The Migrant Crisis: Why Germany Can't Cope

 February 1, 2016

The biggest refugee crisis in Europe since WWII looks set to get worse in 2016. The country most responsible for the huge inflow of migrants from the Middle East is, as we all know, Germany.

What is less well-documented is the fact that its state apparatus simply cannot cope anymore. Chancellor Angela Merkel is quick to reassure her national and European audiences that her country can handle the challenges of integrating a million refugees, but events have proved her wrong time and again.

The New Year’s Eve disorders in Cologne are, according to German police, just the tip of the iceberg. The sheer numbers of refugees Germany has agreed to accept have led to administrative and security chaos in a country known until recently as one of the best-run and most orderly in the world.

To be sure, last year’s huge refugee influx is only partly to blame. At least as important a cause has been Germany’s adoption of tough austerity policies in recent years, which had seriously affected the budget and capabilities of the police and civil service, both on a local and federal level. After years of hugely misguided austerity, Germany nowadays has 10,000 less police than in the year 2000. Since 2014, repeated requests by the Interior Ministry for the hiring of an additional 3,000 personnel have been denied funding by Mr. Schaeuble’s ministry, the latter being bent on balancing the German budget at the expense of its citizens’ most basic security needs.

What’s worse, nobody can expect this situation to improve anytime soon. Although the creation of 3,000 new posts has recently been approved, the new police recruits will have to be trained first, becoming effective only in 2019. Meanwhile, the safety of ordinary German citizens will continue to be affected by the chaos engulfing the entire country and the lack of manpower and resources needed to deal effectively with the migrants’ influx.

How NATO is Failing the EU

 December 3, 2015

The untrained observer could be forgiven for believing that NATO is still acting as a military and political organization dedicated to protecting the security of its members. Enlarging the organization with a less-than-significant member (militarily speaking) like Montenegro cannot, however, obscure NATO’s huge failure to adapt to today’s radically changed geopolitical and strategic landscape.
Headed in the past few years by Russia-obsessed officials hailing from European northern kingdoms (Rasmussen from Denmark or Stoltenberg from Norway), the alliance has failed to recognize that these days the biggest threat to the security of all NATO countries is represented by existing or emerging Islamic countries from the Middle East instead.
Nor did NATO reckon with the fact that, since 2002, the secular regime in Turkey was replaced by an Islamic one. This mega transformation of Turkish society – which is still ongoing – has ended up creating a serious security threat for the European Union as a whole, as illustrated by this year’s refugee crisis. Indeed, not only has Turkey failed to live up to its obligations as a NATO member, such as sealing its border with Syria, but over the past four years it has allowed tens of thousands of jihadi fighters from all over the world to cross the country and join ISIS. This year it has decided to allow hundreds of thousands of refugees on its territory to practically invade EU countries unhindered. One of Erdogan’s advisers, Burhan Kuzu, has even hailed Turkey’s latest exercise in extortion as a success for the AKP regime:

“The EU finally got Turkey’s message and opened its purse strings. What did we say? ‘We’ll open our borders and unleash all the Syrian refugees on you.”

For a number of years after 2002, I too believed that a moderate Islamic government in power in Turkey could make the country more politically stable and economically prosperous. Not anymore. The assistance – overt or covert – extended by the AKP regime to Islamists in Syria and elsewhere, the scandal of appointing Erdogan’s son-in-law as energy minister and his son as the head of another energy company ( as if Turkey was an oil-producing powerhouse), the savage repression of journalists, of the free press and of Turkish officials who are trying to uphold the rule of law within the country, have all finally contributed to convincing me that the AKP regime has outlived its usefulness for Turkey and for the NATO alliance, as well.
Undaunted, the current NATO leadership, with some behind the scenes assistance from American neo-cons, is trying to recycle expired Cold War policies and continue to depict Russia as the main enemy of the West. In so doing, the organization conclusively proves that it has become obsolete and useless when it comes to addressing major security threats affecting its members.
It is my belief that Turkey wouldn’t have dared shoot down a Russian aircraft – a jamais vu event in the Alliance’s history – if the country’s leaders had not been certain that anti-Russian bias at the top levels of NATO would prevail.

Still, instead of discussing Russia, NATO ministers would be well-advised to hold a special session dedicated to assessing Turkey’s continuing usefulness for the Alliance in the current strategic circumstances. In the light of this year’s developments, Turkey – NATO’s only Muslim member – has emerged as a dangerous ally and a questionable friend. In other words, instead of trying to evict Greece – Turkey’s main victim in the refugee crisis – from the Schengen area, it would definitely prove more useful to consider the suspension of Turkey from NATO command structures until such time as the AKP leadership could come clean on the issues of unchecked refugee migration to Europe, jihadi movements to and from Syria, shady oil dealings and the supply of weaponry to Islamic insurgents.

EU: No Silver Bullet Solution for the Migrant Crisis

 

EU: no silver-bullet solution for the migrant crisis

October 25, 2015

The recent flurry of diplomatic activity by EU leaders who are trying to slow down the migrant influx has not as yet yielded any tangible results. In truth, the situation has become so complicated that there are no good moves left in order to stabilize it.

 

To illustrate this, one should consider the results of German chancellor Angela Merkel’s October 18 visit to Istanbul, during which she offered Turkish authorities a 3 billion-euro contribution and the promise to speed up the country’s accession talks with the EU. (A deal so far refused by Turkey.) If anything, the visit has frightened the Syrian migrants into crossing to Greece in even bigger numbers. From around 5,000 people a day making the perilous trip before the visit, the IOM authorities have announced that the number of migrants increased to around 9,500 a day for the whole week following Merkel’s visit.

 

The Commission also tries to convince transit countries like Macedonia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria to help stem the flow of migrants to Germany. So far, the efforts have generated the fear that these countries might be obliged to keep a huge number of refugees on their territory for longer than a few days. Accordingly, the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian premiers have announced on Saturday October 24th, in a joint press conference, that if Austria and Germany will close their borders to migrants, they would have no choice but to follow suit. After the mini-summit held in Brussels on Sunday 25th of October, the Bulgarian prime minister Boyko Borissov has complained to the press that the European Commission suggested to governments such as his to take out loans from the EBRD or BEI in order to pay for the upkeep of refugees.

 

Finally, there is a lot of bickering going on between the Commission and a number of Central and Eastern European members which flatly refuse the imposition of migrant quotas. In fact, the leaders of these countries are resisting the very idea of quotas, as they feel that their populations are totally unprepared to accept Arab migrants in their midst and that their economies might be adversely affected by the expenditure necessary for the migrants’ upkeep.

 

The only glimmer of hope to date might come from the ongoing negotiations to reach a political solution in Syria which involves the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The quartet might be joined next week by Iran and is expected to ultimately reach a deal in order to bring about an end to the bloody civil war that is the root cause of the current refugee crisis.

The Migrant Crisis and EU Border Fences

 September 25, 2015

A few days ago while seeing the hundreds of refugees from the Middle East flock on Greek ferries, buses, taxis and trains in their drive north to the Macedonian border, I recalled a 20-page seminar paper I was required to write on the question of frontiers at Sciences po Toulouse.

The year was 2010, just one year before the start of the Arab revolutions in Maghreb, Egypt and the Middle East.

After briefly outlining the evolution of the European concept of frontier – the frontier as a zone like in the middle ages, or the frontier as a line like in our times – I dealt, as requested, with the question of human trafficking, illegal immigration and the options available for securing the EU’s external borders.

During the seventies I had completed my military training as a border guard patrolling Romania’s eastern frontier with what was then the Soviet Union. The reserve officers’ school provided me and my colleagues with the essential legal and logistical knowledge employed at the time to secure the country’s borders. That type of specialized knowledge proved of great assistance in 2010 for completing my assignment at Sciences po. The conclusion of my paper would not please many European policymakers, because it stated in no uncertain terms that the European efforts to make the continent’s borders impenetrable were probably doomed to fail and that a host of other solutions had to be considered in order to address the problems of smuggling, trafficking and illegal immigration.

Still, European politicians from Hungary to Ukraine or Estonia wrongly believe that a frontier can be secured by erecting fences and they are even willing to spend large amounts of cash to do so. Unfortunately, as a recent article published by American geographer Reece Jones (“Why Border Walls Fail”, Project Syndicate, September 2015) clearly proves, putting up fences between the US and Mexico, or as now around the European Union, only marginally slows down the influx of illegal immigrants. Moreover, as Reece Jones argues, fences are mainly meant to stop poor people from entering a richer country or region. That’s because people with means will always find alternative ways to reach their desired destination: fake papers and passports, bribes and so on.

At the end of WWII, according to a Canadian specialist, only five border fences or walls existed in the world, the best-known of them all being the Berlin Wall. Today we have no less than sixty-five, with two thirds of them having been built in the last twenty years. Expensive and inefficient, they stand proof however of flawed neoliberal thinking and vain efforts to securitize frontiers sometimes stretching for thousands of kilometres.

By abandoning such misguided efforts and by concentrating instead on slowing down or regularizing the flow of migrants, and by tackling the root problems that had forced them to leave in the first place, we will be in a better position to arrive at a humane solution to the plight of illegal migrants and refugees.

Sure, migrants should not be allowed to make a mockery of the EU’s external borders, even if all the billions spent on securing them were in fact a dodgy investment. Alas, most politicians would prefer to listen to sellers of border surveillance hardware than to finance a comprehensive study provided by geopolitical consultants such as myself, which would probably save their taxpayers large amounts of money. Migrants should be made to understand, as much as possible, that they should wait for their resettlement or asylum papers in the few “hot spots” (in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Greece, Italy, Serbia and possibly Bulgaria) created by the Union and the UN to that end, instead of arriving or stampeding in very large numbers inside the countries of their choice in Europe.

To be an effective deterrent against mass migration, however, such centers should provide decent accommodation and nourishment to refugees – which has not been the case until recently, according to the UNHCR – as well as fair and speedy processing of asylum applications that should become the norm and not the exception.

The EU and the Migrant Crisis

 September 13, 2015

For a continent long renowned for the excellent quality of its primary and secondary education, the beginning of the school year was until recently the season’s most important event. Not anymore. From Budapest to Brussels, government and Union officials have their hands full with the migrants’ crisis, which threatens to get out of control.

TV screens and the printed European media are full of images of tens of thousands of Syrian refugees heading for Germany as if they were heading for a second Mecca. Why Germany ? Syrians know fully well that the southern members of the Union have had their economies devastated by years of austerity and therefore could not provide the social benefits that Germany alone seems able to afford. Sure, a few hundred migrants have trickled into Denmark, Sweden or the Netherlands, but the governments and population of these countries are far less willing to accept their asylum demands.

Then there are Angela Merkel’s statements to the effect that all migrants who can reach Germany will be accepted, which have aggravated the latest exodus from Turkey. The reason why she has made such an uninspired statement – when it was already clear that the Syrians do not need additional encouragement – will remain a mystery to me. As a consequence of it, the EU is experiencing another serious split between its Western European states and the newer, ex-Soviet EU members. Hungary and the Visegrad countries have flatly refused the idea of compulsory quotas of migrants to be accommodated in their countries, while their leaders are doing their darnedest to stem the flow of Syrians towards Germany.

After the euro crisis which has provoked a split between the North and the South of the continent, a second split between West and East could further endanger the very existence of the EU. Already, opinion leaders and politicians from the Visegrad countries and even Romania have accused the EU Commission of adopting the behaviour they used to know during Soviet times. If this is not ominous for the future of the EU, I don’t know what is…