FEATURE ARTICLE

Patrick OdionikhereMonday, January 16, 2006
advertisement
[email protected]
Austria

ANNOUNCE THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR FRIENDS


FRANCE BURNING:
THE WIDER ISSUE AND ITS IMPLICATION FOR AFRICA


Introduction:

urope has maintained a generous welfare state and its failing economy is now putting strains on those who are not citizens and changing the political landscape with debates increasingly focusing on citizenship rights and race equality, rather than the pros and cons of immigration, cultural otherness or social cohesion (Nick Pearce).


The unrest caused by youths of migrant descent in France not only embarrassed the French authority but, it also exposed the fallacy of the meaning of French citizenship, which was premised on three key words-liberty, equality and fraternity. Even though, these key words will be revisited in different context later on this essay, nevertheless, for proper understanding of the subject title, the UK's legislation on race relation will guide and provide background information

Despite the desire to discuss the essay in a general context, it intends also to explore the dangers posed by artificial identity especially in countries with immigration and identity crises. However, for proper discussion the underneath shall form the issues for analysis:

The impact of the riot on race relation

The riot in France may be one of its kinds in recent French history apart from the circumstances leading to its revolution in 1789 premised on liberty, equality and fraternity. It is assumed that these key words are self explanatory; and therefore, unnecessary to elaborate on each of the word. However, the implication of the words will continue to be collated with UK's experience with race relation and its responses to riots.

advertisement
Racial unrest and riots in England spur UK's government to enact the various acts such as: race relation act 1976 as amended in 2000 (James Atkinson), subsequent anti-immigration laws and nationality act, and crime and disorder act to address the rights of minorities and migrants. The race relation act is particularly important in the sense that it outlaw discrimination against anyone on ground of race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origin. There is no doubt that, the act was intended to protect the most venerable; even though, it has been criticized as being too technical and for containing unnecessary exceptions, limitations and the exclusion of religion; nevertheless, it continues to remain unique in Europe despite its shortcomings. In part, it has reduced the incidence of discrimination against minorities and migrants even though, it imposes negative obligation on public and private bodies. It is an exceptional master piece without which, minorities would have had to rely on the tenets of ECHR, which until 1998 had no meaning in UK laws. Even as the EU seeks greater and closer integration of its member states and citizens, there is no mention of any social or integration policy towards the migrants living in the EU. Whether by omission, what is clear is that, the EU social charter only encourages citizenship and even at that, EU rules on rights are ambiguous.

Furthermore, taking into account that the criteria for citizenship are not simple procedures and considering the fact that not every one can become a citizen, therefore, to tie legal protection to citizenship is absurd. It can not be right for those who contribute to our social system to be denied rights simply because they are not citizens. Inasmuch as migrants are given the free-choice to aspire to be full citizens, nonetheless, we should also promote policies that strengthens integration and ends discrimination. The unrest in France has shown that mere citizenship alone does not produce social and economic integration and so also, will the critics of UK's anti-discrimination laws say that, we should do away with discrimination law since it has being unable to stop riots. It should not surprise any one because the system had only produced a half way solution but nevertheless, it is still a useful legislation in that, migrants and minorities can rely on it to seek redress against public and private bodies. Diversity should mean that legal responses must be prompt and should be guided by realities and not on the notion of citizenship designed when Europe was still homogenous. The French politicians ought to have long followed the English stance on race relation taking into account their colonial past to forge protective anti-discrimination laws and not on its contradictory notion of citizenship.

The unrest is in part to be blamed on long neglect of minorities in terms of jobs, poor education, and the lack of a well organized social structure to tackle the problem facing deprived communities and the inciting statement made by the interior minister on the other hand. Citizenship should mean more than just freedom from immigration control for migrants, but rather into rights which translates into equal opportunities and respect. Any racial unrest is a setback for those agitating for multiculturalism, which has been vigorously pursued by liberals to get minorities some form of identity within dominant cultures necessitated by globalization and colonialism. However, what is often ignored is that multiculturalism makes integration into mainstream cultures difficult since people find it more convenient to keep their cultures and way of life especially, when there is no sanction to face. Indeed, new realities show that, it is no longer acceptable that this practice should continue in view of the fact that natives are getting more and more sceptic of the outsider. This was succinctly expressed in Atkinson's paper that "An influx of coloured people domiciled here is likely to impair the harmony, strength and cohesion of our public and social life and to cause discord and unhappiness among all concerned". This might corroborate the French people's view of the unrest without any further question about its justification. Currently, the notion of multiculturalism is artificial because it does not support any trust building within the different ethnicity since on the face of it, most observers would agree that when people of very different backgrounds come together in same community, there is likely to be some suspicion, distrust and even outright hostility (Nick Pearce). This is the more reason why migrants and minorities should seek greater integration into mainstream cultures on their own in addition to any state's institutional integration package.

The UK concept of multiculturalism can no longer be an aspiration following the emergence of parallel cultures at the expense of the dominate one. It is a paradox that a stranger should dictate the rules as opposed to conforming to the main norm. The London bombing and the events of 9/11 has shown that, there are reasons for concern about how far we should continue to embrace multiculturalism knowing that, multiculturalism is divisive and makes integration and assimilation into mainstream cultures difficult. It makes no sense for people to be seeking any artificial identity as in some cases, where blacks prefer to be known black British, Asian British, Afro-American, Arab American or whatever. A mere look at some of our inner cities such as in UK, France and other countries will despise this growing tendency that you might think you are in Punjab, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and to most Nigerians, Obalende or Ajegunle to derogate some part of south east London district, which is home to many Nigerians. In some of these cities, natives are helpless as to the deteriorating state of affairs and in some cases prefer to abandon these places to migrants resulting into ghettos which in most cases are breeding ground for social disorder.

Any ethnic riot undoubtedly undermine the efforts of those hoping for acceptance of multiculturalism as new discourse in the search for identity and move away from traditional values into hybrid cultures. Multiculturalism as the only option is unsustainable but rather, diversity in context of integration and assimilation should replace any other form of artificial identity due to new threats, which require us to reappraise old policies and compromises based on laissez-faire. We must pursue strong assimilationist and integration policies if, riots of any nature are to be history. Even, whilst recognizing the difficulty and the financial implication of integration and assimilation, current anxieties about immigration and diversity rehearse familiar discourses from periods of new, high or growing net inward migration to Western democracies, concerns about terrorism and economic insecurity signals integration and assimilation as the only viable alternative to any other restrictive immigration and asylum policies.

Use of destruction to justify redress

Whether a non violent demonstration would have produced the same effect and media attention is subject to debate depending on ones' opinion and political philosophy. However, one issued is often missed that is, any cause of action is triggered by a failing system brought about by default, which ought to have been foreseen. The institutional discrimination against minorities and migrants in Europe and Western democracies is to a large extent responsible for the ghettos in various cities of Europe and their inability in integrating into the mainstream culture with hitherto resentment and the resort to violence as last instrument to seek redress.

Europe has forgotten that it recovered quickly from the devastation of Second World War through the labour of Turks, Arabs, Africans, Indians, Asians, Caribbean and West Indies for semi und unskilled jobs. Unfortunately, Europe's failing economy has put these migrants and their families at the forefront of any political discussion and crossfire from far right immigration propaganda, despite their economic contribution to Europe's growth. Whether by coincident, the discrimination against these guest workers have continued unabated since no one reckon that most of them would stay longer than necessary and therefore, for them to hope for integration, let alone assimilation, was perhaps to hope for too much (James Atkinson ).

Sometimes, new migrants blur the distinction between old migrants-the so called guest workers and ethnic minorities (neo citizens), who are now scapegoats of the mess and social strain caused by these new arrivals. At times, those who have the right skin colours are less likely to be confronted by any discrimination policy and they find it easier to integrate into mainstream cultures and out of ghetto. Inner cities unrest will continue as longer as there are institutional isolation of migrants and minorities from mainstream way of life and economic exclusion. We are all bounded together despite our different ethnicity. The riot in France touched every tax payer and the destruction could have been avoided if politicians had done their home work properly and caution exercised by what is said and how! We forget that words can spark fire with such an unpredictable but catastrophic consequences that can produce deep unease, as fear and insecurity get entangled with concerns about migration and ethnic difference (Nick Pearce). Self help remedy is never a solution to seek redress. France like every other western democracy is a country with well entrenched rule of law for which the courts are well suited to address any discrimination. The injustices suffered by blacks in America were ended through the court, which in part were due to the Judges' judicial activism Those hoping to cause anarchy should be removed as quickly as possible because destruction as instrument to seek redress is not part of our democratic norms and at the same time, those inalienable rights which produce just treatment among the different persons in our society should be given priority in order to end future riots.

Extremist and political ramification

Europe and western democracies have always being xenophobic people despite having some liberals within its political class who continues to shape its political discourses that are now under attack from far right ideology and thus presenting formidable strains on immigration and integration policies. Against this backdrop, anti-foreigner parties such as BNP of Britain, Jean Marie Le Pen of France, Jorg Haider, and Strache (FPO) Austria and in Holland have exploited immigration issues to run successful election victories. In Austria for instance, Strache has used such slogans as 'Vienna should not become Istanbul or portray all Nigerian asylum seekers as drug dealers' and calling for their expulsion even if, it would mean violating their human rights. Logically, he is right taking into account the menaces posed by Nigerian drug dealers, which of course has lead to vigilantism and the resulting abuses against blacks in all form including such graffiti as 'negger raus (niggers out)'. Naturally, there are difficulties in reconciling any justification to tolerate someone who violates his/her host country's laws whilst seeking protection under the disguise of Asylum. This ugly scene provides anti-foreigner parties with the propaganda to cause discontent amongst us. It is not surprising why there are growing resistance to some of our democratic norms and the desire to curtail the reach of human right and asylum laws. However, they forget that, Europe has prospered as a result of the rule of law and other enabling factors. These reactionary politicians have explored cheap electioneering propaganda to seek electoral gains, which further exacerbate the divide between the different political groups upon which extremism continue to flourish. Even where, there are grounds for rethink about how we should limit the effect of human right law and other protective legislations, nevertheless, we must be committed to progressive strategic policy, which promote economic and civic integration, which might help in creating social cohesion and provide support for progressive welfare policies in conditions of increased diversity. This should not mean abandoning established anti-discrimination policies. Rather, a new integration and assimilation policy which incorporate newcomers into national fabrics and construct a new form of citizenship and national identity that can sustain a sense of social solidarity (Nick Pearce).

Any integration and assimilation policy must embrace both positive and negative obligations which are to translate into rights upon fulfilment and not policies based on political concession; but as a trade off for those who meet the integration and assimilation package. The boat is full and Europe must search and be selective in the kind of migrants that should be allowed in if the resentment towards old and newcomers is to be minimized. All various tests ranging from language skills, culture, history and politics should be criteria for assessing the readiness for integration and assimilation and such test must be completed within a given time frame. Those who fail to meet the criteria should be expelled as quickly as possible following the exhaustion of due process of law. There should be a common immigration regulation policy in the EU countries and a binding expulsion decision in one member state should be enforceable across the entire EU and similarly, migrants having rights to remain should enjoy same freedom of movement and employment like citizens under the notion of subsidiarity in order to share the burden of unemployment. Integration is in the best interest of migrants and to continue to lay claim to cultures and customs left behind is ridiculous and paradoxical especially for those claiming to have fled their country of origin for fear of persecution. Migrants who fail to conform to mainstream cultures are causing vexation and apprehension to the hybrid migrants who are forced into defending themselves against extremist and right wing political confrontation. As Bentley argued "�. Politics is becoming more volatile as citizens disengage from traditional parties and struggle to make sense of a swirling set of global issues. As time goes on, the balancing act for governments becomes ever more precarious. David Blunkett, the British Home Secretary, last week described society as being 'like a coiled spring', expressing his concern that anger and hostility could too easily translate into violence and vigilantism. Control of migrant inflows and their integration into society has become a litmus test for those concerned about the erosion of national sovereignty and identity"(Tom Bentley).

Anti-immigration sentiments are unhelpful now that Europe have so many enemies within including terrorist threat. It must not be forgotten that our collective freedom is premised on justice for all and intertwined on the wisdom that, we should not expect from those for whom we care less for to care about our national interest. Europe should not be blackmailed into derogating from its international humanitarian obligation by conceding to right wing cheap election propaganda to consider moving asylum procedures outside of EU, which is under discussion. The EU has the resources to share asylum burden, to ensure uniformity and for faster decision process in order to sort out bogus asylum seekers.

Alternatively, it should also look into the feasibility of green card scheme to allow in prospective migrants and the system should be centrally administered to reflect uniformity and against bias towards any race. The possibility to able to legally migrate will remove the pressure on Asylum system, which has been open to abuse as result of the mix up between asylum and immigration procedures. Also, the scheme will ensure that the EU member states, gets the right choice of migrants and not the trouble shooters and the ones likely to resent our culture and way of life. The debate about our welfare system is important since there is a casual link between migration and welfare. Pearce argued that "ethnic diversity leads to weaker welfare states, since it decreases the willingness of citizens to redistribute their income". However, diversity should be embraced as inevitable and should not cause alarm since Europe's ageing and falling population can only hope to sustain its welfare state through leaving room for new migrants with the right skills while simultaneously forging social rehabilitation programmes for old migrants balanced against future immigration policies.

Even though, the material damage in France was as a result of the comment of the interior minister who ought to have resigned, since his statement was inconsistent with his right of expression taking into account that, his utterances were intended to cause discontent and tension. As public official, he has a moral as well legal obligation to exercise restraint when ever making any public statement. It is unfortunate that legal responses are lest where power is greatest.

The burden for Africa

The trend to leave Africa will continue as long poverty and lack of opportunities remains. Unfortunately, African migrants have been guided by misinformation and exploitation of clandestine human traffickers, who use the most reprehensible means to bring them to Europe and elsewhere. It is unnecessary to elaborate on the human suffering which confronts most of them before reaching the shores of Europe. This desperation has lead to all kinds of arrivals who are then made to pass through all sorts of immigration difficulties, hostilities from natives and discrimination in all its form. It is a pity that Africa despite its rich natural resources due to its despotic leaders who lack clear vision and focus, whether on economics and national ideology are causing havoc to its people and continent. They have taken out every dollar, which ought to have been spent on poverty reduction and development to hide away in Europe and America. The Arab Africans are increasingly renascent than the black Africans or sub-Sahara Africa. This distinction has also accounted for the disparity in their GDP and may be sooner or later, Arab African countries will level up with Europe in terms of opportunities and development that, its citizen would not need to come to Europe and be subjected to the ugly side of immigration. However, the journey for black Africans is still bleak, unless a new world order emanates, which replaces the colonial divide between master and servant. Otherwise, Africa can only hope for what Europe and America make out of what they understand of moral responsibility.

Europe and America are in part to blame for the miseries in Africa in that, they have always supported the wrong group of leaders and have encouraged only capital flight rather than true partnership and self reliance initiatives meant to create wealth and employment opportunities. Europeans cannot take pride in their open society, or hope to have much influence in the wider world, if the only signal they send to it is through raising the barricades. No one would like to leave his/her country of origin if all is well, knowing that in a foreign land, they would have to adjust to new ways of life, immigration uncertainties and harassment from locals. New threats of terrorism and cost of raising barriers to stop immigration flow makes it imperative for Europe and America to pursue new policies, which end economic malfeasance, corruption, hunger and sufferings in Africa.

There should be intergenerational trust equity for endangered people; who are now victim of its leaders. Any tight immigration policy is likely to affect Africa adversely. Migration has afforded a number of Africans to make useful foreign remittance back home, which has in turn provided another source of local revenue to its economy whilst at the same time sourcing black market for currency conversion for some greedy Nigerians and other African politicians, who end up recycling these remittance back to Europe, America and other countries to buy lucrative property assets and the rest into bank account. On one hand, despite being against such remittance because they cause artificial inflation, encourage dependency and consumption rather than a productive economy, nevertheless, on the other hand, some lives have been saved through such stipends from abroad without which would have meant life threatening scenario for many families left behind without assessing the emotional distress caused to the migrant who have to contend to other financial obligation, which at times drag them into committing crimes of all sort in order to keep people at home happy!

Apart from wars, hunger, poverty and corruption, Africa is also a victim of globalization. It cannot be right that Europe and Western democracies should be the only beneficiary of globalization. Rather, they should also compromise certain policies to absorb those thereby affected and even though tightening the borders are imperative. At least, the EU should leave some leeway for migration opportunities for qualified Africans and Encourage more scholarship and apprenticeship programmes for any intending African under a regulated scheme rather than look eastward for investment and skilled manpower. Africans and its continent depend on having access to Europe and the remittance from its migrants. Otherwise, the EU will be inviting trouble for any policy which spurs tougher exclusion of Africans from its borders. Or, they should stop the red carpet welcome for African leaders until they meet the standard for poverty reduction and also to actively ensure that its shore is no longer safe haven for money laundering because some one can be forced into doing what is right if there is a universal condemnation and sanction.

Conclusion

Despite the UK anti-discrimination laws being unique in Europe, yet it has been unable to abate ethnic unrest and so also is citizenship flawed for its inability to stop discrimination other than freedom from immigration control. Integration and assimilation remain the only viable option and not any artificial identity which segregates societies where extremism is now dividing and increasingly causing discontent in the different political camps. Europe has prospered because of the absence of wars and those hoping to cause troubles should be removed as quickly as possible.

Europe should not allow its policies to be shaped by ultra right wing blackmail, but rather by policies consistent with the norms of rule of law even though, there are those arguing for a fortress Europe as if we could make the choice to turn off the flow of people as if it were a tap. Any ethnic unrest is ground for concern but it should not make politicians to be restive and resort to collective condemnation of all migrants. The idiom that one should be his/her your neighbour's keeper must be evaluated in its widest sense to guide policies which have spill-over effect.

References

Lynnette Kelly, "Integration Policies in the UK" Accessed on 25.November 2005 at https://www.google .com

James Atkinson, "The impact of immigration policy on race relations and the national identity crises in post-war Britain" https://www.google .com

Tom Bentley, "The immigration problem" https://www.google .com

Nick Pearce, "Diversity versus solidarity: a new progressive dilemma" https://www.google .com