Friday, September 6, 2024
Much of Europe’s left, centrist and centre-right voices expressed various degrees of shock and unease over the results of the extreme-right AfD in Saxony and Thuringia last Sunday 1 September. These results cannot be simply be put in the same ‘box’ as other election results in which populist parties have made gains or even gained power. The AfD (especially in Thuringia) has openly flirted with the nazi ideology and the fact that so many people voted for them nevertheless is an issue of serious concern. As the historical background of these German states is different from many other parts in Germany, it would be incorrect to extrapolate these results to all of Germany. So it is highly unlikely that the results of the AfD in Thuringia and Saxony will be replicated in the same degree over all of Germany. That does however not change the fact that this result demands reflection. Addressing concerns As several German mainstream media analysed, it will not work to simply condemn the voters. Die Welt (among others) noted that warnings against the AfD made no difference. One interesting article after the elections in Thuringia and Saxony in Germany (and the big gains of the AfD in these elections) was published in the leftist Guardian. The title was: ‘There’s only one way to keep Germany’s far-right AfD at bay. Address the concerns it exploits’.[1] ''There’s only one way to keep Germany’s far-right AfD at bay. Address the concerns it exploits.'' The writer, Katja Hoyer, describes how it is untrue that the people of Saxony and Thuringia have said goodbye to democracy but rather want their concerns over immigration and the simultaneous decay of the state (public services) be taken seriously. Basically, what she argues for is a rational debate in which parties in the center find a way to really deal with immigration without simply becoming a ‘soft’ version of the AfD. The question is, how is that possible? Causes of immigration It has been my privilege to work with many movements in the Middle East, brave men and women who fight for freedom. Movements who stand up against extremism and oppression by the extremist regimes of Turkey and Iran. The same regimes that are responsible for almost 50% of all asylum seekers in Europe. If we add the oppressive regime of Pakistan (which kept the Taliban alive for 20 years), it is certain that these regimes combined are the main cause of over 50% of the flow of asylum seekers in Europe (if we look from 2014 until now). Appeasement of regimes That is why the movements that struggle for freedom cannot understand why our foreign policy continues to appease and even support these regimes. Because that is what is happening: our foreign policy is ultimately simply stimulating the flow of asylum seekers to Europe. Since 2014 our Ministries of Foreign Affairs and the EEAS have done everything they could to ensure that the policies of appeasement and support towards these regimes continued. Regardless of many politicians and parliaments raising the human rights violations, the support for terrorists and oppression by these regimes, the policies of appeasement persisted. The reasons for this is are (1) a misguided understanding of our economy, (2) a systematic unquestioned determination that the status-quo needs to be maintained and (3) a lack of understanding of the effect of policies on people. ''Because that is what is happening: our foreign policy is ultimately simply stimulating the flow of asylum seekers to Europe.'' When the economy is defined as the interests of the corporate world and big capital funds instead of the interests of families, communities and creation we end up in a foreign policy that thinks that short-term profits of big business and cheap commodities are the most important policy benchmarks. The quality of democracy at stake The most troubling aspect here is that the elected have systematically been ignored by the unelected. The number of non-responses to questions and motions carried by a Parliamentary majority to (for example) the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the EEAS are beyond count. Any moment that human rights clash with corporate or capital fund interests, human rights will lose regardless the political majority in a Parliament. As a consequence it becomes an open question who Ministries of Foreign Affairs actually represent and whether and when they still have democratic legitimacy. One may find it naïve that I think that a democratic majority should matter in foreign policy. I however find it naïve that apparantly some people think that there are no consequences to their actions. They bemoan the electoral outcomes that are a consequence of their own policies. However, many top civil servants and responsible Ministers or Commissioners seem to fail to see this. Moreover, many media seem to fail to see this dynamic either or prefer to offer clickbait and put corporate interests above offering a clear picture of cause and effect. We all have a responsibility to change the debate. Just blaming voters and politicians is insufficient. A foreign policy based on values At the moment the migration debate offers just two options: trying to solve problems in Europe or keeping them out of Europe. Neither is possible in reality. If all the oppressed come to Europe, we cannot cope with that. Neither is it practically possible to stop everyone from coming. Instead of blaming the voters or asylum seekers, we better focus on how a faulty and misguided foreign policy can be turned around so that it works on the basis of human dignity and serves families in Europe and outside Europe. Asylum seekers and migrants are coming from somewhere for reasons we can understand and in many cases prevent. Instead of appeasing those who support extremism and terrorism we need to put relentless pressure on them. If we can support freedom for Ukraine against Russian opppression, we for sure are able to act against the much smaller and weaker regimes of Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. Or do we really think that freedom and a good life is only possible in Europe? If we base our policies on that wrong assumption we should not be surprised that people come here for the same as we want. ''(…) we better focus on how a faulty and misguided foreign policy can be turned around, so that it works on the basis of human dignity and serves families in Europe and outside Europe.'' As Sallux we have helped to create solutions and propose policies that prevent the need for people to come to Europe. That is how we think we can have policies that take the concerns of voters seriously. Let me be clear: we can and we should have a rational conversation on migration that respects human dignity. The conversation should start with paying real attention to the root causes of migration and offer constructive solutions. [1] Katja Hoyer, ‘‘There’s only one way to keep Germany’s far-right AfD at bay. Address the concerns it exploits,'' The Guardian, September 3, 2024, There’s only one way to keep Germany’s far-right AfD at bay. Address the concerns it exploits | Katja Hoyer | The Guardian.
Johannes de Jong
Managing Director Sallux