Sunday Message for 6th October, 2019
Last Thursday, «Sea Watch»-captain Carola Rackete appeared before the parliament of the European Union, criticising the European Union's asylum policies and the stone cold acceptance of capsizing boats, ships and trawlers full of migrants seeking relief from what they had to go through at home (whether you speak German or English, respective articles about her appearance are linked). Her speech, according to its impact, is comparable to climate activist Greta Thunberg's, although the topic was somewhat different, even though Ms. Rackete mentioned the effects of climate change in relation to the reasons why people flee their homeland onwards to Europe through the Mediterranean Sea. Disregarding the reasons, though, her speech highlighted the problems the EU suffers when it comes to dealing with refugees crossing the Sea to seek refuge in Europe–there is no Union in asylum policies, causing a lethal threat to those they are supposed to help.
When being asked about what the European Union would be best described as in terms of governing bodies, how would you respond? Would you describe it as a state with a ruling coalition having created the EU only to imply free trade without tariffs at every single border, or as a federalist body with self-reliant nation-states, assembling in Bruxelles solely to create rules to cope with certain issues that concerned them all equally? Or would you come up with a completely different response? (Seriously, if you do, feel free to submit it in the comments or via Direct Message) Depending on how you would respond, the question whether refugees awaiting near the Southern border, either of Italy or the outskirts of the EU, should be allowed to enter or not might be of your business or not. That's because the EU has long emerged from its advent in the 1960's (1957, to be precise) as a community of a dozen countries uniting to trade coal and steel to a Union spanning across 27 countries (minus Great Britain someday), trading anything that is demanded somewhere inside, supporting one another in times of need and others, to find help-seeking immigrants a place to live or stay for a while, awaiting decisions from responsible offices. The procedure is widely known since it's similar to other countries that didn't bar themselves from hosting migrants. Unfortunately, such some countries do not have to be searched outside of the EU: countries like Hungary are known to promote an anti-immigrant policy although the country itself is still a member of the EU (and its president, Viktor Orbán, head of Fidesz, even used to be a member of the European People's Party (EPP) not so long ago! Although he was temporarily suspended, his party was not permanently expelled), thus profiting from all the benefits accompanying this Union.
When being asked about what the European Union would be best described as in terms of governing bodies, how would you respond? Would you describe it as a state with a ruling coalition having created the EU only to imply free trade without tariffs at every single border, or as a federalist body with self-reliant nation-states, assembling in Bruxelles solely to create rules to cope with certain issues that concerned them all equally? Or would you come up with a completely different response? (Seriously, if you do, feel free to submit it in the comments or via Direct Message) Depending on how you would respond, the question whether refugees awaiting near the Southern border, either of Italy or the outskirts of the EU, should be allowed to enter or not might be of your business or not. That's because the EU has long emerged from its advent in the 1960's (1957, to be precise) as a community of a dozen countries uniting to trade coal and steel to a Union spanning across 27 countries (minus Great Britain someday), trading anything that is demanded somewhere inside, supporting one another in times of need and others, to find help-seeking immigrants a place to live or stay for a while, awaiting decisions from responsible offices. The procedure is widely known since it's similar to other countries that didn't bar themselves from hosting migrants. Unfortunately, such some countries do not have to be searched outside of the EU: countries like Hungary are known to promote an anti-immigrant policy although the country itself is still a member of the EU (and its president, Viktor Orbán, head of Fidesz, even used to be a member of the European People's Party (EPP) not so long ago! Although he was temporarily suspended, his party was not permanently expelled), thus profiting from all the benefits accompanying this Union.
One only needs to compare, for example, France's and Hungary's asylum policies and its leaders' stances on migrants to understand what kind of a problem such a hodgepodge of countries stacked together in one Union to also understand what are the problems of an unanimously accepted, general policy to save those desperate poor devils attempting to reach Europe: One can hardly coerce someone in accommodating migrants in terms of the EU regulation when the country enforces an anti-immigration law nationally. Some people might therefore suggest that such Nationalist countries should be expelled from the European Union altogether, to thereby erect a beacon of Internationalism in Europe. Such a beacon might come in handy in times of Nationalism and identity politics, to show that not everyone follows this path towards hard borders, especially not the presidents-elect, or any Representatives. At least not in Europe.
The problem is that such a curb in participation would cause some problems for remaining members: As Brexit development traditionally (to speak of a regular process would ignore the duration it already takes for England to leave, with no safe sign for an end in sight, even though Boris Johnson clutches on his Halloween Brexit deadline. Or does he? Latest news (according to time of writing) might suggest otherwise, but when don't they?) extends itself towards nowhere, the country's/Kingdom's economy looms, grieves, and slumps. Why? Because there is no certainty about the Exit procedure; there's no safe date and no plan on how things will be going once the Kingdom is finally out. Still, this scene, which has been going on for more than two years already, is no particularly English scenario, but one that can happen with any other country as well. Why? Because leaving the EU is not as easy as Brexiters from the very beginning falsely fell to believe. As it later turned out, a divorce with the Union in Bruxelles is a grinding, bureaucratic process. The parliament expects the divorce to be sealed in inclusion of the all the eventualities in terms of future trade, and also, the whole country aboard of the divorce train has to support the cause. That's what we saw to become a major problem for England: There still were too many enemies to Brexit, displaying the sharp referendum's outcome. It's a fate many countries now exclaiming to leave someday would face: As much as they believe to have their people backing them, such an extreme step, as many radical steps, would scare away the majority of moderates, leading towards turnouts as with Great Britain. On the other hand, England also has got the «Backstop»-issue: the border between Northern Ireland (Ulster) and the rest of Ireland. In case of Brexit, British Ulster would experience a hard border with the southern part of the Green Island. There are similarly few options to prevent a hard border between these two parts of the same country as there are options to implement Articles 13 and 17 of the EU's copyright law without the so-called upload filter. Leaving a free-trade union means leaving it effectively, including all the disadvantages bound to it. There is no grey between this black-and-white situation. Éire is part of the EU, but Ulster is no longer going to be, thanks to a sharp decision made by parts of the people of the United Kingdom, caring little for the people on a neighbouring island.
 |
| A migrant vessel at sea (Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay) |
But we're moving astray of the actual issue of this text, namely the asylum policies that are none, due to a flawed federalism leaving much space to move for each nation on her own. There are many flaws not minded during the establishment of the European Union, but what we are talking about in these regards is somewhat different, since it surrounds a question that was asked a couple of months ago, when again, nationalist populists rushed against Bruxelles and its greed for control and its attempt to dismiss nation-states. Or so they say–in their narrative, the European Union morphs into a supra-state overturning nations as such, dispossessing them of their national sovereignty, hijacking control over all these countries, perhaps replacing the white race with African and Arabic people. The latter climax is not an obligatory part of the narrative, since even Germany's Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) started as an economically liberal, Euro-sceptic party interested in devolving the EU into the original European Community in terms of its ideals on free trade, without the solidarity and federalist aspirations. Only later, the party was usurped by xenophobic nationalists with nostalgics of the Third Reich under infamous Adolf Hitler (for those who might wonder who qualified for the term of the economically liberal Euro-sceptic in the AfD, in case you are not German, thus have missed his dwelling and departure, his name is Bernd Lucke. He later returned with a new party, called the Liberal-Konservative Reformer (LKR). He never emerged to old heights, but rests below the mark of even one percent).
Their beliefs of a totalitarian European state with its headquarters in Bruxelles, where no government has been settled since 2018, might be exaggerated for now, although French president Emmanuel Macron once called for the invention of a joint European army and respective European financial minister (might come along with a European financial minister to represent European nations' financial minister, just as there is a Federal Reserve chairman in the US, elected by bankers of the US' Federal Reserve banks in the 50 States) to finance common projects, but it's a fear that has to be heard and discussed, since again, moderates might oppose any furtherance of the EU's power over European nations, citing exactly the fear of loss of sovereignty and self-determination. They might fear to be coerced into obedience of Bruxelles' commands instead of first thinking of their own problems.
Those fears are not ill-founded, even though those who cite those fears might barely argue in the way it would make sense, but again, this does not negate the righteousness of uttering those worries (an issue we regularly experience in Germany when it comes to the East's ushering towards the right: Too many extreme right-wingers being blatantly xenophobic, while there are signs of a let-down of the East, not integrating the country after it was fled shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall, leaving a feel of being abandoned although formally integrated. But it would take too long to elaborate this issue at this point). The EU was never meant to replace sovereign nations, so its power has to be calculated carefully. There is little chance that the EU was even able to replace all those nations at once, since it already struggles to proceed smoothly at its current state of the art. Hence, it has to be contemplated what can be fixed, and how, to come back to the actual issue, common sense can be accomplished to prevent further deaths in the Mediterranean Sea (To examine the development of migrant deaths at Sea, check out the data collected by the UN's IOM's «Missing Migrant Project»).
How can it be accomplished? Hardly, it seems. There is no way anyone is ever going to persuade a man like Orbán, who alleges the billionaire expat George Soros of organising the migrant streams in order to achieve the aforementioned Great Replacement of white Europeans with Africans and Arabs, to grant a couple of migrants sanctuary; there is no chance to persuade a man like Andrzej Duda to take over Muslim refugees as well, and not only Christians, who only make up a small part of all migrants entering Europe. There is simply no ground upon which common sense asylum policies can be established, since such leaders are uncompromising, they have no demand to return more liberal policies to. And on the other hand, to throw them out of the Union would be a mutual economical disaster no-one could benefit from, just to hold up high one's moral standards. Thus, the only way out for the European Union is to share those migrants among those countries that are still willing to host them.
But as it was expected, this willingness continues to be opposed by growing masses of people in those respective countries, displayed through approval ratings of anti-immigration parties of the right aisle. Although those parties mostly don't assemble majorities behind them, they are coming, and eventually become a mass that can no longer be ignored by long-standing parties. Again, the same picture can be recognises: Uncompromising parties that want to cease granting immigrants sanctuary in their country, citing fears of losing one's country's culture, law and order. Of course most of their fears are irrational and ill-founded, but it works out for their votes. To equip a holier-than-thou attitude on the left aisle, being backed by facts and a vast majority behind them doesn't help but accelerates this development, dividing their country's society. The scheme is widely known because it's widely experienced among developed nations in Western Europe. Divide et impera happens apparently, leaving future government foundations equally divided, mostly around the simple question: Do we accommodate migrants entering Europe, lastly our country, and if yes, how many?
Some of the question surrounding these other questions also concern the centres alongside the utmost borders of the European Union, shaped through countries like Italy and Greece. Both countries were shook the most by respective economical crises, which left the firstly mentioned country with a government that was staunch anti-immigrant, also having brought a face of this same movement to rise: Matteo Salvini. In the end, this government fell aground, being succeeded by a more centre-left government coalition of the Patita Democratica and the Movimiento Cinque Estelle (M5S). Still, the preceding coalition showed how horrible such a duo can be when it is responsible to be the first responder of newly arriving refugees seeking help. Those countries oftentimes don't want to be responsible, and wait for other countries to walk forward and say that they will take them, and sometimes, they also can't, because they don't have the financial means, and also don't arrive any support from the EU parliament.
The latter point is also a good one, highlighting the incapability of the Union to cope with such a crisis. Whenever new immigrants arrive, bordering countries like Italy are mostly left alone, to see how they will manage the situation. In Greece, it's even worse: Terrifyingly overcrowded migrant camps on islands that are more commonly known as being tourist places, but with such disgraceful images, tourists stay away, leaving those islanders not only with high financial burdens, but also with lowering incomes. A vicious cycle the European Union didn't feel responsible for, let alone feel like supporting Greece in these trying times, to cope with the situation without standing on the verge of bankrupting eventually. Only recently, a fire broke out in the most memorable camp, Moria, on the Greek island of Lesbos, sacrificing one immigrant as a sign of failure. Because of this, opinion pieces have been written, calling upon the EU to finally come up with a wholehearted asylum policy that shows what they actually want, and the newly elected Conservative government wants to change the (non-existent) rules, so that countries like them are not fully responsible but also left for themselves.
In the end, what these countries need are approximately two things: Financial support to stem the costs that arise with supplying incoming migrants with the least, and also medical aides that will examine the migrants' health conditions, whether they are ill or infected with diseases (which can easily proliferate under such crowded conditions). The financial support would also be required to erect additional centres to host those migrants, since the given ones are too small to address the real numbers of migrants arriving.
Moreover, the investigation processes have to be accelerated enormously: The more people arrive, the more severe the situations become. Thus, those migrants arriving have to be immediately registered and their cases have to be scanned quickly, so that they know whether there is any hope for their permanent stay in Europe (no matter which country), and the responsible offices can make space for other migrants following closely behind. Those stays in border centres are not enjoyable for any side, for different reasons. The quicker they can leave, the better it is for both sides. This means that every nation northwards of Greece and Italy have to react immediately when the two countries announce further arrivals. The negotiations experienced earlier are a disgrace not only to the solidarity and Union that shapes the name of this community, but also to bureaucratic standards. This way, it was crystal clear that the policy didn't work, and Italy and Greece, again, were left for themselves, told to somehow keep the situation from escalating. And uncertainty about the future usually leads towards an escalation. How would you blame those two countries for their failure, or their movement towards the populist right? They couldn't help it, they didn't choose their fate. It was the EU's failure to not prepare properly for such situations, as if life would never go this way, as if the future was bright, clear, and free of all crises that could ever happen eventually.
But how could a smooth, just and foolproof asylum policy look like? Some people speak of quotas: Germany would accommodate a quarter of all immigrants arriving in Europe, which was echoed with criticism from the party whose federal Minister of Interior suggested this number. It sounds pragmatic to suggest fixed quotas, since it would prevent any negotiation and any barter in the future. Those hundred people (e.g.) arrive in Italy's Lampedusa, and Germany is effectively going to take 25 of them. If every country in the EU would follow such a quote, one hundred migrants could easily be scattered over the field, with each country taking over approximately four of them (following the example). As long as there won't be any discussions about the respective individuals' origins («We want to have the Afghani folks!» – «We will only take the Nigerian people!» – and so on), this could work smoothly and without any debates. Assuming that this didn't bear any further discussions, it would also be required to again discuss how Italy and Greece could be supported. I suggested money and aides. Money would be the easier task to address, but when it comes to aides, the question is: Where are they supposed to come from? Military personnel could do the trick, perhaps, but military personnel includes more soldiers than medics. To prevent a mental blockade, we could again take an easy way out and simply suggest that NGOs that are already underway to do their best to deescalate the situations inwards. Some of them already showed they were able to handle the situation, and the EU was able to restore its reputation, or what is left of it. In the end, what is most important is that it could finally organise the situation, and prevent further humanitarian crises from happening.
Thus, the solution would read as following (and these are only my two cents! I don't opine that I hereby submitted the ultimate solution, since I am not an employee of an acclaimed think tank, nor am I a genius with a large team of wonks and experts behind my back; I am just an amateur in politics, stating my points of view): The European Union had to create a pot to gather money to support Italy and Greece. How the exact sum would look like, I am afraid to tell that I don't know. But it should be located somewhere in the billions, about ten billion or so. It's only a thought, the actually required sum might be quite lower.
NGOs like Sea Watch, Lifeline, Ocean Viking have to be supported in terms of rescuing migrants at sea, instead of pulling them before court for allegedly violating international maritime law. In regards to providing medical aid in those camps, there too are NGOs trying their best to help wherever they can. We have Médicins Sans Frontières, to mention the best-known afore. We also have the UNHCR, relieving refugees worldwide from their sufferance. These are only the two largest organisations that would be thankful to receive help from an equally large organisation finally accepting the size of the crisis taking place right in front of their Southern doorstep.
A third point that had to be mentioned would also be a bit more crucial: Firstly, the deal with Turkey about keeping Syrian refugees in Erdoğan's country might have to be renegotiated, although I am currently uncertain to which objective exactly; hence, I would be thankful for any suggestions in comments or direct messages. But a renegotiation is without any alternative nonetheless. Again, we can refer to an opinion piece in the Deutsche Welle, having contemplated the same question already.
The second point is that the Libyan refugee camps have to be closed–immediately. Why? Well, if anyone looked for a more horrifying imagination of inhumane refugee camps, one would find them exactly there. It was the most obvious evidence of incapacity on the EU's behalf to seal a deal with a civil-war country without a seriously ruling government in Tripolis, then watching human rights being trampled on a ubiquitous base, but not intercepting despite the odds.
Is there anything else to say? At least not on my behalf, although I am still haunted by the feeling to have forgotten something. But how else was anyone supposed to feel when one of the greatest ideals of post-war Europe is treated like a construct that might easily be replaced by an alternate solution? What we currently experience is the impotent incapability of career politicians unable to grow up to be statesmen and women in the wake of anti-human movements like Identity Evropa or respective parliamentarians pretending to be regular right-winged politicians while they are certainly not. They are too coward to stand up for their ideals because they fear to be replaced within the next general election, but ramble about the strength of democracy and its values for our free society. They glorify an ideal they would immediately sell for 30 pieces of silver. For all of those who are not ready to stand up for human ideals disregarding one's origin, and to protect help-seeking migrants at all costs and against all troublemakers, either white- or blue-collar ones, there is only one left on my behest: Resign. Do yourself and your people a favour, and resign. May you rest in peace in your afterlife, and may your successor be of a morally higher principles, for you have betrayed your own ones.
Have a nice Sunday in the comforts of your home, and enjoy them!
---
I would also like to submit an article I found quite interesting, but were unable to integrate in my Sunday Message, unfortunately:
Citation: Majbritt Lyck-Bowen & Mark Owen (2019) A multi-religious response to the migrant crisis in Europe: A preliminary examination of potential benefits of multi-religious cooperation on the integration of migrants, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45:1, 21-41, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2018.1437344
Link: Tand of Online
No comments:
Post a Comment