Many a prominent pundit have correctly observed that the current migration crisis poses a greater challenge to united Europe than the already long list of political and economic questions, among which excessive indebtedness of Greece and continuing unrest in Ukraine represent those that have been carefully covered by world media. The eyes of the world’s readership have been directed to the often chaotic situation at the Hungarian border or political fights in Brussels, depending on where the latest developments, or lack thereof (in the case of European Union leaders’ summit), took place. Only seldom did a careful analysis of wherein the challenge to the European Union lies find its way to the front page.
Many of the world’s media, in this country represented by the New York Times, have focused on what has been termed as Europe’s “compassion deficit.” It has been correctly pointed out that particularly in the eastern part of the continent, European leaders were far too prepared to describe migrants as a challenge rather than an opportunity. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban remarked that the thousands of migrants waiting at the gates of Europe are in fact a German problem, since Germany is where most of them want to go.
Sadly, Eastern Europe’s populists are not at odds with their populations. A recent poll in the Czech Republic showed that as many as 44 percent of the respondents refuse to spend even one additional koruna (Czech Republic’s currency) to assist the migrants. Central and Eastern European countries have comparatively less experience with immigrants and their reluctance to accept more immigrants has a lot to do with their fear of the unknown. Despite ever improving standards of living, many Central and Eastern Europeans perceive themselves as inhabitants of the still poorer member countries of the Union.
This however, is a matter of significantly skewed perspective when we consider the conditions from which many migrants come. Migration numbers have risen sharply because of the war in Syria which has displaced over nine million people. It is estimated that well above three million Syrians have left the country since the war started in March 2011.
In the face of such catastrophe, it is evident that the world –and Europe with it – ought to do more to address the plight of those who are seeking asylum. The United States should not have tolerated Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons, nor should it have withdrawn from Iraq at a moment when the country’s security forces were still too fragile to oppose terrorist groups. Compassion should also be demonstrated on the part of countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, which have taken exactly zero refugees. It was recently reported that Saudi Arabia has over 100,000 empty, air-conditioned tents that could house up to three million people. These tents are used for only a few days a year to house pilgrims on their way to Mecca.
Yet the challenge that the European Union faces is at least two-fold. Lack of compassion in the East is coupled with lack of policy solutions in the West. The challenge to the European Union is not exhausted by the need to realize that solidarity and compassion are at the heart of the project’s values. What remains is the task to propose sustainable policy solutions that are in accordance with EU treaties. It is this latter challenge that has been omitted in the process of assigning blame to those who attempt to control the EU’s external border and question the functionality of the quota system for sharing migrants.
The International Organization for Migration reports that, as of Sep. 18, a total of 473,887 migrants arrived in Europe by sea. The country-by-country statistics evidence that Syrian, Afghani and Iraqi refugees make up a decisive portion of migrants to Europe but they also show that migration from other regions is common.
Eurostat reports that in the second quarter of 2015, 21 percent of all asylum seekers in Europe came from Syria, 13 percent from Afghanistan, 8 percent from Albania, 5 percent from Kosovo and 4 percent from Pakistan. In 2014, 41.6 percent of those who applied for asylum in Germany were granted that status. In Sweden, 76.6 percent of all applicants succeeded whereas in France, only 21.6 percent of all applicants were granted asylum. These numbers seem to suggest that the migrants’ motives, similar to their origins, vary. In 2011, Gallup reported that as many as 178 million adults would like to move to a country in the European Union.
It is, therefore, important that European Union takes control of its borders. Only then will it be able to provide the necessary assistance to those who seek asylum and turn back those who come from countries that are widely considered as safe, such as Albania.
The current chaos is not sustainable, for a country that does not control its borders is not a country and the same applies to a union. In fact, the abolition of internal border controls in Europe was to be complemented by increased control at the external borders. In this sense, the decision of the Hungarians to build a fence may not be an ideal one, yet it certainly is one that attempts to uphold European treaties. It must be added that every fence must have a door through which migrants can legally enter.
Those who criticize the Hungarians for their attempts to control the border are often advocates of the proposed quota system, which would assign to each European Union country a certain number of migrants based on the country’s population, economic performance, etc. It is this policy suggestion that has driven a wedge between Italy, Germany and France on the one side and Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary on the other. Yet, it is unclear how such a quota system could achieve its ambitious goals. Let me remind the reader that borders that divide two European Union members are not controlled, much like borders between US states. Even if we ignore that the quota system would require countries to give up sovereignty over their immigration policies (a solid argument can be made that such a step is necessary once internal borders are abolished), the obvious problem is that unless internal borders are reinstated, migrants will go wherever in the European Union they wish to stay.
What are the solutions to this conundrum? First, the international community has to do more to bring the conflicts that force so many out of their homes to an end. Second, the European Union members have to allocate more resources to those countries that are located at the external borders. Third, the members need to agree on a system that allocates European resources to countries where refugees choose to go. Lastly, we must be careful not to equate lack of agreement on certain policy proposals with lack of compassion. To paraphrase Karl Popper, if we hesitate to be outspoken in our criticism of the Union that we wish to preserve, we may help to destroy it all. •
