The Economics of Post-Multiculturalism and The Diplomacy of Bilateralism!

ONGOING CONDITIONS OF MIGRANTS

While Donald Trump has been heavily criticised for his controversial policies and rhetoric, on immigration, many within the European Union have adopted similar slogans and measures. The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, was right to recently note that the ’rise of nationalist, increasingly xenophobic sentiment in the EU itself’ has pushed even the most liberal governments into adopting populist measures [1]. For example, in July last year, the supposedly left-wing and anti-racist Green-Social Democratic coalition (in Sweden) adopted the most restrictive migration measures since the 1970s [2].

Due to the phenomena of increasing racism and xenophobia, which have been exacerbated by the recent refugee crisis, non-EU communities (third-world nationals and their descendants) cannot properly integrate into mainstream societies. Furthermore, non-EU nationals tend to be trapped in low-waged, low-skilled, jobs which serve as a catalyst for poor health and poverty. Unfortunately, the well-meaning policy of multiculturalism does nothing to address these challenges as it consolidates and stimulates residual segregation and prevents the establishment of a mutual understanding between mainstream and third-world communities. In addition to this, Islamic radicalisation and growing nationalism (the latter being particularly prominent among Europe’s Turkish diaspora) have become increasingly common among the younger generations to descend from a non-EU origin.

Despite their claims of embracing diversity and tolerance, the EU elite behave in a hypocritical manner when it comes to promoting human rights and protecting asylum seekers. Indeed: strict border controls have emerged within several members of the Schengen zone; refugees ‘live’ in prison-like conditions- cold, hungry, and cramped on Greek islands -while others face more frequent police checks and exploitation in ’one-euro jobs’; any migrant suspected of a crime or terrorism must carry a tracking device at all times.

Meanwhile, deportations of third world migrants and refugees continue in most EU member states. Even if Geert Wilders failed to win the recent Dutch General election, and even if Marine Le Pen does not win the upcoming French presidential election, those who have won/will win can be expected to embrace cultural nativism. Indeed, in order to outflank the populists, mainstream politicians are making concessions to populism and are adopting more intolerant positions in relation to the question of societal integration. For example, the election of the moderate Green Party candidate Alexander Van der Bellen, for the Austrian Presidency, over the right-wing populist Norbert Hofer, has not reversed the process of demulticulturalization (the original concept used by Konstantin Manyakin in Thesis paper: Multiculturalism in Western Europe: From Implementation to Failure). Indeed, the ruling Austrian Conservative-Socialist coalition has already agreed to adopt strict integration laws [3]. Such laws resemble the equally tough integration laws recently adopted by Germany [4] and look very similar to Denmark’s controversial citizenship tests [5] and Belgium’s integration oaths (which took effect on the 26th of January 2017) [6]. Amid such conditions, refugees and third world nationals struggle to integrate (with many electing to leave Europe and return to their country of origin).

INVESTING ABROAD AND THE DIPLOMACY OF BILATERALISM

Despite this, the EU can still prove itself to be a humanitarian power abroad. Through establishing closer economic ties with Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia (the places where the majority of non-EU migrants originate from), Europe can aid their development. If Europe’s industrial economies invested enough capital in African, Latin American and Asian states, then these states would be able to begin diversifying their local industries. The most recent and excellent example is the EU-Africa fund, worth €44 billion, between Europe and several states in sub-Saharan Africa [7].

Despite the wide-range criticisms of both Thatcherism and Reaganomics, neoliberalism (driven mainly by US-based large corporations such as Coca-Cola and McDonalds) has been an ’economic miracle’ for many developing economies. Indeed, the most obvious beneficiary of neoliberalism has been the People’s Republic of China. In addition to this, western offshore investments have enabled both Turkey and Mexico to become key import states for both the EU and the USA (particularly when it comes to machinery, electronics and clothing).

Rejected third world nationals and refugees can also serve as a useful resource when it comes to boosting the economies of developing countries. Indeed, having lived in industrial Europe, repatriates can: diffuse skills and experience amongst local populations, launch new businesses/industries, and even help with the planning of city and transportation infrastructure. The benefits that non-EU repatriates can bestow upon their countries of origin is enhanced by the fact that living in Europe tends to imbue them with a more entrepreneurial mindset [8]. In addition to this, firms owned by these versatile repatriates can also build effective cultural and entrepreneurial ’bridges’ between poorer and richer nations. Accordingly, more money should be spent on business support and creating affordable housing for repatriates.

Repatriates are also beneficial for the EU’s economy. Through foreign investments, bolstering domestic industries, and promoting consumerism in their countries of origin, repatriates can make the Euro more dominant in global finance (enabling it to compete against the Chinese Yuan and the US dollar). Increased repatriation will also enable Europe’s governments to focus more on creating jobs for unemployed EU nationals. Indeed, this could be done through imposing regulations which require EU firms to hire EU citizens only, as was originally proposed by Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern [9]. By reducing unemployment (which, in turn, reduces dissatisfaction amongst EU nationals) controversial movements, such as PEGIDA and ANTIFA, would lose support. Europe’s governments would also be able to retire ageing workers as their jobs would be done by employees abroad. Additionally, if more commodities related to the primary and secondary sectors were produced in third-world countries, the EU would be free to invest more in: robotics (which would also enable ageing Europeans to retire), research and space industries. This would enable Europe to become a superpower in innovation.

If the EU adopted a foreign policy underpinned by an emphasis on both self-determination and self-reliance, the Union would be able to cast itself as a peace-maker and a worldwide beacon of democracy and stability. However, it is likely that repatriates would face dangerous threats in their countries of origin. Accordingly, this is one reason why the EU should establish both a common army and anti-corruption committees. Such institutions would require all member states, in unity, linguistic diversity, and solidarity, to participate in military operations designed to combat corruption and political instability. In addition to this, establishing and safeguarding peace and democracy in the third world would boost the popularity of Europe among the illegal and poor migrants who stand to be deported by Trump’s America. Boosting the military presence of Europe abroad can also enhance Europe’s ability to shape international geo-politics.

CONCLUSION

In a world of diminishing tolerance, and growing racism, it is imperative that Europe co-operates with others (irrespective of the cultural differences we may share). Indeed, achieving a mutual understanding with peoples across the world is vital as protectionism and nationalism cannot address the challenges we face today.