Cejiss

2010 was an extremely challenging year for untold millions of people who experienced the full security impact of environmental disasters, ensuing militarised conflicts, food and potable water shortages, and a multitude of smaller, but no less important, issues, all of which have led to mass displacements, ethnonationalist tensions, political violence and a general trembling throughout the international community. At a time when the world (politically and geologically) seems to be going through a period of conflagration, the tendency for political personalities to exploit peoples' material and psychological vulnerabilities rise, anticipating that, through word and deed, they could wrestle more political authority within their body-politic.

There is a certain, if unfounded, predisposition in Europe to assume that populist political posturing is designated only to the developing world or states prone to authoritarianism. However, events over the past year have revealed the absurdity of such sentiments, since some of the more ‘refined,' apparently ‘responsible' and ‘respected' European leaders seem to have gone out of their way to gain votes on the cheap; not by properly addressing the real political complications facing their societies, but by attempting to deflect public opinion away from them.

While there has been a general ‘digging-in' to the populist mould throughout many EU countries, the cases of Sarkozy's Roma policy and Merkel's approach to German multiculturalism stand out for their audacity and thus require further attention. If Sarkozy was more honest, he would have indicated that France's Roma ‘operation' was a summer-time tactic designed to cushion the up-coming autumn weeks of civil protest and disobedience which have encircled his already battered presidential legions. Unfortunately (for him), Sarkozy has not demonstrated his capacity for such honesty, and while the current turmoil may break the UMP's ability to govern, it is Sarkozy's ill-thought and mismanaged Roma policy which has earned the wrath of the EU, the international community at large and tarnished France's image as a fair and democratic country. Those who know France and the French will attest to the country's democratic passions, reflected in the age-old - but still vibrant - culture of demonstration and revolution. Such actions are not only avenues to express the frustrations associated to higher taxes, decreases in public services, talks of revising the unequal benefits France derives from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), responses to the UK's EU rebate or nearly all US foreign policy decisions, they are also frequently undertaken to reveal the power of voting with ‘feet.'

With this in mind, it is curious that Sarkozy decided to try and placate French voters - which had, in March dealt a severe blow to the ruling UMP party in regional elections - by mass deportations, coolly referred to as ‘repatriation,' of Roma to Bulgaria and Romania. The manner in which his Roma ‘operation' was undertaken - tearing down make-shift residences, interning populations in busses and then internment ‘centres,' and forcibly sending some 5400 people out of France - was reminiscent of darker times. These actions did not take place against illegal immigrants since the Roma of Bulgaria and Romania are EU citizens. Indeed, although France has been one of the main engines of EU integration and the full-removal of internal borders it's actions contradict the spirit of the EU and can only be understood as a shallow attempt by Sarkozy to visibly address a ‘problem' in order to shore-up his waning public support, which had dipped to below a 40% approval rating by mid-summer.

That the French public did not buy into his depiction of the Roma as an internal security issue is hardly surprising. What is rather more surprising however was the theatrical performance that Sarkozy engaged in once the full scope of his actions were picked up on by the EU and international press. In one particularly distasteful episode, when EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding (from Luxembourg) condemned the French action as reminiscent of persecutions in Nazi-Occupied France and commented that this ‘is a situation I had thought Europe would not have to witness again after the Second World War,' Sarkozy's response was that ‘if the Grand Duchy wants the Roma, they can have them;' a statement that finds, unfortunately, parallel in Hitler's reaction to the 1939 S. S. St. Louis episode in which the Nazi Dictator reportedly remarked that if the Jews could find some poor nation to take them in, he would happily facilitate their transfer.

As it were, the S. S. St. Louis was forced back to Europe after immigration was denied in Cuba, the US and Canada. En route to Germany, the refugees were given safe haven - if, due to unfolding circumstances, only temporarily - in the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and, ironically in the context of this editorial, France. It is more than a shame, it is a political tragedy that Sarkozy is so out-of-touch with the reality of his Roma policy that he is single-handedly undermining France's long and proud tradition of being a pluralistic, multicultural, immigration-based country known for tolerance and social inclusion no matter how the inhabitants wish to organise themselves. Sarkozy's 2010 steps back to Europe's dark ages are only currently being rivalled, in Europe, by Merkel's insane depiction of Germany's multiculturalism project as an ‘utter failure.' Back here, on planet Earth, ‘utter failures' of multiculturalism tend to stand in sharp contrast to contemporary Germany. It would be more appropriate for, say, (outgoing) Iraqi PM, Al Maliki, to suggest that Iraqi multiculturalism is an utter failure, since the ethnic and political communities in Iraq not only refuse to share the same belief systems (religious or secular) or accept the legitimate political aspirations of the ‘others,' but an active conflict is being waged between them, which has claimed nearly a million people since 2003.

The list of places that could be said to have experienced an ‘utter failure' of multiculturalism is long, too long, and fortunately Germany is not on it. Instead, Germany is a glowing example of the success of multiculturalism; 10% of its population of 81 million are German citizens of foreign parents (first generation Germans) while an additional 9% are considered foreign. No, Merkel's failed multiculturalism idea was ethnically selective - aimed at the sizable Turkish, and smaller Arabic communities - and said against the backdrop of an increased internal security drive which directly links immigration to terrorism and organised crime. While there is little doubt that such a link exists, to castigate an entire socio-political approach as a means of punishing the behaviour of a tiny minority within a minority is completely irresponsible and undermines the very premise of the Berlin Republic. It is clear that discussion which focus on Islam's ability to coexist and even thrive in modern Western societies breeds commentaries that border on, and often cross, the threshold of acceptability and so it is rather pointless to engage the topic. But what is necessary to address is Merkel's sly way of pressuring Germany's Muslims, after all it may be assumed that she did not intend to insinuate that the roughly 100,000 British and American, 175,000 Austrian, 225,000 Croat, 200,000 Jewish and 130,000 Dutch (to name a few) migrants, who call Germany home, had failed to adequately integrate into German society
or state.

Instead, Merkel spoke in general terms about a problematic relationship she perceives with one minority group but, not wanting to be accused of xenophobia or racism, shrouded her sentiment hoping that others would be able to read between the lines and simply understand that she meant that multiculturalism has failed to integrate Germany's Turkish population - or is it that German multiculturalism has simply failed its Turks? 2010 does mark a monumental failure in Germany - Merkel has failed in her role as Chancellor. The temptations of political populism arrested her judgement. German history is eternally plagued despite the fact that its current population bears no responsibility for the crimes the state committed in previous generations. However, the German public - the entire population, citizen or not - deserves to be treated with dignity and not be meant to feel uncomfortable within German boundaries; that is a ‘national right' German history has forfeited for all succeeding generations.

In my last editorial (May 2010), I spoke of the importance of the Idea of Europe and, in a rather up-beat fashion, meant to convey how far Europe had come in its internal and external relations. While I am still a firm believer in the EU and its preferred normative approaches, I am becoming increasingly aware that it is all for naught if European publics do not hold their leaders to account for myopic perspectives and policies. Now, more than ever, citizenship must trump populism so that the true strength of Europe may be adequately reflected in our political discourses.

Mitchell A. Belfer
Editor in Chief
CEJISS