After talking to both ordinary people and politicians I arrived at a conclusion that Europeans are increasingly concerned about the future of their children. They fear that the riches and possibilities gained over the centuries will not pass over to their children and grandchildren, but to someone else. And in my opinion the cause of these fears is the demographic change (in quality and quantity) linked to the unprecedented influx of immigration from the “third world” countries.

 

Europe can see that the assimilation of migrants, their adaptation and integration into Western society has stalled. I’m tired of bending the fingers counting how many Western European politicians and heads of state have recently spoken about the collapse of multicultural policies. That was hard to imagine even a couple of years ago.

 

After speeches by Merkel, Cameron and Sarkozy, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan made an appeal to the Turks in Germany: “Avoid assimilation!”. This perfectly illustrates the failure of the very idea of the equality of cultures and mutual benefits of their fusion. The insight seems to have ultimately settled in, even if late. Europe realised it was wrong to reject its religious tradition and historic memory. This sacrifice was not only pointless, but also harmful: Europeans were literally disarmed faced with those who are firm in their faith, strong in their national feelings and determined to settle down in the occupied territory.

 

Europe’s concealed irritation grew increasingly apparent. After shifting left after the Second World War Europe’s pendulum of current public opinion and political preferences has swung right before our very eyes.

 

It is worth reminding that the “left” movement in the post-war years triumphed largely thanks to the example of the Soviet Union as a state with social guarantees, equality of labourers, free education and medicine. In their turn European and American “left” – socialists, Trotskyites, advocates of minorities' rights, “culture revolution” activists and philosophers-neo-Marxists (for example, representatives of the “Frankfurt School”) – achieved the state when the doctrine of political correctness and tolerance was firmly established in the countries of the Western block, which in a way was aimed to mirror Soviet internationalism.

 

The idea of tolerance played its positive role in keeping European nation states from racism, especially considering massive migration of labour from the South. But an unexpected thing happened – these labourers did not go back home. Moreover, they stayed in such countries as the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Scandinavian countries and grew into the soil. In just two generations Europe was facing the consequences of migration policies its former governments were pursuing.

 

Besides, the example (and threat at the same time) of the USSR no longer compelled employers and ministers to live up to the expectations. Against the background of exacerbating social guarantees the situation with migrants came to the point of absurdity – now thanks to social benefits in Western European states an unemployed immigrant is not much poorer than the employed “indigenous” European.

 

In some countries the very social support system induces the incomers to keep away from employment: the benefits and allowances are significantly higher than the pay for unskilled labour. And if formerly immigration was justified by the need to have cheap work force to do the “dirty job”, immigrants are now staying increasingly unemployed, with their benefits laying a heavy burden on the wallets of working citizens.

 

Economic problems are further weighed down by the following circumstances. First, crime. Many cities have seen entire districts become zones where even police are afraid to go. For instance, it is no secret for Brussels residents that law enforcement officers do nothing about small offences in the area around the Midi railway station fearing large-scale unrest in the district. You can also remember Paris suburbs being set on fire in autumn 2005. Not a single Western European city is any longer secure from such events.

 

Second, cultural differences – the liberal and secular West indifferent to its Christian roots and national customs has faced the traditional Medieval type of religious conduct and the corresponding behavioral pattern. Diasporas do not wish to accept European values and set themselves off in an open, determined and ardent way against indigenous Europeans and their lifestyle. The most visible expression of this phenomenon is the traditional clothing Muslim women wear, which is a culture shock for Europeans. It is not accidental that precisely the issue of headscarves and hijabs aroused such heated polemics in France and in a number of other countries.

 

As a result of all that, right and ultra-right parties – from nationalists and conservatives of every colour to democratic patriots and liberal nationalists to Christian traditionalists and even inveterate xenophobes – have gained victory after victory in elections and referendums of all levels as, for example, in Switzerland on the issue of building minarets. And today no tolerance aspirin pill can cool down the degree of interethnic and intercultural tension.

 

As for the elites and EU bureaucrats, they prefer to discuss the consequences rather than the original causes. They slam the French President for expelling Gypsies as if forgetting about the hot Arab heads who sparked off riots in Paris after which the French elected Sarkozy.

 

In this sense, the reaction to the book by Thilo Sarrazin on the situation in Germany was quite revealing – instead of discussing arguments and figures the author was branded as a “racist and xenophobe”.

 

The position taken by the Western European political class is similar to that of an ostrich that hides his head in the sand. Such a stand is “very tolerant”, but, I would say, short-sighted. It is especially true in the wake of the latest developments in the Middle East and North Africa: a series of revolutions will inevitably lead to social instability in African and Asian countries that will dramatically increase the influx of refugees to Europe. Is the Old World ready for new waves of immigration? I am sure, it is not.

 

In this context, that is what I am preoccupied about.

 

Firstly, never leave your adversary behind your back. The problems that are neglected have the habit of piling up and breaking through as an abscess. If you do not address problems today by civilized means, you will have to deal with them in an emergency situation tomorrow, and then “easy solutions” will come most handy.

 

Secondly, Europe’s right forces have languished in the back seat way too long. I am worried that the political pendulum that has swung far right could lead to totally unpredictable and dramatic consequences for the entire post-war European party and political system. Today even the most insignificant local victories of nationalists drive hitherto moderate governments to the right. The agenda of Europe’s right forces does not boil down to the problem of Islam and immigrants alone. Many put forward separatist demands as, for example, in Belgium, Great Britain, Spain to name a few. Having recognised the independence of the Serbian  Province of Kosovo Western political elites without much hesitation gave the green light to champions of creating new states by way of dividing the old ones.

 

Thirdly, in both the EU and NATO there are countries that cherish discriminatory norms. For instance, In Latvia and Estonia with regard to the Russian population. It looks as though modern Europe, rapidly sliding right, could follow the contagious example of these xenophobic regimes. Yet a “right answer” to failed projects of integration and assimilation could turn out far more radical than we can imagine today.

 

No, I am far from trying to teach somebody something. Russia has also made plenty of mistakes in the North Caucasus, and not only there. But unlike Western Europe we have lived along with Muslims for centuries, and our current problems, despite their scale, are just temporary difficulties for a great country. Our Muslims are our traditional citizens and compatriots. They are not immigrants, so the modus vivendi in new conditions will undoubtedly be found. Yet the “tolerance” and “political correctness” wrongly perceived by the West played a mean trick on indigenous Europeans and diasporas. While Euro bureaucrats are shamefully shying away from working out migration policies, proponents of the new Reconquista are ready to take their seats.

 

Why am I so concerned? It is because Europe’s experience has always been exemplary for Russia. And even if wrong decisions are taken by Europe there will always be politicians in my country who will urge us to step on the European rake, without thinking twice about the consequences.

 

Besides, being Russian Ambassador to NATO, I cannot help worrying about the future of our relations with this military bloc. Who should I discuss it with? With my current counterparts? Or with Ambassadors of North African and Middle Eastern countries?

 

At a particular point transition from the Bush Administration to the Obama Administration alone was enough for the “reset” in Russia-US relations to facilitate confidence-building and to step up cooperation between Russia and NATO.

 

But this positive example shows that the relations of such a global giant as NATO with its strategic partner, Russia, are dependent on the policy change in one particular country, even if in such an influential one as the US.

 

Therefore, I would like to appeal to Western elites for them to be more attentive to the problems that their countries’ public opinion is concerned about. I hope that my article can help stir a respectful and serious discussion on these topics that are so preoccupying to Europeans and mean so much for the future of our common European home.

 

Dr. Dmitry Rogozin

Eyes on Europe #14, spring 2011
http://eyesoneurope.eu/