Last autumn, I was in Malta at the Valletta Summit on Migration, attended by European and African heads of state and government. I was invited as UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General for International Migration. As is customary at such events, there was a group photograph, in which I ended up beside German Chancellor Angela Merkel. I took the opportunity to whisper to her that, in my opinion, she was a heroine for her action on the migration issue. Her reply was to the effect that she was doing what was “necessary for Europe.”
Since then, I have reflected on her actions and what she, not just then, but over the many months of Europe’s migration crisis, has said. In essence, Merkel has called this an existential crisis for Europe and more serious than the Greek debt imbroglio. She has also repeatedly cited the moral (and legal) obligation that we all owe to refugees.
Much of the world is surprised that a German chancellor is speaking in these terms. Altiero Spinelli, the late Italian European federalist, wrote that German racism, which incited World War II, might have been occasioned by, but was not caused by, economic motives.
He said that, in historic terms, “the absurd anarchy of European international organization” has been “the most propitious terrain imaginable for the full expression of racism.”
That suspect terrain is clearly visible once more in the absence of support for the EU’s proposed migrant quota system, which would allocate refugees to the member states on the basis of fair criteria.
It is clear from Merkel’s comments and actions that she wants to take the lead on this issue not just in Germany, but in Europe as a whole. It is also clear that many Europeans (and others) appreciate her courageous and principled stand. Europe needs leadership, and its institutions require its member states — particularly the most powerful ones — to address an issue that goes to the heart of the values we profess to hold.
It goes without saying that the principles of shared sovereignty and solidarity that underpin European integration are an expression of a moral vision that contradicts the nationalist principle of earlier times, with its taint of racism. So, when Merkel argues that European integration is threatened by the public’s negative reaction to the mass flow of desperate people, it is the fate of the post-nationalist vision that she has in mind.
She is right to worry that Europe’s states and peoples have lost the will to remain united in (and by) a system based on law and morality, including the application of the concepts of human dignity and equality to the question of our obligations toward refugees. Democracy demands that politicians respect their voters; but an increasing number of politicians are respecting the often odious views of the public toward refugees, adopting brutal responses toward those seeking shelter in Europe.
And now, in response to the crisis, borders are being reinstated in the Schengen Area, which not too long ago symbolized European unity and freedom of movement for its citizens. Inevitably, new borders would lead to the creation of large refugee camps in member states like Greece. Elsewhere, too, refugees are to be kept, it seems, under lock and key. Indeed, in Denmark, “valuables” are to be confiscated from migrants at the border in order to help defray the costs of their “sanctuary.”
Meanwhile, statements by some Central and Eastern European governments indicate that they reject, outright, the obligation enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention. Some have said that they would consider asylum only for “Christians.” Such language is a gift to the Islamic State.
Merkel stands in the tradition of Walter Hallstein, the first president of the European Community, who once spoke of a Europe “without military divisions relying on the rule of law.”
However, the rule of law in Europe cannot be a restaurant where member states pick and choose, a la carte, the laws they will obey.
It is essential that all member states — and their voters — recognize that there is no option when it comes to the binding nature of legal commitments within the EU: Either comply with European law or leave. The supremacy of European law commands the support of national governments and enforcement by national courts.
That would not be possible with a Europe of demagogues and, worse, spineless establishment politicians who pander instead of lead. That is what Merkel has recognized and it is why she now embodies the leadership Europe needs.
Peter Sutherland, special representative of the UN secretary-general for international migration and development, is a former director-general of the WTO, EU commissioner for competition and attorney general of Ireland.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS