Monday, October 12, 2015

POLITICAL ANALYSIS / Exodus into Europe as Consequence of Destabilization Policy

An exodus of peoples from the area of grater Middle East and North Africa has been unfolding in the past two years. Most of them come from war-thorn countries, such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. They are heading for Europe via the Mediterranean Sea and by a land route running through the Balkans. According to BBC, 350,000 migrants or refugees were detected at the EU's borders in January-August 2015, 25% more than in the whole 2014. Other sources cite even higher numbers.

Mass media are covering a sad story in sequel. TV is showing endless columns of people of all ages traveling on foot or by boats. In media reports, the interviewees try to explain, in broken English, that they are fleeing from war, hunger and poor life. A majority is heading to Germany. At times, tragedies of boat sinking with fatalities fill the reports. These boats usually sail to Italy, departing from Tunisia and Libya. But refugees die on land too, as those locked up in a truck caught on the Austrian border. There have been close to 3,000 victims by the fall of 2015, and counting.

Media readily assure that the civil war in Syria is the major cause of this exodus. When Afghans, the second largest migration group, are mentioned, the cause detail is readily skipped. But is this the whole story?

Recall how during 2011 the same media were triumphantly reporting about forceful regime changes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, the happenings obliquely called “Arab Spring”. The media joined the paramilitaries in Libya in cheering the capture of Lybia’s President Gadhafi when he was hiding in a storm water pipe, and then executed (See). The cheer echoed that from 2006 when Iraq’s President Hussein was captured and later executed. There was no “Arab Spring” yet, but rather a precursor to it in the form of an all-out war of aggression executed by the U.S. military and a few allies. The same bellicose policy was already used in Afghanistan in a prolonged war against the Taliban.

The “Arab Spring” of 2011 shook up Tunisia, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Algeria, Jordan, Kuwait, and Morocco. As in a chain reaction, coups d’état, civil wars and mass destruction detonated through the region. Nevertheless, the media seconded the mainstream politics in the West in celebrating all these violent happenings as welcome changes toward peoples’ liberation, democracy, and prosperity.

Four years after we can only see chaos throughout the affected region, thriving radicalisms, countries chopped by opposed militants, dysfunctional economy, rising poverty, lawlessness, and an increasing military involvement of foreign powers. Still, media are making no connection between the “Arab Spring” or wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the exodus. Instead, the responsibility for the exodus, is dogmatically attributed to the civil war in Syria, the country that in fact did not fall to the chain reaction in the region.

The exodus from the Middle East and North Africa is the direct consequence of the “Arab Spring”. The unrest and forceful ousting of governments were less internal movements and more ignited from aside. This is apparent in cases of Libya and Syria, where the opposition to legal governments has been financed, trained, and supported militarily by the US, UK and some allies. As for Iraq and Afghanistan, these were apparent foreign aggressions committed by the U.S.-led NATO countries and allies. These wars produced the similar chaotic results as the “Arab Spring”. A consequence we currently face is the endless flow of refugees (“migrants”) that are choking on their long, strenuous and uncertain routes, clogging in the process the unprepared European countries. They try to escape the havoc that a disastrous Western policy of destabilization inflicted upon their homes.

The destabilization policy backfires. Countries of the European Union (EU), which more or less directly carried out the destabilization policy, have got more than they bargained for. The grand goals and neat legislation of the EU are getting dissolved in regressing toward Cold War-style iron fences that are being erected on country borders. Sleek EU leaders have abruptly lost temper and traded laymen’s quarrel for diplomatic talk.

The prices that particular EU countries pay for the failed destabilization policy are not always proportionate to their responsibility for this policy. Looking at the group of former colonial powers that were militarily involved in the destabilization policy, Italy pays what it deserved, but the U.K. and France do not. Some EU/NATO countries are downright over-charged. Examples are Hungary and Germany. As in old times when it was on the route of Turkish penetration into Europe, Hungary is again the target. Refugees claim they just want to pass to Germany, but the EU policy makers would want to distribute the refugees across member countries, including Hungary.

Rather mysteriously, Germany is the main destination to the exodus. Media readily confirm this without questioning how come an Afghan as well as a Middle Easterner end up with the same plan. It appears though that German authorities wholeheartedly welcome them by declaring a readiness to accept as much as 800,000 refugees. But things cannot be that simple. Growing suddenly the population of Germany’s for 1% is poised to have economic, political and cultural consequences that cannot be fully predicted or controlled. In a total opposite to the high price for Germany, the master-creator of the destabilizing policy manages to get away from covering the tab.