The violence in France, fueled by staggering unemployment and ruthless policing, reflects the utter failure of the French model of social integration. But violence elsewhere in Europe, such as the London bombings of July and the brutal murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam in November last year, had already made Europe's failure to integrate its minorities painfully clear.
As the riots in France fade, French politicians are agonizing about how to proceed. Forty years ago, after legal segregation of blacks and whites formally ended there, the US was confronted by similar problems. The US' response shows, however, that integration cannot be viewed as a one-way street. In addition to imposing demands and constraints on minorities to join the mainstream, society must be willing to demand of itself that it make room for all its citizens.
As a potential model to be followed, Europe should look at the so-called "affirmative action" policies that the US enacted to provide opportunities to blacks. Affirmative action, or "positive discrimination," as some have called these policies, began with university admissions. But, in the early 1970s, former president Richard Nixon expanded the scope of affirmative action.
As a result, ethnicity began to be weighed as a positive factor not only in university admissions, but also in public procurement decisions, credit facilities for small enterprises and government hiring. The rational for affirmative action in those early years was the fact that, after a long history of systemic injustice, merely outlawing discrimination based on race or gender would not ensure equal opportunity for all.
Such programs are often viewed as contradicting a basic American value, namely that admissions, lending and hiring decisions should be based on the merits of the in-dividual, not group distinctions. But they remain in existence three decades later. Indeed, leading US companies like General Motors, General Electric and Walmart have created affirmative-action programs for hiring and selecting suppliers at their own initiative.
Similarly, anchormen and anchorwomen from all ethnic backgrounds populate US television news programs. In France, by contrast, the appointment of the black anchorwoman Audrey Pulvar was big news on its own, because most of her colleagues are white.
Affirmative action in the US has been effective in creating a large African-American middle class. The percentage of black households earning more than US$50,000 a year (adjusted for inflation) has more than tripled over the last four decades, from 9.1 percent in 1967 to 27.8 percent in 2001.
Indeed, in the US, more people of color and women hold top jobs in the public and private sector than anywhere else in the world. The fact that a large black underclass remains -- something the recent floods in New Orleans revealed in a horrifically dramatic way -- is mainly the result of failing school systems.
Affirmative-action programs have always been vulnerable to attack by those who can't benefit from them. In 2003, a white student asked the US Supreme Court to declare that the use of race in the University of Michigan's admission policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the program was constitutional, citing a "compelling state interest" in racial diversity.
"Effective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civil life of our nation," the court said, "is essential if the dream of one nation, indivisible, is to be realized."
In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court took into account a legal brief submitted by 60 major US businesses, led by General Motors, asking that affirmative action be upheld. They argued that the skills needed in today's global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to a wide diversity of people. Retired military officers and commanders told the court that affirmative action was essential to maintaining an integrated officer corps.
What the US' affirmative-action programs may not do is set quotas for minorities, as this prevents competition between different groups. But, in comparing groups, it is permitted to use an individual's status as member of an under-represented minority in his or her favor. As a result, a university may select a black student with a satisfactory score on the admissions test, even if there is a white student with a better score.
From the French viewpoint, however, laws and regulations based on ethnicity are regarded as an unwelcome encroachment on the Republican ideal. French President Jacques Chirac vehemently opposes quotas for immigrants, out of fear that such a policy would stigmatize groups. And French businesses don't see it as their role to solve the problems of the suburbs.
Moreover, French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy hasn't done much except hand out some special grants to the smartest immigrants from the suburbs. France does have affirmative-action programs, but they address poverty, not ethnicity.
If European politicians are serious about preventing a schism between population groups, affirmative action is essential -- not only at the workplace, but also for small business loans, home loans, public procurement and school admissions. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who in July was faced with the shortcomings of integration in the UK, should take advantage of the country's presidency of the EU to make affirmative-action programs the top priority at next month's summit of European leaders in Brussels.
Rick van der Ploeg is professor of economics at the European Institute in Florence and a member of the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO. Heleen Mees is an independent adviser on EU affairs in New York.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS