What next regarding Aghanistan?

We can't sweep Afghanistan under the rug

Victor Angelo

 

Mario Draghi, the Italian Prime Minister and current leader of the G20, is convening an extraordinary summit of the group for October 12, with only one item on the agenda: Afghanistan. This is an urgent meeting that cannot wait for the annual summit, which is scheduled for the last two days of this month. The concerns about Afghanistan are essentially twofold: the humanitarian drama, already much worsened at the moment, but which will become catastrophic with the imminent arrival of winter; and defining the conditions necessary for the international recognition of the Taliban regime.

The European Union has meanwhile approved a humanitarian package of 200 million euros. Other aid is urgently needed, not least because the donor community pledged more than a billion dollars on September 13, in response to an appeal launched by António Guterres. But, as always, promises are one thing, but their materialization is another. In addition to logistical difficulties and insecurity, the humanitarian agencies need guarantees of neutrality from the Taliban. This is the only way to ensure that food aid, medical and health care, and educational support reaches those in need without exclusion on the basis of ethnicity, gender, religion, or power relations.

Still in the humanitarian area, there are three other major issues.

One is the payment of salaries to civil servants and security forces who have not been paid for months. I don't think there is a willingness at the G20 level to finance this. Recently, my former colleague Jan Egeland, a recognized voice in the humanitarian field and who now heads the prestigious Norwegian Refugee Council, wrote an open letter on this subject to the UN Secretary-General. It called for mechanisms to be put in place to find a solution to pay salaries to the Afghan civil service, as was already largely the case under the previous government. The letter was a follow-up to his recent visit to Afghanistan and his shock at the widespread poverty. 

Another issue concerns the electricity supply. Millions in Kabul and the country's largest cities are at risk of being left in the dark. With the onset of winter, this could be yet another cataclysm to add to all the others. Afghanistan imports about 70 percent of the electricity it consumes. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Iran are the suppliers. With the Taliban victory and the administrative chaos that followed, payments for electricity imports have ceased. If the situation does not change soon, it is very likely that some of these countries, especially those that were part of the former Soviet Union and have no sympathy whatsoever for the extremists in Kabul, will suspend supply. If this happens, popular unrest will take on a new dimension. 

How long Afghanistan will need exceptional humanitarian aid is the third big question. Assistance must have a time horizon. The country needs to build an economy that allows it to import the energy and basic commodities it cannot produce, and to have a reasonable standard of living. The economy should not be based almost exclusively on opium production.

Recognition of the new regime, including its representation in the UN, will depend on the position that each G20 member adopts. Recent events show a tendency to establish occasional contacts, while at the political level there will continue to be talk of values, human rights, national inclusion, or the fight against terrorism. And to show a lot of mistrust towards Taliban governance. As time goes by, if there is no extreme migratory crisis or terrorist attack that affects the Western world, the new Afghan regime, whether recognized or not, could be just one more to add to the list of repressive, failed and forgotten states.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 8  October 2021)

 

 

Europe and its disagreements on migrations

Europe adrift in the sea of migrations

Victor Ângelo

 

A meeting of the European Union's ministers of foreign affairs and internal administration on migration was held this week at the initiative of the Portuguese presidency. The previous one had taken place in 2015, when more than a million people arrived in Europe from Syria and other parts of the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the countries of the Indian subcontinent, as well as Africa. The long gap between the two meetings happened because migration is an extraordinarily complex and fractious issue among EU member states. Leaders have systematically swept the imbroglio under the rug.

Now the meeting was a new attempt to define a common policy. There were some generic statements about the need for a comprehensive and coherent response that combines development and security partnerships with the migrants' countries of origin and transit, that opens avenues for controlled migration, that prioritizes political relations with North Africa and West Africa. All very vague and at the level of mere lapalissades. The result was, once again, below expectations.

The Mediterranean Agenda proposed in February by the European Commission, which was one of the reference documents, is equally imprecise. It lumps together completely different national realities, as if the Mediterranean geopolitical space were homogeneous. And it does not make a critical balance of the past. It suggests continuing and deepening a cooperation model that, in reality, has failed to help transform any state in the region into either a prosperous or democratic nation.

The fact is that there is no common position beyond strengthening Frontex as the European Coast Guard and border police. That is the only accepted and shared responsibility, the lowest common denominator. As for the rest, everything else is business as usual. It will be managed by chance events. The countries of entry of illegal immigrants will continue to have to bear the political, humanitarian, and economic costs that result from receiving those who arrive there. Despite the repeated appeal by the Portuguese Minister of Internal Administration, there will be no solidarity among Europeans in this matter.

The great truth is that most member-states do not want to receive new waves of immigrants coming from other geographies and unfamiliar cultures. Even countries that have traditionally been the destination of Maghrebian, African and other immigrants share this position. We, the Portuguese, are a little on the outside. We do not really understand the weight of migratory pressure on the cohesion of the social fabric of big cities in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, for example. Nor do we have a clear notion of the political impact of the presence of vast foreign communities, when they are not integrated into the societies that received them, thus being an argument easily exploited by right-wing extremists and potential terrorists. 

Europe will continue to speak constructively and act restrictively, even repressively, on this issue. International migration is one of the most complex dilemmas facing us, but one that many Europeans do not want to consider. Despite the progress of tolerance values, we are not fully prepared for the diversity of cultures and faces. Anyone in doubt should visit the new ethnic ghettos that exist in certain European metropolises. And without going any further, you can start with certain outskirts of Lisbon.

We have already seen that the sea is not enough of a barrier for those who are desperate or dream of a better life. But since the intention of those in charge is to stop population movements that seem threatening, Europe will go further. It will pour fortunes into countries that have the potential to send us new waves of migrants - as is already happening with Turkey. It is a carrot and stick gamble. Now, in these countries, the powerful always get the carrot, and the poor and the weak always get the stick. For this reason, many seek to flee to Europe.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

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)

 

 

The health challenges in the refugee camps

How is the coronavirus situation in the refugee camps around Syria? What is the risk level? Are the host governments, the UN and the NGOs prepared to deal with such threat?

I do not have an answer to these questions. And I am afraid we have lost sight of them, as well.

Ursula's friend

In her speech of yesterday, at the border between Greece and Turkey, the President of the European Commission said that the Turkish Head of State, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a friend of Europe. Ursula von der Leyen might have read George Orwell on the flight from Brussels to the border. At least, she got the inspiration and doublespeak he talked about in his book

The border line

Today, the Presidents of the European Council, the Commission and the European Parliament visited the Greek border with Turkey. The Prime Minister of Greece was their host. The message they put across is very clear. The European borders are now closed to mass movements. Immigrants and refugee candidates are not welcome.

The visiting party basically approved the decision taken by the Greek authorities to use all means available to enforce the message. This is a clear shift from the policy line followed by Angela Merkel and others in 2015. It places security and social homogeneity above any other consideration.

The humanitarian dimension is seen as a funding activity. The Europeans pay and others will take care of the refugees. Outside the EU borders. This is the new policy line on mass immigration.

Immigrants at the EU gates

Political pundits keep repeating, since the massive arrival of immigrants and refugees in 2015, that the European Union has no unified policy on the matter. And it is true, in so many ways. Mass immigration and refugee flows are issues that have a serious impact on the stability and moderation of the EU. But there is no overall agreement among the member States on how to deal with the issues. The approach has been to sweep it under the carpet and let the frontline countries manage the challenge. That’s what has happened with Italy and Greece, among others. They were left alone with the problems and no real EU support.

What’s happening now at the Greek-Turkish border adds another element to such approach. Close the border crossings, respond by deploying large numbers of police and soldiers, keep the immigrants on the other side of the barbed wire. That is the policy, a policy that is closer to a common one. A no-entry policy.

But is it sustainable? That’s one of the key questions. The other one is about the humanity of such policy. Is it coherent with the values we say we defend? Third point: can we rely of dictators and other strong men, when we ask them to keep the refugees in their countries and add to that a few billions to pay for the camps?

I recognise this is a complex matter. And I see, once again, that when the issue is complicated, we tend to use a hammer to sort it out.

No to Erdogan's resettlement plan

President Erdogan of Turkey wants to repatriate a large number of Syrian refugees. His plan is to create several resettlement camps on the Syrian side of the border, in the “safe zone” his troops control, between the towns of Tel Abyad and Ras al-Ain.

He is putting a lot of pressure on the UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The President wants the Secretary-General to bless the plan and convene a donor meeting to raise money for its implementation. Erdogan met Guterres yesterday and the meeting was vintage Erdogan: either the UN does it, or I will.

Things do not work like that when it comes to repatriation of refugees and the role of the UN. The Secretary-General must make it clear. Repatriation must take place on a voluntary basis, with strong security guarantees, and it cannot disturb the very fragile ethnic balances that define Northern Syria. It is also true that traditional donors are not ready to finance any plan imposed by force. But that is not the key issue. The point is that people must be willing to go back. I am sure that point is not met today.

Syria: looking ahead

Regarding the Syrian complex crisis, it´s obvious that Assad and Putin believe in the military solution. And they are now close to achieve the military control of a good deal of the territory.

That option might result for a while, but it cannot resolve the deep divisions existing in the country. It does not address the overwhelming call for inclusiveness and democracy coming from so many segments of the population. It only suspends and postpones the crisis.

I am not sure Bashar al-Assad realises he must open up and engage in political dialogue, after winning on the military front. This should be the key message the EU leaders should put across to him. For that, they have no alternative but to re-engage the contacts with the strongman in Damascus. The channels of communication between the EU and Syria ought to be re-established.

That´s my advice as the EU prepares to chair another conference on Syria.

Such conference must not be just about humanitarian assistance coupled with a mere statement reiterating past options. Options that time has shown to be as good as dead ends.

Moreover, it is not a great idea to link in the same conference two different matters: humanitarian needs should be discussed in a different forum. Not good to mix them with politics.

Responding to terrorism with wisdom

Yesterday´s horrendous attack in Berlin cannot be used by the extreme right to further their hate campaign. We should not allow it to happen.

The people responsible for the violence are terrorists and they should be dealt as such. We cannot fall into stereotypes and start looking at every refugee as a potential threat. Refugees are just fellows like you and me. The main difference is that they had to run for their lives. They are not in the business of taking other people´s lives. The criminal that comes to us and tries to do us harm is just that, a criminal. He might represent a new type of danger. But that´s the world of today, the upshot of some very serious crises in different parts of the world.

This seems to be understood by the vast majority of the German people. They are deeply sad and disturbed but they remain calm and have demonstrated they do not fall in the trap the extremists are so good at laying. We should share their pain but also their wisdom. 

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. 

EU: the Slovakian presidency

As of today and for the next six months, Slovakia will take the lead within the EU. It is the first time they are in charge.

I have read the plan they put together for their turn and found it well thought through. It gives quite a bit of attention to economic growth, the digital economy, energy policy, and innovation as well as to the trade agreements that are under negotiation.

It also mentions migrations and asylum but these are the two areas that come out as weak. Slovakia appears, like many other countries in that part of Europe, unable to put forward an approach that would balance their fears with the EU´s commitments and duties in these matters.

Migrations and asylum policies will remain notwithstanding top priorities for the EU during their presidency. And they will call for better defined and more convincing lines of intervention by the whole of the EU.

The 2016 Charlemagne Prize

The Charlemagne Prize is an annual award that recognises outstanding efforts in favour of a stronger EU. This year´s winner is a special one for a few reasons. He is not a European citizen. Furthermore, he is not directly involved with European politics and actually he does not want to be seen as too close to just one region of the world. And he is above all a religious leader, known as Pope Francis.

But he is also a moral beacon to many. And a candid speaker about the plight of immigrants. He has strongly advised the EU leaders to be more responsive to the massive arrivals of refugees and immigrants. He himself has been to reception centres in Italy and Greece as a way of calling the politicians attention to the predicament of those who are stuck out there.

All this is highly valuable. However, the issue remains a political one. The Pope´s moral appeals have no real impact on politicians that see the issue has core to their national interests and also for their own survival as government leaders. The immigration and refugee matters are essentially political. They are one of the most definitive challenges to the unity of Europe. They call for political vision, for clarity about the overall goal, what really matters for the future of Europe, the options, and the consequences of each choice, all of this far beyond the remit of a prize, even one as important as the Charlemagne award.

Turkey and the EU visa question

Turkey is putting a lot of pressure on the Europeans once more. Time is about the visa issue. They want the EU to cancel the visa requirement for Turkish travellers as of 1 July 2016. They say this measure is part of the agreement they have signed with the EU on the control of immigrant flows. Right. But they should also add that there are some objective criteria the Turkish government has to meet for the visa exemption to be implemented. Without that there is no way the Europeans can approve the exemption.

In the meantime, the French daily Le Figaro has polled its readers about the matter. Over 41 thousand people have responded. And 74% said the EU should not grant the visa exemption just as a compensation for the Turkish cooperation on immigration management. That´s a very clear indication of the feeling among the European citizens.

A comprehensive approach to mass migrations

The mass movements across the Mediterranean Sea towards Greece and, in much smaller numbers, to Italy, cannot be seen only from the humanitarian perspective. It is a fact they represent a major humanitarian challenge. That should not be disputed. And people in need have the right to be assisted. But that´s only one dimension. In the short run, it is the most urgent one. However, there are other aspects that require careful attention as well. They cannot be neglected. They have serious implications in matters of security, political stability in different countries of Europe, xenophobic reactions, capacity to integrate such diverse populations in the long term, job availability and so on. All this matters. All this ought to be taken into account when responding to these extraordinary movements of people. Light or single line responses would only lead to very serious new crises in the future. 

Closing the gates on immigrants

The Balkans route, as it is known, is now closed to the immigrants stuck in Greece. The Macedonian government got the message well before the European media and public opinion. That´s why they decided to prevent people from crossing. And if we look carefully at what they have been doing during the last week, we can say that they have also been informed that Iraqi people as well as Syrians from Damascus will not be accepted any longer as refugees. This means the EU approach is becoming much narrower. Fine. But the big question is about what to do with the tens of thousands of people from those areas and from elsewhere, Afghanistan, North Africa, Iran, etc, etc, that are already in Greek soil? Repatriation? How fast can that go before it has a dissuasive impact on those getting ready to cross the sea from Turkey?  

Preparing for the migration meeting with Turkey

The EU-Turkey migration summit of 7 March might be more conclusive than what we had expected. The European positions on the migratory flows are becoming sharper and more united. The leaders see the meeting as an opportunity that should not be wasted. That´s good news. But they need to have a clear approach when talking to the Turkish leaders. This is no time for wishful thinking and certainly no time for further ambiguities.

The EU crisis and Chicken Little

The EU sky is not falling

This is a difficult time to be an optimist in Brussels. It is even more challenging to advocate for a positive look at European affairs. And it becomes almost impossible to talk about collective hopes for a more united Europe in the future. Many will say such optimism belongs to another epoch. Now, the dominant discourse is one that announces a new catastrophe every week. Like Chicken Little, these so-called realists shout, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

As a contrarian, I want to maintain faith in the European project. And be inspired by a forward-looking approach. The best way to build a prosperous and safe future for all of us in Europe is through a united endeavour.  I say it whilst realising the EU is at present facing two major crises. They crowd everything else off the agenda, giving strong arguments to pessimists and those who are against continuing the Union. I mean a possible Brexit and the realities of mass migrations.

With the UK spinning further away from common approaches and policies, arguments for integration and joint responses have indeed become more fragile. In effect, such arguments are practically inaudible because many leaders prefer to focus their attention on their own national agendas. The silence of most of them on EU affairs is deafening.

The UK´s position has brought a lot of uncertainty to the table. At this stage, nobody can predict the outcome of their referendum. It is also difficult to forecast the consequences of a Brexit for the future of the EU.

Nevertheless, the EU would survive a Brexit. Why? Because the UK and the other member states have already learned to go their own separate ways in many areas – the Euro, Schengen, labour laws, justice, and internal security, just to mention a few.  Perhaps the biggest worry is what a Brexit would do to the British themselves, to the status of Scotland, as well as to their tiny neighbour to the west, Ireland.

Brexit or not, the EU shouldn´t be too worried.

The larger question is about immigration. Can the EU survive a continued and expanding mass migration crisis? Many believe it cannot. We keep hearing that without a solution to the current migratory flows, the EU will soon collapse. There is a good degree of exaggeration in the air. The soothsayers of disaster easily capture the headlines. Obviously, the mass arrival of refugees and migrants does pose major challenges and it is essential to recognize this. It is a situation well out of control. Furthermore, this crisis shakes the key foundations of the Union, its values and the role of Europe in the international arena.

More importantly, the migration issue touches the core of a vital dimension of European states—the question of national identity. The people of Europe have shown that they are ready to give away a good number of their sovereign prerogatives, accepting that Brussels can deal with them. This has been the case in a wide range of areas related to economic management, budgets, agriculture, trade, environment, justice, development aid, external relations and other important matters.

Yet, they are not at all prepared to abdicate or dilute their national features, language and everything else that creates a people´s identity. Nor should they. Europe is a complex mosaic of languages, cultures, nationalities and even prejudices. Yes, our views of our neighbours are still shaped by prejudices in significant ways. History and many wars have both divided us and created the diverse assortment we are today. Patriotism is still, and will continue to be for a good while longer, far stronger than pan-Europeanism.

All this must be taken into account. Populists are effective in doing just this, trying to gain the political advantage in the process by exploiting feelings of nationalism. It’s all a little more complicated for an optimist.

This reality notwithstanding, let´s be clear about the present crisis. Let´s imagine we had to face the current migratory instabilities and frictions that the migrations have created in a past context of separate nation states. We can readily assume that some of us would already be at war with our neighbours. We would see coalitions of countries taking military action against others, trying to defend their borders and their own perceived national interests. We would be responding to the threats facing us with weapons drawn upon one another. In the past, this challenge would lead to armed conflict and chaos. We know that the long history of Europe has been written through a succession of wars. 

This all changed when the EU was established. Now, disputes are taken to summits. Summits come and go, often without many concrete outcomes. But, sooner or later, they end up by producing acceptable results of one sort or another. We have learned to take the right decisions at the eleventh hour, that´s true. But we have done so around a conference table and through diplomacy. That´s the kind of lesson we should keep in mind as we get closer to two more summits on the migration crisis: one with Turkey, on the 7th of March and one among the EU leaders on the 17th.

Let´s keep talking and pushing for an agreement. From the cacophony of diverse European voices and the play of varied interests, action will follow. The most relevant contribution of the pessimists, Eurosceptics and  nay-sayers has been to create a greater sense of urgency. Now, the optimists among us have to state that there is only one answer to the big question on the table: Do we allow this challenge to destroy the hard-won political and economic achievements of the EU or do we build on these successes to constructively address this crisis and, in the process, strengthen our union?

I am convinced that realism that will prevail. The European sky isn’t falling.

Political inaction on shore

On the mass movements across the Mediterranean Sea, we know where the immediate problem lies. It is in the coastal cities and towns of Turkey. The smugglers of people across the water do their business in those places. That´s where they should be stopped. Not at sea. They do not board the boats the migrants and refugees use to cross. They remain in Turkey. Dealing with them is above all a matter for the police. But the question is not related to police´s inaction or lack of means to operate. It is very much associated with politics. The police follow their political masters. And the masters, for reasons we can guess, have decided to let it go. 

About the Syrian donors´meeting

One facet of the recent big pledging conferences, like the one of yesterday in London, convened to mobilise resources for Syrian refugees, is that most of promises never materialise. Countries make commitments, and in some cases, very substantial ones. But the disbursements, in many cases, are well below the pledges. And in other cases, countries do announce contributions that never materialise.

One of the reasons is that the monies that are declared during the conferences have never been discussed with the country´s finance minister. They come out of the foreign minister´s mouth. He or she might be a very influential and strong politician. But in the end, funds are the prerogative of finance ministers.

I have seen many disappointments after these types of meetings. One gets the impression that the call was very successful only to realise later on that most of funds never materialise. That creates frustration. It also gives room for very serious misunderstandings between the authorities from the receiving countries and the intended beneficiaries. The latter do not see the support promised and then get to believe that the money was misappropriate by the administering authorities.