The Guardian view on Britain’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis: morally bankrupt
he refugee crisis, the tip of an almost unprecedented human migration from south to north, faces the EU with a moral challenge that it is proving ill-equipped to meet. The Europe of values, reflected in the obligation for countries applying for EU membership not just to meet economic tests but to have democratic institutions and a proven respect for human rights, is under strain. Economic recession, the threat of terrorism and the rise of the extreme right are all weakening its institutional underpinnings: high ideals are always at risk from low politics. But this is no abstract question. It is an all-too-real disaster for hundreds of thousands of Syrians and others who are fleeing war and persecution and have endured perilous journeys to reach the southern fringes ofEurope. It could also be dangerous for the EU itself.
Germany, partly for reasons to do with its history and its growing demand for labour, is emerging as the champion of the moral case. On Sunday, in a significant demonstration of its commitment to Europe’s fundamental values, the government unilaterally suspended the Dublin protocol, which obliges refugees to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach, for all Syrians. On the same day, the foreign and economic ministers co-wrote a 10-point plan for a Europe-wide migration, refugee and asylum policy founded on the principle of solidarity and “our shared values of humanity”. On Monday, Angela Merkel and François Hollande reiterated support for a Europe-wide solution – adapting Germany’s own internal system of distributing refugees fairly throughout the country – that was comprehensively rejected in June. Meanwhile, Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, made his own call to arms, condemning in the name of Europe’s shared values those he accused of trying to cordon themselves off from “distress, fear and misery”, and the populist politicians who stirred up xenophobia in the name of winning votes.
Germany has taken more than 40% of the Syrian refugees who have reached Europe (and those, it should be recognised, are only a tiny proportion, less than 5%, of the total number of Syrians who have fled the civil war). Sweden has taken another 20%; the southern European countries of Greece, Italy and Spain account for another 25%. The proportion offered asylum in Britain is fewer than 1%. But as the June summit proved, there is strong resistance from across eastern Europe as well as from the UK to allowing Brussels to set a course for collective action. This political argument is hindering a fair and principled solution. This is, at the very least, shortsighted.
As Angela Merkel argues, the refugee crisis is one of the greatest challenges the EU has faced, and it is not likely to ease off for years to come. As a matter of solidarity, it is unacceptable that the poorer countries of southern Europe should be left to pick up a disproportionate share of the bill for playing host to a fast-growing number of refugees and migrants, while richer countries turn their backs. Without a responsibility-sharing scheme, the far right, who were behind the attacks on refugees and migrants that marred some German towns last weekend, will only grow stronger. If only as a matter of self-interest, Britain should seize the chance to educate young Syrians and turn them into English-speaking citizens who in a sunnier future will play a role in rebuilding their native country and forging links between their old home and their new one.
Instead, the approach from the Conservative government has been unremittingly hostile. Last week’s meeting between British and French home affairs ministers to try to resolve the Calais crisis resulted only in an ever more punitive regime of razor wire and crackdowns. Meanwhile, on Thursday the ONS will publish the latest snapshot of net migration to the UK. These are likely to confirm that the level is now at an all-time high, above even the 320,000 recorded in 2005 – despite all the rhetoric and legislative effort of the past five years to bring it below 100,000. That is why new clauses to the immigration bill, further tightening sanctions on employers who employ illegal migrants and introducing a prison sentence of up to six months for anyone working illegally, have been announced.
Fence-building in Hungary, razor wire in Calais, prison in the UK: none of these are real solutions to either the economic or political challenges of this era of mass migration. Nor are they any sort of adequate response to the moral imperative of offering shelter to those seeking asylum.
THE GUARDIAN