In February of last year, I wrote an article titled ‘Is immigration the EU’s death knell?’ Writing it then, I thought the looming migrant crisis would cause tensions within the EU that might be hard to bear. However, I didn’t imagine it would be this bad. I didn’t foresee barbed wire fences going up between EU countries, the suspension of Schengen and the extreme polarisation and name-calling between different blocks.
It’s all much worse than I could have imagined.
This time, the EU’s favourite response to crises – extend and pretend – is unlikely to work.
Action will need to be taken and relatively quickly – something that is unknown in a union that moves with the speed and agility reminiscent of a drunken sloth with elephantiasis.
So far, the responses have ranged from the xenophobic to the thoughtless to the banal. Some Eastern European states have declared that they will do their part but that they will only accept Christians. Helpful.
Angela Merkel’s desire, after the Greek debacle, for Germany to appear human indulged her habit of making policy on the hoof by declaring wide-open borders and a welcome to all and sundry. Predictably, this resulted in a stampede towards the country, leading to a rebellion by the Länder and, eventually, suspension of the Schengen open borders.
Some UK politicians specialised in the banal – from offering to house refugees in their own homes (not several million of them, I assume) to making bland, feel-good statements about the need for Britain to be welcoming and open-hearted without taking the trouble to specify what that might mean in practice.
The European Commission revived its plan for compulsory quotas only to have it slapped down again by home affairs ministers from member states. Germany and France have been made to understand that, when push comes to shove, other member states may refuse to behave like their feudal serfs.
It is not straightforward to find a workable approach to an issue that represents both a massive humanitarian tragedy and a political minefield
To be sure, it is not straightforward to find a workable approach to an issue that represents both a massive humanitarian tragedy and a political minefield. Yet, clarity about a few overarching principles should help craft an approach that, while not pretending to provide a perfect solution, might be more workable than the current free-for-all.
First, it needs to be made clear that this is not an exclusively European problem. Europe might be the wealthy region that is most geographically proximal to the issue. However, the problems in the Middle East are not exclusively made in Europe. The United States and many other countries also have responsibilities.
The debate and search for a solution must therefore be widened beyond the European sphere. Other countries, including prosperous Middle Eastern states, must contribute to the alleviation of the suffering to which their own foreign policies have contributed. Spreading the effort to provide asylum across the globe rather than just within Europe will make the issue more manageable.
Second, the British government’s position that this issue is best tackled at source needs to be taken seriously.
Screening refugees in, or as close as possible to, their countries of origin and providing safe passage to host countries (and not just European ones) from there have many advantages.
It would encourage people to stay put if that increases their chances of being granted asylum. It would decrease the tragic loss of life that is happening as boatloads of people embark on perilous and often fatal journeys across the waters. It would decrease the difficulty of repatriation for those not eligible for asylum. It would cut off a growing source of business for people smugglers. And it might, just might, stop the erection of yet more barbed wire fences and new border controls across Europe.
Finally, it is becoming clear that European countries need to do better at finding ways to integrate what will inevitably become a growing immigrant population. Multiculturalism has failed and more thought and effort needs to be put into managing an influx of people from other cultures with different expectations and religious beliefs. Otherwise, we are headed towards an issue that will become divisive and will, inevitably, turn violent.
Of course, the final solution would be to bring peace and stability to the Middle East.
We can all dream.
Beppe Zammit Lucia is a management consultant based in the US.