Refugee Crisis: Who will pay?

Moral responsibility for the refugee crisis in Europe rests with us all, but not equally with all. Those who caused it, or who aggravate it, obviously should be expected to contribute more to its solution.

Not every party to this shared responsibility will agree on how best to solve the problem. In a civilised society diverse views on the problems of the day are acceptable. We don’t need to have a media packaged consensus on everything.

So, it is not necessarily racist to believe that an open border policy is unworkable (as Germany has discovered), or to believe that hunting down the leadership of ISIS (as British soldiers are doing) would be a more effective application of resources towards a solution than encouraging countless refugees and migrants to come to Europe.

Many political figures and media commentators, however, seem to think that opening borders and welcoming all comers is the only solution.

Some go so far as to denounce anyone who disputes their open borders policy, or even questions it, as heartless, uncompassionate and lacking their own superior moral virtue – which they are not in the least bit shy about publically proclaiming.

Thus Angela Merkel, without any consultation with other European governments, announced that Germany would take in 800,000 refugees this year. Backed up by such people as the president of the European Commission and the UN special envoy for migration, she then went on to roundly condemn other European countries that hesitate to follow suit.

No doubt she is a warm-hearted soul, at least towards the countless migrants that might respond to her announcement, if not always towards her fellow Europeans.

But we have to wonder: is it possible for the head of government of the most powerful country in Europe to be so simple-minded?

Even if she is not good at maths herself, she could have consulted someone who might still remember how to do long-division. Or someone with a calculator.

800,000 spread out over the year would be just under 2,200 arrivals per day. But her announcement was only about four months before the end of 2015, with still another half million refugees to arrive – increasing the average to about 4,000 per day. Last Saturday alone 12,000 arrived in the city of Munich.

Poor mathematics aside, there is also the imprudence of what was effectively an open invitation. How could anyone think that a population fleeing a war zone would be so self-regulated as to be able to limit the number of migrants to the number invited?

There are billions of people who could potentially take up Mrs. Merkel’s invitation. Of course billions probably won’t, but more than 800,000 likely will.

Furthermore, every crisis attracts those who would take advantage of it. Can anyone be so naïve as to believe that this one will be different?

• ISIS has claimed to have sent more than 4,000 of its members into Europe among the refugees;

• The Lebanese Minister for Education has stated that over 20,000 ISIS members have infiltrated camps of Syrian refugees in his country;

• Criminal and terrorist gangs are engaging in people trafficking and the sale of false passports and other documents.

Can we be surprised at this? It would be more surprising if wasn’t happening.

The UN provides the demographic profile of the current wave of migrants: 75% men, 12% women and 13% children – very different from the majority women, children and elderly that one would expect in a refugee crisis.

Already Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have refused to take in any refugees because of security concerns.

So, if some people in Europe believe that mass migration could be a security threat, they shouldn’t be labelled as xenophobes and neo-Nazis. It is a genuine concern for many people.

Even Germany, so welcoming in theory, found that in practice it had to revive some long forgotten borders to keep out the very people that it had attracted to Europe.

According to Germany’s interior minister, the reinstating of its southern borders is because of security concerns, as well as to put pressure on other countries to take in more migrants – that would be the ones that Germany’s announcement brought to Europe in the first place.

Not only was Germany irresponsible with its open invitation to potential refugees. Its government then went on to exploit the refugees to pressure the rest of Europe to fall into line. This is immoral and grossly insensitive to the desperate plight of the refugees.

And this brings us to the question of culpability. There has been havoc wrecked on Greece, Italy, Hungary and other countries on the frontiers of Europe by migrants desperate to arrive in the promised land of Germany.

Refugees and other migrants have died on the perilous journey, often ill equipped for the lands and climates in which they find themselves, or travelling in vessels that are not sea worthy.

Will Germany take responsibility for its recklessness? Will it pay for the damage and costs incurred by the countries that have suffered the consequences of its thoughtless invitation? Will it compensate the families of those who died at sea while following the beacon of false hope offered by Germany?

Through the arrogance of Chancellor Merkel Germany exacerbated the refugee crisis. It cannot force the rest of Europe to bail it out of this problem, especially while Mrs. Merkel still rejects all criticism of her mishandling of the situation.

Perhaps instead of condemning other countries for being less reckless than itself, Germany would like to show some sincerity by footing the bill for its ill-considered adventure.

Angela Merkel either knew or didn’t know that the crisis would unfold as it has. If she knew, one must wonder what her agenda is. If she didn’t know, then why was she so determined to impose on all of Europe a situation about the consequences of which she was entirely ignorant?

Either way she an unfit person to be setting the agenda for the whole European Union, and should refrain from dictating policy to other European countries.