Stefan Lehne, Marwan Muasher, Marc Pierini, Jan Techau, Pierre Vimont, Maha Yahya :
(From previous issue)
In addition, the fact that Germany expects to receive 800,000 refugees gives hope to asylum seekers that there is a reasonable chance to make it to Europe, which they see as a safer haven than any of the other options (such as the Gulf) in terms of security, rights, and opportunities.
Faced with their current situation, asylum seekers generally think that there is nothing to lose in undertaking the dangerous journey.
Was Europe prepared?
Jan Techau: At the analytical level, Europe was not unprepared for the large stream of refugees that developed into a trek of biblical proportions over the summer. Experts from various policy fields (migration, security, development, the environment) had frequently warned about the risk of unchanneled mass migration toward Europe.
But politically, the EU was completely unprepared. Knowledge did not translate into action.
More importantly, the crisis hit Europe so hard because at its root is a simultaneous long-term public policy failure in about a dozen policy fields. From immigration to integration policies, from border control to the fight against organized crime, from humanitarian aid to internal solidarity and burden sharing, from trade policy to development cooperation, from military interventions to the European Neighborhood Policy-Europe has failed so consistently and so comprehensively that fixing the multilayered issue is one of the most complicated and convoluted tasks Europeans have ever had to face collectively. Europeans have been oblivious to the scope of their failure, so they are equally overwhelmed by the size of the crisis this failure has created.
Politicians have especially avoided the integration part of the refugee issue. Partly, this has to do with ideology. The political Left has steadily argued against immigration policies because it fears that establishing fixed rules will limit migration. The Right has done the same thing but for the exact opposite reason: it fears that systematizing migration will only open the floodgates. This constitutes an informal grand coalition against pragmatic problem solving.
Then there are the emotional identity issues. Few other issues have triggered as many as this one. And few other issues have triggered as determined a reaction to protect the national interest as the massive influx of strangers into the homeland.
Countries with well-developed immigration policies, such as the UK, were better prepared. Others, where no tradition of integrating large numbers of foreigners into the mainstream exists-such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania-balked at the prospect of taking a share of the refugees in.
As a consequence, organizing a roughly balanced burden sharing among member states became hugely difficult. An East-West division emerged. Despite a compromise on the issue forced through the European Council, tensions remain strong, and decisionmaking will continue to be difficult.
Identity politics and anti-EU sentiments had already been rife before the refugees arrived at Europe’s doorstep. Trying to make the case for the integration of hundreds of thousands of refugees into host societies under today’s circumstances is especially hard.
How will this crisis impact political stability in Europe?
Stefan Lehne: Crises bring out the best and worst in people. The sudden mass influx of refugees has triggered an amazing readiness to help as well as outpourings of xenophobia and fire bombings of refugee accommodations. Which type of response prevails will depend to a large extent on political leadership.
Most experts agree that Europe needs immigration to compensate for its deteriorating demographics, to regain growth, and to maintain its welfare systems. The current wave of refugee arrivals is therefore in the longer term a good thing for Europe.
The problem is that at this point the process is utterly chaotic. Many people experience masses of foreign people marching through Europe as a threat to their established way of life.
Populist movements exploiting these fears are therefore gaining ground in many countries. For these groups, anti-immigration feelings go hand in hand with rejection of the EU, which is blamed for this loss of control.
Mainstream parties waver between making the case for welcoming the refugees (in particular in Germany, where for historical reasons the populist Right is taboo) and restrictive policies catering to fears in the population. As politics remain largely national in Europe, these parties too are tempted to reestablish control through national means-hence, the acute threat to the Schengen system.
If current trends continue, tensions in the member states and acrimony among EU governments are bound to increase. That is why Europe needs to turn the chaotic influx of people into a well-managed process. This involves reestablishing control over the EU’s external borders, harmonizing asylum policies, and agreeing on a fair way to share the burden.
While this will be very difficult, it is still the easy part. The real task is to effectively integrate the new arrivals and avoid the emergence of ghettoes and parallel societies. Only thus can Europeans preserve the mutual trust on which their way of life rests. There is no greater challenge confronting Europe today.
What kind of policy responses are needed now?
Pierre Vimont: Appropriate responses can only be defined with an accurate assessment of the challenges raised by the current crisis. The issue is therefore how to address the despair-filled future faced by migrants and to propose responses to the short-term urgencies while also tackling the more structural problems.
In the short term, the first priority for Europeans is to get their house in order and abide by their own internal rules and international conventions with a greater sense of solidarity and responsibility. Then Europeans should increase their engagement with the frontline nations-not only Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, but also Ethiopia, Kenya, and many others-that have been sheltering up to now much of the migrant population.
If political refugees are to be convinced to remain in transit countries, they should be provided a decent existence with some realistic prospects for food and healthcare, temporary employment, and education for their children. Additional action should also be pursued in Syria through the establishment of humanitarian zones accepted by all sides.
These efforts must be completed by addressing the root causes of the crisis with concrete deliverables. On Iraq, Libya, and Syria, diplomatic efforts among international partners should be accelerated, building on the work already done by the UN and bringing in the main regional players that have so far resisted any real concession. Why not host an international conference dedicated to the security of the entire Middle East? Such a conference could deal with the current and various regional crises to convince Saudi Arabia and Iran to join in a balanced deal, taking into account their diverging national interests. Other crises in Yemen, northern Nigeria, and the Sahel region should benefit from the same attention because they all carry a risk of increasing the flow of migrants.
Acting on root causes also means making some serious effort to offer economic perspectives for migrants from Africa or South Asia. Improved circulation of remittances, engagement of diasporas in productive investments in countries of origin, support for young entrepreneurs, and, more generally, dedicated programs for creating jobs where refugee communities are currently located or where migrants would be reintegrated when they return to their home countries-all of these actions should be encouraged as proof of the willingness of the international community to tackle migration challenges.
(Maha Yahya is a senior associate at the Carnegie Middle East Center, where her research focuses on citizenship, pluralism, and social justice in the aftermath of the Arab uprisings.
Marwan Muasher is vice president for studies at Carnegie, where he oversees research in Washington and Beirut on the Middle East.
Marc Pierini is a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe, where his research focuses on developments in the Middle East and Turkey from a European perspective.
Jan Techau is the director of Carnegie Europe, the European center of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Techau works on EU integration and foreign policy, transatlantic affairs, and German foreign and security policy.
Stefan Lehne is a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe in Brussels, where his research focuses on the post-Lisbon Treaty development of the European Union’s foreign policy, with a specific focus on relations between the EU and member states.
Pierre Vimont is a senior associate at Carnegie Europe. His research focuses on the European Neighborhood Policy, transatlantic relations, and French foreign policy).
(Concluded)
