by Sohail Nazir – LFIT expert on immigration issues
He has always considered himself G.W. Bush’s junior sheriff, always willing to take care of nearby countries and conflicts of the wide southern Pacific Ocean. Well-behaved, married, conservative with Christian values. Who else could this be other than John Howard, the former Australian prime minister?
You might laugh on the sofa and wonder what the point is of remarking on a former head of government and even one who sided with Bush and his illegal war on Iraq? Well, I have nothing to offer against such a response. In fact, you are right.
Yet, when glancing over a pile of crumpled Australian morning papers dating some years back, I realised a spectre was haunting Europe: the spectre of John Howard. Howard’s policies on migration leant remarkably towards human rights violation. Unprecedented for a Rechtsstaat, in which the state ought to protect human dignity, he detained foreigners on far-off isolated Pacific Islands.
This spectre inexorably swept to Europe and detention camps subsequently became the buzzword. A debate ensued throughout this continent. Proud of the achievements of the Magna Charta and the Geneva Refugee Convention, Western Europe suddenly assembled a political will, namely, to quasi arrest refugees.
With about 40 million foreign refugees (Schmelz, A. 2006), roughly 8 million illegal immigrants in the domains of the European Union (Financial Times. 2008), public climate towards asylum seekers is one of growing hostility. This hostility is fuelled by right-wing populists. In the wake of Tunisians arriving on the Italian island of Lampedusa, Italian Interior Minister, Maroni, hyperbolically spoke of a “biblical exodus” (Donadio, R. and Daley, S. 2011). He even seriously suggested sending troops to Tunisia to halt illegal immigration. It was a diplomatic faux-pas, deemed to fail from its very outset. After all, which sovereign nation-state voluntarily invites foreign troops onto their soil?
Learning lessons from Uncle Howard, Maroni’s hyperbolism is revealing, for his government co-operated with Tunisia’s ousted dictator Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. An accord was signed. Accordingly, Ben Ali’s regime received financial incentives to step up obstacles to would-be illegal immigrants. Seemingly, that accord has become invalid since Ben Ali had to relinquish the reins of power as result of the recent revolution in Tunisia.
It is not bad news that such bilateral agreements have become null and void because some reports do suggest mistreatments done to would-be migrants. For example, a report concealed that “electric shock batons were used to force migrants off the boats in Libya” (Donadio, R. and Daley, S. 2011), another state with a poor record on human rights. Similar allegations have been leveled against other regimes, which co-operated with the EU before some of them, quite recently, started crumbling.
That human beings cannot be regarded as illegal is an understandable reminder often echoed from non-governmental organizations such as Human Rights Watch. They call into question some EU national governments’ de facto treatment of refugees as criminals. Their treatment is not fair; it is based on prejudice and is stigmatized.
Ignoring criticism, European leaders (including some social democrats) unscrupulously started co-operating with dictatorial regimes, such as Morocco, Tunisia and also Ghaddafi’s Libya. For the latter, Berlusconi developed a bizarre fondness (before the landmark uprisings), culminating in kissing the Colonel’s hand. Indeed, one can easily see a double standard deployed by western states in dealing with human rights. The very recent political insurgency in Libya resulted in western-led airstrikes against the brutal dictatorship in the name of human rights, whereas, just a few months ago, human rights violation was not a supreme concern and consequently a rallying cause of action.
At that time, EU national leaders were learning lessons from Australian Howard. In a similar fashion to Australia, they have been interested in setting up de facto prisons for refugees, thus treating migrants as convicted criminals. This went hand in hand with active help from Colonel Gaddafi and other dictators on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea. What is more, this disparaging treatment is confirmed by the fact that children were not spared.
Such off-shore camps were first discussed at an EU summit of interior ministers in Scheveningen in 2004. Based on this, three critical points have to be discussed: firstly, migrants who try to seek refuge from war or other disasters are cut off from the basic principle that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from prosecution” (Art. 14, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Secondly, their destiny is often subject to randomness by third countries, which have poor records on human rights, for example, Morocco and Libya. Thirdly, most asylum cases would go unnoticed by the public as they are outside the EU borders. NGOs did also report about human rights violation in similar camps established by Australia.
Who is legal and who is illegal? The answer does not have any moral basis because there is a certain level of arbitrariness in this division between illegal and legal refugees. This peculiar arbitrariness, a politically motivated selection of migrants, is underscored by EU’s asylum and migration policies. And this is demonstrated by the European Union’s introduction of a so-called Blue card scheme. According to this, migrants rather ought to fit neatly into the economic frame, solely contributing to the well-being of the EU labour market. In order to remain competitive, it is necessary to resort to solutions tackling the mismatch of unqualified domestic workers to the demand of increasingly high skills in the booming service sector.
This selection leads us to the public sector economists as they have since portrayed migration in two faces. Researching on market failures and imperfect competition in communities, they illustrate the endless game of costs and benefits. Whether skilled laborers or not, new individuals in a new community may increase the tax base, making secretaries of the treasury deliriously happy. But to flip the coin the other way, they may also strain the increasing demand on public services, infrastructure and housing etc. (Stiglitz, J.E. 2000. p. 737).
This rather aloof factor calculation crunched by some economists, dividing migration into costs and benefits, does bear consequences: a European Fortress has been constructed. The island of the rich man is protected from the poor masses of the South. This costs and benefits calculation has since gained a new dynamic. Just as competition is the crucial component of microeconomics, so is selection for the EU migration and asylum policy.
Whilst the EU has gradually widened, edged and stepped up alertness around her Fortress keeping away uninvited migrants, it has left a protected doorway open for qualified migrants. They are welcome to enter the rich man’s gate. No doubt, we need them. After all, they correct the mismatch in the EU domestic market. Not only are we less willing to settle down and have children, we are also in the midst of an educational crisis. Our domestic labour force is not sufficiently trained to meet the increasing standards of job openings that require high-level qualifications in the growing service sector and, moreover, not prepared to take low-paid jobs e.g. in farming. This mismatch leads to high levels of unemployment in Western Europe. The jobs are there. The people qualified for them are not.
As a consequence, we easily indulge in a culture of brain gain and brain loss. With lucrative job offers we try to gain the brainiest people from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Qualified third country nationals are a treasure for their own country of origin. They could contribute enormously to their developing countries’ economies. But those people are invited over to Europe, lured by the European blue card.
A bizarre game is played which former EU Justice Commissioner Frattini sugarcoated as a brain circulation. To him the Blue card would also be beneficial to the country of origin. Life-long contacts would be made as well as foreign experience. True, but the fact remains, the EU is engaged in a brain gain-brain loss policy.
In conclusion, the recent EU’s asylum and migration policies are based on arbitrary selection criteria, co-operation with doubtful regimes and militarisation. We have witnessed that European countries have become states of selective immigration. Once more, growth-driven, neo-liberally framed, EU economic policies deride humanitarianism and human welfare. European states pursue competitive advantage. On the one hand they open their domestic economies to international migration, while on the other hand internal political forces drive them to seal off the borders. Leading to this antagonistic dynamic, EU national governments commence to manage migration. Such regulation solely follows their economic interests. They encourage certain streams, whilst stemming others. The EU migration policy clearly differentiates between highly educated professionals and low skilled migrants in order to compete with the US and the emerging economies. The low skilled migrants are perceived as a burden (Erel, U. 2009, p. 3). Stemming these is a doubtful practice. Detention camps outside the EU put these undesired migrants in de-facto confinements. Unprotected migrants are left at the mercy of dictators. John Howard’s migration policies are therefore wrong. They are against the fundamental values upon which the European Union is based. Being human cannot be illegal. Everyone seeking refuge has the right to make her or his case be heard. That is why treating a refugee or an asylum seeker as a criminal is unjust. This EU policy approach of selection criteria and Uncle Howard’s detention camps are cracked at several places; making a hard felt hat much too worse to wear.
Nota Bene
EU migration policy is that complex and complicated that short policy essays cannot encapsulate everything. The next policy essay on migration will again be a continuation. I will again critically look at the regulation of migration this time by analysing EU’s regional protection programmes. This will be accompanied by an interview I have conducted in Valencia of a migrant who travelled across Europe in search of a better future. It is designed to open our eyes by shedding light on the view migrants have on Europe. A brief article on David Cameron’s migration speech will offer the other side of the coin.
Bibliography
Associated Press. 9-10/04/2011. “Italy and France agree on handling Tunisian migrants”. In International Herald Tribune. Global Edition of New York Times, p. 3.
Donadio, R. and Daley, S. 9/3/2011. “Revolts Raise Fear of Migration in Europe”. In International Herald Tribune. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/world/europe/10europe.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=migration&st=cse accessed on 20/03/2011.)
Erel, U. 2009. “Qualifikation von Migrantinnen – eine Frage der Bürgerrechte?“ In Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. 26th Oktober. Vol. 44., p. 3-6
German Basic Law. 1999. http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm accessed on 15/02/2011.
Harding, J. 2000. The Uninvited. Refugees at the Rich Man’s Gate. London: Profile Books and the London Review Books.
Hayter, T. 2004. Open Borders. The case against immigration controls. London: Pluto Press.
Schmelz, A. 2006. Network Migration in Europe. http://www.migrationeducation.org/17.0.html accessed on 24/03/2011.
Stiglitz, J.E. 2000. Economics of the Public Sector. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.
The United Nations. UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a14 accessed on 14/02/2011.
by Sohail Nazir – LFIT expert on immigration issues
In 2006, authorities in Spain detained about 28,000 refugees on the Canary Islands, while some 16,000 reached Italy’s Lampedusa Island.2 In 2005 an autumn of discontent hit the suburban areas of Paris, les banlieues.3 The French authorities were hit by a series of violent attacks, mostly by the unemployed and youth mobs, mainly of North African descent. They set cars on fire, smashed windows and challenged public authorities, largely owing to the French government’s decade-long neglect of their wretched living conditions. In 2002 the centre-left Schröder-Fischer government in Berlin introduced a Green card scheme in order to attract computer specialists for the German IT sector from Pakistan, India and the Far East, among other states. In 1999 about one million people were displaced as a result of the Kosovo crisis.4 “Europe became grist for the mill of both those who would accept and those would restrict immigration.”5
Should we let refugees migrate in the European Union or should we restrict immigration per se? Do we treat refugees with dignity by shipping them to Muammar al-Ghaddafi’s hands? How can we reconcile the fundamental values we place on human rights and the simultaneous ill-treatment refugees receive at the hands of some European national governments? “Out of the experience of an extraordinary human disaster”6 of two global wars in the last century, our generation has an obligation to respect the inviolable human dignity of refugees. Instead of constructing a heavy Fortress to protect the European Union from international migration, industrialised and emerging nations ought to look into possibilities to increase living conditions in Africa and elsewhere.
Admittedly, this might sound a bit utopian given the scale of problems developing countries are facing day in and day out. But such an ideal is supposed to build the fundamental unit, a long-term goal for the centre-left. If the centre-left, the Labour Party, Partito Democratico and the Greens, focus more on a clearer role in combating wretched poverty in Africa, in regards to, for example, bad terms of trade, we would have a better understanding of the ground realities. Ground realities, such as our industrial pollution and its contribution to the rise of sea-level, for instance, in the Maldives, could lead to careful formulation of policy alternatives, which would decrease migration in the long-run. However, the centre-right’s neo-liberal policies have failed to integrate wider issues on environment. I do though consider environmental policy of the industrialised world as one major point inextricably linked to international migration. What is more, greater global climate crisis will most definitely increase people’s mobility around the globe.
Firstly, let us recall that migration is nothing new. Human history is a history of migration. For centuries people have moved long distances, settled in new places and taken the road again due to war, disease, political persecution, religious motivation and economic unease. Migration and emigration are not new entries to our vocabulary books, though the current media tend to portray migration as a new phenomenon, gradually increasing over a span of the last three decades.
For centuries, people, particularly the Irish, who moved around the globe, experienced a mass emigration to the new world, that is to say North America. The United States of America is a nation based on migration. In Europe, migration, from seasonal migration of farm labour to migration of trades, already existed before the nineteenth century. Changes in quantitative degrees occurred amid the vagaries of the Industrialisation of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Intra-European or inter-continental migration, as much as the average distance of migration began to explode the geographical mobility.7
Withal, migrants clearly have shaped Europe as much as Europeans themselves. Even though it is attached to Asia, depicted as a Christian place confronted by Islam, Europe defined itself as its own continent. Islam, namely the “otherness”8 to paraphrase Edward Said, promoted a self-identification for Europeans based on Christian heritage and common values which set the Arabo-Islamic world apart.
Nevertheless, issues on migration and asylum are among the most salient policy features in Europe today.9 Member states of the European Union are all affected by the flow of international migration.10 They are preoccupied with the social, economic and political consequences. Migrant workers from outside and also inside the European Union are often perceived as a “potential economic burden”11. Asylum seekers are portrayed as a threat to the national welfare.12 It is hence no surprise that migration and asylum issues are controversial. Discourses among citizens, politicians, economists, civil and NGO activists are often contentious. Whilst economists regard skilled migration as absolutely necessary for the domestic labor market, the xenophobic far right across Europe simplifies problems of unemployment by solely blaming foreigners for social and economic ills. Not only does the far-right Northern League in Italy fall into that category, but also the Swiss People’s Party, die Schweizerische Volkspartei, and the BNP in Britain manipulate anti-migration public sentiment for their own political purposes by avoiding any subtlety. All they do is magnify the dark sides of migration with incensed exaggeration. For them it is an easy game to play. They like to dramatise migration, yet they dramatically fail to look into the complexities of immigration: rise of refugees and its complex nexus with demographic developments and linkages built along with skills shortages and international trade etc.
In any case, the EU witnesses a high level influx of third country national (in short TCN) refugees. Additionally, it experiences pressing socio-economic problems. Skills shortages in certain areas of the labor market are an economic concern, whereas a social concern is given by the ageing population in most EU member states. Italy is a leading nation when it comes to wrinkles. For years now, the mortality rate has exceeded the birth rate in this traditionally Roman Catholic country. The numbers are telling. One-fifth of the Italians are already over 65 (years of age).13 This makes Italy the second oldest state topped only by Japan. Italy’s demographical developments indicate a very low birth rate among European nations and the level of emigration and immigration from and to Italy is rather balanced, resulting in a stagnating population growth, which modestly vacillates at around 0.14 Generally, 2.0 children per woman is the magical population replacement number. Everything above would increase and everything below would decrease population. Italy’s population growth rate was just 1.33, according to a Euro stat survey of 2004. Isn’t such a number reason to be worried about it? The hustle and tussle of Berlusconi and Fini’s recent power play has neglected this issue, which is a pressing subject matter for Italy’s centre-right. The centre-right politicians are busy with themselves. The centre-left ought to provide its own policy options in this crucial policy area. Until now, the political tendency was to either misuse migration for election campaigns or push this hot-button issue at supra-national EU level, but the EU does not remain inactive.
Against the backdrop of the 2004 and 2007 EU enlargement to Eastern Europe, the European Union has introduced tougher external border controls. The member states’ cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs 15 has increasingly restricted access for non-EU migrants; third country nationals. These common measures have strengthened the Fortress Europe and demographic and economic issues have led EU leaders to regulate migration by clearly preferring highly skilled non-EU nationals over low-skilled.
The author Gordon already prophesized in the early 1990s with his finale: “A key point about 1992 and the creation of a single Europe is that it will mean the virtual closure of the EC to non-EC nationals, the creation of what has come to be called Fortress Europe. The corollary of relaxing internal border controls, as numerous documents have made clear, is the strengthening of the external borders of the Community to stop the entry of non-EC nationals, particularly those from the Third World.”16
And yet his conclusion was written two decades ago. What has changed is the regulation of migration which needs to be added to his perspective of a cordoned-off Fortress. EU’s asylum and migration policy has become highly selective. It “encourage(s) skilled migration and discourage(s) illegal refugees“.17 Whilst the EU is expanding and strengthening the Fortress against undocumented, less-skilled migrants, it is also trying to attract highly skilled and economically highly beneficial migrants, needed to correct domestic skill shortages and also balance demographic changes. This means that the EU Fortress remains inaccessible to low-skilled third country nationals (TCN), but the door of the Fortress is open to highly qualified members of the TCN.
Post-war boom years: migrants needed for economy
The time of economic miracle “Wirtschaftswunder“18in West Germany, for example, in 1950s and 60s, with average economic growth rates from 5 to 10 %19, was the beginning of the “Gastarbeiter“ 20 (guest worker) migration wave making their way to the prosperous Federal Republic of Germany. Many migrants came from Turkey or were, in general, from an intra-European background, as from Italy. West-Germany’s high economic growth rates meant extra labour force from other states was required. At that time the conservative Adenauer government in Bonn had only planned the temporary stay of the new migrant workers, but (West) Germany became one of the largest immigrant-receiving countries in the world.21 (West) Germany was politically unprepared for the final settlement of foreign workers in their state and presently faces difficulties to integrate some of the foreigners into the mainstream. Similar examples can be found in other Western European countries, such as the Netherlands and, since the 1990s, Italy also has become, slowly but surely, a migrant-receiving country, especially due to its location along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.
The two “B”s on migration: burden or beneficial?
Do you remember the election poster of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party? Depicting four sheep, three white and one black, it caused controversy. Founded on the red flag with a white cross, one of the white sheep is kicking the black sheep out of the Swiss flag; that in a country whose economy is based on international investment and banking.
I have another flag to offer. The one which clearly shows the benefits that foreigners, either qualified or not, have brought to Europe. There is enough evidence that migrants have contributed substantially to the German22, Italian, French and British economies. This fact is important to keep in mind when it comes to EU’s AMP (asylum and migration policies) and the Fortress aspect. Even though some centre-right governments, as Mrs. Merkel’s administration in Berlin, denies that Germany and the like are countries of migration, Mehrländer cites studies which clearly demonstrate that the economic growth of the 1960s and also 1970s would not have been possible without immigrant labour.23 Also, Italy has struggled to find the right tone and approach towards migration24. According to the United Nations25, more than 200 million migrant workers live throughout the world, 40.5 million of whom legally reside in the territory of the European Union.26 Migrants legally residing in Italy (about 4 million people) now account for 7.1% of the population. These figures are too large to warrant a passive or individualistic approach: a single state cannot cope with such onerous figures.27 How countries cope with these figures will form the part of the second essay.
To sum up EU’s migration policy illustratively here a metaphor: a big Fortress is constructed to seal off undesirable people from the Global South. This fortress, however, has a big door, in Italian a “Porta”, which only opens to let in those migrants who are desirable for their economy. If, however, undesirable migrants, who fled their country of origin due to war and poverty, somehow manage to get into the EUROPEAN Fortress, then they will be kicked out and shipped back.
Increasing numbers of migrants are arriving in Western Europe from Africa, Asia and Latin America. Consequently, “refugee migration”28 has become a special policy concern for the EU and its member states. This essay, therefore, has outlined and explained the reasons why the EU widens and deepens its Fortress: the rising influx of migration, dissolution of internal EU borders since the Single European Act of 1986 and EU citizenship, economic problems with high level unemployment and an increased level of xenophobia29 from politics, media and the public generally. These examples have suggested why the European Union and EU national governments have tried to tackle the “immigration problem”.30 EU member states such as Germany, the UK and Italy are facing a conflict between an economically driven demand for labour migration and political pressures for restriction, for example, from the political far right such as Le Pen in France and Bossi in Italy. We have seen, therefore, that in terms of migration the AMP of the EU is highly selective. It pursues policies to manage migration. It does not, as a result, move beyond the construction of the Fortress Europe. By contrast, the establishment of Frontex (EU military border guards) and the discourse on refugee detention camp has built up the Fortress. The AMP only complements the Fortress by attracting and welcoming skilled workers.31 The JHA’s rationale behind this policy is the conclusion that skilled workers have a great beneficial potential to help the European economy (e.g. Italian economy) to remain competitive.32 The global financial crisis and the high level of unemployment33 in the EU may lead to the idea that there are no job opportunities for new migrants. This is misleading, as we have explained; many industrialised states such as Germany, France, Spain and Italy have a structural unemployment problem. There is a mismatch between job vacancy and special skills. Millions of unemployed people need to be properly qualified to take the highly skilled job opportunities e.g. in Finance and IT sectors, otherwise their economic growth would slip down. Domestic workers become redundant because “their old skills are obsolete.”34 The structural changes in the European economy bring new challenges. As such, the Fortress implies tight restrictions on those forms of low-skilled migration seen as a threat to the economy35 whilst new parameters of skilled migration have been set in the 2008 EU immigration pact, which fits in many national aspects of AMP with the EU. The central message of this EU36 pact is that “it (contains) tough language on illegal immigration and good stuff on the importance of selective legal migration.”37
In the second part we will discuss the militarisation of the EU borders, followed by another essay on the demographical shifts in Europe and the issue of brain gain and brain loss.
Bibliographical Notes
BBC. 2008. Route to Europe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6228236.stm accessed on 19/03/2009.
BBC News. 30/11/2006. EU unveils new immigration plans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6160633.stm accessed on. 17/01/2009.
BBC Europe. 20/10/2008. Record Europe Immigration discussion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7679901.stm accessed on 21/03/2009.
Begg, D. 2003. Economics. London: McGraw- Hill.
Bloch, A and C. Levy (eds.). 1999. Refugees, Citizenship And Social Policy in Europe. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Boswell, C. 2003. European Migration Policies In Flux. Chatham House in London: Blackwell Publishing.
CIA-The World Factbook. 19/03/2009. The European Union. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ee.html accessed on 21/03/2009.
CIA Factbook. 2010. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/it.html accessed on 12/12/2010.
Cini, M. 2007. European Union Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cloeren, S. 2005. Dictionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Der Spiegel. 2010. http://www.spiegel.de/lexikon/54392397.html accessed on 6/1/2011.
Dutton, M. 2005. Policing Chinese Politics. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Encarnación, O.G. 2008. Spanish Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fassmann, H. And Lane, D. 2009. “Migration and mobility in Europe: an introduction”. In Fassmann, Haller, M. And Lane, D. Migration and Mobility in Europe. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK.
Financial Times. 11/02/2009. French ‘protectionism’ hit. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8af07942-f7dd-11dd-a284-000077b07658,dwp_uuid=70662e7c-3027-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html accessed on 20/03/2009.
Financial Times. 25/09/2008. EU pact set to encourage skilled migration and discourage illegals. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec041e6a-8a9a-11dd-a76a-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1 accessed on 20/03/2009.
Freedman, J. 2004. Immigration and Insecurity in France. Hunts: Critical Security Series. Ashgate.
Geddes, A. 2000. Immigration and European integration. Towards fortress Europe? Manchester: European Policy Research Unit Series. Manchester University Press.
Geddes, A. 2003. The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe. London: Sage Publications.
Gordon, P. 1982. Fortress Europe? The meaning of 1992. London: Runnymede Trust.
Greving, J. 2000. Politik/Sozialkunde-Pocket Teacher ABI. Berlin: Cornelsen.
Hammer, T. 1985. European Immigration Policy. A comparative study. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Hayter, T. 2004. Open Borders. The case against immigration controls. London: Pluto Press.
Inikori, J.E. 1982. Forced Migration. The Impact of the exportslave trade on African societies. London: Hutchinson & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.
Image. Fortress Europe. http://www.nnn.se/media/eu/fortress.jpg accessed on 02/03/2009
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/transatlantic/EU_Recession_backgrounder.pdf
Koopmans, R. Statham, P. Giugni, M. and Passy. F. 2005. Contested Citizenship. Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
Landgraf, A. and Schildt, J. (eds.). 2008/09. 60 Jahre Menschenrechte. Amnesty Journal-Das Magazin für die Menschenrechte and Green Peace Magazin. 4-35.
Mandela, N. 1994. Inaugural Address as first Black South African President. http://www.wsu.edu/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/mandela.html accessed on 27/12/2010
McLean, I and McMillan, A. 2003. Concise Dictionary of Politics. Oxford: Oxford Uniersity Press., p. 414
Menz, G. 2008. The Political Economy of Managed Migration. Nonstate Actors, Europeanization, and the Politics of Designing Migration Policies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Menz, G. In his lecture on the 16th March 2009 on the subject EU Immigration and Asylum Policy. Lecture Notes. Goldsmiths, University of London.
Migration Policy Institute. 2010. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/europe.php accessed on 11/01/2011.
Mohr, J. 2003. Jahrbuch 2004. Libyen. Der Spiegel. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. 270-271
Palmer, J. and Facey, P. 2008. The European Union Reform Treaty. How will it affect the UK? London: Unlock Democracy.Charter88 New Politics Network.
Said, E. 1979. Orientalism. London: Penguin Readers.
Soysal, Y. N. 1996. “Changing Citizenship in Europe. Remarks on postnational membership and the national state.“ In Cesarani, D. and Fulbrook. M. (eds.) Citizenship, Nationality and Migration in Europe. pp. 17. London and New York: Routledge.
Spencer, S. 1994. Immigration As An Economic Asset. Staffordshire: IPPR/Trentham Books.
The Economist (no author). 2009. “Illegal immigrants. All sins forgiven?” March 14th. P.30
Uçarer, E.M. 2007. “Justice and Home Affairs.” In Cini, M. (eds.) European Union Politics. 304-320. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jacques Barrot. 20/3/2009. Jacque Barrot. EU Commissioner. Official Website.
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/barrot/welcome/contact/default_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/barrot/welcome/default_en.htm accessed on 20/3/2009.
Süddeutsche Zeitung. 18/07/2008. Radikaler Wandel. Spanien will Arbeitslose Einwanderer loswerden. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/14/448747/text/ accessed on 20/03/2009.
World Socialist Web Site. 20/12/2000. New evidence of brutality inside Australia’s refugee camps. http://www.wsws.org/tools/index.php?page=print& accessed on 22/03/2009.
by Sohail Nazir – LFIT expert on immigration issues
‘That is what happens when Gypsies steal babies’[1]
Right-wing governments in Rome and Paris went too far by shifting the blame on the Roma ethnic community for socio-economic ills and starting off their deportation. In Europe, where monstrous treatment of Jews, communists, social democrats, homosexuals and Roma at the hand of the Nazi dictatorship is less than 70 years ago, any such event at present must be met with sharp criticism. [i]
It is often commonplace that the colour red does not solely carry the message of love and romance, but also rather unwelcoming messages of pessimism, fury and even threat. And as such, dressed in a fervid red jacket, Brussels’ grand lady from Luxembourg, Viviane Reding, brought a surprisingly ardent flavor into the normally dry and boring EU Commission’s briefings. The EU Justice Commissioner and Vice President is known for her immaculate style, always find compromises in disputes. But this time her patience was wearing thin.
Her utter condemnation of French president Sarkozy’s Gypsy (Roma) deportation programme resulted in disbelief in the political establishment. For too long the EU commission kept quite over this sore issue, not realizing how dangerous this game is. It is dangerous in regards to violability of human rights and dignity, freedom of movement and equal treatment. But this time around, Viviane Reding banged the briefing by fiercely opposing the anti-Roma policy, and saying, “I make it very clear (…) to everybody. My patience is wearing thin. Enough is enough. No member state can expect special treatment when fundamental values and European laws are at stake”.[2]
What made her join the international chorus of condemnation against Sarkozy? And why hasn’t she spoken up against the Italian right-wing government which exorcized such policies for years? Why are many public figures silent over such a critical issue?
An alien and maligned minority of social undesirables
About 10 million Europeans are loosely labeled as Roma and Gypsies. Oftentimes they belong to the lower segments of society, to the “underclass” to be precise. They are wretchedly poor and their bad housing conditions in the outskirts of main European urban centres such as in Napoli are ever so often social reality. Such deprivation reminds one of a Third World country. Josephine Verspaget, a Rapporteur for the Council of Europe, hit the point by writing, “The position of many groups of Gypsies can be compared to the situation in the third world: little education, bad housing, bad hygienic situation, high birth rate, high infant mortality, no knowledge or means to improve the situation, low life expectancy(…). If nothing is done, the situation for most Gypsies will only worsen in the next generation”.[3]
Interestingly enough, the Rapporteur composed her report in 1993. This report provides striking evidence for the little tangible differences in their situation today. Their poor condition in world’s richest countries still remains by far and large invisible in international media and politics. Instead, preconceptions and hostile attitudes towards the Roma are ripe in European liberal-democracies which pride themselves with inviolable human rights, yet fail to address the needs of certain minorities, as the Roma.
Straws in the wind
From time immemorial the Roma have faced discrimination, persecution and violence culminating in the brutal Nazi holocaust achieving support by Mussolini’s fascist regime.
Showing an Indian student the picture of the Roma girl depicted above leads her to say that the girl would seemingly appear Indian. “The girl looks as somebody from the slums of Mumbai”. Indeed there is some truth in her reflections. There is an agreement by historians that the Roma originate from northern India and made their way to Europe between 3rd and 7th centuries AD.
Carrying Hindu gods and practicing Hindu customs made it difficult for them to assimilate in the new Byzantine environment. They were considered as heathens soon assimilated to a group of untouchables, called Astingiani. The English word “Gypsy” stems from Astingiani. But the intolerance towards this distinctive group gradually resulted into new waves of persecution, thus forcing them to leave behind today’s Turkey around the 14th century for a new home in the Balkans and Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece.
Their expectations to live freely were not met in their new home. They were not only constrained to work on land but, as in Wallachia, a Romanian principality, they lost their freedom of movement and became property of the principality as slaves. This led to a further flight about a century after. They went to seek refuge in Ukraine and Russia. Regarded as pilgrims there, they were guaranteed shelter.
Even so around the year 1500, a period of fierce repression finalized this light-hearted welcoming attitude. They were hunted down, killed and murdered leading some historians to claim this as to have been the first Roma genocide. There were straws in the wind against them everywhere: in Russia, France, England and Turkey ill-treatment was wide-spread almost all over Europe. In England they faced execution; branding and the shaving of heads were practiced in France; and severing of the left ear of Roma women in Moravia.
Civilizing Roma
The age of enlightenment could hardly be dubbed as the age of reason in respect to the Roma. In fact, the more we appreciate Enlightenment as an age of humanity the more we get troubled by the harsh force of assimilation orchestrated on Roma. The prohibition for Gypsies to get into wedlock among themselves, 24 strokes of cane for those who spoke in their language are some notable examples. But the real abuse was the forceful removal of children. Like the Aborigines in Australia, so the Roma were subject to this heinous practice as much as the latter forced sterilisation in former Czechoslovakia, for example. The vision was clear: to wipe Gypsies off the map. The Roma moved again only to find themselves in the gas vans of Chelmno, where they were abused and exploited in gruesome experiments in the extermination camps. Approximately half a million have been murdered at the hands of the Nazis.
A small minority – posing a threat to the collective well-being?
The prejudice of being involved in petty crimes, their distinctive culture and way of life brought them on the margin of virtually any society they have lived in from generation to generation. A former Romanian president even once denied their existence in his country and others have met the Roma with absolute indifference. Some people echo bitterness and disbelief in the current deportation procedures of right-wing governments – but do we really care?
Let’s have a flashback to July 2009. Do you know the story of the 13-year-old Cristina and the 11-year-old Violetta Djeordsevic from Italy, the two Roman girls whose sudden death marked out the sheer indifference people have found for Roma? On that sunny day both girls left their camp to a well-visited, pleasant beach not far from Napoli. Like many Roma, they were hawkers, trying to sell some inexpensive trinkets to affluent holiday makers. As children they wanted to play in the sea: but died through drowning. The waves brought their bodies to the busy, sandy coast. Clearly realizing of what has happened holiday makers and Italian day-trippers looked at the dead bodies and did not bother. The very next minute after noticing what has taken place they continued to relaxing on the beach, throwing a Frisbee to each other and simply having a sun bath as if nothing has occurred.
Racism does not spare children
One does not need to go into further detail to realise that racism does not spare children. It clearly lays out that there are deep-seated resentments in a Europe which is so proud to live up to the high dreams of the French Revolution of equality, liberty and brotherhood. But what kind of equality and liberty are we talking about when we fail to realize that the memory of the fascist past is fading away just like in Italy? When people having roots in Bel paese (such roots can be traced back to the 15th century in Roma’s case) are treated conspicuously different? What have the society and politics in Rome, Paris and Brussels done to integrate them? Nothing.
Instead Berlusconi and Sarkozy, Maroni and Bossi misuse public sentiments for their own political purposes. It goes at the expense of a poverty-stricken minority on the margins of society. When elected officials attack Roma, it automatically motivates right-wing extremists to use violence against them. Vulnerable groups often lack voice in public. When then established politicians like the Italian interior minister Maroni viciously misuse their vulnerability it gets to a point when one needs to call the fundamental values of human rights to order. Are the most elementary rights truly guaranteed to everyone? To remind you: when vigilant mobs of extremists’ burned down a Roma camp Maroni remarked that ‘this is what happens when Gypsies steal babies’[4]. An unacceptable, utterly abominable view.
People who agree with Kant’s axiom that violence is always immoral must concur that things can’t continue like this. The International Committee against the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted a specific recommendation on discrimination against the Roma in 2000. But their policy proposal is inadequately responded by the Italian and French governments. The centre-left opposition needs yet to provide policy proposals in order to deal with the entrenched social, political and economic exclusion.
When Europe, France and Italy impinges on their pride in highly valuing human rights and the dignity of individuals in a democratic system (…), then people like Anna Meijknecht don’t have a reason to describe the Roma as people without future.[5]
All in all, it was a centre-right politician from Luxembourg who made people think about the Roma’s bad conditions and their marginalisation. At the end I share a quote by Vladimir Luxuria, a former Italian parliamentary deputy who said in regards to xenophobic groups of vigilantes: “The thugs (…) don’t just feel legitimised by Alemanno (right-wing mayor of Rome of the National Alliance), they feel sponsored by him.”[6]
What we need, therefore, are courageous people who stand up for the course and plight of the weak and vulnerable in our European societies. We need politicians from the centre-left who take the fear away and explain why a pluralistic society can and must succeed. Who are able to establish a public morale and call into question what has happened in the past when a government has started feeding people with their fears and misusing such sentiments in attacking a minority, so that they could distract the public from their own failures in governance. This morale begins by supporting Reding in her criticism to halt the deportation and to demand a code of conduct for guaranteeing equal rights and opportunities for everyone.
[1] Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni of the anti-immigrant Northern League. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/opinion/16iht-edgoldston.html
[3] Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Report on Gypsies in Europe. 11th January 1993. Doc. 6733 at para. 29.
[4] Italian Interior Minister Maroni
[5] Meijknecht, Minority Protection. Standards and Reality (2004) TMC Asser Press at 67.)
[6] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article4021089.ece
[i] http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/17/familyandrelationships.roma
Bibliographic notes:
BBC News. 08/07/2009. “On the road: Centuries of Roma history”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8136812.stm accessed on 12/10/2010.
Goldston, J.A. 15/09/2010. In NYTimes.com. “Roma and the E.U.“ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/opinion/16iht-edgoldston.html accessed on 24/10/2010.
The Guardian. 17/08/2010. “Who do the Italians hate us?” http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/17/familyandrelationships.roma accessed on 24/10/2010.
Meijknecht. 2004. Minority Protection. Standards and Reality.TMC Asser Press at 67.
Hawes, D. and Perez, B. 1995. The Gypsy and the State.-The Ethnic Cleansing of the British Society. Oxford: Alden Press.
Mercier, G. 14/09/2010. “EU Commissioner Compares Expulsions Of Roma To Vichy’s Deportation Of Jews”. http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/09/14/eu-commissioner-compares-expulsions-of-roma-to-vichys-deportation-of-jews/ accessed on 02/11/2010.
O’Nions, H. 2007. Minority Rights Protection in International Law. The Roma of Europe. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Report on Gypsies in Europe. 11th January 1993. Doc. 6733 at para. 29.
The Times. 29/05/2010. “The politics of fear return to Italy”. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article4021089.ece accessed on 22/10/2010.
