How far society has come from the warm generosity of the German summer to the cold hard reality of a Nordic winter. Europe’s internal borders have been closing; its external borders are being reinforced. Governments are looking for ways to foot the bill for receiving and integrating all the new arrivals, many of whom have crossed deserts and seas in the hope of finding a safe haven in Europe.
German Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schaeuble has mooted an EU-wide tax on gasoline. Danish members of parliament are debating a law to allow the confiscation of asylum seekers’ valuables to help pay for their keep. It turns out Switzerland already does this.
The money, though, will have to be found. Not just because Europe is a rich continent with values and obligations to match, but because international law and the precepts of the EU say so. Anyone arriving at another national border has the right to ask for asylum; and the receiving authorities must weigh the merits of that claim.
The legal definition of a refugee and the criteria for granting asylum date back more than 50 years. While some would argue that they reflect universal values and, as such, should be upheld to the end of time — the concept of sanctuary, after all, has ancient roots — it is surely not unreasonable to ask some questions.
Over the past six months, as people have shared the euphoria of those rescued from leaking boats off Greece, tried to commiserate — however inadequately — with bereaved relatives and marveled at the fortitude of those seemingly endless columns of human beings making their way through Europe, the parallels with the past have seemed obvious.
This is, people are told, the greatest movement of people in Europe since 1945. Scenes of desperate people blocked by police at barbed-wire fences, hundreds forced on to trains destined only for the next siding; whole families sleeping in the open at night; teenage heroes pushing family members across continents in wheelchairs: here were reminders of the darkest chapters of Europe’s 20th-century history.
For all the echoes of World War II, there are also differences — and they cry out for the current provisions to be reviewed.
It was the plight of the millions of displaced people at the end of that war, and the need for an orderly system of resettlement, that spurred the talks that resulted in the Geneva Refugee Convention of 1951. It was the specter of European history seeming to repeat itself that convinced German Chancellor Angela Merkel that a different Germany had to show its face.
Yet for all the echoes of those times, there are also differences — and those differences cry out for the current provisions, at very least, to be reviewed.
In its principles, the codification of refugee status in the Geneva accord looks as relevant today as it was when it was first drafted — and as it was in 1967, when a protocol extended its provisions globally.
A refugee is defined as a person who is “outside his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; and has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
To this have been added EU provisions, including the 2013 Dublin regulation that requires someone arriving in the EU to request asylum in the first nation they reach. The burden this placed on nations such as Italy and Greece, with long sea borders that are hard to police, was evident even before summer last year, and encouraged blind eyes to be turned when new arrivals in Europe chose to continue their journey.
However, if the definition of a refugee remains as valid as it always was, the international context has changed to a degree where the whole system is at risk. The Geneva and EU ideals are, quite simply, not compatible with today’s reality.
Time was when those granted asylum in what was then Western Europe were few and far between — persecuted opposition figures, deposed leaders, dissident intellectuals. In practice, if not on paper, the criteria were narrowly drawn. The concept seemed more like a privilege accorded to an individual, rather than an international entitlement to be extended to whole groups.
Now, travel is far easier than it was in the middle of the last century. Information — about the law and living standards (if not benefits) — is more widely spread. Like it or not, trafficking has become a profitable industry, aided by mobile phones and mobile money.
It might still be difficult to escape a war zone, such as Syria, but once into Lebanon, or Turkey, or Jordan, the next stage and the next become easier, so long as people have money to pay. Before autumn last year, if people managed to reach Greece or Italy, they could travel almost unhindered to any other nation within the Schengen Area.
What is more, the criteria for asylum, as interpreted by human rights lawyers and applied now, make it theoretically possible for whole ethnic, religious or other groups to qualify — including almost anyone whose country is at war.
Much is made by governments of the difference between people who genuinely need a place of safety and those “merely” seeking a better life. However, that distinction — as between “migrants” and “refugees” — has become more and more difficult to draw.
Do all Syrians qualify for asylum, for instance, because parts of their nation are in the grip of civil war? What about a young Nigerian, say, who left his village to seek work in Europe, but experienced unspeakable deprivation and suffering on the way? Do his experiences en route change his status on arrival from that of migrant to refugee? The answer might seem a clear no, but some lawyers would say he has a strong case.
Campaigners accuse the EU of inadvertently muddying the definitions by making it so hard for outsiders to come in. Unless “fortress Europe” offers more legal channels for non-citizens to move there, they say, people have no alternative, but to try their luck illegally.
That argument is contestable. What is not, is that the scale of the exodus from war-torn and maladministered nations, the desirability of the EU, and the Geneva definition of “refugee” are generating a demand that is beyond the capacity of even Germany’s generosity.
Tightening definitions — a stricter interpretation of persecution, for instance, and better enforcement of the requirement to seek asylum in the first safe nation reached, or more reciprocity (no fingerprints, no entry; commit a crime, summary deportation, etc) — would be nowhere near enough to alter that.
What is needed is a new Geneva refugee convention. It could limit the group qualification for refugee status, or the right of those fleeing to seek refuge outside their home region, or the length of time they might stay. It could try to guarantee places of safety for civilians in war zones.
Historically, the UN-approved “responsibility to protect” clause was that shield, but that, too, is failing. Another reason to rethink the whole thing.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations