France feels proud to be the ‘country of human rights’, but the current situation might prove Robert Badinter right when he wonders: “Perhaps France is no more than the country of the Declaration of Human Rights”.
On September 3rd, French President Hollande announced together with German Chancellor Merkel that he would rally behind the idea of splitting the refugees among the different European countries. This is a belated but fortunate advancement, which we should welcome. Just a couple of months ago, Prime Minister Valls strongly rejected that same proposal advanced by the European Commission President. Since we have one single Schengen area, each member state should contribute to a common solution. This means that what was needed for our politicians to stand up at last to xenophobic forces were images of trucks full of choked corpses and of a drowned kid lying on the beach where children of his age use to play. And yet, the Italians have been warning us for years on the drownings in the Strait of Sicily.
Why this must be done?
We cannot let human beings die without even trying to rescue them. The criminal law condemns ‘the failure to provide assistance to a person in danger.’ We cannot ‘send them all back.’ In Syria and in several countries the war rages on. Families flee bombings, water and food shortages, rape, fanaticism. Clearly, if – as seems to be the case – people coming from countries where their lives are not in danger, e.g. the Balkans, try to mingle with war refugees, we should differentiate them. The duty to provide shelter goes first to those who are threatened, coming from dangerous or disadvantaged areas, even though it is not always easy to make a distinction.
Migrants are not only a problem to be handled. All human beings have some skills. All of them certainly have a character forged by the awful ordeals they have to endure. Sharing a given amount of jobs is not the right way to reduce unemployment, while a dynamic and innovative system is. An injection of people – often young and qualified, ready to take its chances – can have a positive impact on the economy.
Sovereignism is contradicted by facts. There is no satisfactory national solution to the great issues we have to face. To say the contrary is a lie. We need to mutualise the European means to ensure we are safe from the totalitarianism of ISIL to stabilise the Middle East, as well as to ensure an effective and humane control of our borders, in order to honour our international commitments on asylum.
Can we do this in a context of extreme populism?
When it is a matter of life and death, citizens expect their leaders to live up to the challenge. The danger is a spur to act firmly, avoiding to exploit the victims. Political quarrels and calculations become derisory. As it happened on the occasion of the Paris attacks, such events change people's minds. What is happening is something completely new since the creation of Europe, of capital importance for its future, its image, and the image of France in Europe. When human beings move into action, it is not business as usual any more. The seriousness of what is at stake might help in overcoming some hurdles that were unimaginable some months ago. The disappointed pro-Europeans are waiting for an initiative to breathe new life into Europe. There are a lot of them, often silent, who might shift to the wrong side because of their despair, or because they hope to find a new way to build something great and fair. The Front National and the like of it prosper because the ‘counter arguments’ are not spoken out loud. Besides, the responsibility of this should be attributed to both the (supposedly) moderate parties, and to some clergymen and intellectuals who are accommodating towards xenophobia.
What to do?
For migrants, the urgency is letting them in. German authorities would be ready to receive 800,000 people, i.e. around 1% of their entire population. Angela Merkel has stepped up her speeches against xenophobia; she has condemned the attacks against the centres providing protection; and she assures that the objective can be achieved. The German civil society, especially in the West, mobilises itself wholeheartedly. At the time of the Yugoslav war in 1992-93, Germany made a great effort of openness. The country is experienced in this kind of operations and knows that once peace is restored, many asylum seekers will wish to go back to their homeland. If France did as much, it could receive … 650,000 people! For the whole Europe, Jean-Claude Juncker foresees the reception of 120 000 people! For the record, countries of the like of Jordan or Lebanon, which are certainly poorer than us, have reached a quota of immigrants of 20 to 25% of their population.
Beyond this, we should think about what kind of Europe we want to live in. How to combine solidarity with responsibility. We are not interested in dismantling the Schengen area, which gives us great freedom. By ensuring the possibility to cross borders without controls, Schengen enables the movement of goods, or of people living near the border and travelling each day to the other side for work. The promise of its dismantlement is demagogic, given the long queues of trucks, and the exasperation of travellers that would result from such a move. On the contrary, there should be a common public response for this common area. Those member states that dodge their responsibilities or flout the European values, while benefiting from this openness, have no place in Europe. Notably, the European People’s Party’s indulgence towards the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has lasted way too long.
The fields into question are particularly sensitive and linked to the sovereign power, this we should not hide. The external action is complex and should include long-term diplomatic and defence initiatives, with the aim of establishing a lasting stability in the Middle East and in the Mediterranean area. Besides, here some self-criticism is needed for those who brought chaos in those areas, such as France and the United Kingdom in Libya. The action to take should also include the support to those countries that are on the frontline for geographical reasons. Most importantly, we should work in the countries of departure, to hunt down people smugglers and encourage on site the choice of legal migration channels.
Alongside the external action, there should be an internal action aimed at standardising the rules of application for asylum seekers, avoiding misuse and fraud, while paying attention to the humane side. This crisis shows that we should re-think the European Union. In bringing decades of peace to Western Europe and in accompanying the end of Communism in Eastern Europe, it did not prove unworthy. But now the issue at stake is greater: having to face the tipping of the world – of which migrants are the most moving symbol – Europe is hanging in the balance. The moment to make a choice is approaching. Very soon, we will see who goes forward and who baulks. If some partners baulk at solidarity in difficult times, if they are not ready to share sovereignty, we shall leave them to their national isolation.
France should ask itself something. For a long time, French politicians did think they could pocket the advantages coming from the Union without having to engage too much in power sharing. Some of them have cherished the idea of an ‘economic government’, but this is the highest illustration of an incomplete project. We cannot continue doing business together, to the detriment of democracy, and leaving aside the essential. The disruptions of the 21st century dismiss those concoctions.
Translated by: Roberta Carbone
Log in