Europe on migration wave

Perusing, in particular, the Russian press, one may have a strong impression of the decline – the sunset, if you want – of Europe under the tides of a huge migration wave. Terrifying reports on refugee’s deaths from drowning in the Mediterranean Sea or suffocating in a refrigerator – they should convince the reader or the viewer of the impending apocalypse.

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaking at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok could not help gloating at that problem – a feeling that he did not bother to hide as he pointed at the US as the culprit regarding the Europe’s migrant problem. “We, Russia, and your humble servant personally, have several times told you that misfortunes of a great extent would befall on our so-called Western partners as they pursued their foreign policy in the wrong, as I have always said, direction, especially in the regions of the Muslim world, Middle East, and North Africa; the policy they are continuing to this day... Above all, of course, it’s the policy of our American partners. Europe follows it blindly in the framework of the so-called alliance commitments, and then she is the one to carry the burden.”

According to Putin, the US had destabilized the Middle East, and now Europe has to pay for it – only because she is blindly following the United States. Had she blindly followed Russia, no trouble like this would have happened.

It is not the first time Europe faces the refugee problem. By some estimates, there were about 5 million of refugees and migrants after World War I. The bulk of them had settled in France, although a significant number were accepted by China, the Balkan countries, Turkey, Argentina, and even Australia. At the suggestion of Fridtjof Nansen, Norwegian polar explorer and the High Commissioner for Refugees for the League of Nations, migrants’ passports (also called the Nansen’s passports) were issued for those individuals; the documents had been recognized in 52 countries.

On an even larger scale the problem of refugees and migrants arose after the World War II. More than 50 million people left their homes. And the problem was for the war-torn countries to deal with; those countries did not have the necessary financial resource and the infrastructure was destroyed or damaged. Certainly, it was a very difficult problem to tackle, camps for refugees and displaced persons had existed for more than 10 years. However, that problem was solved like the one before. Afterwards, there were refugees from Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Comparing the problems of the late 1940s with the ones we face today, we must admit that, firstly, the latter unfold on an incomparably smaller scale than the former, and, secondly, there are now many more possibilities for finding an acceptable solution. Indeed, it is impossible to correlate the flow some 800,000 migrants to the EU with millions who had been forced out of home to a foreign land. And there is one more thing where Putin’s insinuations on some evil designs on behalf of the US fail to pass the reality check. The fact is that America has recently adopted more than 11 million migrants granting them some legal status.

There is no doubt that migrants bring problems with them. However, there have been experiences of successfully solving such problems – and even some of reaping new opportunities from the process.

The migrants are mainly young people who are often highly educated. They do not just seek to move to Europe, they want to work and live in normal conditions. Demographic and social situation in most EU countries determines that there are many jobs, which, for example, a German or French would never take. Therefore, the EU has a direct interest in a significant number of migrants. Moreover, their relatively small numbers quite allow realistically accepting and employing them all.

There is another difficulty. Firstly, the process is abrupt and forced. Had it passed more smoothly, had it been more distributed across time and space, the problem would have been much less difficult.

Secondly, Germany and Austria are ready to accept migrants and refugees, but on a condition of their more uniform distribution. According to Berlin and Vienna’s logic this complex problem should involve all EU countries, utilizing the so-called quotas in solving it.

This particular financial and humanitarian circumstance has turned into a political one. There are countries that either refuse to accept any migrants and build fences at the borders, like Hungary, and there are some, like Slovakia, who are willing to accept only Christian refugees. The Baltic countries are not ready to take on a certain number of refugees determined by Brussels.

The eastern and southern parts of Europe are seriously concerned about a possible migrant surge and the fact that they might not be able to cope with any future intake. On the one hand, one cannot refuse people fleeing a war – it is a basic humanitarian reasoning. On the other, material and social infrastructure is somewhat limited in the small territory of the EU countries. Thus one should consider their options.

In this regard, there was an urgent informal meeting of the EU countries’ defense ministers in Luxembourg dedicated to the migration crisis – the ministers discussed the implementation of the second phase of EUNAVFOR Med – the EU Naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea. It anticipates the confiscation and destruction of smugglers’ boats on which the refugees are being ferried to the European shores. In Gymnich, near Cologne, the directors of the EU diplomatic missions are meeting to develop a common approach to handle the asylum-seekers.

The problem is now growing beyond the scope of the European policy – it has been included in the agenda of the UN Security Council. Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said that the draft resolution on a possible third phase of EUNAVFOR Med, which might involve some enforcement action, was a work in progress. She also urged the defense ministers of the EU counties to move on to the second phase of EUNAVFOR Med, which was to arrest the ships carrying migrants.

But there is no ground for a suggestion that the refugee problem might split Europe apart or lead to the collapse of the Schengen agreement, despite the problem’s complexity. There have always been tensions between European countries, as there will always be – nevertheless, these tensions will never break up the EU – though the European politicians might be seriously unnerved with them.

In one way or another, the migrants and refugees problem affects Ukraine as well. Our country has a lot of internal migrants who were forced from their homes due to an external aggression.

There is another issue that concerns the possibility of a visa-free regime with the EU. Though there were some remarks in that regard from senior officials of the organization – particularly Jean-Claude Juncker, European Commission president, has said in Brussels during a joint press conference with President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko: “There’s no link between visa-free travel, as far as Ukraine is concerned, and the migration issue. As soon as Ukraine fulfills all the requirements set by the European Commission [in the Action Plan on visa liberalization – Ed.], and given the commission’s positive assessment, I don’t doubt for a second the member states will approve visa-free travel.” Poroshenko for his part has stressed that “Ukraine in terms of migration will not be a problem for any of the European countries.”

Nevertheless, Kyiv should hurry with the implementation of the European Commission’s requirements and try to get the visa-free regime by the end of the year or at least in the very early 2016. After all, no one knows how the war in Syria will unfold, and to what extent the Russian aggression in Donbas will develop.