At the height of last summer’s refugee crisis, people across Europe took many personal actions to help. They donated food, blankets and sanitary products to those in need on our doorsteps. Uber drivers, for instance, offered to pick up items for free through UberGiving. Such was the goodwill that aid charities in Brussels even asked people to stop donating clothes, as they could not be sorted fast enough.
Since then, the conflation between economic migrants and refugees has raised questions about how public services can cope, how housing can be found, and how people fleeing to Europe can be better integrated into our communities. There are of course some actions that the state can take, but far more effective will be the thousands of initiatives taken at the community level. If we want individuals and communities to reach out, though, governments should begin by restoring some of the confidence and trust that has been lost.
I fear that many people across the EU have grown more sceptical of refugees following the Paris attacks in November and the crimes that took place in places like Cologne on New Year’s Eve. It is sadly inevitable that the acts of a small number of people are seriously harming the perception of the majority of refugees. In addition, a failure to properly process asylum applications to distinguish between genuine refugees who deserve our help and economic migrants who should be returned to apply through legal migration channels is leading us to struggle. If we can restore trust in the system, so that the people coming to Europe are bona fide refugees, and not a free-for-all of anyone prepared to risk their life, then I believe individuals and communities will want to do more to help.
“Impassioned individuals and grassroots charities are often far better able to understand local problems than top-down state programmes”
I have long been a passionate believer in non-state solutions to poverty. Impassioned individuals and grassroots charities are often far better able to understand local problems than top-down state programmes. In helping to solve some of the big challenges created by the refugee crisis, there has been a lot of talk about grand integration schemes or skills programmes, yet politicians often fail to see the good work already being carried out by charities who might just need a helping hand.
Take housing as an example. The International Federation for Housing and Planning has highlighted that many EU states face housing shortages, especially in the social and affordable sectors of the market. European governments in many cases are too financially stretched to afford to build houses. In addition, we must avoid the ‘ghettoisation’ that resulted from previous state programmes to build mass housing estates. While there may be vacant properties away from population centres, accommodating newcomers in remote areas does not help integration and may lead to stigmatisation.
Non-state solutions, though, are emerging readily. In a number of countries, we find that platforms similar to AirBnB are being used to connect refugees with people offering a home. In Germany and Austria, the platform called ‘Refugees Welcome’ has helped to place refugees in people’s spare rooms, giving them a host family. Of course, there are also good cases of the state providing assistance, such as the local authority of Solna, north of Stockholm, which has an initiative connecting minors with foster homes. Businesses have also helped. Nordic Choice Hotels, one of the largest chains in Scandinavia, have offered 5,000 free nights to refugees. Not a permanent solution perhaps, but it is a far better solution than the alternative of spending a night without any accommodation.
“We must avoid the ‘ghettoisation’ that resulted from previous state programmes to build mass housing estates”
Refugees may be lucky enough to receive housing from the state, but they cannot be given a sense of belonging by the state. That comes from being given a purpose. Projects like CUCULA, the Refugees Company for Crafts and Design, in Berlin claim to do something ‘together with’ refugees, not simply something ‘for them’. In their workshop, they teach refugees how to make furniture, and other skills. The furniture is sold, and the proceeds go towards further training and language classes.
When it comes to different cultures, we need to understand each other better. EU forums on intercultural dialogue that bring together an Imam, a Bishop and a Rabbi are better than nothing. But the best intercultural and interfaith dialogue I experienced was in my school playground, where I had friends of various faiths and of none. Through sharing our experiences and asking questions, we found out far more about each other. It is wonderful to see my children enjoying a similar experience in their playgrounds today. Projects like United Invitations have been created to achieve something similar by enabling people to host a dinner for one or two immigrants or refugees so they can come over for food and a conversation. I have always thought that the greatest cause of our problems in this world is that we do not seek to understand different points of view, so why not bring people in and talk to them?
As an MEP for London, one of the best parts of my job is being able to champion the charities and local community organisations across my home city. I work with anti-radicalisation charities like Tuffs, which uses football to prevent potential Daesh targets from being radicalised. I work with jobs clubs that don’t want a hand out from the state, but maybe an old computer that a company is throwing away. I help a charity called The Feel Good Bakery which turns ‘dope dealers into hope dealers’ using the skills that drug dealers often have in building supply chains and developing a customer base to sell sandwiches! All of these projects do fantastic work without state funding, and as politicians we should do all we can to promote their work, to connect them with people who can help them grow, and to rely on their ingenuity to find solutions.
“The best intercultural and interfaith dialogue I experienced was in my school playground, where I had friends of various faiths and of none”
Rather than complaining or waiting for the government to do something, it is heart-warming to see the many individuals and community organisations that have opened their hearts and homes to newcomers fleeing conflict and persecution. These examples show that many people want to help those who are in genuine need and have fled for their lives. We need to get a grip on the migration and refugee crisis because the “open door regardless of circumstances” approach has undermined confidence. But let us be in no doubt that even if we return economic migrants so they can apply through legal migration channels and only resettle the most vulnerable people from the refugee camps, we will still have a large number of refugees here in need of our help. The answer is not state-built ghettos and top-down integration programmes, but community-led solutions that promote dialogue and understanding.
IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – Rasande Tyskar
The post Successful refugee integration begins with community outreach appeared first on Europe’s World.
This is Thursday’s edition of our Brussels Briefing. To receive it every morning in your email in-box, sign up here.
Happy European Central Bank monetary policy meeting day! It’s the time of the month eurozone economy watchers crowd around their desktop livestreams to find out what new plan Mario Draghi has concocted to revive the region’s growth, since the latest one still doesn’t seem to be working. The problem is that the arrows in Mr Draghi’s economic stimulus quiver are running out, and those that are left all have significant limitations once they’re fired.
Let’s start with a central bank’s most basic tool: lowering interest rates to spur borrowing and investment. In normal times, cutting borrowing costs is a no-brainer. As of December, however, Mr Draghi lowered the ECB’s deposit rate to negative 0.3 per cent. In theory, a negative deposit rate would spur bankers to lend, since leaving the cash in ECB accounts means they’re actually losing money. But so far, there’s been little evidence that logic has taken hold.
Negative interest rates are also difficult politically in the ECB’s host country of Germany, where thriftiness is next to godliness and savings accounts and insurance policies are viewed as important income generators. Lower rates mean lower returns on savings, and cuts in ECB rates are treated with the kind of purple prose and blaring headlines in German tabloids that are normally reserved for celebrity divorces and grisly murders in similar newspapers abroad. Even before the ECB met, the German banking association was out with a statement yesterday saying further interest rate cuts would do “more harm than good.”
Read moreIndian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Brussels for the EU-India summit on 30th March is good news. If both sides play their cards right, the summit could pave the way for a more ambitious, dynamic and adventurous EU-India relationship.
India and the EU need a new conversation, a new focus on shared interests as well as new goals and ambitions. Above all, they need to take a fresh look at each other, replacing tired misperceptions and clichés. The summit should come up with a new EU-India action plan which is short, snappy and action-oriented.
With growth rates of 7.5% according to the World Bank, India now has a more dynamic economy than China. The EU, for all its current malaise, has an interest in exporting and investing more in India and has the technology India needs for its modernisation drive. Above all, opening a new chapter in relations means moving to a ‘beyond trade’ agenda.
“India now has a more dynamic economy than China”
Modi’s high-profile visits to Britain, France and Germany show his focus on national European governments over contacts with the EU. Meanwhile, Europe has spent more time and energy on building a strategy for China than on constructing a stronger relationship with India.
Now it’s time for a more serious conversation on refugees, peace and security in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Terrorism and the threat from ISIS are a common concern. In other areas, the focus must shift to a more practical, pragmatic and operational agenda which seeks to find common ground between Modi’s aspirational modernisation drive and EU initiatives to boost growth and jobs.
India’s new economic programme opens up fresh avenues for increased EU-India synergies that go beyond the two sides’ traditional interaction. This could include cooperation in areas where both sides have a strong economic interest such as infrastructure investments, sustainable urbanisation, renewable energy, innovation and synergies between “Digital India” and the EU’s agenda for a Digital Single Market.
Still, trade matters and negotiations on the Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA) or free trade agreement, under negotiation since 2007, need to restart. If some of the key blockages that brought the talks to a grinding halt in 2013 can be removed in time, the 30th March summit could mark the relaunch of the BTIA negotiations.
“Opening a new chapter in relations means moving to a ‘beyond trade’ agenda”
So far, however, the talks have been like an unending obstacle race, with new problems emerging at every twist and turn. The EU wants a reduction in India’s tariffs on cars, wines and spirits and a stronger regime for the protection of intellectual property. India is unhappy about EU restrictions on temporary movement of skilled professionals and wants data security status so that the thriving IT sector can do more business with European firms.
Such horse-trading is important and Modi and his EU counterparts must give the trade negotiations a much-needed push. But, as John Lennon sang to Yoko Ono all those years ago, having allowed their relationship to stumble and falter, it’s time that India and the EU agreed to start over.
Further readingIMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – Sandeepachetan
The post EU-India relations: time to ‘start over’ appeared first on Europe’s World.
After a 12-hour meeting between the EU and Turkey, a tired-looking Jean Claude Juncker took to the stage after 1am on Tuesday morning and boldly declared that a plan to send back migrants from Greek islands to Turkey was legal.
The European Commission president swiftly tried to bog the even more tired-looking press corps down in legalese. With impressively few glances at his notes, Mr Juncker regurgitated:
Article 33 and 38 of the asylum procedure directive clearly open the way for a solution of this kind. Because article 33, paragraph 2, letter C indicates that a country can refuse to consider a claim if a non-EU country is considered as a safe third country.
But is this true?
Read moreOld definitions of power and security are no longer valid in a globalised and connected world. Previously neglected actors contribute to international political processes and wield the power to disrupt agreements imposed from the top. Rather than merely consulting these individuals and groups, 21st century diplomacy must embrace the collective wisdom to establish more stable and peaceful international relations.
Power has long been based on the number of available guns, missiles, aircraft carriers and the strength of armies. Security policy was decided behind closed doors by serious-looking men in suits or uniforms using acronyms and intricate lingo. Now with cheap, instantaneous communication even in remote regions and live reporting on events via news websites and blogs, this is no longer the case.
“Gone are the days of top-down arrangements”
In today’s multipolar power structure and globalised world economy, security is as much about renewed tensions between NATO and Russia or the ongoing fighting in Syria as it is about cyber warfare, climate change, pandemics and migration. Access to natural resources, not least water, will shape the conflicts of the 21st century. Global warming is already giving rise to tensions in the Arctic, while natural disasters of increasing intensity are escalating pressure on local, regional and national first-responders as well as on NGOs. Climate change is exacerbating existing threats, and requires decisive changes in how political leaders tackle the subject and how governments and organisations manage risk. Military and civilian infrastructure (power grids) are vulnerable to cyber attacks.
The goal of security policy must be to create resilient societies, able to withstand disaster, foreign propaganda or radicalisation, while the disastrous effect of pandemics on international security, societies, political systems and economies has yet to be fully comprehended. Demographics and migration must be looked at on a global scale, avoiding the inconsistent and poorly coordinated reactions that have characterised most European nations’ response to the refugee crisis.
Security will require not only whole-of-government but whole-of-society approaches. Our 21st century security will be inclusive, or there will be no security at all. Gone are the days of top-down arrangements; local, regional and national authorities must work closely with international organisations, NGOs and civil society organisations. The 2015 Nobel Peace Prize anchored the recognition of non-governmental actors in peace processes. The empowerment of citizens through social media initially had a positive impact in enabling the Arab spring uprisings, but the fallout turned out to be messy and dangerous.
“Citizens must be listened to, inspired and empowered to develop and be part of creative solutions”
I will not join the chorus of those prophets of doom heralding a dark age of chaos. The radical changes in who contributes to the global security discussion, who decides and who is held accountable are achievements of recent years. More women are now at the table as well as on the frontlines. The aspirations of youth are being heard, as are their ideas for a more stable world. The rise of regional actors including Iran and an increasingly assertive China may seem threatening but will keep established world leaders on their toes and force a rethink of the global security architecture.
Our 21st century security requires a new type of leadership with vision, courage and tenacity. Citizens must be listened to, inspired and empowered to develop and be part of creative solutions that can bridge divides durably. As the European Union leads consultations on a new Global Strategy, NATO is gearing up to its next summit in Warsaw and the debate on reforming the UN Security Council rages on, it is time for a global conversation on security.
IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – Herman Van Rompuy
The post Collaborative diplomacy for 21st century security appeared first on Europe’s World.
This is Wednesday’s edition of our Brussels Briefing. To receive it every morning in your email in-box, sign up here.
Did Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, engineer her surprise summit deal with Ankara to bolster her chances of winning three key regional elections this weekend? That was the question some of the more cynical European diplomats were asking themselves yesterday as they licked their wounds from what one called a “brutal” 12 hours of summit negotiations, where Ms Merkel essentially rammed through a bilateral deal she reached with her Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu, on the gathering’s eve.
If Ms Merkel had hoped the unexpected agreement – which would have Turkey take back potentially thousands of refugees washing up on Europe’s shores in return for €6bn in aid and a visa-free travel scheme – would be hailed at home and win her political points before the Sunday vote, then she appeared headed for disappointment. Horst Seehofer, head of Ms Merkel’s Bavarian CSU sister party and her most prominent migration critic, was cool to the plan and other nominal allies were even more critical. Marcel Huber, a prominent CSU leader and secretary of the Bavarian regional government, said the visa liberalisation scheme would face “massive resistance” and was “not a matter for consideration”. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung notes the criticism even came from within Ms Merkel’s own Christian Democratic Union.
Read moreGermany’s anti-immigrant Alternative für Deutschland party found itself without a home in the European Parliament on Tuesday after the assembly’s European Conservatives and Reformists group, the political home of Britain’s Tories, gave them a firm push out of the door.
In the tersest of one-sentence statements, the ECR confirmed it had “invited” its two AfD members to leave. Just in case they didn’t get the message, it went on to say that, if they choose to stick around, “a motion will be tabled to expel them” at the next meeting of the group’s executive on April 12.
The decision by the ECR to open its doors to the AfD after the party’s success in the 2014 European Parliament elections was a headache for David Cameron from the start. The move was an embarrassment at a time when the the British prime minister was trying to improve relations with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor who saw AfD as threat to her Christian Democrats on the right.
Read moreFollowing his ‘victory’ in Brussels, UK Prime Minister David Cameron explained outside 10 Downing Street that ‘our plan gives us the best of both worlds.’ This plan not only underlined Britain’s special status, but also that in a reformed Europe, Britain would have ‘full access to the free trade single market, bringing jobs, investment and lower prices.’ The Prime Minister argued that his newly obtained special status meant that ‘we will never join the euro, we will never be part of eurozone bailouts, never be part of the passport-free no border area or a European army or a European super state.’
Crucially, Cameron argued that ‘leaving Europe would threaten our economic and national security.’ Indeed it would. For that reason, it is remarkable that his continental colleagues did not say to him, ‘Dear David, as leaving the Union threatens Britain’s security, we are not willing to discuss a new deal. This is your problem. Full stop.’ As the final deal provides a step towards the European Union’s gradual disintegration, this would have been a better strategy for the Union as a whole. For Cameron, explaining that leaving the Union threatens Britain’s economic and national security would have been a far better strategy than a symbolic deal that cannot for its contents be defended.
“A ‘Leave’ vote suggests that the disintegrated British Empire is still ruling the globe”
Why has Cameron put Britain’s national and economic security at risk? First, for historical, cultural and geographical reasons, the British have always considered themselves special. Second, a ‘Leave’ vote suggests that the disintegrated British Empire is still ruling the globe. Less than a hundred years ago, the British Empire covered a quarter of the globe’s total land area. Beginning with the very costly Boer Wars in the late 19th century, the British saw their position erode. By the start of the 20th century, the United States had begun to challenge Britain’s position. Two world wars brought the British Empire to the verge of bankruptcy, starting the process of decolonisation. What remained was a United Kingdom and a Commonwealth of Nations, a free association of independent states. Now, the United Kingdom itself is under threat. A ‘Leave’ vote will trigger a new debate on Scottish independence. What is left of the British Empire will be a rump state England.
Third, as the British think they are special, they tend to ignore the new geopolitical realities. Until recently, the rise of the United States compensated for Britain’s loss of global influence. But the power of the West as a whole is eroding, leaving nothing to compensate for Britain’s further loss of power. Britain outside the EU could focus more on the Commonwealth of Nations, especially India. But apart from having a seat at the United Nations Security Council, Britain – or the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland after Scottish independence – has little to offer.
“Almost all studies on the economic consequences of Brexit indicate a net loss to the British economy”
Feng Zhongping, the Assistant President of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, has argued that ‘from China’s point of view, we don’t think that the UK, or France, or Germany or any single European country can play a global role. But the EU is different. It is the biggest market, and China’s biggest trade partner. The EU is seen as a major power in the world. If the UK left, it would hurt the UK much more than the EU.’ Feng is right.
Due to budget cuts, the Falklands War of 1982 is a naval operation that cannot be repeated. The Iraq War of 2003 already demonstrated that Britain lacks the capabilities for credible expeditionary warfare. In addition, Brexit will most likely lead to economic stagnation. Almost all studies on the economic consequences of Brexit indicate a net loss to the British economy. As the global economy stagnates and the coming internet-of-things revolution has a negative impact on employment figures, the possible economic gains of a Brexit are likely to be nullified.
A vote to leave the EU threatens Britain’s economic and national security. As David Cameron pledged to hold the referendum during his electoral campaign, Brexit shows again that politicians are willing to put national security at risk for electoral purposes. Cameron can still win the referendum. But as Britain’s former Minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, rightly observed, no major referendum on Europe anywhere in the last 15 years has voted in favour. This is a sobering thought.
IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – <p&p>
The post Cameron’s referendum puts votes before security appeared first on Europe’s World.