Racism is being normalised in European politics. We need to fight it.

The rise of the far-right is huge cause for concern for communities around Europe. As inequality intensifies and social provisions deteriorate in the name of austerity, the far-right have seen a degree of success by tapping into the dispossession that many people feel and directing anger towards immigrants and minorities. Equally alarming is the growth of racist sentiment in the so-called ‘centre’ of European politics, who are, in an effort to stop losing support to the far-right, increasingly normalising racist language in everyday discussion on immigration.

So in 2015 for example, former British Prime Minister David Cameron had the confidence to describe refugees in Calais as a “swarm”. This offensive terminology to describe people fleeing poverty and destitution was met with outrage in the media from much of the political spectrum. Alarmingly, today in 2018, it seems that derogatory references to migrants have become much more mainstreamed than they were even in 2015.

Recently an article by the president of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, was published on thejournal.ie and The Guardian which discussed how immigration from Africa and the Middle East could mean “the end of the European project” (on the same day, the BBC News website ran a feature headlined “Europe’s migration crisis: Could it finish the EU?”). Tajani’s article, which had a mask of compassion for refugees, was far more concerned with stopping refugees than with helping them. Tajani is a member of Forza Italia, the right-wing party led by Silvio Berlusconi who operate with more than a hint of xenophobia and racism. Berlusconi himself has previously referred to unemployed foreigners as an “army of evil” and has called for them to be interned. Tajani’s article gave a stark racist warning to readers:

To equate an influx of refugees with “devastating consequences for Europe” is by any measure an extreme position to take. While his reference to the end of the European project refers to the potential fallout between member states, this is all grounded on the assumption the arrival of migrants from these war-torn countries is by definition problematic. The use of this sort of terminology to describe the impact that refugees can have on a society invokes far-right ideology of a divide between “us” and “them” and adds fuel to the idea that there is some sort of culture war between western and Muslim society. In general the term “immigration crisis” suggests that immigration is something which has an inherently negative effect on society. It suggests that this is a crisis for “us” with little regard for the crisis that the refugees are themselves going through.

The recent press efforts from the European Parliament took hold right across the Irish and UK media in what seems to be an attempt to drum up increased support for blocking migrants from getting to Europe. Tajani makes the (unfounded) assertion that people want migration to be blocked:

Showing solidarity with those fleeing and at the same time turning them away at the border are not compatible. The best way to show solidarity to migrants is to let them into other countries.

Obviously we need to look at the roots of what is causing the immigration crisis. What we find throughout history is that those who most staunchly oppose immigration generally represent the countries that have caused the problems which turn people into refugees. Take for example the migrant routes through Central America to the USA which have resulted from, among other things, US wars and interventions throughout the South and Central American continent and the trade policies that have impoverished communities in those countries. Similarly the African continent has historically been repeatedly pillaged by European rulers, and has been subject to repeated wars and interventions. And it goes without saying that there would not be such large numbers of refugees from the Middle East if the region wasn’t sitting on enormous oil reserves, subjecting the region to decades of foreign intervention.

Recently we have seen that Ireland has agreed to take 10% of the migrants aboard the MV Lifeline ship which has been stranded in the Mediterranean. This, we are told, is part of a “burden sharing” agreement with other countries. The term “burden sharing” reinforces the idea that migrants are by definition problematic, and it suggests that to let a small amount of migrants into various countries is an altruistic act by European leaders.

The entire narrative now being created by a range of European governments — that migrant arrivals create a “crisis” for “us”, that they are a “burden” which may bring about “the end” of the EU — is entirely at odds with a humane outlook on the situation. This sort of language will not help to address the crisis and will only embolden the far-right who seek to tap into the dispossession caused by austerity and point the finger towards migrants.

A serious alternative approach needs to be taken. Firstly, the roots of the causes for immigration from North Africa and the Middle East need to be addressed. This means opposing wars and interventions, and fighting the sorts of international policies which exploit these countries further. The EU “Marshall Plan” which seeks to get €500bn in private sector involvement in Africa is unlikely to improve life for people on the continent; it will simply create the conditions for more exploitation of the continent’s resources and people. Broadly speaking, the European leaders who stir up racist sentiment will be the same people who defend war and exploitation, and they will need to be battled on this.

Secondly, we need to welcome migrants to European countries. Borders should not define who is and isn’t worthy of entering a country. No one takes the decision to board a dangerous migrant boat across the Mediterranean lightly. Similarly, most people would probably rather not have to leave their communities to find safety and comfort. The EU’s approach to migration — which includes militarising the Mediterranean to prevent boats crossing, and sending refugees back to Turkey — is shameful and will be judged by history as such. The refusal to provide safe passage has contributed to over 16,000 deaths in 5 years.

The mainstreaming of racism is simply pulling far-right politics closer to the ‘centre’, and has to be opposed. That a European Parliament President can write as Tajani does with such little consequence from European leaders should ring alarm bells.

The people who are crushing social infrastructure around Europe in the name of austerity are usually the same people who continuously stoke fears about immigrants. It is austerity, and not immigration, that is pushing social infrastructure all over Europe to breaking point. The far-right are benefitting from this with dangerous consequences for minorities. There is no ‘burden’ to be shared; there is a gulf between the humanity of the majority and the institutional racism of many European leaders who claim to represent us. Bringing the political fight to them is a crucial step in creating a fairer Europe for those who need to get here.

Related posts:

Whenever someone interviews at an organization, “company culture” is an important factor that will likely impact the decision to take on a new role. Company culture can be defined as the personality…

There are successful people out there who have never read a single book or who have never spend an hour inside a college auditorium. Some billionaires have never sent a single email in their life…

I recently launched a business networking group in Macon, GA called 10x Business Networking. Not being from the area, I found that there were not many opportunities to do business networking, so I…