Problem Statement and Recommendations
The growing influx of Mid-East refugees into Europe, particularly in last five years, cannot be overemphasized. The mass uprisings, civil wars and political persecution are leading causes for current refugee crisis. The path made by refugees into Europe's heart is, if anything, a major logistical issue, apparently minor but is at core of current refugee crisis. As Mid-East asylum seekers and refugees continue to pour into European countries and across borders, European security is at stake at multiple levels. First, "source" countries – i.e. countries at Europe's southern borders at which refugees first set foot from countries of origin – pose imminent risk for controlling borders in Schengen area. By having more lax border control mechanisms (primarily for lack of proper funds, experience in handling refugee issues, unprecedented scale of refugee influx or all combined), countries at Europe's southern borders represent gateways for uncontrolled, undocumented and, possibly (as has been revealed in recent investigations of Paris and Belgium Attacks), terror and crime networks. Second, by receiving, unwilling, masses of refugees (mostly not properly documented), receiving countries, particularly Germany, are set for political, social and economic negative developments as new "immigrants" face integration challenges in new "host" countries. Third, from a foreign policy perspective, opting for receiving (or not) refugees is apt to evoke moral endorsement (but political, social and economic pains) or raise tensions between European countries, as is best illustrated recently between Germany and Hungary.
This refugee crisis in Europe can be better managed by European Commission, EU's executive organ, by adopting specific policies over short, medium and long ranges. In short range, transit centers should be set up at Europe's southern borders. These centers – funded by major European economies, particularly Germany – should help control refugee influx at source countries. In medium range, European Commission should review international aid practices offered to origin countries of refugees. The review process should channel funds such as to cater for new developments in a more complex, interconnected world characterized by dynamic flow of people across borders. This can be achieved by offering funds for specific vulnerable segments in local communities. In long range, current approaches to integration in Europe should change. Today, narrow nationalism and pure Europeaness can guarantee far-right, short-range gains but are far from achieving long-range stability in a world becoming increasingly interconnected and diverse.
The Rationale
The short-range policy component European Commission needs to adopt is justified by an unprecedented influx of immigrants from Mid-East and North Africa countries. Given current situation, immigration influx can run out of control, let alone posing major security challenges, if not managed properly. There is no denying Germany's "offer" to host scores of asylum seekers and refugees is a commendable effort (albeit one showing to be increasingly politically expensive and socially unacceptable because of recent attacks by Syrian refugees on German women on New Year's Eve). However, setting up special transit centers – at source countries – should help control immigrant influx more properly ("Refugee Crisis"). These centers should, of course, adopt for reference EU Civil Protection Mechanism ("Refugee Crisis") but should, as well, be complemented by a proper combination of humanitarian aid, security checks and EU Member State collaboration. Specifically, by coordinating humanitarian aid offered to refugees, European Commission, via transit center arms, can optimize delivered aid. Instead of offering ad hoc aid based on crisis, current unfolding refugee crisis requires more streamlined efforts for more effective outcomes. The pictures coming in of refugees fleeing all sorts of violence and discrimination at home and crossing southern European borders in very harsh weather and living conditions attest to, if anything, an absence of a consistent, integrated policy capable of managing mass-scale influx of refugees and asylum seekers for short periods, let alone for extended periods. The stranded situation scores of refugees are now experiencing further highlight deeper issues of border control between and across EU countries. In spite of having a common Schengen area, EU countries exhibit notable differences in managing refugee crisis as is best shown by most recent fallout between Hungary and Germany over handling a fresh batch of Syrian refugees. The creation of transit centers is, however, apt to better optimize humanitarian aid delivered to refuges and asylum seekers already in Europe but not settled or relocated in a permanent status.
Further, properly managed – and, for that matter, funded – transit centers should set up, at least more effectively, frontline checkpoints by which refugees and asylum seekers should pass in order to process applications and handle cases one by one. The failure to abide by laws and regulations for screening at proposed centers should put non-abiding refugees and asylum seekers at risk of arrest and immediate deportation. In so balancing law enforcement, security and humanitarian aid, European Commission can project an image of responsible, secure and humane Europe.
Transit centers can also play a major role in enhancing collaboration between EU Member States. By sharing intelligence, offering assistance and working out policy frameworks in managing transit centers, EU Member States can better foster institutional understanding and collaboration. The projected success of transit centers would, hopefully, initiate efforts at national and local levels to better handle resettled refugees and asylum seekers based on shared learning outcomes.
The medium range policy component European Commission needs to adopt is justified by current imbalances in EU aid offerings to countries of origin. The "investments" made by EU in countries of origin are not funneled into proper channels of needful communities. If anything, EU is delivered, mainly, to governments which, given a long history of non-transparent practices, abuse funds and, usually, switch initial purposes (fundamentally developmental) into politically motivated ones. The EU has been delivering assistance for several years with little effect on ground. The recent refugee and asylum seeker crisis has placed extra burden on EU (and, for that matter, individual Member States) only to highlight how ineffective current economic assistance mode straining EU both nationally and internationally.
The economic assistance, at national and international levels, should, accordingly, be reviewed based on current developments and, more so, due to broader developments in concepts of nationalism, international relations and economic development in an age of globalization. Consistent to long-range priorities of European Agenda on Migration – (1) Reducing the incentives for irregular migration, (2) Saving lives and securing the external borders, (3) Strengthening the common asylum policy, (4) Developing a new policy on legal migration ("European Agenda on Migration") – as well as European Commission's role of setting a objectives and priorities for action and representing EU outside Europe ("About the European Commission"), a new international EU aid program should be as agile as possible and based on rapidly unfolding developments instead of fixed offerings which continue to prove ineffective, let alone expensive. True, international relations and cooperation has long been based on stability and long-standing bilateral and multilateral relationships. The response by UN to current refugee crisis is, however, a clear example of how ineffective international organizations have become in face of challenges growing more global in scale. The European Commission, as EU's executive branch, should, accordingly, be more flexibly responsive both nationally and internationally in providing aid. This agility can be achieved by renegotiating terms and conditions of offering international assistance. By combining economic development and proper security measures, EU can guarantee – at countries of origin – aid is delivered conditionally. More international aid can be promised only if proper security measures are adopted to protect against possible illegal penetrations of refugees into EU countries.
At a national level, European Commission should, in reviewing international aid, develop a comprehensive policy framework aimed at liaising aid delivered by individual Member States. In an age of increasingly interconnected webs of economic, political and social interests, European Mission's role should cater for European interests well beyond European borders. The economic aid EU delivers to countries of origin should, moreover, shift from a perspective based on "cashing" economic crises at countries of origin into a more sustainable one based on economic development abroad (i.e. outside EU) and safety and security in EU.
The long range policy component European Commission needs to adopt is justified by a need for Europe to re-consider her identity in light of demographic, social, economic and political developments.
For one, Europe has experienced differential waves of immigrants over decades. In order to cater for economic and social needs, immigrants from Mid-East and North Africa have been brought in on a "temporary basis". The underlying rationale for hiring foreign workers – mainly in sectors and jobs regarded by "native" Europeans as "menial" or low-paid – was to bring in workers only to fulfill specific economic roles in predetermined economic structures. The "temporary" status changed, over years, into a permanent one as more and more workers settled in, brought families from countries of origin or married into native Europeans. The implications for individual European countries – prior to more solid steps into EU formation – have been under radar and each country had her share of different migration woes. By further consolidating EU policy frameworks and mechanisms, immigrant issues continued to surface more as each EU Member State has had to handle different immigrant makeup and status, let alone local political, economic and social implications connected to legal immigration and integration policies. The examples are numerous, both different and similar. In France, Algerian and Moroccan workers were imported as cheap labor in order to fill in gaps of construction jobs after WW II. The Netherlands has her share as well of immigrant workers, particularly in agricultural sector. Germany, witnessing an economic boom, few years after WW II, imported Turkish workers to perform low-paid jobs in manufacturing and construction. The stories of workers brought in from Mid-East and North Africa share a common banner of Temporary Statue. Meanwhile, each country had to cater for a broad range of cultural, economic, political and social issues which, by default, are different for each country.
The later wars in Iraq and Afghanistan brought in new "breeds" of immigrants in large numbers. In contrast to more strict refugee and asylum-seeking policies in earlier periods, Europe – affected by a global change in human rights and internal law practices – has had to handle new waves of non-economic immigrants who, arriving in very stressful conditions and fleeing violence and war at home, needed both immediate and long-range assistance. Compared to older waves of economic workers, refugees hailing from Iraq and Afghanistan highlighted integration problems in European communities. Brought in hurriedly and under stressful conditions, newer waves of refugees and asylum seekers became unfair playgrounds for political jockeying over which far-right and progressive, liberal parties contend for short-range political gains. If economic workers of earlier waves became, more or less, part of new host countries (albeit banlieu as in France), more recent waves refugee and asylum seekers are not only fresh but also radically different in adaptation mechanisms, let along integration dynamics into, new, host communities. The political streak in refugee and asylum seeker debates has been complemented by a fair share of social, economic and cultural debates. The "Way We Live" has gradually been projected into European foreground. Put differently, in addition to historical debates – and government-sponsored integration programs – cultural and social issues have come to assume center stage in debates about not only immigration policies but, more significantly, about fundamental questions on identity, nationalism and, not least, EU.
Needless to emphasize, most recent waves of unprecedented migration on European soil have not only added more fuel to long-standing debates but also further accentuated Europe's questions about identity. Thus, in proposing fresh approach to integration policies, one only emphasizes rapid changes EU needs to cater for in handling a long-standing issue which, if left not handled or not as quickly as should be, could worsen current situation. Tellingly, in a small German village, Eisenärzt, Syrian refugees are not particularly welcome in a community cherishing centuries-old history and conventions (Angelos). In an ironic development of events, Germany – one of Europe's least diverse countries – has opted to host scores of Syrian refugees and asylum seekers only to suffer political, economic and social consequences.
In response, EU, represented in European Commission, is strongly recommended to review existing integration policies which have not proven successful for earlier waves of immigrants and are more likely to be even more unsuccessful in handling, let alone integrating, fresh waves of resettled immigrants (an uphill effort as is). The new proposed integration policies should, above anything else, embrace a broader perspective of European identity. Currently, existing policies appear to be deeply rooted in historical assumptions about a unified European identity. This is particularly clear in Germany's case. In order to propose new changes into current integration policies, representatives from immigrant minorities should be more visible in integration programs by increasing financial and non-financial resources and remaking integration from a problem which needs to be solved once and for all into an evolving situation reflecting a community's health (or not) in handling diversity in a world defined less by clear ethnic and geographical boundaries and more by more effective inclusion and integration politics.
Works Cited
"About the European Commission." European Commission. European Union, 15 January 2016. Web. 16 April 2016.
Angelos, James. "The New Europeans." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 6 April 2016. Web. 16 April 2016.
"European Agenda on Migration." European Commission. European Union, 29 October 2015. Web. 16 April 2016.
"Refugee Crisis." European Commission. European Union, 10 March 2016. Web. 16 April 2016.
