By Michael Brendan Dougherty
Monday, June 19, 2017
The European Union announced this week that it would
begin proceedings to punish Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic for their
refusal to accept refugees and migrants under a 2015 scheme the E.U. commission
created. The mission’s aim was to relieve Greece and Italy of the burden from
migrant waves arriving from the Middle East and Africa, largely facilitated by
European rescues of migrants in the Mediterranean.
The conflict between the EU and these three nations of
the Visegrád Group is not just about the authority the EU can arrogate to
itself when facing an emergency (one largely of its own making), but about the
character of European government and society in the future. It is hard not to
conclude that the dissenting countries are correct to dissent. Hungary, the
Czech Republic, and Slovakia had voted against the 2015 agreement. Poland’s
government had supported it then, but a subsequent election saw a new party
come into power that rejected the scheme.
There is no doubt that Italy and Greece are under strain.
This week the mayor of Rome, Virginia Raggi, pleaded with the Italian
government to stop the inflow of people to her city. Raggi is a member of the
Five Star Movement a Euroskeptic and anti-mass-migration association. Her
election was a distress signal in itself, sent by the electorate. And Raggi has
sent another such signal to Italy’s government, saying that it is “impossible,
as well as risky to think up further accommodation structures.”
But the EU’s plan to impose sanctions on Eastern Europe
has been met by unusually frank talk from dissenters there. Mariusz Błaszczak,
the interior minister of Poland, said in an interview that taking in migrants
would be worse than facing EU sanctions. “The security of Poland and the Poles
is at risk” by taking in migrants, he said, “We mustn’t forget the terror
attacks that have taken place in Western Europe, and how — in the bigger EU
countries — these are unfortunately now a fact of life.”
The Polish government certainly has the wind of
democratic support at its back. The truth is that the majority in nearly every
European country says that migration
from Muslim countries into Europe should be slowed down or stopped entirely.
In Poland, less than 10 percent of respondents disagree with the statement that
“all immigration from majority Muslim nations should be stopped.”
When public sentiment runs so strongly this way, and the
sentiment of the political class runs the other way, coercive measures such as
sanctions become inevitable. But that coercion may be dangerous to the
continuation of the European project.
This week, former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus
issued a fiery denunciation of the EU’s scheme: “We are protesting the attempt
to punish us and force us into obedience.” He said that his nation should
prepare itself to exit the European Union altogether. But he also took all the
subtext hiding behind refugee politics and made it explicit. “We refuse to permit
the transformation of our country into a multicultural society . . . as we
currently see in France and in Great Britain.”
In the past year, Western European politicians often
scolded Eastern European governments for retreating from European values, “the
open society,” and democracy. And Eastern Europeans on social media just as
often threw that rhetoric back in their face. Which looked more like an open
democratic society, Paris with its landmarks patrolled by the military — or
Krawkow, with its Christmas market unspoiled by the need for automatic weapons?
The Eastern European governments are right to reject the
farcical 2015 scheme. First because it is based on so many lies. Western
Europe’s policy on “refugees” has been dishonest from beginning to end. The
vast majority of people arriving are not fleeing war in Syria or Iraq. They are
coming from Chad, Afghanistan, and Eritrea, and they are looking for economic
opportunity in Europe.
There’s also the fact that Germany, France, and Britain
already have Islamic and immigrant ghettos that can incorporate — that is, hide
— new migrants. The settlement of these migrants in Poland, Hungary, and the
Czech Republic means the establishment of new ghettos, against the wishes of
current residents and a crashing tsunami of public opinion.
The security concerns are very real. Terrorists such
Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the mastermind of the 2015 attacks at the Bataclan theater
and other spots in Paris, have used the migrant flow to escape detection when
returning from Syria to commit jihadi violence in Europe. And even if immediate
danger is not imminent, Eastern European leaders have noted that once European
communities accepted small numbers of immigrants, the demand for accepting more
only grew.
Surely, Eastern European leaders have noticed that
incorporation of Muslim populations in Western Europe creates new demands on
the government, both in social services and in policing. Germany and Sweden
must now cope with a giant flow of unskilled labor into economies that have no
demand for unskilled labor by people who haven’t acquired the native language.
Britain and France must cope with their immigrant communities by building an
ever larger and more invasive security state, one that is straining to cope
with the number of known radicals. Richer nations such as France and Britain
can afford and are habituated to the domestic surveillance that grows with
“multiculturalism.”
What Eastern European countries see is that in the past
three decades, Western European countries have elected to import religious and
racial divisions into their society. The early returns are bad enough to
dissuade them from imitating their neighbors to the west.
The threats from bureaucrats in Brussels are also
counterproductive. After all, Eastern Europe has some recent historical
experience of officious government employees who think that population
transfers are just part of getting on board with the ideological project the
future demands.
Right now, the Western European political class can
continue to blame and threaten their Eastern European partners. But perhaps
they should see the resistance from Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as
a warning, just like Brexit, or the rise of populist parties. A course
correction is desperately needed. And politicians can push a recalcitrant
public for only so long.
No comments:
Post a Comment