EASTERN APPROACHES
How
migrants brought Central Europe together
Visegrád
countries might decide they’re better off alone if the EU sticks to
its guns on migration.
By RADKO HOKOVSKÝ
2/7/16, 9:31 AM CET
By joining NATO and
the EU at the turn of century, the Visegrád Group fulfilled its
original purpose — to integrate Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the
Czech Republic into Western democratic institutions.
But the group has
struggled to find a common cause since, despite cooperation on issues
like the digital single market and common support for further EU
enlargement. Faced with Russia’s aggressive policies in the East,
the four-country pack virtually split. Poland was a cheerleader for
military assertiveness, while in Hungary, Viktor Orbán appeared
eager to appease and downplay political tensions. Many considered the
Visegrád Group (V4) irrelevant to EU decision making.
Now the migration
crisis has handed the group something to rally behind: restrictive
immigration policy.
The Visegrád
members agree on what’s in their best interests: strict protection
of the EU’s external borders, faithfulness to the existing
migration rules, and an emphasis on assistance to conflict areas,
instead of the Continent’s current open-door policy and proposed
relocation scheme. The current consensus across political parties,
including those in opposition, is rare in these normally polarized
Central European countries.
Their political
position intensified when they were outvoted in the European Council
and a second relocation scheme for asylum-seekers was adopted in
September 2015. If the European Commission now proposed a permanent
relocation mechanism and put it to a vote in Council, the V4 would
fight it. If they were outvoted again, the consequences for their EU
membership could be grave.
* * *
Why has the V4 so
opposed the mainstream EU approach to the migration crisis? A lack of
solidarity? Xenophobia and fear? While these factors certainly play a
role, the question warrants a more nuanced answer. There are four
main reasons why the Visegrád countries disagree with what they
consider an irresponsible open-door policy, and which they associate
with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
First, Central
Europeans are not concerned with immigration per se. They have
integrated Ukrainian and Vietnamese communities, and refugees from
the Balkans were easily granted temporary protection in the past.
They consider today’s migrant influx substantially different
because it consists mainly of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa
— and there is a broadly shared perception that efforts to
integrate Muslim immigrants in Western Europe have failed.
Central
Europeans are convinced the German and European Commission-led
response to the migration crisis is wrong and contrary to European
interests.
Central Europeans
constantly see media reports of ghettos, suburban unrest, and even
terrorist cells in Western European cities. They are terrified by the
thousands of jihadist foreign fighters coming from European Muslim
immigrant communities. And they are shocked by opinion polls that
show how many Muslims who have lived in Europe for generations do not
identify with our open pluralistic societies. When they hear that 27
percent of British Muslims have “some sympathy for the motives
behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks,” Central European people tell
their leaders: “We want no part of this.”
Second, Central
Europeans do not accept the assumption that the current migration
wave cannot be controlled and reduced. Migration is a natural
phenomenon that cannot be completely prevented, but its scope, pace
and timing is a result of a few factors directly determined by the
decisions of policymakers. There is an overwhelming conviction in the
Visegrád countries that a much more sincere and humanistic way of
helping refugees is to provide them with assistance in the countries
closest to their homes, rather than standing idly by while hundreds
drown en route to Europe.
Third, Visegrád
countries are bound by the Geneva Convention, but are under no
obligation to provide protection to asylum-seekers who have already
crossed several safe countries or stayed in refugee camps. Neither
the Czechs, Hungarians, Poles nor Slovaks feel that their countries’
foreign policy is the main reason behind the situation in the Middle
East or Africa. There is an absence of any of the kind of historical
guilt that Germans feel for their Nazi past, and the French or
Belgians for their colonial heritage.
Finally, not even
the pragmatic argument that refugees might bring economic benefits
and reduce demographic decline resonates in Visegrád countries.
Although their populations are aging, Central Europeans do not
believe that migrants from Africa and Middle East will reverse that
trend.
* * *
That is why Central
Europeans are convinced the German and European Commission-led
response to the migration crisis is wrong and contrary to European
interests. Since Visegrád voters will not allow their governments to
be part of an EU that accepts over a million asylum-seekers a year,
redistributing them among their countries by the tens of thousands,
V4 governments will try to create a coalition to reform the EU
immigration and asylum system.
But the V4 does not
only have a common position, it has a clear vision of a new EU system
based on two principles: reducing the number of migrants arriving in
the EU and increasing aid to refugees in the European neighborhood.
Any
immigration policy should be accompanied by integration measures,
which would emphasize the adoption of European liberal democratic
values and would actively counter the spread of extremist ideologies.
Reduction can be
achieved by actually implementing existing proposals to strengthen
the external borders, including fighting traffickers; using fences,
naval blockades and forced returns; and launching an assertive
communications campaign to dissuade illegal travel to the EU.
Extending help to
refugees outside Europe can be achieved through taking full care of
existing refugee facilities in the EU’s neighborhood — especially
U.N. refugee agency ones across the Middle East and Africa — where
people in need will be protected from violence and persecution. The
EU itself would only accept asylum-seekers arriving from states on
its borders, honoring the Geneva Convention’s
first-country-of-asylum principal.
This principle means
asylum-seekers do not have an absolute right to choose the country
where they apply for protection. They can accept refuge in the first
safe country. Asylum-seekers coming to Europe across Africa or Middle
East from faraway countries would be deported to the asylum center
closest to their country of origin. In return, EU countries would
voluntarily decide to carry out active resettlement programs from the
U.N. refugee agency facilities. Thanks to this, incentives to
undertake dangerous sea crossings would decrease.
Policy on legal
migration would remain a prerogative of individual EU countries.
However, any immigration policy should be accompanied by integration
measures, which would emphasize the adoption of European liberal
democratic values and would actively counter the spread of extremist
ideologies, such as Islamism, among migrants and their descendants.
If the V4 fails to
fulfill its new mission to push through an EU immigration and asylum
reform, Central Europeans will probably go for an opt-out from
justice and home affairs issues of the kind Denmark or the U.K. have.
That would put them on a dangerous path of questioning their EU
membership in years to come.
Radko Hokovský is
the executive director of the European Values think-tank based in
Prague.
Authors:
Radko Hokovský
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário