Europe is facing its worst refugee crisis since World War II with hundreds of thousands of people, mainly Syrians, but also Iraqis, Afghans and Eritreans, fleeing war and persecution. Countries like Macedonia, Greece, Hungary, Austria and Germany are now faced with the same situation that Italy – and to a much lesser extent Malta – have had to deal with over the past few years as a result of an influx of migrants from Africa.
Calls for European solidarity from Italy and Malta in dealing with the migrant crisis over the past few years were largely ignored; now however, with the situation getting out of control, largely due to the war in Syria, and because many more countries have been affected, it looks like there might finally be a European response to the question of migration.
Some European countries have clearly risen to the challenge caused by the Syrian war, in particular Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel has taken the lead in this crisis and her response has been both exemplary and visionary. Merkel declared, very bravely, that all Syrian refugees would be eligible to claim asylum in Germany, pushing aside the Dublin regulations which state that displaced people must claim asylum in the first EU State they arrive in.
Germany is in fact expecting to receive 800,000 asylum seekers this year alone, and Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel announced that his country could handle an influx of at least 500,000 asylum seekers per year for the near future.
For Germany, the refugee crisis has become a question of morality and values, especially since the Syrians are fleeing a particularly brutal war. At the height of the crisis Merkel stated: “If Europe fails on the question of refugees, its close connection with universal civil rights will be destroyed.”
It is true that Germany has a problem with an ageing population and a large influx of migrants would be good for the economy; it is also true that Germany’s history makes it particularly sensitive to the plight of refugees and minorities.
However, one should not underestimate the country’s extraordinary generosity in this crisis and its firm belief that Europe should be a union of values.
Sweden too, deserves credit for welcoming Syrian refugees. The Swedish migration authorities have ruled that all Syrian asylum seekers who have arrived in Sweden will be granted permanent residency in light of the worsening conflict in Syria. This is a very bold move, especially considering that the population of Sweden only amounts to 9.5 million.
However, for the first time ever, the right-wing Sweden Democrats are leading in the opinion polls in Sweden and would get the largest percentage of votes if an election was held today, largely because the country’s small population is feeling the strain of mass immigration. This shows that the only solution is for Europe’s refugees to be thinly spread across all the EU member States.
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced plans on Wednesday that he said will offer a “swift, determined and comprehensive” response to Europe’s migrant crisis.
In a speech at the European Parliament Junker said that he expected member States to agree by next week on how many refugees each and every country would take.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has taken the lead in this crisis and her response has been both exemplary and visionary
“This is compulsory,” Junker said. “We don’t need any more poems and rhetoric. We need action as this is the most important thing at the time being. We are talking about human beings and not numbers. It’s time to act.”
Under Juncker’s proposals EU member States will be allocated their share of 120,000 refugees (in addition to the proposed quotas to relocate 40,000 refugees which were announced in May).
Malta’s latest quota is 133, which is surely manageable and which will hopefully be agreed to. Sixty per cent of the 120,000 refugees now in Italy, Greece and Hungary would be relocated to Germany, France and Spain. The numbers distributed are calculated using a formula which takes into consideration a country’s GDP, population, unemployment rate, land mass and asylum applications already processed.
Juncker also said the EU’s common asylum system will be strengthened and the Dublin system will be reviewed. The Commission president’s plan will be discussed by EU home affairs ministers in Brussels tomorrow, and hopefully it will be approved.
However, I’m not sure Juncker’s statement that his quota allocation is “compulsory” is correct – perhaps he used this term in order to highlight the urgency of the situation. Furthermore, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and Poland have so far opposed the idea of mandatory quotas, although Poland has appeared to soften its position.
Britain has made it clear that it will not accept any mandatory quotas imposed on it (the UK is not part of the Schengen agreement) but has instead proposed allowing in 20,000 Syrian refugees over a five-year period, which works out at 4,000 per year, a rather low figure. One would have thought that Britain, which admittedly does have a high migrant population, would have been able to afford to take in at least double that number and spread them evenly throughout the UK.
The resettlement of 160,000 refugees might seem a large figure but in reality this number represents 0.11 per cent of the total EU population. Compared to the vast number of Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordon, the figure of 160,000 migrants is tiny; if these people are spread out throughout the EU in a fair manner they will not have an impact on the various countries’ socio-economic model.
Hopefully, Europe will rise to this challenge and agree to a common asylum policy and to the principle of burden sharing, something Malta and Italy have been insisting on for years. A failure to do this could result in the suspension of the Schengen agreement, which would be a giant step backwards for Europe. It is simply not fair for a few countries to be burdened with a huge influx of migrants – which could have social, economic and political consequences on the host nations – while other member States simply watch from fringes and do nothing.
Expressing concern that Muslim migrants would not be able to integrate into European society – like some Eastern European countries have stated, and which is not a totally unfounded concern – can be overcome by having integration programmes for the refugees the moment they set foot in their host country.
Migrants must immediately be asked to learn the language of their new country and taught European values of solidarity, pluralism, rule of law, diversity, secularism, inclusiveness and freedom of expression. There must also be integration programmes for the new migrants who must certainly not be allowed to end up living in ghettos.
The international community, too, should play its part in accepting Syrian refugees. The US has said it is considering whether to accept more refugees from Syria, Australia has announced plans to take in 12,000 Syrian refugees and Venezuela said it will accept 20,000 refugees from Syria.
However, the silence on the part of the rich Muslim Gulf States is disappointing, especially Saudi Arabia, which not only has a lot of money but a large land mass. Saudi Arabia, which is directly involved in the Syrian war, has the moral duty to help Syrian refugees, as do Iran and Russia, who both support the Assad regime.
The only long-term solution to stem the flow of Syrian refugees, however, is to intensify efforts at finding a political solution for Syria. This is not easy and the war gets more and more complicated every day.
However, as I have stated many times, if the outside powers such as the US, Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia had to eat some humble pie, then a political settlement is indeed possible. Such a settlement would lead to a halt in the exodus of refugees from Syria.