Friday 15th June, 2018

In this week’s news, we have the fallout from the G7 summit which took place over the weekend, the saga of the migrant ship Aquarius currently making its way across the Mediterranean and this week’s votes in the British House of Commons regarding the May government’s flagship Brexit bill.

 

Centrifugal G-forces

LA MALBAIE – The G7 summit in Québec held over the weekend was a watershed moment for many who are still trying to work out if Donald Trump is trying to dismantle the liberal international order or simply troll it for his own personal gain. After requesting that Russia be readmitted to the Group, dismissing his actions in Ukraine (to the surprise of none), he finally sank the communiqué marking the end of the summit, his actions marking perhaps the end of the G7 (or 6, formerly 8 – whatever). Of course, many of us have seen the photo which emerged of the US President sitting at a table arms crossed seeming undoubtedly obstinate, surrounded by the other leaders assembled in the G7, notably with the German Chancellor leaning across the table looking thoroughly fed up.

Whilst this is indeed a victory for the nationalist forces who want to energise the centrifugal forces currently tearing apart the international world order which arose after 1945 – and then evolved again after 1989 – and replace it with a one in which nations are once more rivals first and foremost and see in other states only fleeting allegiance, we cannot mourn the death of the G7 too much. More than anything, we should not be surprised by this turn of events given everything Trump has done and said so far – this is very much in keeping with the ideology which seized the White House in 2016. Hopefully, this will be yet another wake-up call to Europe, which despite constant buffeting hostile winds from across the Atlantic, still don’t seem to fully understand the gravity and ramifications of what is happening in America. Even Merkel, who has not shied away from stating she thinks Europe may have to go its own way in the world, has not really made clear what it means for Europe to chart its own course. Naturally, she and the rest of Europe, particularly those in the Baltics and Poland, but also in Berlin, Brussels and I have no doubt London, are hoping this all blows over either with Trump’s impeachment at some point or at the latest his voting out of office.

To me this would be a wasted opportunity. Europe can do so much more if it unshackles itself from direction by America. Also it can’t be missed that even with the passing of Trump, if indeed he does pass relatively peacefully, America’s attention is being drawn from this continent and its troubles. Obama began the pivot to the East and the Pacific. After having set fire to the Middle East, the Americans seem to show no interest in helping Europe deal with the refugee flow that is a result of those wars and destabilisation. In fact, they seem more intent on continuing that policy and maintaining a permanent state of disruption to our south-east, which means an increasing state of disruption in Europe as the refugee flows increase. On the eastern frontier, should we really be relying on America so heavily for our defence and protection?

As a form of international governance, the G7 was also lacking. Since the 1980s, the Group quickly became a way of coordinating the progress of globalisation. It served leaders like Angela Merkel quite well who, in the heat of various, clashing national interests, steps in as the cool voice of calm to remind everyone they have to come to a sensible compromise which, by its nature, has a jumble of elements which can be used by everyone to demonstrate they have gotten what they want and so everyone can go home claiming victory (however, in the end no one is satisfied and nothing has been solved, think eurozone since 2010). Hence, everyone is subject to the limitations of international diplomacy, a forum where only the most broadly entrenched interests (such as international finance) are actually served. Meanwhile everyone else without a loud enough voice (or none at all) has to look on in despair. It is no wonder that Merkel wants to more firmly entrench the intergovernmental method in EU procedures with the upcoming summits on reform of the eurozone. However, thanks to what these structures are geared towards, and the unsatisfactory results they produce, they are not sustainable in the long term and really only serve to sour ideas such as ‘compromise’, ‘moderation’ and ‘pragmatism’. We should all recognise these things play a real role in effective government, however when they become the only objective, rather than actually solving problems or taking a side on controversial issues, they lead to the failure of government and its systems, and trust in compromise dries up and the real problems are left to become more unsolvable.

As Yanis Varoufakis wrote in The Guardian on Monday (11th June), Trump is intentionally fragmenting world trade as part of a broader attempt to undermine the world order based on multilateral agreements, to be replaced by one which serves America first. Trump’s arguments are very reminiscent of those used to justify economic autarky at the beginning of the 1930s, as the world slipped further away from reestablishing the international order pre-1914 and closer to the conflagration that would erupt at the end of the decade. Our governments must be aware of this as they proceed – will their actions accelerate this process or fuel a different series of events? We know the system in 2008, likewise the one before 1914, was broken and did not serve the many. But what replaces it may be just as much if not more of an affront if we are not careful. So good riddance to the G7; let us hope it is more evidence for those of us who realise Europe must come up with its own strategy of protecting its interests and way of life, and provokes those in the halls of power to respond. We are in interregnum, and as such means we are in a time for courage and bold action.

 

Europa and the Aquarionauts

VALENCIA – Despite the mythological sound of the above title, the refugee ship Aquarius is no myth, its passengers real people and the horrors it is fleeing all too palpable. Having rescued 629 refugees and migrants from the Mediterranean, the vessel operating on behalf of the France-based NGOs Médecins Sans Frontières and SOS Méditerranée set a course for the European continent on Saturday. Having been denied permission to make landfall in Italy by new Lega Interior Minister, Matteo Salvini, as well as in Malta, the new Spanish socialist Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez announced that the Aquarius would be allowed to dock in Valencia on Spain’s eastern Mediterranean coast. El País reports that the Prime Minister gave instructions on Monday (11th June) after informing Valencian regional premier that the port city would be designated as the point of arrival. Previously, Mayor of Valencia, Joan Ribó, as well as Mayor of Barcelona, Ada Colau, announced they would be willing to accept the refugees aboard the Aquarius. Having received permission, the refugee ship set course through the Strait of Sicily for Spain, escorted by ships of the Italian Navy and Coast Guard. On Thursday evening the Aquarius had made a short stop in Corsica for supplies – it is expected to arrive in Valencia on Sunday.

Many commentators who have been watching these events progress have noted the clear win for Lega leader Matteo Salvini, who has showed to his country and to Europe that by making a fuss he can direct the flow of migration away from Italy – and demonstrated his strength and previous governments’ weakness. This is to take nothing away from Pedro Sánchez or the port of Valencia, who made the only humane and merciful decision of quickly designating a place for the Aquarius to make landfall (it’s worth noting several southern Italian mayors offered to defy the Interior Ministry’s order to reject the ship, but this would’ve required the support of the Italian Coast Guard). However, the signal cannot be clearer – the Italian government will decide unilaterally who it wants to receive (in fact a Italian ship carrying 900 migrants docked in Catania, Sicily, on Wednesday) and the rest of Europe has to simply take it. We’ll see how long this state of affairs continues, however for now it seems there’s little to be done on the matter. Especially if the path we’re going to take is the Macron route, who to my mind only compounded the situation.

In criticising the decision of the Italian government, Macron immediately opened up himself to the accusation of hypocrisy. Now, there’s no doubt that refusing permission to dock to a refugee ship is absolutely disgraceful, however immediately Salvini gets to underline Macron’s own record, the supposed liberal centrist, which it turns out reinforces Salvini’s own argument that Italy has been left alone to deal with the refugee crisis. The Italian Minister told Parliament on Wednesday (13th June) that 10,000 refugees and migrants had been turned back on the Franco-Italian border – I would not be surprised if the figure was in fact higher. Furthermore, despite accepting in 2015 to accept 9,816 refugees under the EU settlement scheme, France had taken in fact only 640, so Salvini. Meanwhile migrants have been found dead in the Alps, trying to use that more remote route to enter France from Italy. This is not surprising given that Macron’s government passed a new immigration law in April this year, the only purpose of which is to discourage migration to France by making the whole process more torturous for those going through it (sounds like Theresa May’s ‘hostile environment’ policy in Britain). The bill reduces asylum application deadlines, extends the time for which illegal migrants can be detained, and introduces a one-year prison sentence for entering France illegally.

However, we know this is not just France. Last weekend (10th June), in The Guardian’s Sunday Essay, Kenan Malik documented thoroughly how the whole of Europe has colluded in the construction and maintenance of Fortress Europe. The language used in the control room of Frontex was to the mind of one Der Spiegel journalist that of defending the continent from ‘invasion’.  The opening up of Europe’s internal borders by Schengen has been mirrored in its equal and opposite reinforcement of Europe’s external borders, now monitored by satellites and drones. Furthermore, the Commission announced on Tuesday (12th June) that in the next spending plan, it intends to triple the amount of money used to combat illegal migration to €5bn, which will go to strengthening the border force, and the construction of further infrastructure including scanners, number plate recognition systems, and mobile laboratories for sample analysis. One can’t help get the uncomfortable feeling that in the near future Europe’s southern border will resemble the US southern border with Mexico. Indeed, the Commission asserts no EU money will go to the construction of walls or fences – however they say this now, who knows what they will try to justify in the future.

Not only is Europe actively preventing as much immigration as possible, it is also deeply unprepared once these new arrivals reach European shores. Hence, why the resettlement scheme failed so poorly, why 700 people remain in the Calais area despite the bulldozing of the migrant camp there in 2016, why the Lesbos camp built for 2,000 people now holds 6,000 and why Schengen remains suspended in 6 member-states over 2 years after border crossings were initially restricted. Spain’s 26,941 arrivals in 2017 is already testing the ability of the system to handle new arrivals. Surely it’s the responsibility of the state to guarantee these people are safe now these people are here in our countries. And yet I was reminded today of the 71 people left to die in the back of a lorry by people smugglers on an Austrian motorway in 2015 – Europa Press reported Thursday that thankfully a Hungarian court sentenced 4 perpetrators to people trafficking and the deaths of the refugees. But events like this, the state of refugee camps in Europe and the mass grave of the Med reveal the irrefutable failure of this system. Dealing with the issue separately is a farce. Our governments act as if their actions are taken in a vacuum, where each state is isolated from the others, the true absurdity of which is revealed by the French President criticising the Italian government for not accepting refugees, while at the same time sending refugees back to Italy and passing laws making France a more undesirable place for them to settle, thus ensuring the pressure remains squarely on Italy. No European country can or should have to deal with this crisis on its own, this should be clear by now. And yet here we are almost 3 years later none the wiser.

That the EU Commissioner for Migration, Dimitris Avramopoulos, was defending Mr Salvini’s decision this week not to allow the Aquarius to dock in Italy, shows the depths of where EU migration policy has reached, with an excuse for every failure, a justification for every flicker of xenophobia. Fortress Europe ultimately suggests that the European Project for transnational solidarity is a failure, for what we have gained within Europe we have sacrificed beyond its borders. If that is the price, is it worth it? I believe Europe can do both – open borders within Europe and a humane approach to those arriving from beyond. There is much to be done, but it has to begin by actually formulating a genuine, coordinated pan-European response.

 

They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind

Tomorrow (16th June) sees the anniversary of the brutal murder of Jo Cox, former Labour MP for Batley and Spen, two years ago in 2016. Taking place just a week before the vote on Britain’s exit from the European Union and given the beliefs of the perpetrator and Mrs Cox’s own beliefs, it is hard not to see the connection and conclude she was killed for believing in a Britain that is truly open to the world (rather than the hollow version of this peddled by some Brexiteers based solely on trade). It just so happens to have coincided with the return of the British government’s flagship Brexit bill to the House of Commons, after the House of Lords passed several amendments to the bill that would have seen Britain remain in the Single Market as part of the EEA, the Customs Union, retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights, give parliament more control over the negotiations if they reject the final deal proposed by the government, and several other items which run contrary to the current government’s agenda for leaving the Union. Aware of this, Theresa May timetabled the votes to occur in a whirlwind over just two days (12th & 13th June), with 15 amendments to be debated.

The whole episode mainly serves to highlight the dire state in which British politics remains. Over the course of the two days, Labour’s position on Brexit remained largely vague, rebels among the Tories buckled and voted with the government to defeat the so-called ‘meaningful vote’ amendment for little in the way of tangible concessions, Scottish Nationalist MPs staged a walkout in protest of parliamentary proceedings which meant they received almost no time to contributed to the debate – the list goes on and on. The upshot is most amendments were defeated with only a promise that parliament will be given a meaningful vote in return. Of real significance is now the British government is not only bound by its political commitments to Europe but now also in law (if the bill passes with this amendment intact) to maintain a completely open border in Ireland. Keir Starmer noted in the debate on Wednesday that really this means the government will have little choice on customs union and alignment of product regulations if it wants to prevent a border in the Irish Sea. I would think as soon as they realise this they may move to once more remove the amendment, because it commits the government by British law to ensuring there is no border infrastructure, which is impossible if Britain is outside the Customs Union. A more disappointing observation I made from the week’s events was the persistent failure of our parliament to properly recognise the place of the Free Movement question in this whole Brexit débâcle. Michel Barnier has stated more times than you can count that ‘the four freedoms are indivisible’, which means you cannot have frictionless movement of capital, goods and services without the same for people. Parliament doesn’t seem to understand this yet, or willing to confront this fact (hence why it was pushed to the furthest edge of the debate). Twitter seems more aware of this fact than Parliament, shown by the fact it is debated daily in endless threads which go over both the value and threats of Free Movement to this country (of course this amounts to nothing since Twitter is not actually suited for debate). Nevertheless, Twitter is aware of this because Free Movement is really the issue, the one which most clearly divides Britain, and has been avoided by politicians and activists who support it because they think they’ve already lost. If Britain is ever going to return to Europe one day, this issue has to be addressed and won by we on the side of the Free Movement of Peoples as the most important one of all – something a long way off from the state of affairs today.

A particularly scary development is the willingness of the right-wing press, this time both The Sun and Express, to attack the procedures and institutions of constitutional democratic government in the name of championing the voice of the people. They have long soured the state of public discourse in Britain, but now they seek to use their power to undermine the pillars of democratic society. The Sun claimed on its front page the threat of a ‘Great Betrayal’ if MPs voted the wrong way on the amendments. The Express threatened ‘Ignore the Will of the People at your Peril’. This follows the lead of The Daily Mail which named Judges ‘Enemies of the People’, told the Prime Minister during the election in 2017 to ‘Crush the Saboteurs’ and has called out those opposed to Brexit as traitors, in keeping with the far-right tradition of calling out their political opponents as traitors to and enemies of the nation. This is not just rhetoric however, as we saw from the murder of Jo Cox; the murderer himself, Thomas Mair, called for Britain First and later in court ‘death to traitors’. These people are emboldened now, and don’t deny their crimes. The man who ran over several muslims, killing one of them last year, Darren Osborne, admitted to intending to kill Jeremy Corbyn. A man admitted to plotting to assassinate another sitting Labour MP this week (12th June). To many people in Britain look at places like Italy, or Austria, with their far-right coalition partners in government, at Greece with Golden Dawn, or at Hungary and Poland with their crumbling liberal institutions and think ‘at least it hasn’t gotten as bad here’. But I ask, how far away are we? The magic of the British system is to obscure major changes in the state of political affairs behind the veil of carry on as normal, pragmatism etc. until the shift is complete – Brexit being a recent clear example. Yes, our institutions and parties look the same and bare the same names as before – but are they working as they used to? The Conservative Party’s agenda borrows largely from the UKIP handbook now. Arron Banks simply refused to meet with a parliamentary committee and walks off scot-free. Britain is not immune from nationalism, from authoritarianism and the abuses of power this continent saw in the 1930s and is seeing flickers of it again now. We cannot fail to challenge these threats when we spot them, and in the meantime, work on locating and solving their root causes.