years, and the challenge to put together youth organisations and governmental representatives and find consensus still exists. The system works, however. In these pages, former and current chairs of the Advisory Council on Youth put together their experiences and testimonies from specific times in the past decade of the CoE youth sector and explore different aspects of the challenges of co-management. Antonia Wulff, current chair, mandate 20092011, tackles the core of the current challenges of the debate on the future reform of the Council of Europe and the value of youth mainstreaming as one of the key factors. Guillaume Legaut, President of the AC between 2000 and 2003, widens up the horizons by drawing a reflection on global responsibility stemming from the conclusions of the Europe, Youth and Globalisation event that took place in 2004 at the European Youth Centre in Strasbourg. To conclude, Georg Boldt, who was chairing the AC between 2007 and 2008, takes a look at Campaigning and scaling down co-management at the national level.


Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Antonia : The Challenge of Youth Mainstreaming The Advisory Council on Youth (AC) of the Council of Europe (CoE) is mostly known for being the Civil Society partner of the Youth Sector within the Institution thereby forming one half of the famous co-management system. Nonetheless, the mandate of the AC is twofold ; in addition to co-managing the youth sector together with the European Steering committee on Youth (CDEJ), the AC has a responsibility to bring a youth perspective to the entirety of the CoE’s work. One could say that the AC serves as an advisory body for the institution as a whole, bringing in expertise that is not held elsewhere in the CoE and enabling it to stay up-to-date and well-informed. From our point of view, this gives the AC the mandate to scrutinise other policy areas of the CoE and feed into different political processes, processes we feel are important for youth and, as is often the case, processes that overlook youth or their possible implications for young people. But bringing in new perspectives to the CoE’s work is obviously easier said than done. CoE is an enormous institution with a large number of different sectors, and it is easy to get so absorbed by the youth sector, its many events and dramas that little time remains for the rest of the institution. But the biggest challenge has turned out to be the ‘distance’ between the youth centre in Strasbourg and the main building of the CoE. Despite the large number and broad range of activities, most, valuable though they are, solely target young people and youth organisations. Therefore the youth sector can become rather invisible to the CoE as a whole. Consequently, youth policy does not receive as much attention as one would wish, and the AC remains largely unknown to most sectors outside that specifically devoted to youth. For the AC, the best situation would, of course, be that other sectors contact us whenever they feel we could contribute to their processes. This seldom happens – mostly because they do not know of our existence – and that means that the initiative has to come from us, which would be perfectly fine were it not for the difficulty in finding out exactly what’s going on in the other sectors. In order for us to be able to bring in a youth perspective, we have had to start raising awareness about our existence. During the mandate 20092011, we chose youth mainstreaming as one of our political priorities, and work on this priority began with a tour around the institution to introduce the AC and its role, as well as to kindly remind the rest of the institution of the fact that we are happy to help them improve their policies and programmes. In some sectors, cooperation has been self-evident, such as with the Directorate of Education on human rights education ; in others, it is precisely focused on introducing a youth perspective to specific work as is the case with the expert committee on the participation of people with disabilities in political and public life. Yet the main challenge remains our access to information about what is going on in other sectors and, therefore, beginning cooperation at an early enough stage. Our efforts have paid off with regard to projects and activities with a direct and obvious link to youth with consultations on specific processes of the Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE, for example, but more general issues are seldom considered as potentially containing a youth dimension. And here, the capacity of the AC to follow every aspect of the CoE’s work clearly becomes stretched, and meaning prioritisation is necessary.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s An important element in this prioritisation has been our targeted aim to raise awareness of the AC amongst the leadership of the CoE, which is part of a greater effort to place youth high on the political agenda of the institution. Ignorance within the leadership of the youth sector and its contributions to the mission of the CoE was more common than expected, but that also often meant that they were positively surprised to hear about the work we do and about co-management as a principle and working method. When Thorbjørn Jagland entered office as the new Secretary General of the CoE in 2010, he launched a reform process aimed at raising the political profile of the institution. Despite the inescapable relevance of the CoE and its core values in the Europe of today, its ability to respond to different societal challenges was seen as rather limited, and the Secretary General set out to restructure the entire institution. Few people would disagree with the aims of the reform process, but most of us in the AC were rather cautious to see what kind of changes would be proposed for the youth sector and for the co-management system in particular. Our awareness-raising efforts had allowed us to establish contacts with representatives of many different CoE sectors. Once the reform process was launched, the AC started lobbying actively for a strong youth sector and a reinforced co-management system. The reform process is still ongoing, but we have received very positive signals so far. Youth issues will be mainstreamed in the new organisation, which means that there will have to be a plan regarding how to ensure continuous contact between the different sectors. At the same time, co-management has been reaffirmed by the Secretary General not only within the youth sector but also as best practice for the involvement of and cooperation with civil society. This can be seen as a vital recognition of the value of the AC in itself and a reflection of the impact that it can have on the CoE’s work. The challenge remains to anchor this recognition throughout the institution. Guillaume : How big is your world ? The values of the CoE Youth Sector beyond Europe Since its creation, the youth sector of the Council of Europe has contributed to the dialogue between young people from all over Europe to promote peace, democracy and social cohesion. European non-governmental youth organisations have always been aware that “Europe is not a planet”, and they were always considering that the dialogue should include young people from the rest of the world. The “globalisation” event, organised in May 2004, was a significant opportunity to address the global dimension of peace, democracy and solidarity. Concretely, the meeting gathered 400 young people, representing young people and youth organisations from the 48 Member States of the European Cultural Convention of the Council of Europe, 100 young people from around 50 countries from other continents and representatives of many governments and intergovernmental institutions. For 50 years, the vision of human rights has evolved : political rights, social rights, environmental rights… Today, the question of economic equality and human dignity is at stake. The challenge is to invent a model of political democracy that includes human values such as tolerance, responsibility and solidarity. This passes through the recognition of rights, as well as of obligations, and through the recognition of freedoms, as well as of responsibilities. Facing the complexity of this world, the loss of direction leads sometimes to a certain disillusion or even to a discouragement concerning the



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s capacity to control the reality of the world. Facing the questioning of models, young people think that there is the fundamental need to adapt collective representation and, in particular, to refund the conceptions of democracy and human rights. The electoral system and consultation are not sufficient to guarantee the real participation of citizens if they do not tackle the political issues at stake. The loss of trust in representative democracy raised expectations for a more participative democracy. If democracy looses its sense, which are then the bases upon which to found a new social contract ? Political models are not alone in being questioned. The relevance of the development model is also being questioned. Does development give a sense to living together, or has it become a tool to spread the liberal society with its clear limits. At the same time, the attractive idea of partnership appears more and more abused, especially by international institutions, at the point that it is neither a way for mobilisation nor a meaningful project. Also, in the cultural domain, collective representations are questioned. In a global world, everybody can notice that there is not anymore a civilisation that could be regarded as a model for happiness, truth and justice. Furthermore, the world of today promotes the diversity of cultural exchanges but is unfortunately still a vehicle for racism, exclusion and limitations to the freedom of movement. The reflection and contestation of the enlightening global models, along with the fact that the global world is getting more and more complex and difficult to understand, are more than often the driving sensations and emotions of youth action. Facing a world that has lost its legible nature, young people develop a sense of general unease, malaise and discomfort, though there sometimes also appears to be a certain difficulty to feel and experience a sentiment of belonging to this world. The difficulty to rationalise, explain and understand the world and to link different subjects to each other limits the space for a long-term vision. The dream of overall, long-term happiness is getting replaced by instant pleasure. The global world is the world of the immediate, the world of the short term. The media exploit this tendency of living in the sphere of the impressive, dashing and sensational. The power of the slogans and the photos often replaces genuine reflection. The gradual scorning and disappearance of valuable points of reference sometimes leads to extreme reactions based on fear and ignorance. In particular, the extreme violence through which certain young people often express themselves is in a lot of cases the fruit of stress and incomprehension. Living in a more and more sensible world has also very positive aspects. The creativity of the young in different domains is enormous. More sensible young people also have a tremendous capacity to mobilise for a goal. Young people can invent a different world because, contrary to the adults, they are not enclosed in rigid models of representation. This reality of a more sensible world highlights a tremendous need in the domain of education to interpersonal relations. “I am because you are.” It is through the relation with the other that a person can identify himself, a participant said. Education has a role to prepare young people to be in the job market, but it should also help to learn to live in society and to respect human values to live together. It is not enough to transmit knowledge and ways of thinking, but it is also necessary to teach everybody how to manage their feelings and emotions in a critical manner. Non-formal education constitutes an amazing tool to cover this educational need.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s The lack of political will of decision makers within society has been clearly criticised. Young people want and need a realistic political commitment. Society needs change and the support of citizens is crucial for the success of change. The role of civil society must be recognised. Our world and Europe, in particular, have a huge need to return back to realistic politics that build effective change. The issue is to design new rules for global governance based on individual responsibility and opportunities to change the world. Young people propose to make politics in a different way today. They want to be proactive rather than to be reactive on many issues by raising awareness on sustainable development, by strengthening gender equality, by bridging cultures and civilisations, by preventing conflicts and by reinforcing peace to name but a few. Fighting for a different world is a personal commitment before anything else. And civil society does not comprise one unique voice. Its richness comes from the fact that it is composed of different movements, themselves driven by the involvement of different individuals. The youth commitment is an extraordinary opportunity to built concrete changes. The establishment of a dialogue between young leaders from China and Europe that started in 2002 was part of this process to strengthen cultural links and mutual understanding between young people from different parts of the world. The process was multi-sectoral and future-oriented, which allowed young leaders from Asia and Europe to discuss key issues, trends and challenges confronting the two regions, as well as to brainstorm for possible solutions. With the globalisation event, young people paved the way to show that another way forward was possible within the Palace of the Council of Europe. Let’s hope its success will gradually be followed in the entire world ! Georg : Campaigning and co-management It’s October 2007, and we are celebrating the end of the “All Different - All Equal” campaign in Malmö, Sweden. The slogan for the event is “The end of the beginning”, and I’m afraid I don’t really get it. Originally the All Different – All Equal campaign was aimed to counter a surge of extreme-right sentiments blazing Europe in the 1990s. Launched in 1995, All Different – All Equal was meant to fight racism, anti-semitism, xenophobia and intolerance. The message and the graphical genius of the logo made the campaign an enormous success and turned multiculturalism and intercultural dialogue into veritable buzzwords. Inspired by the lustre of our memories from the original campaign, the Advisory Council on Youth decided to re-launch All Different – All Equal. It seems to me the decision was taken in 2004. I had just joined the Advisory Council, and when we arrived at the agenda point proposing the campaign I was not one to object. The campaign was going to be coordinated at the European level through a steering group that would include members of the Advisory Council and governmental representatives. European youth organisations were going to be awarded financial support for projects supporting the campaign and national youth councils, or special campaign organisations would arrange campaign activities in 42 of the Council of Europe Member States. This way, youth organisations were the actual organisers of campaign-related events and governments were mainly involved in funding and organising a few flagship events. We managed to kick off the campaign in June 2006, and it ended in October 2007. Nevertheless, many national campaign committees kept on going.


416 Antonia Wulff, born in 1985, is a Masters student at the University of Helsinki and Chair of the Advisory Council on Youth of the Council of Europe for the mandate 2009-2011. Antonia has been active for many year in student organisations. She served as President of the Swedish Speaking Finnish School Student Union (FSS) and member of the board of the Organising Bureau of European School Students Unions (OBESSU). Guillaume Légaut, born in 1969, has a background in political science and philosophy of law. Guilllaume has worked as director of social lobby and social enterprises organisations since 2004. After a first experience in development projects in Niger, he has been political adviser to French politicians for nine years. As a volunteer, he is vice president of the National Youth Sport Centres Union (UCPA) and was earlier President of the French Scouts and Guides Association and President of the Advisory Council on youth issues at the Council of Europe between 2000 and 2003.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s Because governments did not want to highlight any particular problems of discrimination through the campaign, we decided on a positive campaign message. The campaign’s goal would not be to counter anything but rather promote a positive attitude towards diversity, involving youth in political decision-making and increasing knowledge about human rights. Because the youth sector of the Council of Europe functioned around these three priorities, the campaign would naturally revolve around them. However, complications quickly arose. Organising a campaign with the Council of Europe is not done overnight. Partnerships with the Youth Forum and the European Union had to be signed and steering groups established. There was a chronic shortage of funds and staff, as well as differing opinions over the campaign’s objectives and focal points. Moreover, co-managing a campaign in the same fashion as we co-managed the youth sector in general was difficult. The Advisory Council would meet twice a year to discuss the main political issues at hand. In addition, the programming committee would meet twice a year in order to grant various projects funding. To boot, we had a co-managed steering group for the campaign. Communication between these three groups and the campaign coordinator was not always very efficient or consistent. For a year and a half, we had been running a campaign to encourage and enable young people from 12 to 30 to participate in building peaceful societies based on human rights, diversity and inclusion in a spirit of respect, tolerance and mutual understanding. In order to do this, we involved national and international youth organisations, movements and initiatives, schools and sites of non-formal training. This was the beginning that had just come to an end. But what else had really been done except for printing thousands of stickers, pins and pens ? By the time our campaign priorities were set, I was still not too satisfied by the campaign’s themes. Diversity, human rights and participation are important topics for youth organisations and are being promoted heavily as common European values by the Council of Europe. However, they did not feel very attractive or fresh enough to be the themes for this campaign. Nevertheless, it soon became evident that we were not preaching to the choir. Following the publication of the Compass manual on human rights education in polish, the minister of education in Poland, Mr Giertych, officially dismissed the civil servant in charge of the translation and publication of the manual. The reason for this and the subsequent banning of the book in Poland was due to a statement in the book in favour of sexual diversity, highlighting issues of discrimination. Soon after, far-right groups attacked a parade connected to a campaign event in Serbia, landing several of the participants in hospital. Meanwhile, blatantly racist election posters in Switzerland depicted three white sheep kicking a black sheep against the backdrop of a Swiss flag. Europe no longer felt like the haven of tolerance and respect we wanted it to be. There were indeed some historical qualities to the campaign. For the first time ever we managed to unite European youth in a campaign advocating for tolerance and respect. No imaginary borders from Stettin to Trieste could hold us back. The event in Malmö was certainly the end of a European campaign, but did it signal anything but the beginning of a new wave of hatred and xenophobia ? Actions, statements and policies not seen since the Second World

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s War are shaking Europe today. Roma are being deported. Refugees and migrants are interned. Young people live increasingly precarious lives, and our parliamentarians are preaching ethnopluralism and la nouvelle droite. One of our campaign slogans was “Be the change you want to see” four years after the campaign ; it feels sadly ironic.

417 Georg Boldt, born in 1983, belongs to a generation deeply affected by the original All Different – All Equal campaign. He was formally the chair of the Advisory Council on Youth of the Council of Europe between 2007 and 2009 and is an outspoken advocate of Youth Rights. Currently he studies sociology in Helsinki and represents the scouts of Finland in the board of the Finnish National Youth Council Allianssi.


Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Letter from the Secretary General of the Youth Forum on the new Council of Europe co-management structure To : Member organisations Re : Elections for the Advisory Council and Programme Committee From : Hrönn Pétursdóttir, Secretary General 26th June 1998 Dear Friends, The restructuring of the Youth Sector of the Council of Europe is not yet complete, however there are now some clear indications of how these structures will look and function. Advisory Council The Advisory Council will be composed of 13 representatives of INGYOs elected through the Youth Forum. 7 representatives of NYCs elected through the Youth Forum. 10 representatives of other international youth organisations and youth service organisations. This group as yet is not clearly defined, but we do know that they will be appointed by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Function The Council will prepare its perspective and recommendations on policy and programme issues related to the Youth Sector of the Council of Europe for the Joint meetings with the CDEJ and the Programme Committee. The Programme Committee The Programme Committee will be composed of 8 representatives of Governments 8 representatives of Non-Governmental Youth Organisations, elected from among the Advisory Council. Function Take decisions regarding the programme of the European Youth Centres and the allocation of grants through the European Youth Foundation, keeping in line with the policy guidelines agreed by the Joint Meeting of the CDEJ and the Advisory Council and adopted by the Committee of Ministers. The Bureau of the Advisory Committee The Bureau of the Advisory Committee will be nominated from among the members of the Advisory Council and will be composed of 5 representatives. Function The function of the Bureau will be to prepare the meetings of the Joint CDEJ and the Advisory Council, and to monitor the implementation of policy and programme decisions.



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Joint Meeting of the CDEJ and the Advisory Committee This meeting will bring together representatives of Governmental and Non-Governmental Sector twice per year to take policy decisions. The decisions taken will influence the direction and mandate of the Programme Committee. Election to the Advisory Council and the Programme Committee At the moment the final decision regarding the structure, composition and function has not been taken by the Committee of Ministers. However, we need to proceed and hold elections for these bodies at the General Assembly in October in order to ensure the democratic representation of the 20 representatives elected through the Youth Forum. As we expect these new structures to start functioning in early 1999, we cannot wait for an Executive Committee meeting in 1999. The elections to the Advisory Council will therefore take place at the General Assembly. It will also elect potential members of the Programme Committee. It is not clear who will make up the non-governmental side of the Programme Committee. For the moment we will elect 8 from those who candidate for the Advisory Council on the assumption that those nominated by the Youth Forum will fill all places. Responsibility of nominating organisation We expect that those elected to the Advisory Council will be appointed by the Committee of Ministers as representatives of their organisations. However the representatives are elected on behalf and by all the members of the Youth Forum and therefore have a larger mandate and responsibility. The nominating organisation should be certain that the person nominated is able to take on the full responsibilities of the position, especially attending all meetings. Profile of Candidates should have a good knowledge of the Youth Sector of the Council of Europe should have experience of representing her/his organisation at international level should have a general knowledge of the Council of Europe as an Institution should have a good knowledge of European Youth Work and European Youth Policy. should have some knowledge of the Youth Forum should be under 35 should be able to speak and work in one of the two official languages of the Council of Europe, French or English. Responsibilities of the elected representatives Carry out the mandate of two years. Actively participate in the meetings and the follow-up between meetings Be able to attend four meetings - two Advisory Council and two Joint Meetings of CDEJ and Advisory Council per year. Be able to attend six meeting per year -if also elected to the Programme Committee. Be able to attend at least eight meetings per year - if also elected to the Bureau of the Advisory Council. Each meeting will last from 3-4 working days and should be attended for the duration.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s Election procedure Given the uncertainty of the situation at the moment we propose : Election of Programme Committee members Firstly elections will be held for the Programme Committee, where the 4 INGYOs and 4 national youth councils receiving the highest number of votes are placed on a list. When the composition of the Programme Committee is finally agreed, people will fill the places available to those elected through the Youth Forum, starting with those with the most votes, respecting the NYC-INGYO balance. In case there is not an even number of places for the YFJ representatives, the next person with the highest votes will be nominated. Election of the Advisory Council members Those elected to the Programme Committee automatically become members of the Advisory Council. Following the establishment of the list of the Programme Committee, a list of eligible candidates for the remaining 12 places on the Advisory Council will established in order of number of votes received. The appropriate number of people would then fill the available places remaining. Candidates for election Candidates must submit the following documents : A letter of nomination from his/her organisations A letter of motivation from the candidate, clearly indicating if s/he is a candidate for the Advisory Council and Programme Committee or only the Advisory Council. A curriculum vitae outlining relevant experience taking into account the guidelines given on 撤rofile of Candidate Deadlines for receipt of applications 10 August, 9.30 hrsNomination for Advisory Council (and Programme Commission). First deadline. If nominations reach the Secretariat by this deadline then they will be translated into French or English and sent out in advance to member organisations11 September, 9.30 hrsNominations for Advisory Council (and Programme Committee). Final deadline. Application will only go out in the language in which we receive it - French or English If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact myself or Fidelma Joyce at the Secretariat. With best regards, Hronn Petursdottir Secretary General



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

The European Youth Forum Acting Globally


The European Youth Forum Acting Globally An Essential Chronology words by Christoffer Grønstad and Ana Felgueiras

Inspired by its vision of an interdependent and solidary world where youth matters, building on its mission to enable young Europeans to be responsible citizens in the world and drawing on the decades of experience of the preceding youth platforms on cooperation with other continents and with the United Nations System, the European Youth Forum has been extremely active beyond the borders of Europe starting from the very early years. This article aims to guide you throughout the puzzle of the global action of the European Youth Forum by providing a chronology of the most significant goals and achievements in this important field of work.

1997-2000 : Global youth cooperation takes off. Building up global policies and mechanisms for coordination and participation. In January 1997, the new structure that resulted from the merging of the previous European youth platforms became operative, bringing together years of experience in international cooperation from the CENYC (Council of European national Youth Committees), BEC (European Coordination Bureau of International Youth Organisations) and the Youth Forum of the European Union. Back then, a great effort was made to systematise that collective experience and to create consensus about the mainstays that would guide the work of the new platform at the global level. To this extent much has contributed to the thematic event on interdependence and solidarity of the three platforms (Lisbon, 1996), which was inputted to the subsequent General Assemblies. Thus the newly born European Youth Forum (YFJ) started moving forward to a global cooperation policy envisioning the building of an open and solidary Europe, which is a constructive and active focal point for international agreement furthering sustainable human development in a culture of peace. To this, a permanent and flowing relation with its counterparts in the other continents had to be secured. A concrete networking mechanism, the Global Cooperation Coordination Committee (GCCC) was therefore created that same year. The global policy and work of the YFJ was shaping around three pillars : the inspiration of interdependence and solidarity between youth organisations worldwide, the investment in capacity building of the youth actors and sound advocacy and lobbying vis-a-vis international institutions to mainstream youth issues and build channels to make the young part of the answers to the global challenges. Convened by the YFJ, the GCCC started to meet at least once a year, helping to increase familiarity between the Regional Youth Platforms in the different continents1, finding common concerns and interests, bridging differences, creating solidarity ties and appearing as a coordinated force in global youth events such as the World Youth Fora of the United Nations system

1 African Youth Network, Arab Youth Union, Asian Students Association, Asian Youth Council, Caribbean Federation of Youth, European Youth Fórum, Euro-Latin American Youth Forum, Pacific Youth Council, Pan African Youth Movement.

442 2 The 10 priority areas are education, employment, hunger, poverty, the environment, drug abuse, juvenile delinquency, leisure-time activities, girls and young women and the full and effective participation of youth in the life of society and in decision-making. 3 BYAP, 1998

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s or the World Youth Festivals. Seven years later, the GCCC would expand and team up with the major International Youth NGOs originating the ICMYO. Aware of the responsibility of a developed Europe, the YFJ decided to set the example on implementing the UN recommendations on development aid and allocated one percent of its annual budget to finance concrete capacity building and advocacy projects carried out by youth organisations via the 1% Solidarity Fund. As of 1997, this represents a total of more than 300,000 euro that has helped in strengthening youth organisations in other continents and enhanced young people’s capacity to become actors of their own development. “The challenges of our age are problems without passports  ; to address them, we need blueprints without borders”, said Kofi Annan to some 500 representatives of youth organisations, the UN System and other inter-governmental organisations who were gathered at the closing session of the 3rd edition of the World Youth Forum of the United Nations System (WYFUNS) in Braga in the north of Portugal to discuss and jointly devise youth commitments on Youth Participation for Human Development. Shortly after, participants hurried south going past the Tagus River to the World Youth Festival that had began a few days earlier at Costa da Caparica. A couple of chosen representatives dropped half way in Lisbon to deliver the recommendations of the WYFUNS - the Braga Youth Action Plan (BYAP) to the World Conference of Youth Ministers. “The Braga Youth Action Plan is a joint commitment to Youth Participation for Human Development made by youth NGOs, the United Nations system and other intergovernmental organisations in partnership… convinced that in partnership we can shape our world for the creation of a better future for all.” Those commitments on youth policies and youth participation did not diverge much from the 10 priority areas for youth that were identified by the UN General Assembly in 1995 on the 10th anniversary of the International Youth Year : the World Programme of Action for Youth for the Year 2000 and beyond (WPAY2000).2 The WPAY2000 became the main political framework for global youth cooperation. It defines strategies and policies and establishes the means of implementation at the national, regional and global level, namely regional and inter-regional conferences of ministers responsible for youth affairs. It was 1998, and the YFJ was a key member in the International Preparatory Committees of the World Forum and Festival together with its GCCC partners. It was an eventful, noteworthy year and set the basis for the UN-related advocacy and lobbying work of the YFJ for the years to come. Many of the challenges lying ahead to youth in the threshold of the new millennium continue to show as issues of concern to young people. As back then, the YFJ persists to “call upon all youth, Governments of the world and the international community to work together with us to carry out these commitments and make our vision of Youth Participation for Human Development a reality.”3 Getting the Special Consultative Status at the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 1999 was instrumental to the YFJ’s lobbying at the global level. The opportunity to attend the annual meetings of the Commission for Social Development, as well as of the Third Committee (Social Affairs and Human Rights) of the UN General Assemblies, facilitated the input to the shaping of global youth policies. In 2000, another space for global youth cooperation would appear.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s With time it would become a unique space for debate, training and exchange of experiences for helping young people and youth organisations build a collective response to the challenges they face. We are talking about the University on Youth and Development, which takes place yearly in Mollina, Spain. The University is organised in partnership between the North-South Centre of the Council of Europe (the YFJ has a seat representing youth organisations’ voice at its Executive Council), the YFJ, the Spanish Youth Council and the Spanish Youth Institute together with other youth organisations active at the global level. Mollina has built a place in the agenda of the YFJ as a privileged space for global youth work, which is contributing to building the capacity of the youth from other regions and thus strengthening their role in global youth co-operation and their implementation capacity at the national and local levels.

2002. Focusing on sustainable development and cooperation with the Mediterranean and Latin America. In 2002, the YFJ participated in the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and co-chaired the youth caucus, facilitating the conditions for the youth input to the plenary of the Summit. It also participated in the Euro-Latin American Civil Forum and in the Euro-Mediterranean Youth Forum, which were both in Spain during the Spanish Presidency of the European Union. Whereas the GCCC operates at the global level, the bilateral relations and partnerships are fundamental to bringing the continents closer and to reach the common purposes of the youth actors at the regional level. In this context youth cooperation between European and Latin-American youth materialises in the annual process of the Euro-Latin American Youth Forum (the FEULAT), which was for the first time organised by the YFJ and its counterpart in Latin America in 2003. That same year, the YFJ became a member of the monitoring group of the Covenant between the Council of Europe and the European Commission on Euro-Mediterranean youth cooperation in the field of training. On what concerns cooperation with Asia and Africa, there were changes ahead, resulting to a great extent from the lack of unified youth platforms in both continents, as well as a more fragile political framework for cooperation between Europe and those two regions. An important first step regarding Asia would be done by the study visit to Singapore, Shanghai and Beijing that the YFJ would organise in 2004. The cooperation with Africa, on the other hand, would boost in 2007 with the Africa-Europe Youth Summit.

2003-2005. Making use of an increased lobbying capacity at the global level. A strengthened global youth cooperation. In 2003, advocacy and lobbying work related to the UN system was of critical importance. The YFJ became a full member of CONGO, the body that brings together the NGOs in consultative status with the ECOSOC and much encouraged the reestablishment of its Youth Committee in Geneva. The CONGO Youth Committee gathered the YFJ and international youth organisations who were working close to the UN system. Most of the lobbying



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s efforts were oriented to the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly (UNGA). It would culminate in the adoption of a resolution on youth, which takes into extensive account the demands of youth organisations. The YFJ was calling for the UNGA in 2005 to devote a session on the implementation of the WPAY2000 with the participation of youth organisations. Finally the efforts paid off, and the member states agreed to dedicate two sessions to youth issues and to organise a consultative meeting with youth organisations. The UNGA has also adopted Kofi Annan’s reports on youth employment and on the global situation of youth, which for the first time counted with the input from youth organisations. The YFJ coordinated European’s. Furthermore, the YFJ engaged in an extensive process of dialogue with the World Bank regarding the design of its Children and Youth Strategy, which would lead to the co-organisation of a two-day consultation with representatives of youth organisations from all the continents, the Council of Europe and UN agencies. The World Bank president himself, Mr. J. D. Wolfensohn, participated in the conference, which has arisen much expectation on the future of the Strategy and a serious long-term engagement with youth organisations. Those were months of comprehensive debate within the Youth Forum’s membership and the regional youth platforms for there was a general feeling of distrust regarding World Bank’s policies and operations (in particular from those youth organisations operating in the developing countries). The objectives and the extent the cooperation with the Bank should go was thoroughly thought, debated and jointly agreed. The year would not end without the YFJ facilitating the selection of the European youth participants to the consultation on HIV/AIDS under the invitation of UNICEF. The increased recognition of youth organisations and their role in global development by global institutions, as well as the recent experiences with major international youth organisations operating in the global arena, made clear that the global coordination that the YFJ had started with the GCCC was not meeting all the challenges. In 2004, the YFJ went one step forward and, together with worldwide partners, originated ICMYO, the International Coordination Meeting of Youth Organisations. ICMYO materialises the concept of global youth cooperation by bringing together the regional youth knowledge, agendas and actors into an informal coordination mechanism that made global youth work and advocacy stronger than that of its parts detached, rationalising the limited resources available and increasing effectiveness. It developed into the most legitimate and representative group of youth organisations when it comes to global youth institutional consultative processes. These meetings became crucial for improving global youth work and for reaching a coordinated participation and input to the main global processes and events that would take place in 2004. That was the case of another edition of the World Youth Festival that gathered thousands of young people in Barcelona, Spain, in summer. Since its edition in Portugal in 1998, the festival is a worldwide event organised by the youth movement, providing an opportunity to increase visibility of international youth work and pluralistic participation of young people while promoting cultural diversity and understanding. ICMYO also enriched the efforts related to the Youth Employment Network - the partnership between the UN Secretary General, the International Labour Organisation and the World Bank to improve youth employment. The YFJ had been taking part in its meetings for three years. In 2004 by the time

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s of its annual High Level Panel Meeting, a youth consultative group was set in place and could propose a plan of action for youth participation in the national action plans to reduce youth unemployment. The much expected children and youth strategy of the World Bank in the end turned out to be a Children and Youth Strategic Framework for Action adopted by the Board of Governors. It was to guide the bank’s staff in its work on children and youth issues in the scope of the poverty reduction strategies in the different countries and regions. Following the same format as the first one, a second edition of the Youth, Development and Peace Conference was organised. ICMYO was central in their inputting to it. In 2004, the Council of Europe opened up to the new dimensions brought about by globalisation, and its youth sector gained space and visibility within the Institution and to the outside world. In cooperation with the YFJ, the Council of Europe asked hundreds of young people from around 50 countries, youth experts and policy makers, “How big is your world ?” at the Europe, Youth and Globalisation event. A critical dialogue took place for three days on the issues of globalisation, sustainability, peace and global governance for questioning the existing models and discussing the role of youth organisations, governments and international institutions. The year was coming to the end, and the lobbying on the 10-year review of the WPAY2000 (1995-2005) intensified. It would coincide with the five-year review of the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. Together with ICMYO counterparts, the YFJ was lobbying to link both processes. Finally the efforts paid off, and the UNGA confirmed the consultation with youth organisations, the youth conference and the link between both processes of review. Potential was high. In 2005, the global youth movement, including the YFJ, very much focused on the World Programme of Action for Youth and its revision. A global consultation on the achievements and the shortcomings of the implementation of the WPAY was conducted and in particular National Youth Councils were heavily involved. During the UN General Assembly Plenary Session on youth, a range of Youth Delegates from YFJ Member Organisations spoke on behalf of civil society and their countries. Side by side with their Ministers of Youth, some of them even shared the podium. As a result of the revision, five new priority areas were added to the WPAY2000, and the Member States of the UN reconfirmed their commitment to the programme. The UNGA resolution calls for the development of indicators in the different priority areas of the WPAY2000, and already by the end of the year the European Youth Forum was invited to an Expert Group Meeting at the UN Headquarters.

2006-2007 : Continued challenges at the UN and achievements in cooperation between Africa and Europe. The spirit was high after the UNGA in 2005, and in 2006 the UN Office on Sport for Development and Peace teamed up with other UN partners and the private sector to organise a Global Youth Leadership Summit. However, a clear lack of transparency and democracy in the development of the final statement led to many of the YFJ Member Organisations not supporting the final declaration. The declaration was adopted in a plenary where all the participants were declared youth ambassadors for the Millennium Development Goals but where there was a lot more attention on the celebrities present than on the



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s MDGs. On the positive note the Summit strengthened the relations of YFJ and Member Organisations with partners in the UN system and partners around the world. Another positive outcome was that the idea of sending Youth Delegates to United Nations Meetings spread to countries which traditionally did not send any. This included more countries in the developing world. A meeting in the UN Commission for Social Development (CSocD) kicked off 2007. With the Consultative Status of ECOSOC, the YFJ is allowed to speak in the CSocD (not in the UNGA, where NGOs, if they have the consultative status, can only be observers). The first resolution on youth after the revision of the WPAY2000 in 2005, which divided it into three clusters, was to be prepared for the UN General Assembly. The European Youth Forum and partners, including lead countries of the Youth Employment Network (YEN), were lobbying hard to ensure recognition of the YEN and the links between Youth Development and the Millennium Development Goals. The long-term success was seen during the 2007 revision of the targets of the MDGs where youth for the first time was linked to the achievement of the MDGs through the target, “Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people”. The two words at the end of the paragraph might seem like a small victory but has been an important tool for youth organisations working on youth employment ever since. Later the same year the UNGA adopted a supplement to the World Programme of Action for Youth. At the very end of the year, the UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs launched the World Youth Report 2007, a very useful report focusing on the first of the three clusters of the WPAY : Youth in the Global Economy. The same autumn the ICMYO organisations participating in the Youth Employment Network Consultative Group launched a guide on youth employment. That year was also a turning point in the regional youth cooperation side with a range of highlights including an Asia-Europe Political Young Leaders Summit in Copenhagen and the first Africa-Europe Youth Summit, which took place in Lisbon. The Africa-Europe Youth Summit marked a change in the recognition of the regional cooperation of youth organisations from the European Union side. President Barroso of the European Commission participated in the closing ceremony. This has been a particularly positive achievement for the YFJ, which had always lobbied for an increased political framework for the bilateral cooperation between Europe and Africa. The cooperation with Africa was identified as a priority in the YFJ Work Plan, and the Summit sparked off a range of processes and tools to improve the cooperation between youth organisations in our two continents. The European Youth Forum had already a strong partnership on global and regional youth work development with the North South Centre of the Council of Europe for a long time, and of particular interest from a European perspective was the stronger links that the summit created between the YFJ and the Directorate General Development of the European Commission. With the joint expertise and funding of the North South Centre and the European Commission, the cooperation between youth organisations in the two continents improved radically since 2007. Not only institutions in Europe and Africa but also UN entities use the strong declaration as input when developing policies. The YFJ has been particularly active on issues regarding cooperation with Africa, with the European Commission and also within the

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s Civil Society Organisations in Brussels, where as of 2008 the YFJ has been recognised as a development actor. Cooperation is about learning from each other and taking the best of the best of your partners’ developments with you into your own work. Both the partnerships with the Latin-American Youth Forum and the PanAfrican Youth Union are special to the European Youth Forum’s own policy development over the last years. With the African Youth Charter and the Ibero-American Convention on Youth Rights, young people in Africa and LatinAmerica actually have a legal instrument to claim and defend their rights – and this has been an inspiration for the YFJ’s own campaign for the rights of young people in Europe.

2008 : Requests for more coordination of the youth field at the UN increases. Following nearly three years of high-level consultations and the UN Secretary announcing the initiative the year before, the UN Alliance of Civilisations organised its first forum in Madrid in 2008. A main aim of the AoC is to bridge Western and Muslim societies. The YFJ played an important role in the cooperation among youth organisations taking part in the event, but the youth organisations present felt excluded from important parts of the forum. The Alliance of Civilisations has proved to be a listening and cooperative initiative. It showed interest in youth activities from its very beginning and participated in the University on Youth and Development later the same year. This was also the year when the last real meeting of the Youth, Development and Peace (YDP) Steering Committee took place. The change of leadership in the World Bank in 2005 led to a gradual decrease in the attention the World Bank paid to children and youth on the global level. The European Youth Forum kept good working relations with the World Bank Europe and Central Asia office but found a lack of understanding of democratically organised youth organisations on the global level. The relatively fragile agreement among YFJ Member Organisations was to keep working with the World Bank as long as it saw signs of improvement and a growing understanding of working with independent youth organisations. It became evident that the YFJ could not invest much in the relations within the partnership on the global level because of a difference in understanding the meaning of youth participation, as well as the decline of the political momentum inside the Institution after 2005. The YFJ has since been following the work of the World Bank mostly at regional level (ECA and MENA regions) and through other partners on the global level. Also, in 2008, the idea of actually coordinating all the UN entities working on youth-related issues finally got a bit of attention, and the idea of a network of all these entities was launched within the UN System. Officially the UN Program on Youth (UNPY) held this role, but the lack of resources and recognition from within the UN system made the coordination and facilitation roles difficult. It is illustrating that probably the biggest achievement as coordinator in 2008 was a booklet with the contact info on almost all UN entities working on youth-related matters. This proves that the starting point was difficult. However, the UN Inter-Agency Network on Youth Development is now recognised, and the focus on youth within the UN Department on Economic and Social Affairs has increased. The network is co-chaired by the UNPY and another entity, which clearly strengthens the impact of its work.



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s The ICMYO 2008 took place in Cairo and was hosted by the Arab region of the World Organisation of the Scout Movement. It included a meeting with the League of Arab States. As of this meeting, the partnerships between the ICMYO and United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA) and also between the UNFPA and YFJ kicked off. With the personal commitment of the Executive Director Thoraya Obaid, the UNFPA has been one of the more reliable partners in the field of global youth work. As of 2008 the European Youth Forum also had a delegation to the annual League of Arab States Youth Forum and increased its cooperation with national youth structures in Korea and China. At the University on Youth and Development in Mollina in September 2008 and the following General Assembly, the YFJ had to make it clear that the overall increased activity level on regional and global cooperation would have to be cut back or rely more on the Member Organisations. On the regional cooperation part, the National Youth Councils of Spain, Italy and Portugal took up particular responsibilities and demonstrated a sparkling commitment. Yet another Expert Group Meeting on the WPAY2000 took place in 2008, leading up to the UNGA in 2009. Again the YFJ was invited and participated actively, but the work of the expert group must have been too successful on behalf of youth ; the goals and targets developed by the expert group were too progressive for the Member States to be able to adopt them. The General Assembly in 2009 only took note of them.

2009 : ICMYO and Regional cooperation KEEPING GROWING The interest and cooperation within the ICMYO has kept growing, and the 2009 edition is the meeting with the highest attendance of institutional partners so far. The meeting was hosted by the Council of Europe Directorate on Youth and Sports and had a range of UN entities present, including the UN Volunteers, the UNFPA, the UNPY and the UN Alliance of Civilisations. Today the YFJ is working with all of those in developing policies and improving the lives of young people everywhere. In 2009, a new development began in ICMYO as the meeting started receiving requests to represent the organisations in the United Nations system. As of 2009, ICMYO has appointed two or more member organisations to participate in the Global Youth Advisory Panel of the UNFPA and also had an observer in the Alliance of Civilisations Youth Advisory Committee (AoC YAC). Further, in the AoC YAC, the Regional Youth Platforms represented in the GCCC are all representing their regions. This increased recognition of regional youth platforms outside Europe in UN structures has been a priority in our cooperation. Following a range of regional consultations and the establishment of regional cooperation in the field of youth between Africa and Europe, the overall partnership got a lift in 2009 with the first African University on Youth and Development (AUYD). The AUYD brings together youth leaders from all over the African continent, who together with participants from other continents work on development issues for a week. The regional cooperation within Africa benefits hugely from this initiative of the North-South Centre of the Council of Europe. It is hosted by the Government of Cape Verde and with support from the European Commission. The annual FEULAT took place within the frame of the University on Youth and Development. With a decreasing budget for the very successful

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s cooperation within the Euro-Latin-American Youth Forum over several years and with a view to the successful Africa-Europe Youth Cooperation, the YFJ and partners wanted to establish similar mechanisms for the Euro-LatinAmerica cooperation. Preparations were made for a large Youth Summit to be held in 2010. One positive surprise of 2009 came at the University on Youth and Development where the Mexican Youth Institute joined the ICMYO organisations present to propose cooperation towards a World Youth Conference in Mexico in 2010. As one of 10 ICMYO organisations, the YFJ joined the Social Forum Organising Committee and assisted in starting the preparations. Another positive development that year was the invitation from the UN Program on Youth to provide input to the UNGA resolution on youth. The invitation was addressed to the GCCC partners, but in agreement with the other partners the invitation was also forwarded to all ICMYO organisations so that all the organisations could feed into the resolution. The biggest surprise of the year, however, came at the UNGA, which was a rather chaotic affair when youth issues were on the agenda. In the end – and after a lot of resistance, the Member States decided to declare 2010 the International Year on Youth. As 1985 already was the International Year on Youth and one cannot repeat the same year twice, the actual decision was to launch an “International Year on Youth – Dialogue and Mutual Understanding”. As this decision came at the end of the year and there were no resources made available for it, the actual decision was to let the year begin on the International Youth Day, which is August 12. Still, most youth organisations, such as governments and institutional actors in the field of youth, had made their plans and adopted their budgets for 2011 when the year was declared. With more than half of the year gone, it has been difficult for the UN Secretariat to implement the declaration. At the end of 2009, a Euro-Arab Youth Forum on Migration was held in Morocco. The YFJ was part of the steering group of the event, which contributed to strengthening the ties between youth organisations and institutions on both sides of the Mediterranean. The event had high visibility within the League of Arab States, the Council of Europe and the United Nations and serves as a successful example when it comes to linking global youth work development with global policy-making and lobby efforts. The Assilah declaration has served as a basis of several lobby actions towards the United Nations. After much anticipation the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) took place in Copenhagen in December 2009. The YFJ put a lot of efforts into preparing for the Summit. In addition to recruiting and coordinating a range of young representatives of the member organisations present, the YFJ was also asked to facilitate the participation of youth representatives from developing countries with a grant from the Dutch Government. The disappointment with the lack of outcome was huge all over the world. But, after all the efforts and investments in the process, the disappointment was even bigger among all those organisations and delegates who had been working relentlessly towards the CO p.  However, the YFJ spent the time also in between the COPs. After a model from the Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) where children and youth are recognised as one of the major groups (e.g. business, farmers, the YFJ has been working with the UNFCCC Secretariat to secure increased participation of youth organisations in the Conference of the Parties).



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

2010-2011 : International Year of Youth. In terms of activities in the Global Youth Work Development field, all records of involvement from the European Youth Forum were hit in 2010. As the 3rd EU-LAC (EU, Latin-America and Caribbean) Summit, which took place in Spain in May 2010, the youth organisations active on the intraregional level organised their own summit just before the Heads of States arrived. The event was planned for more than a year and was overall successful. It also gained a lot of institutional recognition, in particular from the Spanish Government, the Ibero-American Youth Organisation and the United Nations system. The Youth Summit contributed to increased cooperation and gave a lift for the organisations participating, but the funding of future FEULAC (as of 2010, the annual forum is a Euro-Latin-American and Caribbean Forum) activities is still insecure. The third Alliance of Civilisations Forum took place in Rio de Janeiro with the biggest representation of youth organisations and youth projects on display so far. This time the youth were granted space and time before the actual forum to prepare their own statement to the state leaders present. Despite the progress made since the first forum two years earlier, the youth delegates present found it necessary to organise a demonstration to be given appropriate speaking time in the plenary after being excluded from the opening ceremony. During summer the YFJ was selected as the only ICMYO organisation to speak at the Civil Society event organised to advise the UN General Assembly on the MDG Review. Particular emphasis was put on youth employment, gender equality and the shift towards a green economy. The YFJ also tried to get in among the few organisations to observe the high-level segment of the UNGA during the MDG Review but was not granted a seat. As a result of the Euro-Arab Youth Forum on Migration in Morocco, the same partners met again about half a year later in one of the more spectacular events of the year. After a boat trip from Tunisia to Italy, action plans were made, and the Euro-Arab Youth cooperation was strengthened to ensure the rights of young people crossing the Mediterranean and other borders. The number one migrant in the world is a young African man crossing the Mediterranean to come to Europe, so this forum is highly important. In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, and almost at the same time, the second edition of the African University on Youth and Development was held in Cape Verde – this time with an activity funded by the 1% Solidarity Fund of the YFJ. The statutes of the 1% Solidarity Fund were changed in 2010, making more organisations eligible for grants from the fund. The activity in Cape Verde aimed at strengthening the cooperation among international youth NGOs active on the Pan-African level, and its strength was already put to test later the same year. During the University an informal Steering Group meeting of the 2nd Africa-Europe Youth Summit took place. In the meantime the preparations for the World Youth Conference in Mexico also went on high speed. Regional consultations were held around the world with various involvement of the ICMYO organisations. Too often too few ICMYO organisations were involved despite a lot of good will and investments the cooperation between Mexico, the United Nations system and the youth organisations faced severe challenges. The framework changed considerably during the year leading up to the conference with less and less focus on the

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s MDGs. As the delegates finally met in Léon in August, the expectations were big, but the challenges remained even bigger. The external political pressure, including from the hosting Government, were unusually high, and just outside the venue thousands of protesters were gathering as the local media presented the conference as an anti-abortion event. With the strong influence of the UNFPA, there was clearly a high focus on sexual and reproductive health rights in the work leading up to the conference, but the conference was so much more. It included 25,000 young Mexicans visiting the Social Forum and several thousand young people meeting the inspiring, tiny and yet powerful Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi from Iran. With the great mix of leading actors from the UN, Government and Civil Society, the event was also a great opportunity to shape the future framework for global policy-development, and the Social Forum produced a strong statement on behalf of youth to feed into the 2010 MDG Review. But with all the controversies, the event did not reach its full potential. A high number of ministers were present. Many of them were fighting for the inclusion of the perspectives of youth in the Governments declaration despite the resistance from the hosting country. Unfortunately no ministers arrived from Europe, which also created a misbalance in the Governments Forum. Mexico deserves recognition for all the investments and for a much longed for initiative, and high expectations remain upon Mexico for the inclusion of youth in future policy making for social and sustainable development on the global level. The Government partly fulfilled these expectations already in the COP 16 later the same year. In such an active year the University on Youth and Development also was packed with activities and celebrated its 10th anniversary in the framework of the International Year on Youth. Upon this occasion the Secretary General of the United Nations sent greetings to the university, congratulating and stating that “the University has inspired young people not only to learn about the world, but also to take better care of it.” Ban Ki-Moon further states that “This work directly supports the efforts of the United Nations to involve young people in creating a more just and peaceful world.” After three years of working together, the different actors in the Africa-Europe Youth Cooperation gathered again in Libya for the second Africa-Europe Youth Summit. Despite quite some challenges leading up to the summit with Libya as the location being only one of the controversies, the event itself sparked off rather well. The partners had agreed to use the Summit to complement the 2007 declaration with a joint and agreed action plan following the eight priorities identified in 2007. Undoubtedly organising a youth-event in Libya was difficult. A discussion over a proposal, which was clearly imposed from the hosting government, to demand from Europe to apologise and compensate for the colonisation of Africa was harmful for the working environment. But after the longest plenary so far in this cooperation, the Tripoli declaration was agreed and later presented to the Heads of State when they met for the 3rd Africa-Europe Summit. Among a range of demands and commitments, the organisations committed to educating one million young people in Africa and Europe on HIV/AIDS prevention before 2015. One of the absolutely greatest outcomes of the Africa-Europe process over the last years is the establishment of the African Diaspora Youth Network in Europe (ADYNE), which did a great job before and during the


452 Ana Felgueiras was born in 1973 in Portugal where she has studied International Affairs before joining the National Youth Council as International Officer. She has worked in the European Youth Forum as a Policy Officer for Global Youth Cooperation and United Nations Coordinator and as Head of the Department of Youth Policies and Youth Work Development from 2002 to 2005. She is currently studying for a master’s degree in Management and Public Policies and researching community governance and the third sector at the University of La Coruña in Spain. Christoffer Grønstad was born in Norway in 1978. He holds a degree in communication and public relations and has a background from a range of youth organisations. From 2004 to 2007, he was the President of the Norwegian Children and Youth Council (LNU) ; in 2007 and 2008, a Bureau Member of the European Youth Forum ; and from 2009 until the end of 2010, the Vice President of the organisation, mainly responsible for Global Youth Work Development and cooperation with the United Nations System. He has also served as Vice President of the UN Association in Norway.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s event. Also the Pan-African organisations taking part in the Youth Summit have improved their cooperation over the past years and were a stronger force in Libya than in Lisbon three years earlier. And the Africa-Europe cooperation remains a priority. Later in 2010, the North-South Centre of the Council of Europe, in agreement with the Monitoring Group for the Africa-Europe Youth Cooperation, was able to launch a support scheme with seed-funding for youth organisations active in the field while ADYNE established a secretariat. The YFJ invited the Latin-American Youth Forum (FLAJ) and other ICMYO partners to a preparation meeting for COP16 during the University on Youth and Development. The team representing the YFJ and other partner organisations in Cancun at the end of the year demonstrated efficiency and lobby skills. Together with Government officials the Youth Caucus in 90 minutes, the team laid out the text on outreach activities and strengthened the role of civil society in the future UNFCCC cooperation. This is strongly needed for the future, as the YFJ representative reported back that the COP16 was better for the YFJ than for the environment.

Conclusions Democracy. Human Rights. Education. These are key elements in the work of the European Youth Forum in all its working areas, but nowhere the challenges and achievements become as visible as in the global cooperation. Nothing is more powerful than sharing the knowledge and tools to ensure Human Rights with young people. The work of the European Youth Forum at the global level has much developed during the past 15 years and has shown consistency to the long-term aims envisioned in 1997. A number of actors, youth NGOs and institutions, have joined in ; channels for youth participation have multiplied. The YFJ has known how to meet the initial challenges and how to adapt to the new ones, as well as contribute to a global partnership for development more inclusive to youth. At the closing session of the 3rd WYFUNS, Kofi Annan advised the participants to “Go out and make your difference to the world.” Looking back, we believe we did. Disclaimer from the authors : We found it important to provide a starting point for those interested in the history of the European Youth Forum’s involvement in Global Youth Work Development and cooperation with the United Nations System. We are, however, fully aware that such a chronology based upon our sole knowledge could not become totally complete. Therefore, it is our hope that you as a reader will also add to the picture and make this a living document.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Braga Youth Action Plan Outcome document of the World Youth Forum 1998 Introduction We, representatives of youth and youth-serving organisations, the United Nations System and other inter-governmental organisations have met from 2 to 7 August 1998 in Braga, Portugal at the third World Youth Forum of the United Nations System. We have gathered here to promote Youth Participation for Human Development, convinced that the participation of youth is a prerequisite for the development of humankind as a whole. On the threshold of a new millennium, young people are full of hope and commitment. We are convinced that in partnership between youth and youth-serving organisations, national governments, the United Nations System and other inter-governmental organisations, we can shape our world for the creation of a better future for all. Young people face the challenges of injustice and exclusion resulting mainly from the enormous inequities in income, wealth and power dominating today’s world. Because trade and investment agreements and relations remain unfair there is a growing gap between the rich and the poor. Young people are burdened by the financial and debt crisis, and as a result of Structural Adjustment Programmes they experience the consequences of on-going cuts in government expenditure in human services. There is a decline of educational systems, young peoples’ access to health services is restricted and youth unemployment is growing. Young people suffer from xenophobia and racism, homophobia, exclusion from democratic participation. Young people lack access to information despite new possibilities to communicate across borders that should promote tolerance in multiethnic societies, increased respect for Human Rights and greater participation. Real and sustainable solutions to these problems can only be found at the global level through the development of new partnerships between all the parties involved. Such solutions include the promotion of social spending through the cancellation of external debt of the highly indebted poor countries ; trade agreements respecting the right to work and decent working conditions ; fulfilment of the agreed 0.7% target of GNP for Official Development Assistance  ; the full payment of UN dues in time without conditions ; and further reform of the United Nations System. Young people can and should be a part of the solution to the problems in the world. Everywhere, young people and youth organisations show that they are not obstacles, but invaluable resources for development. Youth are building democratic leadership, civil society and social capital for the 21st century. With the Braga Youth Action Plan we want to empower young people to participate in human development. Youth Participation for Human Development requires that : the international community, the private sector and especially



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s governments provide young people with adequate financial resources in order to realise their entire potential in becoming full and active partners in the development process ; young people are recognised not only as future leaders, but as actors of society today, with a direct stake in the development process ; young women and men should be enabled to participate on equal terms : sexism is an obstacle that must be overcome and the empowerment of women a prerequisite for development ; ALL young people should be enabled to participate as both creators and beneficiaries of development : unemployment, illiteracy, the discrimination against indigenous young people, against young people with disabilities or discrimination based on religious beliefs, and other forms of social exclusion are threats to development ; justice between present and future generations is recognised as a fundamental base for sustainable development : young people should participate in the decisions taken today about the resources of tomorrow ; youth should participate in political decision making on all levels, and young people must be enabled to organise themselves in youth NGOs, students unions, trade unions, political parties, and in the creation of massmedia, in order to fully participate in political, economic, social and cultural life ; and youth issues are not treated in isolation, but mainstreamed into all policy making. The third World Youth Forum is an example of how a crosssectoral approach can be used successfully. The Braga Youth Action Plan is a joint commitment to Youth Participation for Human Development made by youth NGOs, the United Nations system and other inter-governmental organisations in partnership. As participants at the third World Youth Forum of the United Nations System, we pledge our personal and unwavering commitment towards Youth Participation for Human Development. We now call upon all youth, governments of the world and the international community to work together with us to carry out these commitments and make our vision of Youth Participation for Human Development a reality. The World Youth Forum Recommends : Youth policies Integrated Cross-Sectoral Youth Policies the formulation in all states of youth policies, by the year 2005, which are cross sectoral, comprehensive and formulated with long-term vision coupled with Action Plans taking into consideration the guidelines set forth in the World Programme of Action for Youth to the Year 2000 and Beyond. Youth policies should be accorded a legal status and backed by legislative structures and sufficient resources. We encourage all governments to establish and/or strengthen youth focal point institutions within the governmental structure. Youth policies should be formulated via a thorough consultation process between the government and the national youth NGO platforms as well as other stakeholders as equal partners in that process. the effective implementation of cross sectoral youth policies in accordance with the Action Plans and their time-frames which are formulated together with the youth policies. Action Plans should be utilised as a guideline

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s for monitoring and evaluating the status of the implementation of youth policies by all stakeholders, especially by the youth NGO platforms. that the United Nations, in collaboration with other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, identify the best practices on youth policy formulation and implementation and encourage the adaptation of the principles and experiences among the member states of the United Nations. Greater use could be made of the Youth Theme Group mechanism within the United Nations Resident Co-ordinators System to increase the coordination of United Nations entities in the field of youth for the promotion of national youth policies. The Youth Theme Group should give priority to collaboration between youth NGOs and United Nations entities. Youth NGO Co-operation at the National Level : the formation and/or strengthening of national youth NGO platforms, which represent the widest range of democratic youth organizations of each state to be established with the initiatives of the youth organizations themselves. The platforms should respect each member organization’s independence and operate based on the principles of solidarity and democracy. The governments should recognize the national youth NGO platforms legally and as partner in policy making, provide them with adequate financial support and guarantee the free development of NGOs. the formulation of informal and formal consultative mechanisms between national youth NGO platforms and governments, which operate based on the principles of mutual respect and equal partnership, so that the concerns of youth are fully reflected in the national policy making. the United Nations System, international organizations, including international and national youth NGO platforms, should strengthen the capacity of youth NGOs at the national, regional and international levels through enhanced co-operation at all levels. Youth, Poverty Eradication and Development : based on the Braga Initiative on Debt Crisis, governments ; the international community, including the IMF, the World Bank and other United Nations agencies, to work in partnership with youth NGOs to organise regional seminars before the year 2000 to assess the impact of the debt crisis on young men and women in countries with such debts. The results of their findings should be used to make informed policy in the international community, particularly in the areas of structural adjustment programmes, capacity building, awareness raising, and advocacy with the aim of eradicating poverty. These regional seminars also should lead to a joint international conference of Youth NGOs and the United Nations system, including the World Bank and the IMF, to be held before the year 2001. We recommend that youth organisations, in co-operation with governments, United Nations agencies and organisations, IGOs, and international financial institutions, establish where they do not exist, and strengthen existing national, sub-regional, and regional youth networks and agencies. Such agencies, autonomous in planning, decision making, and implementation, should carry out effective poverty eradication, participate in development programmes, and act as a monitoring body to evaluate progress. They should give due consideration to the social and cultural background of target groups, and appropriate training and follow-up should involve local community members. While emphasising the fact that Governments and the international community have the primary responsibility for poverty eradication, the World



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s Youth Forum affirms the indispensable contributions made by young people in poverty eradication and development. We recommend that all major actors concerned with poverty and youth promote, support, develop, and fund youth volunteerism. Furthermore, high-profile should be given to youthled volunteerism during the International Year of Volunteers in 2001.

Youth participation Participation of ALL Young People : it be recognised that young people with disabilities have greater difficulties participating in society due to lack of equal opportunities. To improve their independent access to the physical environment, information, devices of assistance, equipment, awareness campaigns and fundraising are necessary. This should be promoted and enhanced at all levels through cooperation among NGO’s concerned with disability, as well as UN agencies, governments and IGO’s. governments, NGOs, IGOs and the UN system promote intercultural understanding among different cultures through workshops, seminars, exchange programmes and youth camps, with an adequate evaluation process to ensure that all cultures, and specifically Indigenous young people, are fully recognised, respected and valued in society. We also propose that the UN sponsor a World Indigenous Youth Conference and for any future UN sponsored youth activities, processes be established to ensure specific Indigenous participants are included as delegates in their own right. that NGOs take the initiative, in co-operation with UN specialised agencies, programmes and funds as well as national youth platforms, to establish conferences that enable an exchange of experiences and information about working with young people living in extreme poverty and those requiring protection from violence, in particular young women. Priority should be given to reaching young people living in extreme poverty and working in partnership with them in the design and implementation of youth policies and concrete projects in the areas of health, education, training and employment. We also propose the creation of national monitoring centres to submit an annual report to the United Nations System on young people victimised by violence. The results of the conferences on young people excluded by extreme poverty and the report on young people victimised by violence should be widely disseminated by all forms of media and used as a reference in evaluating the implementation or national youth policies. Youth Organisations and the United Nations System : the United Nations support broad involvement of youth NGOs in the decision making process in a democratic manner throughout the United Nations System. We ask for greater consultation and the full and effective participation of youth NGOs in United Nations System conferences, commissions, specialised agencies, programmes and funds – which should meet in different regions to ensure equitable geographic representation. We encourage Member States to include representatives of youth NGOs in national delegations to the General Assembly, and other United Nations System conferences and commissions. This must allow for a wide, inclusive and gender balanced representation of all youth, including groups such as indigenous people, the youth with disabilities, immigrants, refugees and all minorities.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s The recognition of the responsibility of youth to take it upon themselves to help implement the Braga Youth Action Plan and other United Nations initiatives - thus we offer to the United Nations System the services of youth at the national, regional and international levels. In order for this to be successful, there must be increased co-ordination of such implementation at the national and regional levels, information should be made easily accessible to all young people (which may be facilitated by United Nations System offices) ; the question of national funding to broaden the effectiveness of youth NGOs with the aim of using such funds to set up eventual self reliant organisations should be addressed  ; and non-associated youth must be involved in order to ensure effective implementation of all programmes. That youth issues should be given higher priority in United Nations System. We recommend the strengthening of the United Nations Youth Unit and its counterparts in other funds, programmes and specialised agencies and the provision to them of greater resources and more staff – notably young people. We recommend the expansion of their mandate to include the dissemination of information and the co-ordination of policies and programmes between youth NGOs and the various specialised agencies, funds and programmes. There should be national liaison offices for young people at the United Nations local offices, and a quota for youth organisations in the national United Nations programmes. We must also ensure the continuation of the World Youth Forum process, including the convening of regional youth fora/consultations both in the preparation and follow-up of the Forum and the strengthening of its links with future high-level, inter-governmental conferences on youth (such as the Ministers’ Conference on Youth), through joint preparation, meetings and follow-u p. Member States should contribute generously to the United Nations Youth Fund, which should give priority to for South - South project. Education for the 21st Century : that education shall be free of charge at all levels, and equally accessible to everyone. Access to all education should not be on the basis of economic status. We call on governments to increase resource allocation to education and for UNESCO to be the co-ordinating agency, with the technical and financial contributions of Governments, for the establishment of a World Education Fund to provide grants to facilitate equal access to all levels of education. that it be recognised as a right the empowerment of young people via full and active participation and representation in all types of education, and calls upon governments to do the same. We call on governments to recognise and promote the importance of non-formal education, it being integral to the full development of individuals and societies and as therefore being complementary to formal education. We recommend the establishment of Departments of Non-formal Education within Ministries of Education, which would work in partnership with NGOs responsible for non-formal education policies, through a democratic NGO forum. while recognising that education should be relevant to employment opportunities, we call on the governments to analyse and review their formal education policies to incorporate the teaching of languages, including local and indigenous languages, and global citizenship education, emphasising universal concepts such as peace, human rights, intercultural and interreligious understanding, environmental protection, sustainable development, and gender equality. The World Youth Forum calls for the development of



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s regional and international teaching materials through United Nations agencies, the adequate training of all educators and the establishment of national coordination units. Youth Employment for Social Development : the recognition that the problem of youth unemployment is serious and complex which requires action both the macro and microeconomic levels by governments, the social partners, NGOs, and the United Nations System. There is a need to promote, improve, and extend the design and implementation of policies and programmes to promote employment among young people. We recommend that the United Nations System, in close collaboration with youth NGOs, undertake a comparative evaluation of the situation of youth employment programmes in different countries from different regions. This evaluation should emphasise programmes for disadvantaged youth, such as, but not exclusively, women, youth with disabilities, the long term unemployed, indigenous peoples and migrants. The evaluation should look at issues such as the sustainability of jobs created once programmes are completed, the quality of jobs created and the contribution of the project to social development. the recognition that there is a lack of institutional capacity of NGOs in the employment area and communication between NGOs and the United Nations System. NGOs often face difficulties in raising funds to finance projects and lack knowledge about existing projects and programmes to promote youth employment. To overcome this, we propose a new system of information exchange between youth NGOs and the United Nations System and a framework of collaboration to provide technical and financial support to NGOs. The first step is for all NGOs to gain access to relevant communication facilities (with the assistance of the United Nations System). The second step would be to create a web site and mail-out directory with and for NGOs as another means of communication. The Webster should contain, among other things, information regarding the NGOs and International Organizations themselves, printed material in electronic format produced by the United Nations System, project updates and experiences and ideas on how to obtain financial and technical support for activities related to youth employment. that there is a need to empower, mobilise and inform young people about fundamental rights at work. In order to promote social development these rights must be respected by all. Youth NGOs should participate in the ILO’s efforts to publicise its Conventions, Recommendations and Resolutions, especially the “Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work” adopted by the International Labour Conference in June 1998. We further recommend that an information dissemination campaign be undertaken by NGOs with the financial support of the United Nations System to educate young people about their rights under the ILO’s instruments. The campaign should take the form of conferences, information materials and training, and will emphasise grassroots participation. Youth, Health and Development : the formulation/review and implementation of an integrated national youth health policy addressing all major health issues including  : sexual and reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, infectious diseases, substance abuse, nutrition and hygiene, harmful traditional practices such as female genital mutilation, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, mental health, occupational and environmental health. This requires the active participation of youth, youth related organizations, government bodies, NGOs, international organisations and agencies of the United Nations System.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s the provision of youth-friendly health services, counselling and especially reproductive health services that are comprehensive, accessible and participatory, to ensure the holistic well-being of all young people. the international community implement reliable research, monitoring and assessment concerning the health needs of young people with the full participation of youth and widespread and interactive exchange of information addressing those needs. The government bodies, NGOs, international organisations, and agencies of the United Nations System, in collaboration with youth organisations should co-ordinate the efficient peereducation training of young people in all spheres of life on life skills, and the training of parents, teachers, religious and traditional leaders and caregivers on support skills. Information centres should be created that would be run by youth and for youth. The Role of Youth in the Promotion of Human Rights : that human rights education be recognised as a basic human right. This right includes access to, and exchange of, information on universally accepted civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, and their violations. It aims at advocating the implementation of basic human rights. ALL young people must become involved in human rights education as key recipients and providers. Institutions, including governments, the UN system, intergovernmental organizations and educational authorities, responsible for human rights education at the community, national, regional and international level, must ensure an enabling environment for youth involvement in human rights education. This includes the opportunity for active participation of youth organizations in the decision making process, in the implementation, as well as in existing monitoring and reporting procedures linked to human rights education. that youth organizations commit themselves to develop and implement effective strategies on human rights education. We recommend a human rights focal point to be designated in each youth organisation. Partnership between the UN system and such focal points should be established within the framework of the UN Decade on Human Rights Education (1995-2004). Human rights education methodologies shall take into account the need for cultural sensitivity and should include lobbying, networking, exchange of best practices, capacity-building and preparation of material in local languages. Youth Rights Charter and a Special Rapporteur on Youth Rights : instead of a so called “Youth Rights Charter”, the United Nations Youth Unit produce and assist youth NGOs disseminate at international, regional, national and local levels a compendium on existing youth rights which consists of the compilation of the existing rights regarding young people already included in reports adopted by the General Assembly and United Nations Human Rights instruments, including United Nations international conferences such as the conferences in Cairo, Copenhagen, Vienna and Beijing. The compendium should be made into a youth friendly publication available and accessible to all youth around the world. was not adopted. the UN Special Rapporteur on Youth rights should be appointed by United Nations Secretary General before the end of 1999 basing on nominations through regional consultations of NGOs to be made by August 1999. He or she should be mandated for three years (renewal possible only for two terms). He or she should be a young independent expert (no older than



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 35 years of age at the time of appointment and renewal), experienced with human rights issues, recently and directly involved with youth organisations. Effort must ensure the elimination of discrimination with every appointment to ensure fair and equal opportunity in the position over time. He or she must submit an annual report to the UN General Assembly and other relevant bodies, including recommendations for better implementation of youth rights. He or she should be actively supported by all UN structures. we urge the Secretary General of the United Nations to take the initiative, with the help of specialised agencies, relevant regional organizations and youth NGOs, for the organisation of an ad hoc event on Youth Rights, in order to bring together representatives of states and all interested national, regional and international youth NGOs. This World event (either a special session of UN General Assembly or a UN World Conference on Youth Rights) should be prepared at the national and regional levels through campaigning to promote the largest possible involvement of young people. The ad hoc event on Youth Rights should address the questions of how to improve the Human Rights situation of youth under sanctions, embargoes and occupation.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Lisbon Declaration on Youth Policies and Programmes Lisbon Declaration on Youth Policies and Programmes, adopted at the World Conference of Ministers Responsible for Youth, held at Lisbon from 8 to 12 August 1998 We, the Governments participating in the World Conference of Ministers Responsible for Youth, convened by the Government of the Portuguese Republic in cooperation with the United Nations, gathered in Lisbon from 8 to 12 August 1998, Mindful that both the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution 52/83 and the United Nations Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1997/55 have welcomed the offer of the Government of Portugal to host a World Conference of Ministers Responsible for Youth in cooperation with the United Nations and have requested the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations to make the report of the World Conference available to all States Members of the United Nations, Recalling the achievements of International Youth Year in 1985 and the special sessions of the General Assembly on youth in 1985 and 1995 leading to the adoption of the World Programme of Action for Youth to the Year 2000 and Beyond, Recalling that, as suggested in paragraph 123 of the World Programme of Action for Youth to the Year 2000 and Beyond,the General Assembly invited regional and interregional conferences of ministers responsible for youth to intensifycooperation among each other and to consider meeting regularly at the international level under the aegis of the United Nations to provide a global dialogue on youth-related issues, Taking note of and acknowledging the reports of the second2 and third3 sessions of the World Youth Forum of the United Nations System, held in Vienna 1996 and Braga, Portugal, 1998, Recalling also that the General Assembly in paragraph 124 of the Programme of Action invited youth-related bodies and organizations of the United Nations system to cooperate with the regional and interregional conferences and that such bodies and organizations have made contributions to those meetings as well as to this World Conference of Ministers Responsible for Youth, Recognizing the efforts made by our Governments and societies to respond more effectively to the economic, social, educational, emotional, cultural and spiritual needs of young people and their problems, Recognizing that youth are a positive force in society and have enormous potential for contributing to development and the advancement of societies, Recognizing the urgency of creating more and better jobs for young women and young men and the central role of youth employment in facilitating the transition from school to work, thereby reducing crime and drug abuse and ensuring participation and social cohesion, Noting with concern the situation of youth living in poverty, as well as the special difficulties experienced by different groups of young women and young men such as those involved in or affected by unemployment, drug and substance abuse, violence, including gender-based violence, neglect, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation ; youth involved in armed conflicts ; refugees



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s and other migrant young people ; displaced and parentless youth ; young women and young men living with disabilities ; indigenous youth ; ethnic and cultural youth minorities ; young offenders ; pregnant adolescents ; and other disadvantaged and marginalized young women and young men, Also noting, with concern, the situation of indigenous youth in many countries, in this International Decade of the World Indigenous People, and taking into consideration the obstacles they face in regard to quality of life, participation and access to education, services and opportunity, Taking note of the achievements made since the Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing 1995, and bearing in mind the constraints and obstacles that still impede the full participation of women in all sectors of society, and particularly that of girls and young women, Having regard for the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and having regard also for the progress achieved in the implementation by States parties of other human rights instruments and standards such as the Declaration on the Right to Development, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Also having regard for the recommendations arising from major United Nations conferences, including the World Summit for Children, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the World Conference on Human Rights, the International Conference on Population and Development, the World Summit for Social Development, the Fourth World Conference on Women, the second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), and the World Conference on Education for All, which adopted the Declaration on Education for All, the World Food Summit, which adopted the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and Plan of Action, and the International Labour Conference at its 86th session, which adopted the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, Recognizing that the formulation and implementation of strategies, policies, programmes and actions in favour of young women and young men are the responsibility of each country and should take into account the economic, social and environmental diversity of conditions in each country, with full respect for the various religious and ethical values, cultural backgrounds and philosophical convictions of its people, and in conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms, Recognizing that the family is the basic unit of society and as such should be strengthened, that it is entitled to receive comprehensive protection and support, and that in different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist ; also recognizing that young women and young men who enter into marriage must do so with the free consent of the intending spouses, and husbands and wives should be equal partners,

We therefore commit ourselves to : National Youth Policy 1. Ensuring that national youth policy formulation, implementation and follow-up processes are, at appropriate level, accorded commitment from the highest political levels, including the provision of adequate levels of resources ;

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 2. Developing national youth policies and operational programmes, at appropriate levels, to implement the World Programme of Action for Youth to the Year 2000 and Beyond, taking into account the national priorities, realities and limitations arising from different socio-economic and cultural development contexts ; 3. Establishing the necessary policies and programmes by the year 2000 to improve living standards for young women and young men and to permit the effective implementation of national youth policies, of an intersectoral nature, foreseen, among others, in the Programme of Action ; 4. Reviewing the situation of youth and their needs and incorporating young people’s own assessment of priorities, through their participation in a consultative process, and ensuring that young women and young men actively contribute to the formulation, implementation and evaluation of national and local youth policies, programmes and action plans ; 5. Developing capacity building through the empowerment of formal and informal coalitions and networks of youth ; 6. Strengthening responsible partnerships among all key stakeholders, especially youth networks, non-governmental youth institutions and organizations and other non-governmental organizations also including young women, particularly the girl-child, and young men, their families, governments, international agencies, educational institutions, civil society, the business sector and media in order to create synergies to better address youth potentials and problems both at national and at local levels ; 7. Introducing measurable time-bound goals and indicators to allow a common basis for national evaluation of the implementation of the abovementioned policies ; 8. Supporting bilateral, subregional, regional and international exchange of best practices at the national level in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of youth policy, and the provision of appropriate development tools and technical assistance, through the creation of networks ; 9. Ensuring the mainstreaming of national youth policy and international development, plans and programmes ; Participation 10. Ensuring and encouraging the active participation of youth in all spheres of society and in decision-making processes at the national, regional and international levels and ensuring that the necessary gender-sensitive measures are taken in order to attain equal access of young women and young men and by creating the conditions necessary for the fulfilment of their civic duties ; 11. Promoting education, training in democratic processes and the spirit of citizenship and civic responsibility of young women and young



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s men with the view to strengthening and facilitating their commitment to, participation in and full integration into society ; 12. Facilitating access by youth to legislative and policy-making bodies, through their representatives, in order to involve them closely in the formulation, execution, follow-up, monitoring and evaluation of youth activities and programmes and to ensure their participation in development ; 13. Upholding and reinforcing policies that allow independent and democratic forms of associative life, including the elimination of identified obstacles to youth participation and to freedom of association in the work place ; 14. Giving higher priority to marginalized, vulnerable and disadvantaged young women and young men, especially those who are separated from their families and children living and/or working in the streets, with adequate programmes, actions and necessary funding, inter alia, in order to provide them with the means and motivation to contribute effectively to their societies ; 15. Giving priority to the building of communication channels with youth in order to give them a voice, at the national, regional and international levels, and to give them the information they need to help them prepare for participation and leadership roles ; 16. Encouraging youth voluntarism as an important form of youth participation ; Development 17. Ensuring the right to development of all young women and young men ; 18. Promoting access of young women and young men to land, credit, technologies and information, hereby enhancing the opportunities and development resources of young people living within rural and remote communities ; 19. Ensuring actions to promote equal access to and use of new information technologies by young women and young men once those are a privileged instrument to progressively reduce or eliminate inequalities and foster development ; 20. Enhancing the role of youth organizations in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of national development plans and programmes ; 21. Establishing or strengthening, as appropriate, a policy to combat poverty and ensuring actions on the alleviation of poverty, and recognizing the needs of young women and young men to adequate housing by ensuring safe, healthy and secure living and environmental and working conditions, including shelter, and to integrate youth concerns into all

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s relevant national and local policies and programmes by supporting the ability of youth to play an active and creative role in the management and development of human settlements so that they can effectively contribute to the improvement of living and environmental conditions not only for themselves but also for their communities and society at large ; 22. Encouraging awareness and commitment among young women and young men to sustainable development principles and practices, especially in regard to environmental protection, and supporting the actions of youth in promoting those principles in cooperation between countries, based on their mutual needs and common interests ; 23. Recalling that the family unit has a vital role to play in the integration of youth into society by acting as an agent of transition, a facilitator of learning and education, a provider of emotional and economic support, a transmitter of values and a contributor to the formation and development of young women and young men as responsible adults  ; specific programmes and mechanisms should be created or reinforced within an integrated perspective of families ; 24. Recognizing the need for a gender-balanced perspective in line with the concerns identified by the Economic and Social Council during the operational activities for development segment of its 1998 substantive session ; 25. Encouraging bilateral, regional and international cooperation to create an enabling environment at the national and international levels in order to ensure the full participation of young women and young men in economic and social development ; 26. Discouraging the adoption of and refraining from any unilateral measure, not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, that impedes the full achievement of economic and social development by the population of the affected countries, in particular young women and young men, that hinders their well-being and that creates obstacles to the full enjoyment of their human rights ; 27. Taking measures in accordance with international law with a view to alleviating any negative impact of economic sanctions on young women and young men ; Peace 28. Bearing in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security, namely by taking effective collective measures against different forms of violence and any threat to peace by suppressing acts of aggression and by promoting a peaceful resolution of disputes, in conformity with the principles of justice and international law ; 29. Bearing in mind the important role of youth in promoting peace and non-violence, measures should be taken in accordance with the relevant provisions of international law, including international standards of human



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s rights, aiming at preventing the participation and involvement of youth in all acts of violence, particularly acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, xenophobia and racism, foreign occupation, and trafficking in arms and drugs ; 30. Strengthening the role of youth and youth organizations in peace building, conflict prevention and conflict resolution, inter alia, on the basis of the resolutions and treaties of the United Nations and the Security Council and the promotion of intercultural learning, civic education, tolerance, human rights education and democracy towards mutual respect for cultural, ethnic and religious diversity, responsibility, solidarity and international cooperation, as a means of preventing conflicts and distressed circumstances ; 31. Encouraging, as appropriate, the role of youth in working towards general and complete disarmament under effective international control, including disarmament of all types of weapons of mass destruction ; 32. Building an effective culture of peace and tolerance by putting into practice a global system of education and training for peace, aimed at social progress, fighting inequalities and recognizing the importance of dialogue and cooperation behind lines of conflict, in order to promote tolerance, respect and mutual understanding ; 33. Assisting youth and youth organizations in making a substantial input into the celebration of the International Year for the Culture of Peace in the year 2000 ; 34. Preventing the participation, involvement and recruitment of children in armed conflicts, in accordance with international law ; 35. Promoting and protecting the rights of peoples, including youth, living under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, particularly those people’s right to self-determination ; 36. Mobilizing youth for the reconstruction of areas devastated by war, bringing help to refugees and war victims and promoting reconciliation and rehabilitation activities ; 37. Ensuring that young women and young men live within an environment free from threat, conflict, all forms of violence, maltreatment and exploitation ; Education 38. Promoting education in all its aspects, namely formal and non-formal education, as well as functional literacy and training for young women and young men and life-long learning, thereby facilitating the integration of youth into the labour market ; 39. Guaranteeing to young women and young men equal access to and continuity of basic good quality education, especially in rural areas and among the urban poor, aimed at eradicating illiteracy ;

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 40. Setting national time-bound goals for the expansion of equal access for young women and young men to secondary and higher education and for the improvement of the quality of that education ; 41. Ensuring that young women and young men are well informed about their human rights, inter alia, through education ; 42. Offering adequate training in modern communication techniques and in media literacy as they have an impact on youth and their behaviour ; 43. Providing for the rehabilitation and, where appropriate, the reintegration of young women and young men from juvenile detention and incarceration into society, especially in the educational setting ; 44. Designing new strategies focusing on youth in distress and in violent circumstances, aimed at ending exclusion, offering renewed learning opportunities for early school leavers and continuous learning and training opportunities for both employed and unemployed youth ; 45. Supporting family structures, especially assistance to the poor, and providing the necessary resources to family and schools dealing with young women and young men with physical and mental disabilities ; 46. Reinforcing and designing new partnerships to enable young women and young men to learn, create and express themselves through cultural, physical and sports activities for the benefit of their balanced physical, intellectual, artistic, moral, emotional and spiritual development, as well as their social integration ; 47. Allocating resources to vocational training and ensuring that education and training systems correspond to economic, social and entrepreneurial realities based on identified needs and technological advancements ; 48. Developing education policies that support all young women and young men in gaining access to an education that corresponds to their specific capacities and potentials, while paying special attention to socially disadvantaged youth ; 49. Encouraging the inclusion of issues such as family life education, reproductive health, including the adverse consequences of traditional practices that are harmful to the health of young women and girls, and drug and substance abuse prevention in the design of school curricula, as well as in extracurricular activities ; 50. Encouraging youth participation in community work as an important part of the education system ; 51. Supporting, as appropriate, students. organizations by creating the conditions for the exercise of their rights and providing them with the necessary means to enable them to discharge their roles and responsibilities ;



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 52. Establishing and developing sport, cultural and recreational activities among young women and young men aimed at promoting and strengthening sport and cultural exchanges at the national, subregional, regional and international levels ; Employment 53. Affirming the ultimate societal goal of full employment so as to ensure that equal opportunities are available to young women and young men for income-earning work ; 54. Promoting equal employment opportunities for young people as well as equal protection against discrimination, including in wage payments, in accordance with national employment legislation, regardless of ethnic or national origin, race, gender, disability, political belief, creed or religion, or social, cultural or economic background ; 55. Promoting equal employment opportunities for young women, inter alia, by adopting and implementing laws against sex-based discrimination in the labour market as well as legislation to guarantee the rights of young women and young men to equal pay for equal work or work of equal value ; 56. Improving complementary partnerships among public authorities, the private sector and educational institutions, along with civil society initiatives, for the promotion of youth employment ; 57. Promoting research on youth unemployment, taking into account market trends and demands, in order to design and implement youth employment policies and programmes, with due regard to genderspecific circumstances ; 58. Investing in the entrepreneurial capacity of young women and young men and providing them with the necessary skills and resources to establish their own enterprises and businesses ; 59. Taking effective measures to secure the prohibition and immediate elimination of the worst forms of child labour, including support to the ongoing negotiations towards the finalization by the International Labour Organization of a future instrument addressing this issue, and measures to protect young women and young men against other forms of exploitation, including through sex tourism, prostitution, trafficking in human beings and bondage and any kind of labour, paid or unpaid, which negatively affects their mental, physical, social and moral development, with due regard to the particular situation of young women ; 60. Promoting employment-oriented education and training to ensure the constant adjustment of education to the changing social and economic environment, including market needs ; 61. Promoting the development of mechanisms for career counselling for youth through educational and training institutions as well as the community ;

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 62. Promoting a greater national and international commitment to the protection of youth migrant workers, with attention to their enjoyment of human rights, their social needs and their prevention from exploitation ; 63. Promoting youth entrepreneurship in rural areas with a view to assisting youth to embark on self-managing and selffinancing activities ;

Health 64. Promoting equal health development for young women and young men, and preventing and responding to health problems by creating safe and supportive environments, providing information and building skills and access to health services, including counselling, involving the family unit, peer groups, schools, media health services and other partners ; 65. Combating treatable diseases, and preventing and responding to non-treatable diseases by establishing workable partnerships between developed and developing countries and promoting information and vaccination campaigns, involving the family unit, peer groups, schools, media, health services and other partners in order to build capacity, with special attention to young women and young men ; 66. Creating the political, legal, material and social conditions that allow access to basic health care with adequate youthfriendly services and that pay particular attention to information and prevention programmes, with special attention to major diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, onchocerciasis (river blindness) and diarrhoeal diseases, in particular cholera ; 67. Recognizing that the consumption of tobacco and the abuse of alcohol by young women and young men pose a major threat to their health, support the development in each country of comprehensive programmes to reduce the consumption of tobacco, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, and the abuse of alcohol ; 68. Elaborating programmes of information, education, communication and campaign awareness among young women and young men to fight HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases ; 69. Recognizing the special health needs of young women and young men with mental or physical disabilities and ensuring their rehabilitation and reintegration in order to promote self-reliance ; 70. Promoting humanitarian land-mine activities and increasing land-mine awareness among children and youth, in particular in countries affected by anti-personnel land-mines ; 71. Recognizing and supporting the important role of the family unit, youth organizations and non-governmental organizations as the best mechanism to provide an enabling environment for a healthy life through the provision of knowledge, information, skills and motivation ;



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 72. Formulating policies favourable to the development in rural and poor urban areas of health programmes, including safe water supply, sanitation, and waste disposal, taking into account the specific needs of young women and young men for a healthy environment ; 73. Recognizing the importance of general health care, including reproductive health care, and establishing a dependable database on youth reproductive health and providing for information dissemination and for youth-friendly and gender equitable services in order to ensure the physical, mental and social well being of young women and young men, as well as access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable legal methods of family planning of their choice ; 74. Intensifying efforts and actions towards international cooperation concerning health relief under natural disasters and other emergencies ; 75. Recognizing the problem of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse and other types of violence against young women and young men, and taking effective measures for their prevention, such as those outlined at the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, held in Stockholm from 27 to 31 August 1996 ; 76. Ensuring full protection of young women and young men from all forms of violence, including gender-based violence, sexual abuse and sexual exploitation, and promoting the physical and psychological recovery and the social and economic reintegration of the victim ; Drug and Substance Abuse 77. Recognizing the repeated references to youth in the documents adopted at the twentieth special session of the General Assembly on the world drug problem ; 78. Raising the awareness of youth, in partnership with young women and young men and youth organizations, of the dangers of drug abuse of both licit and illicit substances and promoting alternatives so that young people can move towards life styles that are healthy and free from substance abuse, and mobilizing the community at different levels to participate fully in drug prevention efforts ; 79. Collaborating, in partnership with young women and young men and with youth organizations, on strategies aiming at preventing abuse, reducing the demand for drugs, combating drug abuse and trafficking and promoting support for treatment for and rehabilitation of drug abusers focusing on their social reintegration and for their families ; 80. Strengthening international, regional, subregional and bilateral cooperation and increasing efforts towards demand reduction and efforts to fight against illicit production, supply and trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances ;

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 81. Instituting strong measures aimed at restricting and/or preventing access to drugs by young women and young men ; WE WILL THEREFORE AGREE ON THE FOLLOWING 82. To invite all relevant United Nations programmes, funds and the specialized agencies and other bodies within the United Nations system, in particular the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Population Fund, the United Nations Children. s Fund, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization, the World Bank and intergovernmental organizations and regional financial institutions to give greater support to national youth policies and programmes within their country programmes ; 83. To promote at the national, regional and international levels research, data collection, statistical compilation and wide dissemination of the findings of such research and studies ; 84. To invite the Secretary-General of the United Nations to consider strengthening the Youth Unit of the United Nations Secretariat and to submit proposals to the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session on ways and means to achieve that ; 85. To invite the Secretary-General of the United Nations to participate actively in the effective follow-up to the World Conference of Ministers Responsible for Youth, bearing in mind General Assembly resolution 52/83 and Economic and Social Council resolution 1997/55 and within the framework of the World Programme of Action for Youth to the Year 2000 and Beyond ; 86. To implement coordinated and cooperative systems among the regional commissions and organizations and ministerial and other meetings in their youth-related activities, and to prepare, to allocate the necessary funding for and to ensure the follow-up of the recommendations of the World Conference of Ministers Responsible for Youth ; 87. To urge interested Governments, non-governmental organizations and the private sector to make increased financial contributions to the United Nations Youth Fund and to set up an advisory body to this fund to provide guidance both on fund raising strategies and on project formulation, implementation and evaluation to follow up the World Conference with specific youth projects ; 88. We hereby adopt and commit ourselves as Governments to implement the above-mentioned measures and to foster the further implementation of the World Programme of Action for Youth to the Year 2000 and Beyond, with the active participation of youth, ensuring that young people. s unique perspective is reflected in our national policies and programmes.



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s

León, Guanajuato, August 27th, 2010 Guanajuato Declaration The Guanajuato Declaration is the outcome of wide consultations and contributions of the participant governments during working sessions at the World Youth Conference and of pre‐conferences at Strasbourg, France ; Salvador de Bahía, Brazil ; and Abuja, Nigeria ; four meetings of the International Steering Committee and inputs sent by its members ; open online world‐wide consultations ; meetings of the Mexican National Committee for the WYC and internal consultations within the Mexican Government as well as pre‐ conferences organized throughout Mexico with the participation of young people, civil society organizations and local government entities ; and discussions with governments through their permanent representations to the UN. The Government Forum of the World Youth Conference also received the NGO Statement for the WYC 2010.

Preamble We, the Ministers of Youth and other representatives from the governments participating in the World Youth Conference, having met in City of Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico from 25 till 27 August 2010 ; Recognizing that young people are key actors in the quest for development, key stakeholders of the Millennium Development Goals and essentials allies for their achievement and in this regard recognizing the importance of the High Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on accelerating progress towards the achievement of all the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, to be held from 20 to 22 of September of 2010 ; Recognizing also that all the Millennium Development Goals are interconnected and mutually reinforcing and underlining the need to pursue these goals through a holistic and comprehensive approach ; Recognizing further that states have made significant achievements in the social integration of young people since the declaration in 1985 of the first International Year of Youth, and yet many important challenges remain in poverty, education, health, employment, technology, culture, security and conflict, civic engagement, democracy, gender equality and the environment, that impede integral human development and along with it, prevent the development of nations ; Reaffirming the importance of the World Programme of Action for Youth, and considering the urgent need of effective implementing it through plans, mechanisms and programs at all levels ; Reaffirming our commitment to promote and protect all human rights, including for young people, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments ; Recognizing that the current generation of young people is the largest in history and by sheer numbers and importance, they deserve a central place in efforts to achieve international agreed developmental goals ; including MDGs especially as most developing countries have a high proportion of young people in their populations and this youth bulge offers


502 1 General Assembly Resolution A/Res/64/134.

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s countries a rare chance to make strategic investments to gain a demographic dividend and break the inter‐ generational cycle of poverty ; Recognizing also that young people contribute significantly to their families, communities and society through their creativity, capacity for innovation, altruism, adaptation to change, energy and optimism, and therefore are relevant actors and strategic partners for development  ; Recognizing the need to develop policies and laws that better support the family, contribute to its stability and take into account its plurality of forms ; Recognizing further the cultural, ethnic, religious and socio‐ economic diversities of young people and the necessity of taking this into consideration in the formulation of actions for the development of young people ; Conscious of the progress made in the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of women, yet conscious that it is necessary to bear in mind during the implementation of actions for development that severe inequalities still persist between women and men and that these are also reflected in the young population ; Committing ourselves with the objectives of the International Year of Youth : Dialogue and Mutual Understanding (12 August 2010‐ 11 August 2011)1 ; FOR THE ABOVE, WE IDENTIFY THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES FOR ACTION which arise from the participation of young people, civil society, representatives from governments and international development partners ;

Public policies and investment 1. To prioritize increased investments in young people in legal and policy frameworks, and in national development plans, strategies public policies and institutions and aim to guarantee the comprehensive development of youth, such as, through the establishment of universal social protection floors taking into account national circumstances and with the meaningful participation of young people, as well as to develop or strengthen national systems for monitoring and evaluation ;

Poverty and hunger 2. Advance economic policies for sustainable growth that reduce income inequality and guarantee to young people equal opportunities for development, including income, food and employment and strengthen our efforts to achieve MDG1 goals and targets to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger ; 3. Strengthen policies and programs for overcoming poverty with a view to better incorporate the developmental needs of young people ; 4. Make sustained investments with a life‐cycle approach for developing human capital with special attention to young people, specially young women and girls living in poverty and social exclusion ; 5. Develop training programmes for youth which improve methods of production and marketing

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 6. Discourage the adoption of any unilateral measure, not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that hinders the well‐being and the full enjoyment of all human rights for all, including young people ;

Education 7. Promote the enrollment and retention of young people in educational institutions at all levels, including secondary, technical, vocational, and higher education with special attention to women and young people living in poverty and in vulnerable situations ; 8. Put in place programs for early childhood education, literacy and life‐ skills, vocational training address school drop‐out and offer a second opportunity to young people who have not completed basic education and strengthen our efforts to achieve MDG 2 goals and targets of universal primary education ; 9. Improve the quality and relevance of educational curricula at all levels and orient educational programmes towards the comprehensive development of young people that includes : intercultural, civic and peace education, solidarity, human rights education, education for sustainable development, comprehensive education on human sexuality, the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women, as well as the formulation of competencies and conditions for employability taking into account necessities of the local context ; 10. Invest in quality educational institutions at all levels and continuing teachers training programmes, as well as the professionalization of persons working with youth ; 11. Develop non‐formal educational programmes and recognize or certify non‐formal educational programs carried out by civil society, especially by young people for young people ; HEALTH 12. Recognize the need to guarantee the full realization of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable level of physical and mental health for young people and strengthen our efforts to achieve MDGs 4, 5 and 6 goals and targets ; 13. Involve young people in programs that encourage a healthy lifestyle, the practice of sports, physical activity, rest , leisure and other healthy habits among them ; as well as raise awareness of nutrition, eating disorders and obesity ; 14. Establish public policies that guarantee young people’s access to health without any discrimination and increase the quality and coverage of health systems and healthcare services, including for sexual and reproductive health, reduce maternal morbidity and mortality, prevention, care, treatment, counseling of young people in order to halt and reverse the spread of HIV and AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases, including non‐communicable diseases ;



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 15.Strengthen or establish, youth‐friendly substance abuse prevention programmes and affordable treatment and rehabilitation programmes, in order to address the vulnerability of young people to substance abuse ;

Employment 16. Make policies to advance decent work for young people a priority of national development frameworks and employment policies, and adopt targeted measures to promote decent employment among disadvantaged young women and men including policies for first‐time employment, apprenticeships, internships, contracts for working students, programmes to promote youth entrepreneurship, skills and employment programmes and measures to facilitate the transition of young workers from informal to formal employment and from temporary to stable jobs ; 17. Promote policy reforms to protect the right of young people to just and favorable conditions of work, including fair remuneration and social security, freedom of association ; and adopt measures to combat exploitation in accordance with relevant international instruments ; 18. Facilitate the transition of young people from school and academic life to decent work and invest in programmes that enhance youth employability through skills development and work experience that respond to the requirements of the labour market ; 19. Encourage partnerships among governments, employers organizations, trade unions, the private sector, institutions of higher education, youth organizations and civil society, to foster employment opportunities in the labor market, taking in to account regional and national particularities ; 20. Promote programmes to foster youth entrepreneurship ;

Gender equality 21. Guarantee gender equality, the empowerment of young women and their full enjoyment of all human rights and strengthen our efforts to achieve MDG 3 on gender equality and the empowerment of women as well as the objectives encompassed within the gender equality‐ related dimensions of all the other MDGs ; 22. Mainstream a gender perspective in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all public policies and programmes relating to young people in order to overcome all forms of gender base discrimination, in particular discrimination against young women ; 23. Guarantee the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value, and equal treatment for all young people in the workplace as well as equal sharing of employment and family responsibilities between women and men ;

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 24. Develop or strengthen laws, policies and programmes with a holistic approach to address, prevent, and eradicate all forms of discrimination and violence against young women and girls, in particular gender‐based violence ; 25. Promote the greater involvement of men, young men and boys in measures aimed to prevent all forms of discrimination and violence against women and achieve gender equality and the empowerment women, especially young women ; 26. Adopt effective measures to combat and prevent the sexual exploitation and trafficking of persons, especially involving minors and young people ; 27. Promote the participation of young women in decision making processes in political, social and economic activities and the elimination of barriers that limit their full contribution to society ;

Technology and innovation 28. Ensure universal, non‐discriminatory, equitable, safe and affordable access to information and communications technology to everyone, remove the barriers to bridging the digital divide, including through transfer of technology and international cooperation on mutually agreed terms and implement measures to equip young people with the knowledge, skills and infrastructure to use information and communications technology ; 29. Encourage the participation of young people in the generation and distribution of knowledge through information and communication technologies, as well as to use information and communication technologies to deepen intercultural dialogue and encourage respect for social, cultural and religious diversity ; 30. Guarantee protection against arbitrary interference with privacy ; 31. Promote and support research, development and application of technologies created by young people ;

Culture 32. Promote cultural development and creativity of young people respecting their forms and means of expression and different forms of thought ; 33. Promote peaceful coexistence, intercultural dialogue, tolerance and mutual respect for cultural and religious diversity ; 34. Guarantee the respect for young people’s rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion ;


506 2 In accordance with General Assembly resolution A/Res/64/14

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 35. Promote the role of the Global Youth Movement for the Alliance of Civilizations in fostering mutual understanding and respect both locally and globally ;

Access to justice and security 36. Abide by the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and our obligations under human rights instruments in all government actions in relation to young people and consider young women and men as subjects of all rights ; 37. Promote the recognition of young people as key actors for development and eliminate their stigmatization as causes of conflict and violence ; 38. Develop policies and programs to identify and address factors that put young people at risk of engaging in crime and prevent youth violence ; 39. Adopt systems of justice specialized for dealing with young people in conflict with the law, putting as the highest priority their social rehabilitation, reintegration, including through their participation in education, and training programmes, and using detainment only as a last recourse, whilst also providing legal remedies for victims ; 40. Implement a wider application of alternatives to imprisonment, restorative justice and other relevant measures to promote the transfer of young offenders to services outside the criminal justice system ; 41. Enhance comprehensive measures that guarantee the safety of young people, protecting them from factors of insecurity derived from organized crime, physical violence and drug‐related crimes ; 42. Strengthen and promote the role of young people and youth organizations in building peace in their communities, countries and regions ; 43. Address the issue of youth in situations of armed conflict, post conflict settings and under occupation in accordance with International Humanitarian Law ;

Participation 44. Encourage the full and effective participation of young people in the assessment of the different needs of youth in spaces of co‐decision and public decision‐making in all levels and areas that affects their lives, inter alia, by supporting the establishment of independent national youth councils ; 45. Ensure that young people have the education, information and skills they need for their effective participation ; 46. Provide opportunities and further strengthen the active participation of young people, with full respect for their autonomy and their

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s organizations in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of public programs and policies on all levels and areas that affect their lives, including by promoting and reinforcing youth voluntarism and providing adequate resources ; 47. Encourage the interaction of young people globally, by giving support to the establishment of appropriate platforms and networks for exchange and cooperation ;

Sustainable development 48. Strengthen the participation of young people, as important actors in the protection of sustainable development and the protection, preservation and improvement of the environment at the local, national and international levels ; 49. Involve young people in programs oriented towards the sustainable development and sustainable management of natural resources and promote sustainable consumption and use of natural resources ; 50. Support the contribution of youth organizations in policies relating to the preservation of natural resources, renewable and sustainable energy, environmental sustainability and climate change through access to adequate education and training ; 51. Encourage sustainable development education programs in schools and communities and promote opportunities for young people to engage in environmentally‐sustainable jobs ; 52. Support the creation of youth networks for cooperation on the issue of the environment at the national and international levels ;

International migration 53. Recognize that young migrants represent an asset to sustain economic development in countries of destination and origin ; 54. Adopt comprehensive migration policies that promote and protect the human rights of migrants, including young migrants in order to maximize the positive effects of migration and respond to the challenges which migration poses to countries of origin, transit and destination ; 55. Encourage agreements between countries of origin, transit and destination for young people and young workers to migrate safely, preventing them from being subject to exploitation, smuggling, trafficking and violence ; 56. Promote social integration in countries of destination to enable young migrants to share the benefits and contribute to the economic, social and cultural development of their communities ;



Back to the future, youth in the 2000s International cooperation 57. Accelerate progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals by assigning greater importance to youth issues in order to make more visible the situation of young people ; 58. Promote the implementation and, as appropriated, reinforce international or regional agreements and plans on youth ; 59. Promote the development of evidence‐based national, regional and international policies, plans and strategies for youth and the collection, analysis and dissemination of data disaggregated by gender and age, as well as research on youth issues ; 60. Encourage the implementation of national youth policies as well as regional programs on youth and support national systems for monitoring and evaluation, including by providing appropriate financial resources and international assistance ; 61. Promote the establishment of thematic groups, platforms, associations or networks for exchange and disseminate evidence and lessons learned in the implementation of youth policies ;

Based on the priorities identified, the participating governments decide to : 1. Take necessary measures and work in partnership with civil society, international organizations and international cooperation agencies to implement the priorities identified in this Declaration with full and effective participation of youth ; 2. Continue the ongoing discussions within the framework of the United Nations General Assembly regarding the effective implementation of the World Programme of Action for Youth, as well as strengthening mechanisms of coordination within the United Nations System to support global, regional and national policies and programmes for youth ; 3. Urge donors and other countries in a position to do so as well as other development partners to strengthen international cooperation for the development of young people, including by providing financial assistance ; 4. Welcome the initiative of the UN General Assembly to proclaim the International Year of Youth : Dialogue and Mutual Understanding (12 August 2010 – 11 August 2011), and call on governments, civil society, the private sector and international cooperation agencies, to participate actively in all activities related to the Year and in the United Nations Conference on Youth ; 5. Consider discussing an international legal framework that recognizes the specific rights of young people ;

Back to the future, youth in the 2000s 6. Request the United Nations General Assembly to recognize, strengthen and mandate the UN Inter‐Agency Network on Youth Development to asses and follow up existing declarations, commitments structures and mechanisms specific to young people, namely the declaration of the World Youth conference, the world Program of Action for Youth and implementation of the agreements of the World Youth Conference, the World Program of Action for youth and the Millennium Development Goals, in relation to Young people. 7. Request the General Assembly of the United Nations to consider at its 65th session this declaration as a meaningful contribution to the activities of the International Year of Youth and to the process of reviewing the progress made in achieving the Millennium Development Goal ten years after their adoption.





511 words by Giuseppe Porcaro

We stated at the beginning that the main purpose of this book was to start filling the gaps. Now it is the time to look at the raw materials gathered so far and draw some first and partial conclusions.

First, the research gap. The contributions proposed pave the ground for a promising field of interdisciplinary investigations. More research is needed on the history of the European Youth Forum. We hope that this Anthology will encourage and sparkle the curiosity of more scholars and students to dedicate time and energy to the various subjects raised in these pages. Looking at what we have, it would be interesting to explore further at least three possible complementary directions to nurture such research. A first question is the political contribution of youth to the European project and the impact of youth organisations in the policies that affect young people. We saw how there has always been a thin line between using youth organisations as part of broader political scenarios and/or having youth movements influence the bigger history. It will be interesting, for example, to explore further the role of the European Youth Forum and its predecessors in the frame of the theories that analyse the impact of the network of actors within the elaboration of European governance. Moreover, to challenge the impact of the networks through a more in-depth study of the social capital constituted by youth organisations in Europe. Is this social capital considered an asset by high-level decision-makers ? A second research question draws on the geo-political dimension of the evolution of youth platforms, from the war to the enlargement of the European Union, from May ‘68 to the youth movements that have shaken the Arab world in 2011. The article on youth policy in post-war Europe opened interesting reflections that would require further exploration. An interesting question, in this regard, would be on the impact of the action of the Youth Forum within the framework of its dialogue with the rest of the world. Which is, for example, the contribution of the Forum to the development of a Foreign Policy of the European Union ? A third dimension that would be interesting to develop further is the sociological perspective of the European Youth Forum as a learning organisation. It is a unique organisational model that can be studied in-depth in terms of governance and internal evolution with the lenses of educational outcomes. This view can be broadened towards a general reflection on the educational value of youth organisations in general, which is constantly challenged by the individualisation of society. What is the role of youth organisations in the XXI Century ?

Second, the gap in the historical memory of the European Youth Forum. The Youth Forum is already at its 8th generation of elected political leadershi p. Despite the few cases of continuity over several mandates, the turnover of delegates from Member Organisations in statutory meetings is quite high. This is the beauty of a youth platform and the refreshing aspect of having a vibrant gathering that is able to change over time. However, the historical


Conclusions memory of the platform is challenged. It is important to provide access to the past experiences, achievements and failures. It is by learning from them that we will be able to advance, learn and innovate. When reading the pages of the old publications, such as the Youth Opinion, we often find the same claims to get more support for mobility schemes for young people. In one ironic case from the mid-nineties, we discovered the mention of a “Youth on the Move” initiative. Same name, similar content to the flagship event that the European Commission announced a few decades later. Continuity sometime is striking, despite the changes. The whole engagement and debate around youth rights was already vibrant in the 80s and in the 90s and became again a focus of the platform from 2007 on. However, sometimes, continuity is more on the essence of the mission and vision of the Forum and would benefit a lot if memory loss can be prevented. To a certain extent, we can claim the need for an “active ageing” strategy for the Platform. Together, with this Anthology, we already launched some parallel initiatives going in this direction, such as the informal network of alumni, the project of digitalisation and accessibility of old publications, and the encouragement of further historical research on the topic.

Third, the gap in recognition of the impact on policies. The raison d’être of the Youth Forum is to influence policies and make a difference for young people and youth organisations. Evaluating such an impact over the longer period is fundamental to understand the main directions taken and to lay solid foundations for future developments. From what we read in these pages, we can identify over a period of 60 years a long term process, which is the Europeanisation of the youth sector. It is a process that cannot be disconnected from the overall political process of Europeanisation, which goes beyond the institutional boundaries and embraces a dynamic of its own. The result is the building of a new space and scale for a social and political interaction that did not exist before : Europe. In the case of the European Youth Forum, the overarching trend can be broken-down into three main development axis : Creating a European youth policy ; supporting the European youth sector of civil society ; striving for the rights of all young people. A European youth policy did not exist before the mid-1960s. It was CENYC, the platform of National Youth Councils, that called upon the Council of Europe to establish a European Youth Centre and a Fund for youth activities for the first time (and before 1968). From then on, the subsequent decades have been marked by a series of events going in the direction of creating a European Youth Policy. From the establishment of a Youth Forum of the European Communities, to the first informal Ministerial meeting at EU level in 1988, from the development of various generations of youth programmes, to the release of a European White Paper on Youth ; from the initiative of a Youth Pact, to the youth article of the Lisbon Treaty. Many steps - some bigger than others. However, still a long way to go. In 2011, a European Youth Policy exists. Nevertheless, there is still no European competence over it. Its transversality is recognised by the youth ministries, but not by the finance ones. A rights-based approach to youth policy, therefore, seems to be the most important development

Conclusions towards securing a solid and long-term approach to youth policy, to avoid the risk of being volatile and subject to the current political and economical circumstances. Supporting the development of European youth organisations was already an objective when the European Youth Campaign was launched in 1951 by the European Movement International and the European Coordination of the National Committees within the World Assembly on Youth. From this period on on, we can track back the long process that led to the establishment of youth platforms in Europe, and eventually, to the creation of the European Youth Forum in 1996. This might appear today as a linear outcome and obvious process. However, we saw in many articles that this result was not taken for granted in any of the various phases. Dividing lines and dialectics among youth organisations, as well as between them and the supporting institutions, has been at the hearth of the organisational development of the platform. Increased support of European youth organisations in the past corresponded to the counteroffensive of a governmental discourse that tends to disempower the organised Civil Society in order to mould more easily the individualistic forms of participation. Today, one priority lies in engaging youth organisations in an exercise of self-criticism, as well as in relaunching the strong youth sector of civil society. Moreover, reaching out to disadvantaged youth is required, to the young people that are not yet involved in any volunteering or youth association, to more and more diverse groups. Youth organisations are still the best channels to reach out to them. But to do so, they need support and a clear political project that is not aimed at weakening them. The strive for youth rights is the ultimate goal of the Platform. Making a change and improving the lives of young people. But above all, allowing young people to be autonomous and committed citizens. At the end of the day, this is what youth rights are about. The Forum can claim that during more than three decades, this is what has animated its policies and actions. From the long development of specific and sectorial rights in the 80s, especially in the field of employment and social inclusion, to the drafting of a European Charter on the rights of young people. From the more recent debate on a rights-based approach to youth policy to the proposal for a European Convention on Youth Rights. Today, there is the need to take the debate to the next level. Firstly, by defining the key element behind the Youth Forum’s elaboration of youth rights : Youth autonomy should be, for instance, a crucial element within this definition. Secondly, by continuing to pursue the goal for a new international law tool. It is not possible to leave this solely to the goodwill of the legislator, knowing that only thanks to the initiative of the Youth Forum is the issue now on the agenda of the Council of Europe and the United Nations. Thirdly, by opening up the discussion across society. The experiment within the Anthology of combining artistic languages with communication on youth rights is a good example of the fact that the traditional boundaries of institutional lobbying and advocacy no longer exist. The bricks, the cement and the paint have been shipped to the construction site : raw materials for a history of the European Youth Forum. A preparatory work, for new research, new policies and new horizons for the Platform.



Appendix Statutes of the Council of European National Youth Committees (1963) Statutes of the European Co-ordination Bureau of International Youth Organisations (1987) Statutes of the Youth Forum of the European Communities (1978) Statutes of the European Youth Forum (1995) Statutes of the European Youth Forum (2010) List of Bureau/Board Members of the European Youth Forum (1996-2012)






























































































European Youth Forum Statutes Adopted by the General Assembly of the European Youth Forum Kiev, Ukraine, 19 November 2010 Published at the “Moniteur Belge” Article 1 : Name and registered office 1.1. The international association shall have the name European Youth Forum, hereinafter referred to as the “Forum”. 1.2. The registered office of the Forum is at 120 rue Joseph II, 1000 Brussels (Belgium). The registered office can be transferred to any other location in Belgium, following a decision of the Board, published in the Belgian State Journal (Moniteur Belge). 1.3. The Forum is an international non-profit association under the Belgian law (AISBL), regulated by the dispositions of title III of the law from 27 June 1921 about the non-profit associations, the foundations and the international non-profit associations. Article 2 : Purpose 2.1. The purpose of the Forum, which is not for profit, is to organise studies, research, debates, seminars, meetings, publications, information or actions having the defence of the youth’s interest in Europe as goal. 2.2. Without prejudice to its scientific and pedagogical purpose, the Forum shall promote issues relevant to its members towards the Council of Europe, the European Union and other policy makers, and shall support, promote and co-ordinate the work of its members. The Forum shall aim to : be a consultative body for international institutions (European Union, Council of Europe, United Nations Organisation, etc) on all issues relevant to young people and to youth organisations ; promote youth policy through government and institutional policy ; influence the policy of international institutions on youth-related issues ; increase the participation of young people and youth organisations in society as well as in the decision-making process ; promote the exchange of ideas and experiences, mutual understanding, and equal rights and opportunities among young people in Europe. Article 3 : Membership 3.1. Membership Criteria 3.1.1. The members of the Forum are National Youth Councils (NYC) and International Non Governmental Youth Organisations (INGYO) in Europe.




Only one NYC shall be accepted as a member in each European State. Exceptions may be agreed by the General Assembly by majority of two thirds, not counting abstentions, where for cultural, constitutional and historic reasons in a certain state it is appropriate for more than one NYC to be accepted as member. INGYOs cannot become members if they are largely identical in terms of aims, membership and structures of an existing INGYO, which is already a member. This is to be appreciated solely by the General Assembly, by a two thirds majority, abstentions not counted.

criteria : Either : have at least 5000 young members in ten European States and under no circumstances have less than 300 young members in any one of those ten States ; Or : have a justified recommendation from : -the Secretary-General and the Board ; or -the Consultative Body on Membership Applications which advises the Board on Membership Applications.

3.1.2. The members are natural persons or legal entities registered according to the laws and customs of their state of origin.

C.The NYC observer members have to satisfy the following specific criteria : a)be the national co-ordination body of non-governmental youth organisations in a European State ; b)be open to all democratic youth organisations at national level. The INGYO observer members have to satisfy the following specific criteria : Either : have at least 3000 young members in six European States and under no circumstances have less than 100 young members in any one of those States ; Or : have a justified recommendation from : -the Secretary General and the Board ; or -the Consultative Body on Membership Applications which advises the Board on Membership Applications.

3.1.3. The members have to fulfil the following general criteria : a) to accept and work for the purpose of the Forum ; b) to be a non-governmental and not for profit organisation ; c) to have democratic aims and structures and accept the principles of the European Convention of Human Rights ; d) to fully acknowledge the Statutes of the Forum ; e) to work with young people and have a decision making body controlled by young people ; f) not to be subject to direction in their decisions by any external authority. 3.2. Categories of members and criteria There are three categories of members on the Forum : full members (A) ; candidate members (B) ; observer members (C). A. To become full member, the quality of candidate member must be maintained for the two years preceding the membership application. Full member NYCs have to satisfy the following specific criteria : a) be the national co-ordinating body of non-governmental youth organisations in a European State ; b) be open to all and include most of the main democratic youth movements and organisations on the national level in that State. Full member INGYOs have to satisfy the following specific criteria : Either : have at least 5000 young members in ten European States, and under no circumstances have less than 300 young members in any one of these ten States ; Or : have a motivated recommendation from : -the Secretary-General and Board ; or -the Consultative Body on Membership Applications which advises the Board on Membership Applications. B. The NYC candidate members have to satisfy following specific criteria : a) be the national co-ordination body of non-governmental youth organisations in a European State ; b) be open to all and represent most of the main democratic youth movements and organisations at the national level in that State. The INGYO candidate members have to satisfy the following specific

3.3. Membership rights A. Full members have the following rights : -Right to vote : each full member shall be entitled to one voting right. However, when several NYCs come from the same State, they will only have one vote, to be divided according to what is stated in the Rules of Procedure ; -Right to be present and speak at the General Assembly and Council of Members ; -right to present candidates for all statutory bodies and working structures of the Forum, and external structures and delegations. B. Candidate members have the following rights : -Right to be present and speak at the General Assembly and Council of Members ; -Right to present candidates for all working structures of the Forum. C. Observer members shall have the following rights : -Right to be present and speak at the General Assembly and Council of Members ; -Right to present candidates for all non-permanent working structures of the Forum. 3.4. Responsibilities of the members The members have the responsibility to fulfil in a permanent manner all the criteria stated above and to inform in writing the Forum’s Secretary



Appendix General of any changes relevant to their membership status. (such as changes of statutes and legal status). The Secretary General shall inform the Board, who may refer the matter to the General Assembly or Council of Members. The members have the responsibility to pay the annual membership fee before the end of the year concerned. The members have the responsibility to participate regularly at the meetings of the Forum, its bodies or working structures. The members have the responsibility to answer in due time to requests of information connected with the purpose of the Forum. 3.5. Membership applications 3.5.1. All membership applications (A, B or C) must be sent by registered mail to the registered office of the Forum, to the attention of the Secretary-General. The membership application must be motivated and must contain all elements allowing the appraisal of whether the abovementioned criteria are fulfilled. Non-compliance with the above-mentioned conditions (3.5.1.) shall render the application null and void. Therefore, all membership applications which do not respect all of those conditions shall be considered null and void and shall not be taken into consideration. 3.5.2. The completed membership application is communicated without undue delay and in any case not later than 30 days to the Consultative Body on Membership Applications, which must address a report to the Board with regard to the membership application. This report must be justified with regard to the above-mentioned criteria (3.1. and 3.2.). 3.5.3. After the report established by the Consultative Body on Membership Applications is available to the Board, the Board shall transfer the membership application together with its recommendation to the General Assembly. 3.5.4. The membership application shall be put on the agenda of the General Assembly. 3.5.5. The General Assembly shall decide on the admission of a member by a two thirds majority of votes cast, not counting abstentions. 3.5.6. In case of a favourable vote by the General Assembly, the status of member shall be acquired on the day following the closing of the General Assembly. 3.5.7. In case of a negative vote by the General Assembly, a new membership application shall only be taken into consideration after a period of two years has elapsed. 3.6. Membership review and end of membership 3.6.1. In principle, members acquire their status for an unlimited period of time. However, after expiration of four years as a candidate member,

Appendix this member becomes automatically an observer member. This review will be in effect on the 1st of January following the end of the fourth year as a candidate member. In this case, the application to become a candidate member again will not be taken into consideration before a period of three years has elapsed. An exception shall be made where the organisation has submitted a completed application for full membership within the four years deadline and this is still under analysis by the CBMA. 3.6.2. Each member which has not paid its fees before the end of the concerned year, shall automatically lose its voting right as of the 1st of January of the following year. This right can be granted back by decision of the Council of Members if the fees have been paid before the meeting of the Council of Members. If non-payment of the fees lasts longer than one year, the status of member shall be reviewed by the Board according to the procedure described hereunder. 3.6.3. Whenever one of the members does not fulfil the criteria for its level of membership, the termination of its membership or the review of its status could be decided by the General Assembly by a two thirds majority of votes cast, not counting abstentions, according to the following procedure : -The demand for review of membership must be introduced by a justified letter signed by at least ten full members or the Board, to the SecretaryGeneral. Within 30 days of the reception of the demand, the Secretary General shall transfer the demand to the CBMA and to the concerned member. -Within one month of the reception of the demand, the member shall be able to address to the CBMA all the information it considers useful to be taken into account by the CBMA. -The CBMA must address a justified report to the Board with regard to the membership review. -After the report established by the Consultative Body on Membership Applications is available to the Board, the Board shall transfer the membership application together with its recommendation to the General Assembly. 3.6.4. When a member does not respect its obligations, the Board can, on its own initiative or after a demand of at least ten full members, decide to withdraw all or part of its rights as a member according to the following procedure : -The suspension or withdrawal shall be put on the agenda of the Board and the concerned member shall be informed of the objections which are made against it. -The member shall be invited to regularise its situation or to communicate to the Board, in a written statement and within one month as of the reception of the demand all the information it considers useful to be taken into account by the Board. -The Board can decide by a justified decision to deprive the member of one or more of its rights until that member has regularised its situation. -After a four year suspension of its rights, the Board will have to propose the end of membership of the member at the next General Assembly.



Appendix 3.6.5. All decisions with regard to a suspension of rights, a revision of status or an end of membership of a member shall take effect immediately. 3.6.6. A member which is wound up, put in liquidation or deceased shall be considered as resigning and shall automatically lose its status of member. 3.6.7. Each member is free to resign from the Forum. The resignation shall be effective as of the eighth day following the reception of a registered letter in which the member informs the Forum of its intention to resign. 3.6.8. A member whose membership has ended or who is resigning shall have no right with regard to the association’s assets. Article 4 : Statutory bodies, secretariat and working structures 1. The Forum is constituted of the following statutory bodies : the General Assembly (4.1) ; the Council of Members (4.2) ; -the Board (4.3) ; -the Financial Control Commission (4.4) ; -the Secretary General (4.5) ; -the Consultative Body on Membership Applications(4.6).

Appendix -to adopt the budget and approve the accounts on the basis of a report from the Board and the recommendation of the Financial Control Commission ; -to evaluate the work of the Forum based on a report presented by the Board and the Secretariat ; -to elect or dismiss the President ; -to elect or dismiss the two Vice Presidents and the eight other Board Members ; -to elect or dismiss the Financial Control Commission, as well as the external auditors ; -to disband the organisation ; -to ratify the appointment of the Secretary-General according to the Rules of Procedure. 4.1.4. Extraordinary General Assembly An Extraordinary General Assembly meets at least once a year. An additional Extraordinary General Assembly shall take place : a) at the request of the Board, to the attention of the Secretary General ; b) at the request of at least one third of the members, addressed in registered letter to the Forum’s registered office, to the attention of the Secretary General ;

2. The Forum has a Secretariat led by the Secretary General. The Forum may constitute non-permanent working structures by decision of the Board.

c) at the request of the Council of Members, addressed in registered letter to the Forum’s registered office, to the attention of the Secretary General.

4.1. General Assembly

4.1.5. Notice The General Assembly shall be convened by a letter sent at the official address of its members, signed by the President, and sent under responsibility of the Secretary General, at least three months before the ordinary General Assembly and two months before the Extraordinary General Assembly. Notice for the General Assembly shall at least include the agenda for the Assembly as well as the date and venue.

4.1.1. Meeting The General Assembly is the highest decision making body of the Forum. It shall meet at least every two years. 4.1.2. Composition The General Assembly consists of representatives delegated by the members. These representatives cannot delegate their mandate, nor hold several mandates. The General Assembly is composed of two groups : the GNYC, regrouping the NYCs, and the GINGYO, regrouping the INGYOs. 4.1.3. Powers The regularly constituted General Assembly shall represent all members and shall have the broadest powers to take, execute or ratify all decisions taken in the interest of the association. The decisions taken by the General Assembly shall be binding for all members, including the absent or dissenting ones. The General Assembly shall, among others, have the following functions : -to adopt the policy guidelines and the work plan of the Forum ; -to accept new members ; -to adopt amendments to the Statutes ; -to adopt the Rules of Procedure ;

4.1.6. Quorum and votes The General Assembly shall validly deliberate only if at least half of its full members are present. Except when otherwise provided, the General Assembly shall take decisions by a simple majority of the votes cast, not counting abstentions. The General Assembly can only pass urgent resolutions with a two-thirds majority of member organisations present and voting, not counting abstentions. Whatever the number of present members, each of the two groups (GNYC and GINGYO) shall have an equal number of votes. The voting procedures in the General Assembly are specified by the Rules of Procedure adopted by this body. Proxy votes are not allowed. 4.1.7. Logbook of deliberations A logbook of the minutes of General Assemblies shall be kept. The logbook



Appendix shall be accessible to all members, which may on simple demand, obtain a copy of a deliberation. 4.2. Council of Members 4.2.1. Composition The Council of Members is composed of one delegate for each member (A, B and C). 4.2.2. Powers The Council of Members has the power to accomplish all acts necessary or useful for the realisation of the purpose of the association, at the exception of powers which are reserved by law or by the Statutes to the General Assembly. The Council of Members shall have the following functions : define the policies, vision and direction of the Forum based on the guidelines set by the General Assembly ; be a space to foster exchange, cooperation and network amongst the different members of the Forum. 4.2.3. Notice The Council of Members meets twice a year during the years where there is no General Assembly and once a year during the year where there is a General Assembly. The Council of Members is convened by the Board. The notice is sent at least 45 calendar days in advance to the official address of its members and is signed by the President. The notice states at least the agenda as well as the venue and date of the meeting. The Council of Members shall meet in places decided by the Board. 4.2.4. Quorum and vote The Council of Members shall validly deliberate only if at least half of the representatives of its full members are present. Except when provided otherwise, the Council of Members will take decisions on the basis of a simple majority of the votes cast, not counting abstentions. The Council of Members can only pass urgent resolutions with a two-thirds majority of member organisations present and voting, not counting abstentions. Whatever the number of present members, each of the two groups (GNYC and GINGYO) will have an equal number of votes. The voting procedures in the Council of Members are specified by the Rules of Procedure adopted by the General Assembly. Proxy votes are not allowed. 4.2.5. Deliberations A logbook of the minutes of the meeting of the Council of Members will be kept. The logbook shall be accessible to all members, which may on simple demand, obtain a copy of a deliberation. 4.3. Board

Appendix 4.3.1. Composition The Board is composed of 11 persons, nominated by the full members with a voting right : -the President, -two Vice-Presidents, -eight other Board members, All Board members are elected by the General Assembly. The duration of their mandate is two years as of the 1st of January following the year of the General Assembly during which they have been elected. Each member of the Board has the possibility to be re-elected only once. The Secretary-General takes part as ex officio member of the Board but has no right to vote. 4.3.2. Powers The Board shall have the following tasks : to define the overall strategy in accordance with the organisational mission, adopted work plan and guidelines of the General Assembly and policies determined by the Council of Members ; to prepare meetings of the statutory bodies and working structures ; to be responsible for the finances and budgetary matters, securing financial integrity ; to ensure the measurement of performance and overseeing the implementation of the work plan ; to select the Secretary-General, supervise and evaluate his/her work ; to ensure external representation ; to maintain contact with and between the members ; to participate, if desired, to all meetings of the Forum and speak at those meetings ; to constitute the non-permanent working structures. To evaluate the work of the Forum a report presented by the Board and the Secretariat will be presented to the Council of Members and the General Assembly. 4.3.3. Quorum and vote The Board may validly deliberate provided half of its members are present. It takes decisions on the basis of a majority of the votes cast. Each member shall have one vote. In case of a tie, the vote of the President or of his/her replacement is prevailing. 4.3.4. Notice The Board shall meet on notice of the President or of at least six of its members. The notice must be sent at the official address of its members at least 15 calendar days in advance and must be signed by the Secretary-General. The notice shall at least state the agenda as well as the venue and the date of the meeting. The Board shall meet in a place it judges appropriate. 4.3.5. Deliberations A logbook of the minutes of the meeting of the Board shall be kept. The logbook shall be accessible to all members, which may on simple demand, obtain a copy of a deliberation.



Appendix 4.3.6. End of mandate Membership of the Board will automatically end in the event of : -expiration of mandate ; -death ; -resignation. Each member of the Board can be dismissed ad nutum by the General Assembly. 4.4. Financial Control Commission 4.4.1. Composition The Financial Control Commission is composed of the following members with voting right : -two members from INGYOs elected by the General Assembly, for a two year period starting as of 1st of January following the Assembly during which they have been appointed ; -two members from NYCs elected by the General Assembly, for a two year period starting as of 1st of January following the Assembly during which they have been appointed ; and of the following members without voting right : -a member of the Board appointed by it ; -the Secretary-General ; the Administrative and Financial Director. The Financial Control Commission elects its Chair from among its members with a voting right. S/he will be representing the Financial Control Commission at the Board, at the Council of Members and at the General Assembly. S/he will chair the meetings of the Financial Control Commission and shall have a casting vote in case of a tie during the deliberation. In case of his/her absence, a replacement Chair will be elected by the Financial Control Commission. 4.4.2. Powers The Financial Control Commission is responsible for the internal audit of the finances of the Forum. It shall act in advisory capacity to the Board, Council of Members and the General Assembly on the allocation of existing resources in line with the strategic priorities and the work plan, as well as the identification of new resources. It will present a written report to the Council of Members and to the General Assembly with regard to the annual budget and to the accounts of the Forum. 4.4.3. Meeting and notice The Financial Control Commission meets at least twice a year on notice addressed by the Chair. The notice is sent to the official address of the members at least 30 calendar days before each meeting. 4.4.4. Quorum and vote The Financial Control Commission validly deliberates provided half of its members with a voting right are present. It takes its decisions on the basis of the majority of the votes cast. In case of a tie, the vote of the Chair or the replacing Chair is decisive.

Appendix 4.4.5. Deliberations A logbook of the minutes of the meetings of the Financial Control Commission shall be kept. The logbook shall be accessible to all members who may on simple demand, obtain a copy of a deliberation. 4.4.6. End of mandate Membership of the Financial Control Commission ends automatically in the event of : -expiration of mandate ; -death ; -resignation ; Each elected member of the Financial Control Commission can be dismissed ad nutum by the General Assembly. 4.5. Secretary-General 4.5.1. Composition The Secretary-General, selected in accordance with the procedure described hereunder and in the Rules of Procedure. 4.5.2. Selection of Secretary-General The Secretary-General is selected by the Board and ratified by the General Assembly for a three-year mandate, according to the Rules of Procedure. The Board can propose to renew the mandate of the Secretary-General for another term of two years by making a recommendation to the General Assembly. The Secretary-General is accountable for his/her acts towards the Board and the General Assembly, and can be dismissed ad nutum by any of them. The age limit described in article 8 applies to the position. 4.5.3. Powers The Secretary-General shall supervise and coordinate the work of the Secretariat. The Secretary-General is responsible for the daily functioning of the Forum under guidance and delegation of the Board. 4.6. Consultative Body on Membership Applications 4.6.1. Composition The Consultative Body on Membership Applications is composed of four members : -two members from the INGYOs and two members from the NYCs appointed by the General Assembly on proposition of the Board for a period of two years as of 1st of January following the General Assembly during which they have been appointed ; The Consultative Body on Membership Applications appoints a Chair from among its members. The Secretary-General assists the Consultative Body on Membership Applications. 4.6.2. Powers The Consultative Body on Membership Applications reviews the complete applications of potential members and shall address a motivated report on the membership applications to the Board. Additionally, the Consultative



Appendix Body on Membership Applications can be addressed by existing members in relation to both proposed as well as adopted changes relevant to their membership status, such as changes of statutes and/or legal status. 4.6.3. Meeting and notice The Consultative Body on Membership Applications meets on notices addressed by its Chair. The notice will be sent to the official address of the members at least 30 calendar days before each meeting. 4.6.4. Quorum and vote The Consultative Body on Membership Applications validly deliberates provided half of its members are present. It shall take its decisions on the basis of the majority of the votes cast. In case of a tie, the vote of the Chair or the replacing Chair is decisive. 4.6.5. Deliberation A logbook of the minutes of the meeting of the Consultative Body on Membership Applications shall be kept. 4.6.6. Exclusion and end of mandate Membership will automatically end in the following event : -expiry of mandate ; -death ; -resignation ; Each member of the Consultative Body on Membership Applications can be dismissed by the Board. In case a membership in the Consultative Body on Membership Applications ends, the Board can propose to the General Assembly the nomination of a new member for the rest of the mandate of the Consultative Body on Membership Applications. 4.7. Secretariat The Secretariat is composed of : - an Administrative and Financial Director appointed by the Board. S/he shall work under the responsibility of the Secretary-General ; -the other staff members appointed by the Secretary-General after consultation of the Board. The Secretariat prepares the work of the statutory bodies. It carries out the daily work of the Forum under the responsibility of the SecretaryGeneral. The duties of the Secretariat are more precisely defined in the Rules of Procedure. The modalities of functioning of these structures are defined by the Rules of Procedure. Article 5 : Budget 5.1. The financial year starts on 1st of January and ends on 31st of December. The Board will submit the accounts for the elapsed financial year and the budget for the next financial year to be approved by a General Assembly.

Appendix 5.2. The Forum has its own budget approved by the General Assembly on a proposal from the Board and after advice from the Financial Control Commission. The accounts of the Forum are controlled by an external auditor appointed by the General Assembly. 5.3. The income of the Forum shall be from : membership fees ; contribution of members, national or international institutions or other organisations or individuals ; sponsorship ; grants ; subsidies and aids. 5.4. The annual membership fee is determined by the General Assembly. The membership fee is based on equality between the global contribution of INGYOs and NYCs. Article 6 : Winding-up and liquidation The winding-up of the Forum can only result from a decision taken by the General Assembly in accordance with the procedure described for the modification of the Statutes. In the event of liquidation, the General Assembly shall decide on the allocation of the surplus assets, which shall have to be allocated in conformity with the Forum’s purpose, i.e. not-for-profit purposes. In any event, the liquidator shall not be allowed to allocate the surplus assets to the members of the Forum. Article 7 : Modifications of the Statutes and of the Rules of Procedure 7.1. The present Statutes may be amended by the General Assembly with a two thirds majority of votes cast, not counting abstentions. The proposed amendments must be presented to the Secretariat in writing at least 45 days before the General Assembly and communicated to the members at least 30 days before the General Assembly. For any decision related to statutory amendments, a two thirds quorum of full members is required. Whenever that quorum is not reached, the next meeting of the General Assembly may validly deliberate on the amendments of the Statutes, if at least one third of the full members are present. 7.2. All changes to the Statutes will come into effect after approval by the competent authority, according to article 50 §3 of the law, and after publication at the annexes of the Belgian State Journal (le “Moniteur Belge”) according to article 51 §3 of the refered law. 7.3. The Rules of Procedure shall be adopted by the General Assembly by a majority of two thirds of the votes cast, abstentions not counted. The Rules of Procedure can be amended by the General Assembly at the majority of two thirds of the vote cast, abstentions not counted. The proposed amendments must be presented to the Secretariat in writing at least 45 days before the General Assembly and communicated





to the members at least 30 days before the General Assembly.

votes inside each pillar.

Article 8 : Final and transitional considerations

A.2. Voting

8.1. For all elected positions in a body of the Forum, no candidate can be elected if s/he will turn 36 during that mandate.

A.2.1. Each full member has only one vote, whatever the number of its delegates.

8.2. For all statutory meetings, the delegates cannot be older than 35 years of age.

A.2.2. When there are several NYCs from the same country, the different NYCs of that country only have one vote, which belongs to the NYC which represents the Contracting Party to the Cultural Convention. In all other cases, the members of the same country express a vote through their spokesperson designated from among them.

8.3. The Statutes are drafted in French and in English. The French version is the official version. 8.4. The official languages of the Forum are the official languages of the High Contracting parties to the European Cultural Convention and the official languages of members organisations. Working languages are English and French. Occasionally other languages can be used as working languages. 8.5. Everything that is not ruled by the present Statutes shall be ruled according to the dispositions of title III of the law from 27 June 1921 about the non-profit associations, the foundations and the international non-profit associations.

European youth forum Rules of procedure Adopted by the General Assembly of the European Youth Forum Kiev, Ukraine 19 November 2010 A - rules of procedure – General These rules of procedure are supplementary and subordinate to the Statutes of the European Youth Forum, hereinafter referred to as the “Forum”, and regulate the implementation of these Statutes. In case of contradiction between the Statutes and the Rules of Procedure, the former shall prevail. A.1. Composition and Quorum A.1.1. At the meetings of the General Assembly and the Council of Members, representatives of at least half of the full members of the European Youth Forum shall constitute the quorum. A.1.2. Each full member can delegate two representatives at each General Assembly, one representative at each Extraordinary General Assembly and one representative at the Council of Members. The other members delegate one representative at each Assembly or Council of Members. A.1.3. The quorum is established and announced at the beginning of the meeting. The quorum can be re-established at the beginning of each session and can be questioned by any member organisation at any time. The proportion of votes inside each pillar for each session will be set according to the last established quorum. Abstentions do not affect the proportion of

A.2.3. One half of the votes in the General Assembly and Council of Members is held by representatives of full member NYCs and one half is held by representatives of full member INGYOs. To reach this parity, each vote expressed in one Group is multiplied by the number of votes present in the other Grou p.  A.2.4. Unless otherwise determined, voting in the different bodies, working structures or organs of the Forum is by simple majority. However, the General Assembly or the Council of Members can only pass urgent resolutions with a two-thirds majority of member organisations present and voting, not counting abstentions. A.2.5. Simple majority shall be understood as more than half of the votes cast, not counting abstentions. A.2.6. Absolute majority shall be understood as more than half of the votes cast out of votes of the total number of full members, counting abstentions. A.2.7. Unless otherwise determined, votes are taken by show of voting card. If requested by one member organisation, a secret ballot shall take place. A.2.8. A minority statement should be included in the minutes whenever a member organisation requests this. A.3. Minutes and audio recordings A.3.1. Minutes of meetings of the Council of Members and General Assembly shall record resolutions, decisions, motions and votes together with necessary explanatory information. Draft minutes shall be made available by the Secretariat (within 60 days) to member organisations. Sessions shall also be recorded. A.4. Submission of motions and resolutions by members A.4.1. Motions and Resolutions by the members shall be submitted to the Secretariat by registered mail 30 days before the opening of the meeting of the Council of Members or the General Assembly.



Appendix A.4.2. Urgent resolutions and motions should be submitted to the Secretary-General or, in her/his absence, to the President, at least one hour before the official start of the meeting of the General Assembly or the Council of Members. A.5. Adoption of documents at the meetings A.5.1. Any document, which is put to the Council of Members or General Assembly for adoption shall be made available by the Secretariat, according to the respective deadlines set in this Rules of Procedure. Documents should be presented in the working languages. A.5.2. Urgent documents for adoption should be submitted to the General Assembly or the Council of Members before the start of the meeting. The Board shall put forward a recommendation on the urgency of the document. Based on this recommendation the General Assembly or the Council of Members will decide if the document should be discussed. A.5.3. Any member organisation has the right to suggest amendments to these documents. These amendments should be put in writing and before a deadline to be decided at the meeting. A.5.4. Adoption of the document takes place in the plenary of the meeting, after decisions have been taken on the amendments. A.5.5. Adoption of documents takes place with a simple majority. Adoption of the work plan and of the budget takes place with a majority of two thirds of the votes. Amendments are adopted by simple majority. In addition, if a group of at least ten member organisations considers that a document goes beyond the purposes of the Forum, as defined in the Article 2, it has the right to propose that the final adoption of the document requires two thirds of the votes cast, not counting abstentions. In support of its proposal, the organisations must justify in what way the document goes outside the scope of the Forum. Taking into account this proposal, the General Assembly or the Council of Members remain competent to decide by a simple majority if a point of the agenda must be considered as a document requiring a two thirds majority. If the proposal is accepted by a simple majority, the amendments to the document will require a simple majority and the final adoption a two thirds majority, not counting abstentions. If the proposal is not accepted by a simple majority, both the amendments and the adoption of the document will require a simple majority. A.6. Elections A.6.1. Members can nominate several candidates for different working structures within one mandate. Due to its independent nature, any member of the Financial Control Commission shall be nominated by a different Member Organisation than the Member Organisation who nominated the candidates elected to the Board. A.6.2 For any election or nomination where more than 60% of the candidates

Appendix are from the same sex, the Board should re-open the call for a minimum of 10 calendar days for additional candidates of the underrepresented sex. A.6.3 Candidates for all elections must be nominated by a member enjoying all the rights according to its membership status. The nomination must respect the conditions indicated in the letter of convocation of the meeting. A.6.4 All elections/ratification shall be by secret ballot under supervision of the Secretary-General and of the President. The Secretary-General and the President must not supervise their own ratification or election. Two observers, one from each pillar, are assisting and observing the elections/ratification at all times. A.6.5 If more than one ballot is necessary to decide between candidates, the following procedure shall be used : in each of the subsequent ballots, voting shall take place with at least one candidate less than the previous ballots. This will be the result of : -either one or more candidates being elected, or -the withdrawal of one or more candidates, or -the elimination of the candidate with the least number of votes. If two candidates with the highest number of votes for the same position have the same number of votes, a second ballot will take place. If there is still a tie in the votes following the second ballot, the candidate will be selected on the basis of a draw between the two. A.6.6 To be elected, the candidate shall achieve a threshold of one third of the votes cast of the NYCs and one third of the INGYOs. This one third is computed on basis of the votes cast by NYCs and INGYOs which are present, not counting abstentions. A.6.7 One Vice President and four Board Members are elected from INGYOs, one Vice President and four Board Members are elected from NYCs. A balance between NYC and INGYO should be maintained, unless post(s) remain vacant. For the election of the eight Board Members and the Financial Control Commission Members, there may be a second call for candidates if the post(s) are not filled in the first round of elections. If the post(s) are not filled following the second round of elections the post(s) remains vacant. For the posts of President, Secretary-General and Vice-Presidents further calls for candidates are made until the positions are filled. A.6.8 In the event that a person ceases to be a member of the Board, the Board shall initiate the procedure for the election of a replacement for the remainder of the mandate. A.7. Selection of secretary-general A.7.1. The Board shall publish an open call for candidates for the position of the Secretary-General, and shall designate a finding group, no later than 2 months before the General Assembly where the ratification will



Appendix take place. The call shall contain the following selection criteria for the position : Experience and good knowledge of the European Youth Forum, youth work, issues and working of the European Union, the Council of Europe and the United Nations. Documented experience of a member organisation. Experience in human resources, financial and project management from the NGO-sector. Ability to be one of the key external representative of the European Youth Forum, and therefore possess high skills in public speaking and presentation. Fluency in English or French and preferably knowledge of the other language, other languages are an asset. Candidates cannot turn 36 years of age during the term of the mandate. A.7.2. The interested candidates must submit their application within the time limit indicated in the call for candidates, and must include the documentation requested in the call. The finding group assesses the candidatures received, and presents to the Board its evaluation of all those candidates who fulfill the announced criteria, no later than 15 days before the Board meeting where the selection will take place. The report shall be based on the published criteria. A.7.3. The Board will present the selected candidate to the General Assembly. A detailed motivation report based on the published criteria will be included in the documents to be ratified by the General Assembly. A.7.4. The General Assembly then proceeds to a ratification of the Secretary-General, according to points 6.2-6.4 of the Rules of Procedure – General. The Board will define the starting date of the mandate of the selected Secretary-General. A.7.5. The Board may recommend to prolong the mandate of the Secretary-General for another term of two years. Such a recommendation shall be made to the meeting of the General Assembly preceding the meeting where the selection should normally take place. The General Assembly shall proceed to ratify whether or not to prolong the mandate of the Secretary-General. If the prolongation is not approved, the normal selection procedure shall be made in accordance with the points 7.1 - 7.3. A.8. Appointment of the consultative body on membership applications A.8.1. The Consultative Body on Membership Applications is appointed en bloc by a simple majority of the General Assembly based on a Board proposal for its composition. A.8.2. Each member of the Consultative Body on Membership Applications can be dismissed by the Board. The Board can propose a replacement for the remainder of the mandate. A.9. Representation

Appendix A.9.1. Persons elected to represent the European Youth Forum shall give a written report to the General Assembly and the Council of Members concerning their mission. A.9.2. Persons designated to represent the European Youth Forum shall give a written report to the Board concerning their mission. A.9.3. The Board will be responsible to make sure this obligation is respected. A.10. Financial regulations A.10.1. Within guidelines laid down by the General Assembly, the Board shall establish financial regulations concerning travel expenses, expenses arising from external representations, the payment of membership fee, etc. These financial regulations will be available at the Secretariat. B - Rules of procedure – General assembly B.1. Ordinary sessions B.1.1. Notice of an ordinary session and a draft agenda shall be made available by the Secretary-General to all participating organisations three months in advance. B.1.2. The draft agenda shall be prepared by the Board. The Council of Members shall decide the date of the General Assembly. B.1.3. The draft agenda shall include notably : a report on the work of the Forum, including an assessment of the work of open meetings and working structures presented by the Board with the support of the Secretariat ; -European Youth Forum policy and programme ; -finances ; -elections, appointments, dismissals, exclusions ; -items proposed for inclusion by the Council of Members or the Board. B.1.4. Any member may request the inclusion of supplementary items on the agenda. Such requests must reach the Secretariat 45 days in advance of the opening of a session. B.1.5. All documents and resolutions required for consideration of the items on the agenda and a revised agenda, including the supplementary items mentioned in paragraph 1.4. shall be made available by the Secretariat 30 days before the opening of the session. The definitive agenda shall be made available to the members at least 15 days before the opening of the session. B.1.6. The General Assembly or the Council of Members may, with a two thirds majority of the member organisations present and voting, not counting abstentions, include on the agenda new items and resolutions of an important and urgent character.





B.2. Extraordinary sessions

C.1. Credentials

B.2.1. An extraordinary session shall take place at the earliest 30, and at the latest 60 days after a decision has been made or a demand has reached the Secretariat. The date shall be decided by the President and the Secretary-General.

C.1.1. Each member will be able to delegate one representative at each meeting.

B.2.2. The draft agenda shall be made available by the Secretary-General 20 days before the extraordinary session takes place. B.2.3. The draft agenda shall consist only of items proposed in connection with the calling of the session. B.2.4. The Extraordinary General Assembly or the Council of Members may, with a two thirds majority of the member organisations present and voting, not counting abstentions, include on the agenda new items and resolutions of an important and urgent character. B.3. Credentials B.3.1. Each organisation which is a member of the European Youth Forum shall inform the Secretariat in writing of the names of their representatives at least 30 days before a session of the General Assembly. The list of the delegates is annexed to the minutes of the session. Each full member may delegate two representatives for each General Assembly and one for each Extraordinary General Assembly. The members have the right to send additional representatives to a General Assembly at their own expenses. These additional representatives will have no voting right and no right to speak. B.3.2. Each member entitled to vote shall have a voting card. B.4. Elections B.4.1. Applications for any of the elected positions should be submitted 45 days before the meeting of the General Assembly. In case the number of candidates is less than the number of positions open, the meeting may decide to restart the procedure during the meeting itself. B.4.2. The General Assembly shall elect in the following order : President, Vice-Presidents, Board members, members of the Financial Control Commission, members of the Consultative Body on Membership Applications. B.5. Conduct of the meetings B.5.1. The General Assembly shall be chaired by the President or by other members of the Board, as delegated by the President. In addition, the General Assembly elects at least two co-chairs to chair the meetings and to conduct the proceedings. C - Rules of procedure – Council of members

C.1.2. Each organisation which is a member of the European Youth Forum shall inform the Secretariat in writing of the name of their representative at least 30 days before a session of the Council of Members. The list of the delegates is annexed to the minutes of the session. The members have the right to send additional representatives to a Council of Members meeting at their own expenses. Theses additional representatives will have no voting right and no right to speak. C.2. Ordinary session C.2.1. Notice of an ordinary session and a draft agenda shall be made available by the Secretary-General to the members of the Council of Members 45 days in advance. C.2.2. The draft agenda shall be prepared by the Board. C.2.3. The draft agenda shall include notably : - the policy proposals from the Board up for discussion and/or adoption at the Council of Members ; - items proposed for inclusion by a previous Council of Members. C.2.4. Any member organisation may, within a deadline of 30 days before the meeting, request the Secretariat to include a supplementary item on the agenda. C.2.5. As far as possible, all documents required for consideration of the items on the agenda shall be distributed to the Council of Members’ members, before the meeting. C.2.6. In case the date of the Council of Members has to be changed, it shall be changed only after consultation with all the members and with the written approval of two thirds of them. C.3. Extraordinary sessions C.3.1. The Council of Members may meet in extraordinary session by a notice of 30 days after the receipt of the request at the Secretariat. The date of the meeting shall be determined by the President and by the Secretary-General. C.3.2. A draft agenda shall be made available by the Secretary-General at least ten days before an extraordinary meeting takes place. C.3.3. The draft agenda shall consist only of the items proposed in connection with the calling of the extraordinary meeting. C.4. Conduct of the meetings



Appendix The Council of Members shall be chaired by the President or by other members of the Board, as delegated by the President. D - Rules of procedure – Board

Appendix E.3. The Administrative and Financial Director is responsible for personnel issues, technical preparation and support of meetings and day to day financial management and control of the Forum. S/he shall be accountable to the Secretary-General.

D.1. President The President is the first representative of the Forum. S/he convenes and chairs, in function of his/her availability, all statutory meetings, with the exception of the Financial Control Commission. The Vice-Presidents assist the President in his/her duty. They replace him/her in case of absence. The Board assigns amongst its members the duties, which are assigned to it by the work plan. It will inform the member organisations of this duty apportionment. One of the Board members shall have the political responsibility of the finances of the Forum.

E.4. The Administrative and Financial Director is appointed by the Board upon proposal from the Secretary-General.

D.2. Meetings

F.1.1. The Board decides on the procedure for the composition of working structures.

D.2.1. The Secretariat will inform all members of the meetings that are being held and of their agenda. D.2.2. A draft agenda shall be prepared by the President and by the Secretary-General. D.2.3. Every Board member may, within a deadline of ten days before the Board meeting, request the President to include a supplementary item on the agenda. The agenda shall be notified to the Board members under responsibility of the Secretary-General, before the meeting. E - Rules of procedure – Secretariat The duties of the Secretariat are the following : -technical preparation and secretariat of the meetings ; -preparation of the Board meetings ; -execution of the information and documentation policy of the Forum ; -execution of the political orientations as defined by the Board ; all other duties necessary to the execution of the orientations and of the work plan. E.1. The Secretariat prepares the work of the statutory bodies. It carries out the day to day work of the Forum under the responsibility of the Secretary-General. E.2. The Secretary-General shall supervise and co-ordinate the work of the Secretariat. The Secretary-General is responsible, under the guidance and delegation of the Board, for the daily functioning of the Forum. S/he shall communicate periodical reports on the Secretariat’s activities to the Board, the Council of Members and the member organisations. S/he shall assist the President, Vice Presidents and the Board in their tasks. The Board may delegate some of its powers to the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is accountable for his/her acts towards the Board, the Council of members and the General Assembly, and can be dismissed ad nutum by any of them.

E.5. The other staff members are appointed by the Secretary-General after consultation with the Board. They are accountable to the SecretaryGeneral. No one can be dismissed without consultation of the Board. F - regulations for non-permanent working structures F.1. Establishment procedure

F.1.2. The duration of the working structure is determined by the Board. F.1.3. The Board shall regularly review the existence, composition and progress of all working structures in line with the programme priorities as defined by the General Assembly, and submit a report to the following General Assembly. The Board may decide to terminate a working structure, which does not meet the criteria or priorities of the Forum anymore. F.2. Composition F.2.1. Each working structure acts according to the mandate formulated by the Board. F.2.2. Board Members are entitled to attend the working structures meetings. The working structures are chaired by a person appointed by the Board. F.2.3. Each person in a working structure shall be nominated by a member organisation and appointed by the Board. F.2.4. Replacement of delegates in working structures established by the Board or any other body is not possible, unless with prior consent of the Board. F.3. Internal working methods F.3.1. The working structure, with the support of the Secretariat, shall provide the report of its meetings. F.3.2. The reports shall be available to all member organisations of the Forum.



Appendix F.3.3. Working structures shall establish their own working rules. F.4. Amendments to regulations F.4.1. These regulations are to be adopted and may only be amended by the General Assembly. G - Standing orders for meetings G.1. If it is the wish of the participants to the meeting, the items for discussion may be apportioned between working commissions that must, however, report to the plenary meeting. G.2. The meeting may appoint ad hoc committees to study special questions and report back either during the current session or at the following session. G.3. The Chair shall declare the opening and closing of each meeting, present the agenda for approval, direct the discussion, ensure observance of the rules, accord the right to speak, put questions to the vote and announce the decision. S/he shall rule on points of order and shall have, in particular, the power to propose adjournment or closure of the debate or adjournment or suspension of a meeting. G.4. During the discussion, the Chair shall give the floor first to speakers wishing to make points of order (procedure), then to speakers requesting information, then to other speakers. G.5. During a discussion, the Chair may announce the list of speakers and with the consent of the meeting, declare the list closed, always provided that the author of the proposal of a motion has the right to speak immediately before the vote. The Chair, however, may accord the right of reply to any delegate if, in his/her opinion, a speech delivered after s/he has declared the list closed makes this desirable. G.6. During the discussion, the following procedural motions shall have precedence in the following order over all other proposals or motions before the meeting : -motion to reverse the decision of the Chair ; -motion for the suspension or adjournment of the meeting ; -motion to adjourn the item under discussion ; -motion for the closure of debate and an immediate vote ; -motion to refer the matter to a commission or to the next meeting ; -motion that the proposal be not put. In the case of all procedural motions, there shall be one speech for and one speech against, followed immediately by a vote. A simple majority of votes shall be required for the motion to be carried. G.7. Should any procedural motion be defeated, the same motion cannot be accepted again unless the Chair is of the opinion that circumstances have materially changed in the meantime.

Appendix G.8. If information is desired of a person holding the floor, s/he shall decide whether or not s/he wishes to be interrupted. G.9. After moving a motion the author shall have the right to speak to defend his/her motion. The motion shall then be opened to discussion and amendments : the author may exercise a right of reply immediately before the vote is taken. G.10. At the discretion of the Chair a copy of the motion presented in one of the working languages shall be handed to her/him to be recorded and read before a vote is taken. G.11. Amendments shall be moved and discussed in accordance with the procedure for motions. Subject to the ruling of the Chair, a motion shall be considered as an amendment to a motion only if it adds to, deletes or revises part of that motion. G.12. It shall be in order, in the light of important new information, to move reconsideration of a motion previously adopted during the current session. The motion for reconsideration must be proposed by a member organisation which voted with the majority opinion in the previous vote on the matter. G.13. Except when presenting a report no person shall speak for longer than five minutes at any one time without permission from the Chair. Discussion of a motion (including amendments) may be curtailed in time by a procedural motion from the floor or by the Chair. G.14. After the voting has commenced, no one shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. G.15. The meeting can decide to vote separately on parts of a proposal if a member requests that the proposal should be divided. G.16. When an amendment is moved to a motion, the amendment shall be voted on first. When two or more amendments are moved to a proposal, the meeting shall first vote on the amendment furthest removed in substance from the original motion and then on the amendment next furthest removed there from, and so on, until all the amendments have been put to the vote. G.17. In cases of equality of votes, the President of the European Youth Forum shall exercise his/her casting vote. G.18. When several motions are on the same item, the Chair shall determine the order of voting. G.19. When two motions are considered by the Chair as contradictory, s/he shall proceed to a contradictory vote.



Appendix G.20. These standing orders are subordinate to the Statutes and rules of procedure consecutively. They apply to each statutory meeting unless otherwise stated. List of Bureau/Board members 1995-2012





2003 − 2004

List of Bureau and Board members 1995 − 2012

1995 − 1996 Thomas TICHELMANN Beatrice DE BLASI Pauliina AROLA Egbert DE VRIES Vanessa POTTER Salvador SEDO Susan BERGKVIST










Profile for European Youth Forum


Raw materials for a history of the European Youth Forum


Raw materials for a history of the European Youth Forum

Profile for yomag