Diversity V. Assimilation and the EU Experience

Nobody can stop human migration – that is a fact. Those who struggle to establish a mono-culture or a separatist state pursue an elusive goal often of dubious moral considerations. But the states that make up the European Union are struggling to balance the rights of their own traditional cultures and those of large communities of migrants.

What solutions are being sought to solve adaptation problems experienced by both sides of this very 21st century problem? And what lessons can we learn from the EU one of the most recent and successful regional powers?

In today's world, international travel is rapid, communication and the sharing of information is even more so. The flow of humanity around our globe is akin to the blood that flows through our veins. Life is a journey and migration is an age-old thing, we humans have evolved due to an inbuilt wanderlust – we cannot do without movement and change nor can our modern economies do without migrants.

This article focuses on asylum seekers – immigrants who seek refuge and those who harbour a need to settle in an alien culture. It explores the impact this has on the host nation and how the traditional culture of a host nation reacts to groups of immigrants that cluster together in ever expanding communities.

Recent UNHCR asylum seeker figures show increasing numbers of people seek refuge each year. Thousands seek entry into developed nations, many more seek entry though alternative means and the global phenomenon of human trafficking is rife. The number of asylum claims submitted in industrialized countries in 2007 rose by 9 per cent compared to 2006. The UNHCR reports that this upward trend continued during the first half of 2008. Overall, an estimated 165,100 asylum claims were submitted in the 44 industrialized countries during the first half of 2008.

EU records show, in 2006 about 3.5 million persons settled in a new country of residence within the EU-27.

In Europe, a collision against conservative cultures is evident. The clash has intensified as communities of immigrants struggle with integration and adaptation and traditional cultures feel threatened by 'outsiders' in their midst. In many ways, it is a global community problem. But the European Union and its member states offer an example of what can go wrong, how politicians can use populist rhetoric to win favour resulting in policy that appears contrary to respective national interests. Are solutions emerging from Europe?

For an asylum seeker, there are many reasons that cause one to uproot from a homeland. This era has seen more families flee from war and oppression, victimisation, famine, environmental impact from global warming than any other age. A common compulsion is to seek the security of a safer place or the protection of a developed nation –the cause is always catastrophic.

As the UNHCR states: "Climbing over razor wire fences, taking to sea in leaking boats or stowing away in airless containers, refugees and migrants around the world risk their lives every day in desperate attempts to find safety or a better life."

In reality, many asylum seekers struggle under the weight of their experience adding to the pressures of adapting to a new culture. The tendency is often for a refugee to seek out those from similar cultures, to live amongst the known, which often leads to expanding communities or clusters of peoples who share a state of origin but not necessarily a common affiliation.

The European Union experience shows this leads to clashes within the communities and segregation problems with the EU's host cultures. Adaptation and acceptance is put aside and tensions often build between the people of the host nation. Struggles, resistance, and political opportunity among right-leaning parties is exploited and directed against a growing 'alien' community.

The phenomenon is not exclusive to the European Union, rather it is a worldwide challenge. But the struggle seems to intensify within nations that take on significant numbers of asylum seeker immigrants like France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy. These nations are high among those who grapple with a dilemma of how to make a responsible contribution within this new century's global village, while protecting a traditional and identifying culture among their own peoples.

EU statistics show several countries including Germany, Austria and the Netherlands saw a decline in immigration between 2002 and 2006 by 11-17 percent. This was clearly due to changes in immigration policy – a move to reduce pressures on both immigrants and the general populations.

How the European states deal with immigration and the rise of asylum seekers may offer a meaningful insight for nations at the other side of the world. Here in the Pacific, Australia and New Zealand too, face the same challenge, balancing their respective roles in the global community with a perceived social impact on their own peoples.

To advance the concept of global responsibility, the UNHCR has issued a 10-Point Plan designed to focus states on solutions rather than rhetoric and negative impact.

Ten-Point Plan:
1. Cooperation among key partners
2. Data Collection and Analysis
3. Protection-sensitive entry systems
4. Reception arrangements
5. Mechanisms for Profiling an Referral
6. Differentiated Processes and Procedures
7. Solutions for Refugees
8. Addressing Secondary Movements
9. Return of Non-Refugee and Alternative Migration Options
10. Information Strategy.

For today's governments, complex considerations surrounding migration mount up largely due to multilateral commitments and often run contrary to domestic needs. For example, early in 2009 developed and developing nations considered how best to re-integrate those who were held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay by the United States of America. See Scoop article by Gordon Campbell: Obama’s Closing Of Guantanamo A Humanitarian Dilemma As the new US president Barack Obama prepared to take office, nations around the world – the EU states significant among them - were asked to assist in putting right the wrongs of the George W. Bush administration.

It is acknowledged that the Guantanamo prisoners - who were held without recourse to international humanitarian law, nor the protections against torture - require delicate rehabilitation. How the international community addresses their release, undoubtedly will heighten internal security concerns and the reaction of respective domestic populations will need to be managed sensitively.

The EU clearly has not discovered all the answers to migrant adaptation but it offers a more long term example of how the concept of migrant globalisation impacts on its member states and how each has reacted to this transitional journey.

The European Union is a mass of 27 countries, many landlocked and sharing close boundaries. Many Europeans think this mass of cultures cause problems. But is it really the case? Or does a maturing of an established regional body such as the EU offer a real example of how a block of states can manage issues as complex as migration?

For countries of the Pacific, there appears to be much to observe from Europe's experience. Here, in 2005 the then prime minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark (pictured right with Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd), announced a regionalisation plan emerging from the Pacific Islands Forum. Sixteen member nations make up the Pacific Islands Forum - including Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and other smaller island states. See Scoop co-editor Selwyn Manning's report… Pacific Leaders Advance United Regionalised Plan

At the time, Scoop asked whether the move was a burgeoning federalisation of the Pacific. The answer was no, but the need within a globalised world was for a regional body to act with one voice for the states that are contained within its membership.

Helen Clark then said: "We are talking about a region protecting itself in a way it has not done so before: setting priorities which are cross country, are regional priorities."

The United Nations, Helen Clark said, now prefers to deal with regionalised blocks of nations. The Pacific Plan was designed to meet this, to pull all the nations of the Pacific into one regionalised identity that will collect together skilled people to work co-operatively to solve the region's problems and challenges, and, advance the region's opportunity in trade.

She said: "The Pacific must not drift back, we need momentum, we need traction and I think it is this sense of immediacy, the need for action, that will be the greatest challenge."

Indeed the Pacific's challenges materialized and the regionalization plan has ground almost to a halt. The so called 'Arc of Instability' still exists from Melanesia in the west through to Fiji and eastward through to Tonga. Fiji's elected government was overthrown by way of military coup, and despite assurances to Pacific leaders by the military regime's commander Frank Bainimarama that free and fair elections would be held by April 1 2009, he this week categorically ruled that out – telling troops in Suva (Fiji's capital) that elections would follow constitutional reform that addresses the needs of non-indigenous Fijians. That, he said could take five or even ten years. And in 2006 Tonga's capital Nukua'lofa exploded in flames a demonstration of how divided the Pacific Islands nation is split between its ruling monarchy and commoners represented by a pro-democracy movement.

If one thing can be learned from the EU's experience, it takes a long time to form a regional body.

The European Union is a regional body and it is mainly driven by common, instead of national, interests. The European regional body began to take shape in 1957 with the formation of the European Economic Union with the signing of the “Treaty of Rome”. The move was designed to put an end to the bloody neighbouring battles that were going on which reached a peak in World War II.

The EU's founding countries were; Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Since 1957 the region’s growth really started to happen, eventually leading to the formation of the European Union in February 1992 at the signing of the Treaty of Maastricht.

The breakdown of communism in middle and eastern Europe brought former foes closer together and the east/west gap started to tighten. Ten years later in 2002 the new currency (EURO) was floated. In 2004 ten more states signed up to the EU. By 2007 the “Treaty of Lisbon” was signed by 27 states but Ireland and the Czech Republic have yet to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon.

Switzerland considered joining the EU in 2001 but was rejected by voters. The result ensured the country's tradition of independence, but allowed Switzerland to sign bilateral treaties of association and economic cooperation with the EU. In 2005 Switzerland approved participation in an EU passport-free zone, which became partially effective in December 2008 and will be fully implimented in March 2009. There is still resistance within Switzerland to allow free access to Romanian and Bulgarian nationals.

The EU is an opportunity for more than 500 million people and founded on four so called “freedoms of transport”:

1. People
2. Goods
3. Service
4. Assets

Citizens of the European Union have the right to move, work and live within other EU member States. The EU body opens up competition, which usually has an impact on prices and selection of goods and services. Companies are able to act on a cross-boarder level.

This kind of regional body seems to work well. Problems cannot be solved solely by an individual state – a body of states has to act together to find possible solutions.

Within the EU, there are common issues but there are clear and definitive differences between each individual state. The uniqueness of French culture and its societal makeup is different to that experienced by Germany. And with respect to immigration differing challenges among respective states require unique solutions.

Let's use the Netherlands, France, Germany and Italy as examples.

The Netherlands political environment has undergone a change in the last few years.

The Prime Minister is Christian Democrat (CDA) Jan Peter Balkenende (since 2002) and was re-elected after a most lacklustre 2006 election campaign.

During the campaign, the international press zeroed in after a right-liberal politician, (PVV) Geert Wilders, focused criticisms against the Netherlands' Islamic community and Muslims abroad.

In the Netherlands, the popular vote continues to trend toward the right wing party.

In 2008, the social opposition lost its charismatic leader, Jan Marjinissen, who had to resign due to health problems. This left the Netherlands with a pot of flaming political issues.

The Netherlands was once one of the most multicultural states in Europe. But that has given way to a more assimilative model.

Traditional nationalistic norms now dominate the political spectrum and cultural diversity and liberalism – once celebrated in the Netherlands - has decreased. A significant driver of change has been an ongoing debate over migration and integration and also the tragic murder of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh in 2004. He was a descendant of celebrated painter Vincent van Gogh's brother and was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri who held both Dutch and Moroccan citizenship. Bouyeri was a member of the Hofstad Network - an organisation of young Dutch Muslims of mainly North African descent. He is currently serving a life sentence without parole.

The Islamic devotee became a real target after that.

Theo van Gogh was using his freedom of expression as a newspaper columnist. He spoke critically about politicians, how Jews had a preoccupation with Auschwitz. Wikipedia notes how Van Gogh rejected every form of religion. In the late 1990s he started to focus on Islam expressing a forthright view that "political Islam" was an increasing threat to liberal western societies.

After his killing, the climate of tolerance in the Netherlands changed significantly.

What happened in the Netherlands? Wouter Bos leader of the Dutch labour party speaks of a: "Fight between freedom of expression and the religious bigot. This could affect the society badly, very badly.”

The picture of the once so tolerant Netherlands is fading away.

Immigrants experience a very hard time. Racist expression has increased and the police often ignore racist attacks.

In Amsterdam alone, the numbers of active Neo-Nazi’s increased tenfold since 2004. The government appears at a loss of what to do – the gap between Dutch and Muslim culture is increasing.

Wouter Bos tried to address the integration issue and made it a top priority on his party's political agenda during the election campaign in 2006. But public support for this was poor and so, politically, the issue got postponed.

When researching Dutch migration issues, it becomes apparent the Dutch government lacks solutions. It has struggled to manage the rise and immigration flow wisely.

This struggle, especially that of integration, continues and intolerance within the population (right wing expression in politics) has hampered moves toward an integrated and harmonious Dutch society.

Problems are now beyond integration. The status quo is segregation, alienation, intolerance and ignorance from all sides. Ironically this worsened due to moves by the Netherlands government to solve cultural intolerance with a kind of non-integration.

Different communities formed by religion, nationality or political allegiance are sticking together, they live in their own community, go to their own schools, have their own newspapers and cultural institutions.

People within Dutch society do not live with each other they live next to each other. Clearly, this is a condition that cannot be sustained. It simply cannot work in today’s pace of the world.

Politically, right populism celebrates its successes, which is surely a condition requiring an urgent problem-solving-solution. Migration isn’t solely a threat nor is it a fuel used to accelerate xenophobia. Migration, in the Dutch experience, is a marriage between pleasant and unpleasant surprises where many struggle to deal with the pace-of-change sweeping the world.

Looking at France it seems to suffer similar problems. The explosive migration issue has been an ongoing debate for years now.

During the election campaign in 2006/2007 Nicholas Sarkozy used this issue as a key political platform for his presidency campaign. He was elected in May 2007, which was a remarkable moment for France and widely celebrated in Europe.

A new era in French politics was born with Francois Fillon becoming Prime Minister and socialist Bernhard Kouchner Minister for foreign and European affairs.

In France today, nine parties are represented in the parliament. The diversity has enlivened France’s political environment. Sarkozy's political approach is a mix between national conservative and populist. He is shaping his political position as a progressive, standing in the centre without any definitive bias for left nor right extremisms. He is a man with great ambitions who has publicly identified his aim and ambition to "tidy up France".

But what does that mean?

France is one of the most xenophobic European states and Sarkozy has been able to push this topic for two reasons.

First, Sarkozy escapes a racist label as he is not ethnically French, but of Hungarian-Jewish background.

Second, he is pragmatic - not far right nor far left - he is centrist which takes heat out of the extremist point of view.

Like today's Netherlands, France suffered great problems of inner security and immigration throughout the 1980s until 1990. The government of the day failed to seek solutions, while migrant communities from North Africa, significantly Algeria, grew in number, the complexities of adaptation intensifying.

Sarkozy entered the political arena as a young dynamic energy ready to progress changes. He wants to make the migration issue a European Union wide priority. Some of his goals are to change the terms of the debate in order to make EU members both more adaptable and consistent when it comes down to dealing with the highly sensitive topic of immigration.

What does Sarkozy’s election really mean for the wider European Union?

Sarkozy advances the concept for a European-wide solution for the region's migration problems. Under Sarkozy, France has introduced tougher policies for asylum seekers seeking entry. Unskilled, low-income immigrants have almost no chance of entry. This is Sarkozy's message to the EU.

In past years France has experienced a high number of immigrants from Algerian, Israel, North Africa and the greater African continent.

Sarkozy's policies demonstrate a belief that France takes the wrong immigrants from the wrong countries, as it is often people that would reject assimilation. It is a strong, and may seem for many a way too harsh approach.

But is Sarkozy correct when he says that people who commit themselves to adapt will not be disadvantaged, as opposed to those who are still tied up in their own cultural and traditional way of life who do not wish to be integrated within France or a European host nation. Does this distinction progress this issue? If so, who benefits, native French citizens? And if so, is Sarkozy right in addressing the needs of traditional French society, preserving cultural identity of his natural constituency over those from outside who happen to be 'guests of France'?

Within France, irrespective of one's political leanings, it is accepted that action is needed so that the divisions of traditional and immigrant cultures reach a balance. It is also accepted the goal will not be achieved in a matter of months but rather years. Progress is at a rudimentary level, solutions are being sought and not left to neglect.

The approach Italy takes is more difficult than that of France and ignores humanitarian rights enjoyed by migrants in most other EU states.

When Silvio Berlusconi was re-elected in early 2008 the Italian citizens witnessed once again a controversial decision. Berlusconi election campaign wallpaper said: “no more illegal immigrants” – he kept that promise and on re-taking office, over 400 people were arrested, most on illegal immigrant charges.

This week, the Guardian and other European agencies reported around 600 migrants and refugees broke out of an overcrowded immigration facility on a Sicilian island. The group was protesting against their treatment on Lampedusa Island where about 2,000 people were crammed into a facility built for 850.

Berlusconi's Italian solution resembled Australia's Pacific Solution under its previous Prime Minister John Howard. From 2001 to 2007 the Australia Federal Government transported asylum seekers to detention camps in remote areas within Australia's desert interior and to Ngaru - a small Pacific island nation. The policy challenged the Australian way of giving a fair go to those in need. On taking office in December 2007, the new prime minister Kevin Rudd concluded the policy on human rights grounds.

Berlusconi promotes the idea that there's a real benefit to Italy from 'the cleansing' of illegal immigrants. Since forming his new government Berlusconi has created distance between the common ideals of the European Union and other member states.

But does Berlusconi's anti-immigration stance ease pressures within contemporary Italian society and should his style of immigration be priority one for Italy?

Italy suffers far worse problems. Historically, the Italian state has failed to function as an effective apparatus giving rise to the Mafia gaining popularity and influence. According to historian Paolo Pezzino: "The Mafia is a kind of organized crime being active not only in several illegal fields, but also tending to exercise sovereignty functions – normally belonging to public authorities – over a specific territory..."

Over the past century, the mafia was able to control, and still does, much of south Italy and northward. It could be argued that Berlusconi targets immigration as a scapegoat against a wider internal security problem. Immigration is a problem, but it pales against the real causes of Italy's traditional insecurities.

Under Berlusconi, Italy stands apart from its EU counterparts advancing its own style of anti-immigrant rhetoric, identifying an Italian-solution, while relegating as ineffective a Europe-wide answer to an EU problem.

Many in Europe feel Berlusconi should work together with the EU state members to find a solution that works for all before accusing illegal immigrants of making the place unsafe. Is it possible that Berlusconi must work first for Italy's cultural traditions and indigenous peoples first? And if so, will this reduce or intensify the xenophobia that exists within Italy's contemporary society?

The case with Germany takes a different approach as the Germans usually see their identity within an economic context. Solutions are found when problems are considered from a beneficial economic viewpoint.

The premise states that where immigration benefits the German economy, the more tolerant native Germans are toward immigrants.

But is that true in times of cultural crisis? It appears that irrespective of one's political position the general feeling among Germans is that alien migrants cause conflicts.

Germany’s chancellor is Angela Merkel (CDU). She won election over Gerhard Schröder’s (SPD) party in 2005. Sixteen parties are represented in the German 16th “Bundestag”.

Angela Merkel pushes the integration issue, which is seen by pundits as a start in dealing with the ongoing migration problems. Integration consists, for example, of language lessons and orientation courses. Immigration has become a very sensitive topic in Germany largely due to the high level of domestic unemployment.

In summary: Throughout history social impact caused by immigration has always existed in one way or another. The 20th century reached its lowest ebb with the two World Wars and a never-ending crisis in the middle east.

Battles and conflict continue to flare throughout the world, insecurity becomes a key issue as does instability. For Europe, the fall of the iron curtain led to increased immigration flows. This has been compounded by a globalised increase in asylum seekers and other migrants. All four of the above discussed countries suffer migration problems. Clearly, solutions to Europe's migration pressure need to be identified before widespread intolerance is no longer able to be contained.

Providing development aid, dept relief, fair trade could be among the solutions. It is evident that conflict and prevention need to be addressed together.

The global financial crisis adds to the pressure: the global economy is weak, unemployment continues to rise and native-born populations see immigrants as competition instead of an opportunity.

According to Amnesty International, one of the main problems that exist in the EU is racial discrimination. Another is the marginalisation of the “Romas – Gypsies” especially in Italy. The east-west abyss still exists even if people and politicians attempt to deny that.

The European Union's history is shaped by migration. But the EU's challenge today is to adapt to its multiculturalism and shape a better living for all its member states and its peoples. Will that be a tolerant egalitarian regional body, or a grouping of individualistic micro-states whose cultures have descended into scapegoatism, victimisation, and segregation?

Former United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, once said: It is not just a matter of opening doors and joining hands internationally, it requires each country to do more to integrate new arrivals.

Annan's message was intended for a global audience and is as relevant to New Zealand, Australia and the nations of the Pacific as it is to Europe.

© Scoop Media