The Tide is Turning

Thoughts on impact of mass-scale immigration on Europe and rise of right-wing nationalist parties in European Elections

(Originally Published in The Nation on 16th June, 2014)

On 31st of May, 2014, more than 3000 migrants from North Africa reached the shores of Italy. Most of the refugees, using boats to cross the Mediterranean Sea, had arrived from Syria. In 2011, the number of illegal border-crossing detections in the European Union (EU) jumped by 35% to 1, 41,000 as thousands of Tunisians arrived at Italian island of Lampedusa after the start of ‘Arab Spring’. This exodus from Africa continued in 2012-13 due to the uprising in Libya and Syria. In 2013, a boat carrying 360 people from North Africa to Italy capsized in the Mediterranean Sea. It was not a solitary event and similar accidents have been reported in the last five years. In 2012, 51% of migrants entering the EU illegally did so via Greece. This prompted the Greek authorities to construct a barbed-wire fence at the Greek-Turkish border.

According to the Dublin Regulation in European Union’s Law, entry-point states bear unilateral responsibility for migrants. The law stipulates that asylum seekers must remain in the first European country they enter, and that country is solely responsible for examining migrants’ asylum applications. Migrants who travel to other European Union (EU) states face deportation back to the EU country they originally entered. In Italy, migrants face fines and deportation under the Bossi-Finni Immigration law enacted in 2002, which stipulates that migrants must secure work contracts before entering the country. According to the law, illegal migration is a punishable offense in Italy.

The great economic recession that engulfed United States in 2008 affected many countries in Europe as well. The first to fall was Ireland in 2007-08, followed by Spain, Greece, Italy, Iceland, France and Portugal. Economic disparity reached new heights while the number of jobless people was on an all-time high. The Eurozone crisis was blamed on trade imbalance between countries in Northern Europe and Southern Europe.

In November 2008, the European Commission presented the European Economic Recovery Plan which aimed at promoting austerity and decreased government spending in the affected countries. Following the recession, there is a significant decrease in confidence faced by European Institutions and according to data from Eurobarometer, levels of mistrust towards the European Commission escalated from 27% to 47% in the period between 2007 and 2013.

Results of the latest round of European Elections should be evaluated in the backdrop of increased immigration and financial crisis. Far-Right nationalist parties witnessed a surge in their vote share and were able to win a few seats in different countries in the European Union. From among 751 electoral seats in the EU parliament, far-right or euroskeptic parties were able to win 108 seats, compared to 56 seats in the previous election. Countries where Euroskeptic parties made inroads included Germany, France, United Kingdom, Poland, Greece, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Austria. Major political parties across Europe did not place too much importance on these elections and a sharp decline in number of voters was seen.

Judy Dempsey-an expert on European politics at Carnegie endowment for International peace-was of the view that “the turn out continues to decline [in the EU elections]. This time around, the recent economic crisis has fed into this sense of disillusionment with Europe and boosted Euroskeptic parties across the continent. The two most prominent are Britain’s UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) and France’s Front National. It must be said that mainstream parties standing for European parliament have not done the kind of grassroots campaigning necessary to defend Europe. In contrast, the nationalist/populist parties are exploiting this weakness with their own high-profile campaigning. They are well-organized and highly motivated, and they are able to sell a very clear message.”

Founder of France’s ‘Front National’ party suggested prior to the elections that “releasing the deadly Ebola Virus could sort out Europe’s immigration issue in three months”. A neo-Nazi party called ‘Golden Dawn’ in Greece vows to “rid Greece of Filth” and a good number of members of the party are in prison for hate-crimes against immigrants.
In the last few months, Russia and its annexation of parts of Ukraine, has threatened to bring war to Europe, after relative peace for the last 70 years. Russia is the main supplier of Natural gas to Europe and a conflict can lead to serious energy crisis in European countries including Germany. Presence of far-right parties in the European parliament is not going to cause too much trouble for the European populace because of limited powers of legislation. The maximum that can be achieved by the nationalist fringe is ‘nuisance value’ during legislation.

Due to unexpected results in the elections, multiculturalism and integration have been deemed to fail in European societies. It is far too early to mourn the demise of an idea as big as multiculturalism. Societies across Europe are changing at a sluggish pace and it would still take many decades to integrate migrants from places that are less developed socially and economically in the diverse native cultures. The far-right/nationalist movement is a reactionary enterprise and would defeat itself in the near future.

No More Chicken, Kiev?

Thoughts on the crisis in Ukraine, along with some contemporary history of the region.

(Originally Published in The Nation on 30th June, 2014)

Contrary to popular belief in Pakistan, the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was not brought to its knees by Afghan Mujahideen supported by our boys. Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies of Glasnost (meaning ‘openness’) and perestroika (restructuring) and his reorientation of Soviet strategic aims led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Last Soviet Soldier left Afghanistan in 1989, while Estonia had declared Independence from the Soviet Union in November 1988 and a pro-communist government was incharge in Kabul till 1992. The Berlin wall was not brought down by Afghan and Arab ‘Mujahideen’. Considering these essential facts, the fallacy of “destroying a superpower” seems shallow as a puddle. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan emerged as Independent states.

Ukraine is the largest country within Europe according to area and the sixth largest European country by population. Census data from 2001 revealed that 78% of people living in the country were Ukrainians in ethnicity while 18% were ethnically Russian. Till 2004, Ukraine was a semi-presidential republic. In 2004, Viktor Yanukovych, the incumbent Prime Minister, was declared winner of the presidential elections, while the Supreme Court ruled the election to be rigged. The massive rigging caused a national outcry in support of opposition candidate Victor Yushchenko. It led to the “Orange Revolution” which resulted in a re-vote ordered by Ukraine’s Supreme Court, resulting in victory for Yushchenko. He remained President till 2010, when Viktor Yanukovych was elected President after the elections. During the ‘Orange Revolution’, Yanukovych was supported by Russia.

In November 2013, protests broke out in the country after President Yanukovych’s government rejected a far-reaching accord with the European Union, in favor of stronger ties with Russia. Thousands of people thronged into Central Kiev for peaceful protests. They occupied Independence Square, known as ‘Maidan’. The anger was fuelled by perceptions of political corruption and alleged links between the government and super-rich oligarchies. Police launched a brutal raid on student protestors, images of which spurred more people to join the protests. In January 2014, the Ukrainian parliament passed anti-protest laws which were later repealed. On 22nd January, two protestors died after clashes with the police. Protestors seized government buildings the following day in western Ukrainian cities. Prime Minister Mykola Azarov resigned on 28th January. The next month, violent clashes erupted in Kiev while the Speaker of Parliament refused to initiate debate on changing the Constitution. More than 77 people were killed and hundreds wounded due to a stand-off in Kiev.

President Yanukovych fled to southern Russia and the Ukrainian Parliament voted to remove him from his post. A national election followed in May, leading to the victory of Petro Poroshenko, a pro-European candidate. Mr. Poroshenko was known as the ‘Chocolate King’ as he owned the Roshen confectionary group. He was one of the leaders of the 2004 Orange Revolution and participated in the ‘Maidan’ movement in Kiev.
It is worth consideration that the protests against President Yanukovych were strongest in the Kiev area and Western Ukraine, where there is a greater affinity with Europe, rather than in the Russian-speaking East and South. Ukrainians in the East, working in heavy industry that supplies Russian markets, were fearful of losing their jobs if Ukraine moved closer to the European Union. Collapse of Government authority during the last few days of February 2014, led to a secession crisis in Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula which has a significant ethnic Russian population. Following the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774, Crimea had been annexed by the Russian Empire. Armed Russian soldiers began moving into Crimea on 28th February, 2014.

The ‘Maidan’ protestors had ‘started the fire’ by taking over government buildings and establishing ‘local authorities’. “After Yanukovych’s removal, it became the turn of the opponents of the Maidan,” Nicolai N. Petro, wrote in a magazine called, ‘The National Interest.’ Local representatives from the East and South convened in Kharkov and assumed all political authority until “legitimate political authority” in Kiev was restored. The Crimean delegation took the lead, seeing an opportunity to restore the autonomy that Kiev had largely taken away from them in 1998. But when the interim government in Kiev told them they could not hold a referendum on autonomy within Ukraine, and tried to replace those in charge of local security forces, the Crimean parliament declared independence and changed the wording of the referendum—altering the language from “staying within Ukraine” to “joining Russia.”
The Donbass followed a similar scenario. In March, local authorities in Lugansk asked Kiev to ensure the rights of Russian speakers and disarm its militias. When the interim government ignored these requests, those most impatient and distrustful of Kiev occupied government buildings in Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkov, and organized a referendum for creating local republics that stopped short of asking to join Russia. In many areas in the region, a majority of those who voted were overwhelmingly in favor of regional sovereignty.

Faced with the problems of stabilizing the economy and keeping the country together, President Poroshenko has tried to steady the ship since assuming power. He signed the European Trade Association Agreement, which was the bone of contention for the previous regime. Experts believe that this agreement would benefit the Western and Central parts of Ukraine but workers in Eastern Ukraine will suffer because the country’s free trade access with Russia will be revoked. In his inaugural address, Mr. Poroshenko affirmed that the Ukrainian language will continue to remain the national language (despite the fact that 83 percent of journals, 87 percent of books, and 44 percent of television programs in Ukraine are solely in Russian, compared to 28 percent solely in Ukrainian) and that aspirations towards regional autonomy would not be tolerated by Kiev.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has overtly supported the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine and it is feared, rightfully so, that the current fiasco can lead to the breakup of the country along ethnic and linguistic lines.