The Europeans and their immigrants

My text in today’s edition of Diário de Notícias newspaper (Lisbon)

 

Europe and migrations

Victor Angelo

The European Commission has just presented the broad outline for a pact on migration and asylum. It has also promised to submit in the coming months a complementary package of proposals dealing with the various facets of the issue. These include the integration of migrants; repatriation operations - in other words, expulsion - for those who are denied asylum and residence; the revision of the rules governing the Schengen area and the strengthening of the Union's borders; the fight against human trafficking; and a new type of cooperation with migrants' countries of origin. It is an ambitious programme. My fear is that all this work will bring a lot of pain and little result. This is one of the most divisive issues for EU countries. Agreements cannot be reached beyond strengthening the Union's external borders and the intention, always difficult to carry out, of the muscular return of immigrants who are not accepted. This has been the case since the migration crisis of 2015, and I fear it may continue to be so. 

But it is worth insisting. The Commission has the merit of reminding us that the issue of migration is one of the main problems we face. It also reminds us that this is a common challenge and not just for the countries that geography and history have brought closer to Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, or Latin America. Some, however, do not want to see the problem as being for everyone. They think it can be solved by closing the borders to prevent mass movements. The bet on watertight borders is an unrealistic proposal. It does not consider the demography, the conflicts, the lack of opportunities and the despair that exist on Europe's doorstep.  If I were a young man from Niger or Tunisia, my overriding ambition would be to try to emigrate to Europe at all costs. I would have the same attitude if I came from Pakistan or Bangladesh. Today, it is like that. Tomorrow, the migratory pressure will be incomparably greater.

Faced with such a scenario, it is understandable that the Commission feels it is better to be prepared. It will not be easy, but one must try. Disordered migration and responses at the national level alone will end up calling into question the Schengen agreement and the continuation of the EU. Above all, they will become a flag for populists, and therefore a threat to democracy in several European countries. It is, therefore, a political issue of the utmost importance.

In Portugal, the problem is not so visible. We are more a country of emigrants than immigrants. It's true that in certain European circles people are already beginning to talk about Portugal as a gateway and an antechamber of passage for those coming from Guinea, Cape Verde, Brazil and even India, to mention only the most important. And there are already those who look at the sea between Morocco and the Algarve and see there a new route, which needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

In France, the situation is different. President Macron knows what the political costs of uncontrolled immigration could be. He is also aware of the fractures that certain immigrant communities cause in French society. He calls these fractures "separatism" and considers them to be one of the most pressing problems. The separatism of which he speaks is more than the lack of integration in the Gallic nation. It is a deliberate attitude of groups of people of French nationality, but with foreign roots, who refuse to accept the secular, tolerant and egalitarian values that define the French ethos. These values are similar to those prevailing in the rest of the Union, but they are not recognized in other lands, which have lived different historical experiences from ours. This deliberate rejection of assimilation is a new and worrying phenomenon.

I mention France by way of example. I could speak of other countries which, on the central axis of Europe, have been the destination of migrants from outside the European culture for the last sixty years. In all these countries, migration is a sensitive topic, latent when economies thrive and open when difficulties tighten. With the economy on the verge of a major crisis because of the impact of the covid, not to deal politically with the migration issue would be a mistake of unpredictable consequences for Europe. We cannot allow this error to persist.

 

 

Translated from Portuguese with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

 

A plane trip in the new normal

Yesterday, I took the plane for the first time in this post-Covid era. I had a compelling reason to travel.

It was a three-hour trip out of Frankfurt. And I got a couple of surprises. First, the aircraft was full. Like in the old days. It is true that everyone was wearing a mask, but every seat was taken. And this is still a time of restrictions on travelling abroad, even within the Schengen area. Second, there were all types of passengers, from young families with small kids to older couples, and everyone in between. I would have loved to ask my fellow passengers what the reason for travel was, but I had no authority to do it. I know that the airline had asked them a similar question, in very vague terms and without requiring any supporting document. Third, there was no health or temperature checking before embarkation. Just a request to keep a safe distance before passing through the boarding pass control, a request that was in contradiction with the crowding on board.

Upon arrival at the destination, there was a temperature check. And that was it. We all left the airport to go and take care of our own business.

My conclusion was that it is better to re-open the air travel soon. And, at least, check the temperature of the would-be passengers before boarding. If there are more options to travel, more flights available, there might be less crowding on each plane. This should go hand in hand with the lifting of restrictions on cross border road and train trips.

At the same time, it is important to keep repeating the recommendation for people to think twice before travelling. Many will follow such advice, I am sure.

Without borders

My point is that the borders should re-open shortly. First, the borders between European states, the Schengen area. To keep them closed for longer has a tremendous impact on the economy of the countries concerned and feeds the prejudiced views that the nationalist extremists try to propagate. Europe is about freedom of movement and accepting the others as fellow Europeans. To erect borders and obstacles between the countries undermines that critical dimension of the European Union. It sends an extremely negative message about the other. It makes us go back to the old suspicions and narrow views.

Second, it is necessary to resume international travel, well beyond the European space. Most of the progress that has been achieved during the last decades is linked to international contacts, to a global view of trade and tourism. Our world, the world we built during the last decades is based on mobility.

We have, of course, to ensure the safety of those who will be travelling as well as protect the health of those providing the services to this economic sector. That is possible. It does not require we keep each nation behind thick walls.

Poor leadership

Europe is again building borders and walls. The leaders decided this week that the external borders of the Union will remain closed for another month or so. I see this decision as an inept response to the problem. Airports and land passage points could be equipped to check travellers’ temperatures and identify the individuals that might require further health scrutiny. Worse, the internal borders between the Member States continue to be blocked for people’s travel. And the governments cannot agree on a timetable and a phased approach to deal with that. There is no news about the matter, besides the closure. That is the best way to feed the nationalistic feelings. It is also one of the direct roads towards a fragmented Europe. Populists must feel excited.

I am shocked by the lack of coordination within the EU. I am also amazed by the timidity of the European institutions’ leaders. They are silent and so afraid of proposing anything. They have become the obedient functionaries of the national leaders and little else.

The world’s recovery, as well as the European one, calls for renewed cooperation, complementary and strategic alliances. We should be debating that in the G20 or a similar forum. All that is yet to be seen. There is no international conference being prepared to agree on a framework for action. No leader speaks on behalf of a greater project, of a different future, of anything else but of his or her own national square mile. It is disappointing and more, it is the wrong approach to build the post-covid world.

Some national leaders and some published opinion have now concluded we cannot depend on China or elsewhere when it comes to medical items, including masks. They put the blame on the Chinese and on the corporations that have established their workshops in the Far East or in India. That is an excuse. I do not accept it. The fact of the matter is that we forgot the concept of strategic health reserves. The national health services were not given enough means and attention. They have been undersupplied; the emergency stores were depleted. It is so much so that in Belgium some of the initial health supplies came from a big bank, that had understood early enough what was going on and created a substantial reserve of masks and so on. That happened with other governments as well. Politicians forgot the old and wise adage that one of the key roles of the government is to foresee impending crises and be prepared for them. To govern is to predict.

Well, the new adage, the one that is now being applied, is different: to govern is to react, a day at a time.

A plan on migration and refugee matters

The European citizens have little trust left in the ability of the EU institutions and national governments when it comes to managing the migratory flows. Many think the matter is out of control and the politicians are just improvising and pretending. Consequently, that generates criticism, fear and additional support to radical views.

The political leaders must focus on convincing the public opinion that they have a proper plan to effectively respond to the mass arrivals of migrants and refugees. I would also underline that it is not just a question of defining the appropriate policy approach. The circumstances have reached a point and a time when people want to see determined action and understand that the measures that are being implemented are part of a coherent plan.