Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
For years, skeptics warned of multiple threats to the European project. The strains of the single currency, they said, would rip it apart. Excessive regulation was another concern, along with lack of democratic accountability. Some felt Europe's different peoples were just too different.
The reality, of course, has turned out to be much less complex. As real estate brokers say, it's all about location. Europe is, quite simply, in the wrong place at the wrong time. And the consequences may rip it apart.
If the escalating migration crisis of the last year has shown anything, it is that geography really, really matters. The Middle East - or more accurately, a handful of countries within it - is on fire. Many people who live there quite reasonably want to leave. And mainland Europe is the closest, richest and safest place for them to go.
At the same time, tens of thousands are also leaving often much more stable countries in Africa, heading north in the hope of better opportunity.
Some countries - particularly the United States, Australia and Canada, and to a lesser extent Britain - have the advantage of distance. Getting there is hard. America and Australia sit behind vast oceans that allow them to pick and choose who can legally cross their borders. Potential migrants can be made to wait 40 years if necessary, while their paperwork is processed. Even the English Channel - a mere 26 miles wide - is remarkably difficult to swim, as more than a few migrants have discovered. And small boats to help the journey - and the necessarily corrupt crews to man them - are much less available than in the Mediterranean.
Mainland Europe, though, is stuck. It cannot find a moral reason to stop people arriving because one does not exist. "Keeping Europe's riches for Europe" is an understandable sentiment, but not particularly inspiring. Nor is it going to be easy or even possible to erect enough fences to stop migrants. And the speed with which new migrants arrive - particularly once spring comes to the Mediterranean - makes immediate integration impossible and politically divisive problems inevitable.
Largely as a result, it's a toxic time to be a leader. For now, German Chancellor Angela Merkel remains the linchpin of the continent. Her position, though, now looks far more assailable; some analysts believe she could fall within the year. Today, in almost every country, political elites look much less capable of handling worsening problems - even if French elections showed far-right extremists making significantly fewer gains than many had feared.
Strains are inevitably building - with events such as the Paris attacks and New Year's Eve assaults in Cologne adding fuel to the fire. Only a tiny minority of migrants might be militants or other troublemakers, but with such great numbers arriving, incidents are inevitable and so is the backlash.
Several countries have taken the once unthinkable step of effectively suspending the Schengen Agreement allowing borderless movement within Europe. Austria recently announced it was imposing unilateral limits on the number of asylum seekers it would take. Several other countries including Germany, Hungary and Sweden have also imposed additional controls.
For Mediterranean countries - particularly Greece and Italy - that means pulling people from the waves at considerable expense, and then nudging them on to wealthier northern countries more able to absorb them. For Germany, it means trying to take enough migrants to make the moral case for other countries to do their fair share. For Britain and the United States, it means sitting behind their coastlines, picking and choosing the refugees they want while condemning everyone else for not doing more - a somewhat hypocritical approach, however many refugees they ultimately allow in.
This year Britain faces a referendum on whether or not it will stay in the European Union. For now, the best argument for staying is that by doing so, Britain has a better chance of influencing events. The worse things get, however, the more likely a "no" vote will become.
Merkel's decision last year to promise asylum to any Syrians who could reach Germany now looks like an error that might be encouraging some of the flood. By the same token, then, the more potential migrants believe Europe will shut its doors, the more sense it makes to for them to move now.
As more migrants arrive, it's hardly surprising that some Europeans are asking what right they have to the welfare systems they did nothing to build. It's a dangerous argument, though. Those arriving from Middle East conflict zones might equally complain that Western foreign policy helped create the wars they flee - although arguably, the mainland European countries bearing the brunt of the crisis are less to blame.
Stabilizing the Middle East, of course, would reduce the pressure on Europe. What is most striking about the current crisis, however, is that the conflict-affected countries providing the bulk of the migrants - Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan in particular - are precisely those where Washington and its allies have exerted the greatest effort in recent years trying to create stability.
Europe is still, it's worth remembering, one of the world's best places to live when it comes to life expectancy, rights and access to benefits. Its institutions - particularly the EU and NATO - have kept the peace of a previously ludicrously violent continent for more than seven decades. As long as that remains the case, then, that stability will be part of the problem - the reason why so many people in the rest of the world want to get there.
That stability, however, is not guaranteed. The 1930s remind us of just how unpleasant the continent can become when populism and xenophobia run rampant. And even without that, the resurgence of Cold War-style strains with Russia mean state-on-state war in Eastern Europe is once again not entirely unthinkable.
One thing is for sure, though - history isn't quite done with Europe yet. And the years to come may well be as tough as anything in recent memory.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016. Click For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
19 Comments
Login to comment
JeffLee
Saudi is closer, and the Gulf States are roughly the same distance. Western Europe DOES, however, have the best welfare systems.As for "safety," those rubber raft voyages certainly aren't safe.
commanteer
One sentence blames Europe for interference in the Mid-East, and fair enough. The next sentence seems to suggest that interference is needed. The writer didn't say the Middle East needs to stabilize, he chose a verb form that suggests stabilization from the outside.
And then he brings up xenophobia, when Europe is one of the least xenophobic places on the planet. That's why they are having problems they have now. You want xenophobia? Try talking to the refugees. They have loads of it, and they act on it.
Spanki
The European model is bound to fail as long as it's so easy for outsiders to take advantage of it. European politics has just got too liberal for it's own good because to say no to outsiders looks racist. Madness.
Black Sabbath
HAAAAA haaaa haaaa haa ha haaa haaaa. Oh my.
No, we can't really stop people from coming into the US without grinding our international trade to a stop.
Once they get here, its relatively easy to catch them. If we wanted to. Just fine and jail anyone who hires an illegal immigrant.
Todd Topolski
Actually there is a moral reason to keep violent invaders out of Europe. This author is being dishonest to claim denial of entry is somehow hoarding riches. The fact is a government is obgligated morally, to protect it's people. It is in fact immoral to create conditions such has rampant rape all in the name of allowing the rapists in. The refugees are themselves part of the culture that created groups like Isis. It is they who are responsible for their own situation, they could evolve their culture into the,21st century where all people are respected and free. They chose to have a 7th century culture of violence and slavery ruled by theocracy. Europe simply refuses to choose the moral path, because like most governments, moral is hard. Easy is letting the rapists in, then punish the victims for complaining, that's easy. Telling refugees to fix their own countries, that's hard and the hard path Is usually the right choice.
nath
Of course there is. But what's the 'moral reason' behind keeping non-violent refugees out of Europe?
John-San
Sweden are sending back 80,000 illegal immigrants ? This is a strange move by a progressive society. It seem the article above as merit. I disagree with the statement of a Tiny minority are trouble makers. arrival by bypassing the refugee camp process is cause the trouble. Government can do far move then what they are doing. their showing such concern is only a front when beaurcaty is doing the opposite. In the Refugee Camp countries can pick and choose who they want. With my government they are only taken in non Islamic religions. It use to be Skill set or political position use to pick and choose.
katsu78
Not strictly speaking true. They used the pretense of creating stability as justification for interfering, but that doesn't mean they were actually trying to create stability.
Very true, as long as we take an overly broad and utterly uninformed view of the diverse group of people fleeing ISIS. In a similarly broad and uninformed point of view, you're part of the culture that created Hitler. Let's hope whoever is in charge of your visa renewal process isn't as uninformed, eh.
SenseNotSoCommon
Formidable intellectual rigour.
Outstanding critical thinking.
Stop the Press: EU punishing rape victims for complaining.
Bartholomew Harte
Europe is one Location,Location,Location that sadly is Off-Limits to this writer for awhile.
meanwhile, our Lame Ducker & the Congress, against public opinion has allocated $100 million to import a massive influx of Syrians statesidelostrune2
Their approval/rejection rate is actually about on par as others - it's just that they have a lot more applicants this time
turbotsat
No. The USA has a land border with Mexico. And marine borders with the Caribbean.
Inserting an escape clause here, "who can legally cross their borders", doesn't help your point. ANY country can "pick and choose who can legally cross their borders". If the country didn't have a choice in the crossing, then the crossing wasn't legal. It's the illegal crossings that take will and effort to control.
Akula
The Europeans actually need to grow a backbone and stop the migrant tide. Christians from the Middle East can be accepted. They have more chance of integrating and will not cause as much trouble. Muslims on the other hand are not something Europe needs more of. The seemingly endless stream of terrorist attacks Europe has suffered at the hands of Islamists will only increase unless the Muslim tide is turned back.
nath
Yeah! Because the world needs more bigotry to make it a better place, right?
nath
Akula.
Try saying that to the face of an European like myself. You might get a surprise.
Akula
@It"s ME If indigenous Europeans wish to have an Islamic Europe, then they are going the right way about it through their cowardice.
nath
Akula.
Europe had some of the best integrated Muslims in the world because they been migrating for a few Centuries now.
Since you are obviously NOT Europran you are not aware of all the facts. Final comment to you as you keep postings insilts and don't partake in a Discussion.
Akula
Best integrated Muslims? It certainly doesn't look that way.