Good news for Europe. I consider that what the Summit of Seville has promised on the fight against illegal immigration and external borders as positive and the reservations that remain, the shaking of heads or baffled faces, unjustified:
1) Opinion polls demonstrate that security is the main concern of Europeans. Better control of borders represents an important factor in security because we don't know by definition (involving illegal immigrants) how many criminals and terrorists enter illegally blending in with those who deserve support and asylum. We cannot criticise Europe and its citizens without taking into account its priorities;
2) Security concerns of citizens are legitimate and justified, as security represents the primary freedom underpinning the State of Law and all civilisation;
3) Mass illegal immigration is an act of piracy. No country in the world would tolerate masses of immigrants arriving on their shores, which is what is happening in Europe. The transporting of illegal immigrants in conditions that are almost always inhumane, as well as other fraudulent means for transporting them, represent egregious acts in this trade in human beings. Those who organise these "journeys of despair" and get rich by these activities don't hesitate to throw women and children overboard to protect themselves. In general, our Member States save, welcome, shelter and feed desperate and abandoned people, but they must put an end to a dangerous and untenable situation.
4) Europe won't be able to establish its area of freedom, security and justice, an objective that is ambitious and which represents progress for our civilisation and is to everyone's advantage, if it is unable to control its borders;
5) In absence of an effective policy against illegal immigration, it is important to develop "positive" elements to its reception policy on legal immigration and the right of asylum.
Legality and integration. The fifth point needs some explanation. It is obvious that the fight against illegal immigration and piracy on our seas must go hand in hand with the "positive" aspects already mentioned. The strategy defined by the European Council almost two years ago in Tampere highlighted this explicitly, as did several proposals, reports and other documents. But negotiations got bogged down. Why? I'm convinced that the reason can be found in the absence of effective action against illegal immigration. If the fears of citizens on this subject are not allayed, it will be impossible for the national authorities to get people to understand or introduce equitable and generous standards for legal immigrants and asylum seekers. Decisions by Heads of State and Governments at Seville puts negotiations back n the right tracks and results will follow shortly.
It is necessary to add that immigration control will allow appropriate efforts to be made in the most difficult of areas: harmonious integration of the current immigrant population (on the condition, of course, that this integration is not refused by the immigrants themselves, a subject that we'll return to later)).
Criticism of what was decided at Seville will not be long in coming, it's already perceptible. The European institutions will have to provide clear answers to aspects that are poorly understood and alleviate certain doubts and distrust, as well as provide assurances and guarantees. But they should not be swayed by demagogy and rhetoric, nor by those who used the chimera of a "fortress Europe". I find these descriptions particularly annoying. Europe is one of the most open areas of the world - just look at the statistics of foreign imports, the level of immigration in the global population, the number of religions freely practices in our countries. But Europe is also one of the most densely populated areas, per kilometre in the world; in certain zones it has had to reclaim land from the sea for its inhabitants. Europe itself has the right to decided its immigration policy and not have it imposed on it by traffickers in human beings.
Documents are not enough. Reservations and reticence about the priority Europe gives to its citizens' security concerns can be justified out of fear that repression of criminality targets immigrants in an indiscriminate way and is transformed into a racist operation. It is a fear that is partly justified and does justice to those who voice this concern. It is obvious that regulation resulting from documents produced at Seville must be clear on this question, by strengthening, in parallel - the fight against criminality -the fight against racism and all discrimination and that the EU must speed up its definition and application of its "positive" policies already mentioned, in keeping with the very principle of the common area, where the word "security" is on the same footing as "freedom" and "justice". But documents are not enough, what counts is what happens on a day to day basis, in people's behaviour, as well as hat of police forces and legal authorities. This does not depend on the European institutions.
Two important episodes. A positive element in this context is the observation that concerns about security are also shared on an almost equal scale by the immigrant population. Two examples.
Several days ago the Turkish community in Brussels organised a demonstration demanding more police protection and better security in the borough of Schaerbeek (where the Turkish community is particularly well implanted). Five thousand immigrants marched through the centre of Europe with the slogans and I quote "Le Soir" newspaper, "Crime rises where are we going? - All together for more security - citizens punished, the guilty go unpunished". The immediate cause of this demonstration was the assassination of a Turkish grocer in his shop on 8 June. A statement from a Turkish woman, "The police don't do enough, they don't tackle the mafia any more, which we can see on the street corners, in the borough, where weapons can be bought with no problem in the rue Brabandt. The local people cannot allow this to go on without taking action". More information, the killer identified by the police is Moroccan. But two weeks earlier it was two Moroccans who were killed and the killer was European. One origins or race have nothing to do with security".
Second episode: Interview with Malek Boutih, the new President of "SOS Racisme", in "Le Monde", a pioneering movement in the fight against racism and discrimination, whose former Presidents include Fodé Sylla and Halem Désir, both of whom are MEPs. Mr Boutih declared that "with the thugs in the estates there should not be any pussy-footing around, you have to go in there and hit hard, knock them out and take back control of the territory that's been left them by the politicians searching a quiet life. And do it fast!" Enemies are those who "terrorise the neighbourhoods, rape women and get their younger brothers hooked on drugs, who arm themselves and have torture chambers in the cellars". The State cannot "let itself be intimidated indefinitely by five thousand gangsters…The enemies are the little Le Pens in the estates, the little neighbourhood dictators who'd sell their brothers for a few quid". Mr Boutih also warns of certain "Islamisists" who are even more dangerous than the gang bosses. Using the pretext of educational support, they patrol the schools in order to impose the veil and their own ideals. The Koran for them is used to justify fascist positions". None of us would dare make such assertions but ht e President of SOS Racism", who is an avowed "anti-racist militant and left winger", can.
One law for everybody. In the past, a "battle of ideas" took place between two tendencies in France, which were known as the "Republicans" and the "Communitarians". The term republican has no relationship with the those who are against the Monarchy and those who prefer the Republic: the distinction is between those who believe that the law must apply to everyone in the same way and that immigrants are subject to the laws of the host country in exactly the same way as the indigenous population. The "Communitarians" don't have anything to do with the European institutional system but rather, believe that the immigrant population must be able to keep certain laws of their countries. At first glance this could appear as a theoretical and ideological debate; in reality it has profound repercussions on daily life and society. For example, Republican law does not allow one to have several wives at the same time and considers it the mutilation of young women, a hideous crime, and arranges national holidays etc. Well-meaning sociologists sometimes support the communitarian theory, without understanding that it is opposing the rights for Europeans that would not oppose for other: the right to live according to given laws, in keeping with their customs and civilisation. These laws condemn all discrimination based on race, religion, sex and impose the free thinking and other freedoms and rights which are recognised at a European level (re-read the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which in a few years time will represent the preliminary part of a EU Constitution). Communitariansim considers that sometimes laws involving part of the population, such as women or homosexuals for example should not apply. These two episodes prove that immigrants themselves understand what security and freedom are and want to defend them. In any case, it would be absurd that the right for a people to live according to its own civilisation, which is recognised more and more, is refused to its won European people.
The Seville Council recognised these principles. At the same time its relaunched positive actions concerning the right to asylum and integration of legal immigrants. Without these actions, the attitude of Europe would be incomplete and out of step with its own civilisation and principles. In tackling the question of border control, Europe is going to be able to define and apply its global immigration policy and care for the "excluded", whether they are immigrants or Europeans. This is the new frontier. I'll be coming back to it.
(F.R.)