Just over a year ago two boats full of migrants heading from Africa to Europe sank off the Italian Island of Lampedusa, with the loss of several hundred lives. There was an outburst of pity for the migrants, and European officials promised that desperate people would no longer die at sea in their quest for a more secure life.
The result was an admirable search and rescue operation by the Italian navy which – according to the Italian defence ministry – has rescued 150,000 migrants and brought them to a European Union shore where they can apply for asylum.
The navy’s programme, called Mare Nostrum (“Our Sea” – the Latin term for the Mediterranean), did not entirely stop the deaths. More than 3,000 have died this year.
This operation is now winding down. The Italians say they cannot afford to keep patrolling 2.5 million square km of sea. But the real reason is that European countries cannot tolerate Italy opening this “back door” to migrants. Most do not stay in Italy, but make their way illegally north to Germany and Britain where jobs are easier to find.
Germany has seen migrant inflows rise by a third in the past two years. Europe is literally a continent on the move.
The increase in migrants has been accompanied by a rise in far-right xenophobic parties. In France, Marine Le Pen, the National Front leader, is topping the opinion polls.
Mare Nostrum is being replaced by a much smaller border control force that will operate close to the European mainland, and will not go in search of distressed migrants on the edge of Libyan waters.
Defenders of the change argue that the Italian navy’s guarantee of being picked up and taken to Europe exerted a “pull” on migrants. A British government minister argued that Mare Nostrum was responsible for creating more deaths at sea, by encouraging more migrants. Critics have denounced this is as a cynical vote winning ploy.
What is not in doubt is that the Italians’ policy has made the traffickers’ business easier. According to the Italians, some traffickers have given the migrants a satellite phone and told them to issue a distress call as soon as they have left Egyptian or Libyan waters.
This may be true, but it ignores the enormity of the refugee crisis unfolding in Europe’s neighbourhood, the largest since the end of the Second World War in 1945. There are three million Syrians who have fled their country, not to mention the Iraqis and Afghans, while sub-Saharan Africa produces a constant flow of people seeking a more secure life.
Maurice Wren, chief executive of the British Refugee Council, argues that attempts to pull up the drawbridge of fortress Europe will fail because they ignore the “push” factor, the lack of other choices available to the desperate. “When you are standing on the quayside at Tripoli, boarding an overcrowded boat is a rational decision for many people. It’s their best chance of safety.”
The politics of pity in Europe have been replaced by the politics of fear. European electorates, after years of economic stagnation, blame their problems on migrants. The job-seeking Poles and Romanians – who are likely to return to their homes after a few years – are confused with refugees, creating the impression of a vast threat to national cohesion. Scare stories promote the idea that immigrant numbers are far higher than reality: in France, people on average believe that 31 per cent of the population is Muslim, according to an Ipsos Mori poll. The reality is eight per cent.
The truth is that the burden of sheltering refugees falls mostly on poor countries, not on the rich. There are more than one million Syrian refugees in Lebanon, a country of four million, and the total could soon rise to 1.6 million. This figure does not include those Syrians who have not asked for help from the UN refugee agency, or 50,000 Syria-based Palestinian refugees who have also fled there.
Even in this hostile political atmosphere it is clear that the only solution is an organised resettlement programme, where countries around the world take Syrian refugees for permanent residence. Such a programme was put in place to resolve the “boat people” crisis of the late 1970s, when millions fled from Vietnam and neighbouring countries after the establishment of communist governments. Two and a half million people were resettled around the world, with almost half going to the US.
Times have changed since the 1970s. Anti-immigrant sentiment is as high in the United States as in Europe. With ISIL’s head-chopping propaganda dominating the airwaves, mass immigration of refugees from the Arab world is a political non-starter in Washington.
Yet there is no alternative to countries around the world taking their share of the refugees. The US and Britain, having a historic responsibility from the invasion of Iraq, should take the lead. But other countries of immigration need to follow. Australia, which took 185,000 boat people from Indochina, is now doing the opposite of the Italian navy, escorting migrant boats away from Australian waters.
The Gulf has a role to play, in addition to its already generous funding of the refugees in Jordan and Lebanon. To avoid a generation of Syrians growing up without education or hope, consideration could be given to a structured plan to offer residence to Syrian families.
Achieving this goal of broad resettlement is not an easy task. But no one can deny the effect of generations growing up in refugee camps. As the experience of the Palestinians or Afghan refugees shows, living in camps is a path to radicalisation and dependency.
Alan Philps is a commentator on global affairs
Twitter @aphilps
