Capital hypocrisy

BY A.ALABED and C.RUMPELNIK

“The EU will be confronted with more than a dead boy on the shores of Turkey. There will be 10.000 or 15.000. How will you deal with that?” Who is talking is no one else but Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s sultan slash prime minister. The occasion? Turkey European Union talks about migration fluxes aiming at slashing the numbers of potential refugees crossing the Aegean Sea into Greece and in so doing European territory. The addressees? The presidents of European council and commission, Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker.

Mr. Erdogans prophecy of doom should not be dismissed as the surreal doom-mongering of a Machiavellian, power-obsessed politician seeking to achieve the maximum output in tough negotiations. Even if ostensibly it seems to be exactly this: a preposterous exaggeration of an unlikely scenario, taking advantage of the tragic destiny of the little Aylan Kurdi in order to evoke Europe`s sore conscious in regard to this event and capitalize on it. Yet the prime minister’s prediction, albeit excessive and most certainly melodramatic, pictures quite accurately what Europe might face if it perpetuates its erratic and opportunistic migrant policy. Which the so-called understanding with Turkey is an essential part of.

Half a year ago, when the issue first erupted, European politicians used to sing quite a different tone. Particularly Central European representatives lined up at border crossings, train stations and asylum shelters, passing out the slogans “We are gonna manage it” and Angela Merkel’s favorite “Willkommenskultur”, actively trying to profit from the stunning wave of warmth and solidarity shown by their electorate in confront with the newly arrived.
The shoe sure is on the other foot now. Volatile and capricious as people are they have turned their backs, especially on Muslim refugees from Northern Africa. And Angela Merkel may well accurse her directionless babbling of solidarity and moral obligations, as she sees her numbers dip in each and every sector of society.

In the wake of the surge of right-wing anti-immigration parties in Sweden, Austria, France and the Netherlands, moderate politician try to contrast the xenophobic avalanche by doing a U-turn and adopting an entirely different attitude toward the members of what has come to be called a second Völkerwanderung.

The alteration has been a profound one. Not to the worse, but certainly not to the better either. What is now prevailing among Europe’s elite is an attitude of sanctimoniousness. “We have done our share, our capacities are depleted. Enough is enough.” In this platitude now there is not even a grain of verity. Quite on the contrary, there are plenty of resources. Countries such as Spain or Polonia have accepted nearly no refugees and even Germany, Austria and Sweden are far from reaching their operational limit. At a site-visit adjournement at the Austrian-Slovenian border the border security measures installed by the Austrian Federal Government (Out of consideration of the social liberal faction of the governing Social democratic party it must not be called a border fence) seemed out of proportion and essentially superfluous. The number of migrants crossing the border at this particular crossing deceeded the estimations of the Austrian Interior Minsitry by ten times. So there can be no talk of operational limits being reached.

What is being reached though is the psychological limit of tolerance of the native population. In the aftermath of the Cologne sexual assaults a widening rift has opened up between Muslim immigrants and the regular Joes and Josephines concerned about preserving their values, society and their basic security.

That’s what after months of shadow-boxing occurred to Austria’s chancellery who in the notoriously populist “Kronen Zeitung”, Austria’s highest-circulation newspaper and closely allied with the incumbent chancellor Werner Faymann, announced to look into possibilities to reduce social security for foreigners and take measures to control the incontrollable influx of refugees. This wouldn’t be that astonishing hadn’t the same Werner Faymann denounced the migration policies of neighboring Hungary comparing them to the deportations of Jews in Nazi-Germany: “Sticking refugees in trains and sending them somewhere completely different to where they think they're going reminds us of the darkest chapter of our continent's history."

While at the time Hungary was enforcing valid European law, thus Dublin III regulations, the same man once praising himself as ferocious campaigner for human rights and bulwark against the rising specter of the far-right is now skating on thin ice proposing to limit the number of asylum grants to 127.500 until 2019 – a figure the secretar general of Amnesty International Heinz Patzelt dismisses as completely unrealistic accusing the government of populism in its purest form.
Let’s remember: This is the same man who called for “opening barriers to humanity” just last autumn at the time fully endorsing Angela Merkel’s Willkommenskultur. With this unprecedented u-turn Faymann’s attitude towards Europe`s migration crisis is symptomatic for Europe`s inexistent crisis management and its insolent hypocrisy in regard to other countries, for example Turkey, who has in a Herculean effort has managed to accommodate over 2 million refugees, not only providing them with food and basic health care, but also granting them the right to work, which, considering the precarious economic circumstances and an unemployment rate of well over 10 percent, is an extremely courageous decision.

There are certainly a lot of deficiencies in Turkey’s political system and in regard to its leadership Mr. Erdogan’s is most certainly walking a fine line between dominant and autocratic. What he however cannot be accused of is cowardice and double standards. Which puts him in flagrant contrast to Europe`s alleged leaders who since continuously glancing at the pools have lost every sense of foresight and sensible policy.

Then of course, why should he be the only one forced to act sensibly? As Erdogan himself emphasized, he and his country “do not have written stupid on their foreheads”. Why should he accept a bogus European offer of 3 million euros, which given that the policy has to be ratified by the parliaments of each and every member state. Why should he soil his hands with keeping hundreds of thousands of desperate displaced ones facing a dire future in their homelands? Why should he take responsibility for the distressing scenes bound to unfold at the shores of the Aegean Sea if no actions are taken to alleviate the plight of war in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan? In order to allow European leaders to sleep easy at night? In order to allow them to talk themselves and the citizens of their countries into believing that the moral lighthouse Europe once again has prevailed. And, following psychological principles, one day even believe it themselves. They will not have to deal with dead boys and girls on the beaches of the Mediterranean. Others will. But that will not be there problem, won’t it?

Putin's sandbox

Russia has played the West in Syria. The West on the contrary has proven embarassingly short-sighted. BY C. RUMPELNIK

On February 1st Russia and its allies sat down in Geneva in order to work out a long-term peace plan for Syria along with the Syrian and Kurdish opposition. It was clear from the beginning that the negotiations had no future. When representatives of the Syrian regime and the main Syrian opposition groups refused to sit down in the same room together, and it became increasingly obvious that Russia in no way intended to halt his airstrikes on moderate rebel groups, a frustrated Staffan de Mistura called of the talks, postponing them to February 25th. One month and thousands of Russian airstrikes on rebel positions later the situation has considerably changed. PYD, the main representatives of Syrian Kurds and major force in the country's north, whrer it controlls the "Autonomous cantons of Rojava", comprising the former province of Hasakeh and the Surroundings of Ifrit and Kobane, has turned to Russia and rekindled its relationship with the regime in Damascus, as the odds of regime change are dropping. Recently it helped sever the so-called Azaz-corridor, the only supply-route for rebel forces in and around Aleppo and a lifeline for the city. In a tacit agreement with the regime the PYD's militia, YPG, has taken control of the northern part of the Azaz-pocket, while Syrian regime forces advanced from the South, closing in on the largely moderate rebels. Additionally Russian airstrikes targeted civilians infrastructure in Aleppo and Idlib province in a rarely-disguised attempt to drive civilians out of the respective regions in order to render attacks on rebel forces more straightforward. Putin's web of intrigue's has in so doing reduced moderate rebels' latitude to virtually nil, ith the West standing idlely by. Only when Turkey started shelling YPG forces close to its border in a response to the bloody terrorist attack in Ankara, which the YPG is suspected to have atleast helped to carry out, some movement came into the defense ministries in Washington, London and Paris. With the only result being a phony delcaration of support and Turkey being left alone in the rain. When Putin on February 26th finally - oh wonders - agreed to a cessation of hostilities, moderate rebel forces were significantly weakend to minor players in Deraa and Idlib provinces without a grain of hope to ever overthrow the regime in Damascus. That's the quintessence of Putin's strategy: combat moderate rebels until the only relevant players on Syrian soil are either regime forces or regime allies (PYD/YPG) or apocalyptical Islamists (Jabhat an-Nusra, Daesh), making to only viable way to persuade support for Bashar al-Assad. With this being Putin's final aim his compliance with the current truce is perfectly understandable. Just as the announcement of his army not to carry out any attacks in Syria for the time being. Not against moderate rebels. But not against JAN and Daesh either. Ostensibly in order "not to commit any errors". In fact because its in their interest that moderate rebel forces are further weakened by a strong JAN and a powerful Daesh. USA who? Europe who? Syria is emblematic for the demise of Western foreign policy, if not its graveyard. We hope it's not to late to take action. To rebuild the Syrian opposition together with democratic Kurdish forces. To wrest Syria from the grip of Russia's megalomaniac tinpot Napoleon and the dark worshippers of death. That's what we hope. Sadly, that's not what we think will happen. Quite on the contrary.