Interests, Norms and Advocacy: Explaining the Emergence of the Roma onto the EU's Agenda

Abstract

This article investigates a least likely case of non-governmental organization (NGO) influence on an intergovernmental organization (IGO). Specifically, it explores the puzzle of how the Roma (Gypsies)—a relatively poor, marginalized and unmobilized minority group—suddenly gained international attention and policy responses by the European Union. Based on field research and document analysis, this article connects the national, international and transnational to explain the role of NGOs, IGOs and the Roma themselves in bringing attention to the situation of the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe. The author finds that a small transnational advocacy network played a critical role, and provides both normative and practical explanations for the EU's response.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank: the Office of the Provost and the College of Social Sciences at California State University, Fresno; the International Research & Exchanges Board (IREX); and the Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies at the George Washington University for their financial support for the field research. The author would also like to thank Thomas Holyoke for his collaboration on a paper that introduced some of the ideas advanced in this article (see Ram & Holyoke, 2003). Finally, the author is grateful to the many individuals who agreed to be interviewed for this research. Different versions of this article were presented at the IREX/Woodrow Wilson Center Regional Policy Symposium in Chesapeake Beach, Maryland (April 2006) and the Institut d'Etudes Politiques in Strasbourg (June 2004).

Notes

These countries are Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and Spain. There are no definitive numbers, however, as census figures on the Roma are widely acknowledged to be unreliable. On this issue, and some of the difficulties surrounding it, see e.g. Druker (1997), PER (2000) and Ladányi & Szelényi (2006, pp. 123–145).

For various views on this point, see Petrova (2003), Vermeersch (2006) and Pogány (2006). While this article and numerous organizations and documents often refer to ‘the Roma’, it should be emphasized that this term is used to encompass various different communities that are not directly linked and often see themselves as distinct groups (yet also distinct from gadje or non-Roma).

For an overview of some of the key problems Roma have faced in their countries' transition from Communism to democracy, see e.g. Liégeois & Gheorghe (1995), Ram (2000), Petrova (2003) and Pogány (2004). On the history of the Roma in Europe, see e.g. Crowe (1994), Fraser (1992), Petrova (2003) and Ladányi & Szelényi (2006).

See UNDP (2002) for the data. See also Ringold et al. (2003) and Ladányi & Szelényi (2006). For one vivid portrait of the abysmal living conditions of some Roma, see Scheffel (2005).

Regarding the new legislation and institutions adopted by EU candidate countries, see e.g. Ram (2003) and Vermeersch (2003).

Roma were the subject of two European Parliament Resolutions in 1984, which led to a Council resolution in 1989 regarding the education of Roma children (see Liegeois & Gheorge, 1995, p. 22).

The EU ‘candidate countries’ referred to in this article are the 10 countries from Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union that have since become EU member states in the 2004 or 2007 enlargements (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Bulgaria).

There was no report published in 1997 or 1999.

See, for example, the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (2001) report on human rights in the OSCE region, which states that the Roma are discriminated against and subject to violence in almost every OSCE country.

There are two long-standing international Roma-led advocacy organizations—the International Romani Union and the Roma National Congress—but few Roma see them as legitimate representatives. See e.g. Trehan (2001), Barany (2002) and Acton & Klímová (2001). This point was also evident from the author's interviews with Roma organizations in the Czech Republic and Romania.

On the difficulties of Romani mobilization, see also Vermeersch (2006).

These interviews enabled me systematically to gather information on the funding and information sources, NGO and IGO contacts, and advocacy targets of Roma-led or Roma-supporting organizations involved in advocacy for the Roma at the national or international level. Direct contact was made primarily with groups that had some international connections or goals, based on information gathered from their organization's website, their participation in meetings or conferences on the Roma held by international NGOs or IGOs (at the domestic or international level), minority rights listserves, and recent reports and studies on current Roma issues. At both the national and EU levels, the number of such individuals and organizations remains quite small. I selected EU officials at the national level and in Brussels based on their involvement in Roma issues.

In general, as of 2004, more Roma in Romania than in the Czech Republic expressed an interest in advocacy at the international level, and were also more likely to pursue such advocacy, usually in the form of sending their reports to the EU. Their ultimate goal, however, was usually domestic policy reform, not international recognition or new IGO policies.

This article explores the question of how the Roma emerged onto the EU's agenda and became an international subject of interest. The practical impact of this attention (as well as of new policies) on the situation of the Roma to date is mostly beyond the scope of this paper, but has been explored elsewhere, including in numerous reports by IGOs and NGOs.

There is, however, work on the growing involvement and impact of NGOs in international organizations, especially (but not only) the UN. See e.g. Willetts (1996) and Weiss & Gordenker (1996). Regarding the Roma specifically, especially on the interaction of the International Romani Union with the UN, see Klímová-Alexander (2005). The greater focus of the transnational advocacy literature (and perhaps of NGOs) on the UN rather than the EU may be explained in part by the perception of the relative difficulty of access to the EU (see e.g. della Porta & Kriesi, 1999, pp. 14–16; Klotz, 2002, p. 55).

International NGOs are defined here as NGOs that have offices in more than one country or have a substantial focus of their activities in one or more countries outside the country in which they are based.

For a comprehensive history of Romani activism and representation (through national associations and some international Roma organizations) to 1970, see the series of articles by Klímová-Alexander in Nationalities Papers, including Klímová-Alexander (2006).

The Open Society Fund (OSF)-Prague, for example, was established in 1993 and began work on the Roma that year, subsequently establishing a separate Roma Program in 1994. In 2002 alone, over 50 Roma organizations in the Czech Republic received grants from OSF-Prague.

For example, Karel Holomek, head of the Association of Roma in Moravia in the Czech Republic, joined the Board of ERRC. Ivan Vesely, head of the Dzeno Association in the Czech Republic, joined the Board of OSF-Prague.

The coalition members are Amnesty International, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), the European Roma Grassroots Organization (ERGO), the European Roma Information Office (ERIO), the European Roma Rights Center (ERRC), Minority Rights Group International, the Open Society Institute (OSI) and Spolu International Foundation.

Guiraudon (2001) uses this phrase to describe advocacy at the EU level by migrant organizations.

In fact, the EU was criticized for reinforcing anti-immigrant views without offering any protection for the rights and security of legal immigrants and minority groups within the EU (see e.g. Geddes, 1995). While the EU and member states made specific reference to the Roma on numerous occasions, it should be noted that many other immigrants and asylum-seekers were also targeted by these policies.

Germany repatriated 50,000 illegal migrants, mostly Roma, to Romania, apparently along with a payment of $20 million to the Romanian government to help reintegrate them (Crowe, 2003, p. 88).

As David Crowe (2003) pointed out, such policies have a remarkable similarity to historical responses to forced migration of Roma in Europe.

For measures taken against other CEE countries in response to Romani asylum-seekers, see ICMPD (2001).

The report concluded with a section on migration, noting that ‘the fight against discrimination’ was ‘a necessary step’ in addressing the ‘root causes’ of Romani migration. Member states continued to express concerns regarding Romani migration in the late 1990s and early 2000s (see e.g. Council of the European Union, 1999, 2002). In this period, there was also more attention paid to domestic conditions of the Roma, including discrimination, as one means of addressing Romani migration. See, for example, the European Commission-funded report and conclusions of the Chair of an EU conference on illegal Romani migration in 2000 (ICMPD, 2001, pp. 36, 40). The increased focus on improving the situation of Roma in their home countries could also be seen as a means of removing the grounds on which asylum-seekers could otherwise justify their cases (see ICMPD, 2001, p. 22).

National policies trying to keep out the Roma nonetheless continued even after the EU began to focus on reducing discrimination against them. Italy's recent tough anti-immigration policies—targeted at the Roma—have made this abundantly clear (see e.g. Angelescu, 2008; European Network against Racism, 2008).

On the development of the EU's anti-discrimination policy, see Geddes & Guiraudon (2004). On the impact of this legislation on the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, see e.g. Ram (2007).

Following the EU's 2004 enlargement, the first two Romani representatives (both from Hungary) joined the European Parliament. One of them stated that ‘the only hope of the Romas lies in the European Union and European Parliament’ (European Parliament, 2005).