Vestnik Kavkaza is realizing the project 'National Question', together with Vesti FM, trying to understand how different nations, different governments at different times solve problems in different countries among different nationalities. Today, a leading researcher of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Sergey Fedorov, and the director of the Center for Study of Migration Policy of the Institute of Public Administration and Management of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, a member of the Commission on migration issues of the Council for Ethnic Relations of the Russian President, Doctor of Social Sciences Victoria Ledeneva, were guests of the presenters Vladimir Averin and Maria Frolova.
Frolova: Today the topic of our program is 'Migrants in Europe'. The situation can be seen during the last months, in particular the unprecedented influx of migrants who swept over Europe this summer makes us speak about it. None of this happened today and not even in the 21st century. Today we will try to understand the essence of this phenomenon.
Averin: Let's try to understand where the roots of this migration process are. For example, in the times of Elizabeth and Catherine II it was possible to present an Arab from one royal court to another one. That was the migration policy, and therefore the solution of the national question in European states. From what period of time can we speak about a large number of migrants to European countries? Or did it start from a certain period of time?
Fedorov: The 19th century can be considered as the starting point. This is the beginning of colonial expansion, war ...
Averin: It turns out that if a European country conquers and acquires new colonies then it inevitably leads to migrant flows from the colonies to the center of the empire?
Fedorov: Certainly. The beginning of colonization, or the French expansion in Algeria, refers to 1830. There were several million people from French during that time before the events of 1950, the war in Algeria. The so-called 'Blackfoots' had to move to the mainland.
Averin: Remembering literature, for example, about England of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th… There were Indian servants, but no more.
Fedorov: The world has changed since that time. It's hard to compare. Now everything is associated with globalization. It is a term that can explain everything.
Averin: And postmodernism ...
Fedorov: Postmodernism and globalization are two concepts that explain all the processes. The processes of globalization can be interpreted differently. However, they have led to such radical shifts when the boundaries between countries became more transparent, the migration flows really swept over the whole world, especially Europe, as the most prosperous and developed part of the world, the United States, as well as our country after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Averin: There is an opinion that Germany provoked a powerful flow of migration after World War II when the German economy in the late 1950's and early 1960's was on the rise and they needed abundant manpower. The Germans began to import it from Turkey to a huge Turkish diaspora in Germany. Can we agree with this?
Ledeneva: Germany provoked these processes not only by the fact that it had a large number of former colonies. Firstly, they needed manpower. Secondly, they had a sense of responsibility for the former colonies, so like the UK and France they received migrants. But when the migrants arrived in Germany they were immediately given work visas for three years. Germany had no idea that those migrants would root themselves, assimilating into society. They thought that they would leave the country after three years after earning money and putting their strength into the German economy.
It's one of the migration policy mistakes in Germany. Three years later, the migrants didn't leave the country. They either brought their families, or created new families and stayed in the country. In addition, employers received a qualified professional with three years of experience. They didn't want to replace him with a new person, who needed to be trained. Gradually, people with another culture and religion rooted themselves. Europe understands that second and third generations have grown. It is their home, but it is still difficult for them to integrate into this society.
Fedorov: I would like to add that the term 'gastarbeiter' appeared in our lexicon and it means 'guest worker'. They invited workers, who were meant to work and then return home. But it is clear that they didn't return.
Averin: Why is it clear?
Fedorov: An employer was interested in cheap and relatively skilled manpower. There were no specific social problems, because these people didn't claim an equal position with the indigenous population. They agreed to any conditions, because those conditions were better than in their home countries.
Frolova: Is there any difference between those historically first waves and the current wave of migration, which took place this summer?
Fyodorov: These are different processes. A lot of Germans returned to the country from the territory of Poland, as well as from the territory of the current Kaliningrad region after 1945. It is about ten million people, or even more. This was a colossal displacement at that time. So why does Angela Merkel say that such a massive migration of people is happening for the first time during the past 60-70 years in Europe? In addition, about 4 million ethnic Germans returned to Germany from the former Soviet republics and other socialist countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union. By the way, it caused some problems at that period of time. It was hard for ethnic Germans to adapt to German society. It was very difficult for them to assimilate there.
Averin: Nobody thought about social problems when it began. We thought about the economy first of all. The progress of the European economy was made by the first-generation of those migrants.
Fedorov: It is called 'the Glorious thirty years' both in Russia, and the West, and Europe.
Averin: They were motivated to work. There were no special social guarantees. If you think up any other economic situation with the same number of jobs, can any other wave of migration be completely painless through this economy?
Fedorov: The economy is one thing. There was not such a massive and long-term unemployment in the 1950s-1960s in Europe. 10% of the economically active population cannot find jobs. And they are educated people, but the economy is restructuring, and people in all the developed European countries have not been able to solve the unemployment problem since the mid-1970's. But migrants continue to arrive.
Frolova: According to statistics, 43% of migrants living in Europe have never worked.
Ledeneva: Why do we need migrants? When they arrived in 1950-1960. There were priority economic goals, so it was necessary to raise the economy. Today migration is an economic phenomenon, which causes big problems in socio-cultural terms. We can estimate how much profit they bring, how they influence GDP, as well as remittances. But socio-cultural factors which influence the migration processes are impossible to forecast. The main problem of migration is tied with the socio-cultural sphere: integration, adaptation of migrants, whether they want to integrate and adapt into society. Turks in Germany are not integrated, although the second or third generation has already grown up there. They go to your school and speak their native language. The book 'Germany: self-destruction' by Thilo Sarrazin was published in 2010. It was both criticized and supported. As in any developed country there is a depopulation in the German demographic policy that leads to decrease of fertility. Since 2010 no more than 600,000 are born in Germany. But 20 years ago, the birth rate was 1.3 million.
Averin: Is that total statistics, including the Turkish diaspora?
Fedorov: By the way, this is one of the problems. For example, any ethnic statistics are forbidden in France. The French always say: "We are a country of ethics, rather than ethnicity." They emphasize that it doesn't matter what your nationally or religion is. The most important thing is that you are a citizen of the French Republic. And the model is the integration of migrants assumed assimilation. In fact, it turned out in a different way. The peak of the first migration were Portuguese, Italians, Polish and Russians. These Christian peoples assimilated, integrated, and they even kept some of some their national traditions. It was not in contrast with the general French system of values. Everything changed after massive flows of people from North Africa, tropical Africa, and especially after the second and third generations. Such problems appeared in France not in 2005. They appeared in the 1970s-1980s. Le Pen's party came to power in the 1980s, when these processes began to receive significant strength.
Frolova: Is it true that children born in a family of immigrants who live in Europe are much more radical than their parents?
Fedorov: We should take into account the radicalization of Islam, the appearance of extremist branches of Islam, which find fertile ground among the young generation. They are poorly educated, have poor housing conditions and have no social elevator. All these things create an environment in which people living in the suburbs don't work, sing rap, take drugs and commit crimes. It is hard to get out of this lifestyle. There were a lot of crimes in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. It is better for Europeans not to visit this place. It has its own laws. Even the police aren't willing to visit it.
Averin: Is the formation of these enclaves the result of a deliberate policy of "let them settle compactly," or the result of natural processes?
Ledeneva: Initially, it was the policy of the state. Migrants lived in the working areas. They were taken to factories from there. Gradually, the enclaves began to become bigger. There is a famous theory of ethnobalance: when the number of migrants in the host population exceeds 5%, it begins to strain the host population and create worry about the fact that many of them are migrants. When migrants are more than 25%, the host party begins to leave these districts, which leads to the formation of such enclaves. In the Middle Ages the first major European Fair was in Saint-Denis, where people traveled to trade from all parts of Europe. It was a big developed city. But today it is an unfavored suburb of Paris.
Fedorov: In the 1960s-1970s Georgy Zubkov made remarkable reports from the 'red suburbs' of Paris. They were the proletarian suburbs of Paris, where those workers who supported the Communist Party lived. But gradually [due to the increasing number of migrant workers] the proletarian groups which supported the Communist Party left these places and found new ones. It happened due to economic restructuring. Employees, not workers, are the most numerous social class. Thus, these suburbs gradually became migrant suburbs, where about 25% of the population are migrants. In addition, Marseille, Leon, the largest metropolitan areas.
Averin: As the population begins to leave this place, 90% of children born to migrant families start going to school. Accordingly, the teaching staff changes and the level of education decreases.
Fedorov: This is the problem of 'communitarianism' when the community is engaged in a dialogue with guests on behalf of all members of the community. The French authorities are against this. According to them, 'communitarianism' and multiculturalism are antitheses of the French system of migrant integration. It is in words. It turns out they cannot enact multiculturalism in deeds. The Muslim community is 7 million people in France. It is the largest in Europe, even in comparison with Germany.
Averin: Why are the requests of this community formed at the level of "provide us with the best education, because our children want to learn. We all know that a good education is a great social elevator?" When the level of education falls, are there are a lot of people who reject schools, or do parents not let them go to school in spite of all the laws of the French Republic? Why does this community require low standards?
Ledeneva: I would not say that they require low standards. The matter is about socio-cultural factors. The community culture differs from the European culture. They are united and isolated. Moreover, they cultivate their culture in these enclaves and comunities. As a result, they don't tend to receive a European education. They are used to living as they are allowed.
Averin: With the help of benefits?
Ledeneva: Democracy, human rights, benefits.
Averin: But Harlem [the district in the northern part of the New York county of Manhattan – VK] is not a ghetto today. There are huge shopping and cultural centers, good hotels. Most of Harlem is already quite civilized. Can the American method in New York be used in Europe, or is it an American phenomenon?
Fyodorov: It is difficult to compare the course of America with the course of Europe, because it is known that America has been a classic country of immigration from the beginning of the 17th century. Europe takes the experience of the Americans. For example, such as 'positive discrimination' for the immigrant population, which gives bonuses in development. We cannot say that France and Germany do nothing in this regard. Every government, every French president who came to power, was planning a large-scale plan of upgrading, improvement of unfavorable districts. They changed the architecture and improved conditions. There are special schools with special teaching staff for problem children. They were given quotas for admission to prestigious universities.
Frolova: Has it led to any results?
Fedorov: It has. You cannot say that there is segregation in France. There are a lot of different French people in the government who hold responsible positions. For example, the representative of the former first secretary of the Socialist Party. Now he is a representative to the EU from the government. And many others. The majority of migrants are normal people who are willing to integrate. But there are problems, and they need to be discussed. In 2001-2002, when Chirac was President, a crowd of migrants booed 'La Marseillaise' at the Stade de France. This action forced Chirac to leave the stands. It was an insult to the President. Or, being indigenous French, young people drive cars with Algerian flags, welcoming victory, or the success of the Algerian national football team after a match.
Frolova: The UK had another story in this case. It became one of the first victims of the massive flow of migrants from its former colonies at that time, but now, despite the fact that the UK is in the EU, it is one of the most particular and selective countries regarding migrants. When did this change occur?
Ledeneva: Migration policy is really being tightened in the UK. Initiatives relating to migrants who intend to receive jobs. Cameron said that if a migrant doesn't find a job within six months, they will stop paying all social benefits. It relates not only to Muslim migrants, but also to migrants, for example, from the Baltic states. Unfortunately, there are many migrants who cheat good old England. For example, single women receive large benefits, but live with their cohabiting partners for many years. People get a job at the stock exchange, receive benefits, but work for an employer illegally. When last summer I asked my English friends about the influx of migrants to Europe, they calmly responded that it wouldn't concern them and they wouldn't have a large number of refugees: "We live on an island, so migrants won't reach our shores." They assessed the situation in a very optimistic way.
Frolova: But it is not the only reason?
Fedorov: Cameron has chosen such a course, but before the migrants tried to move from France to the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries there where were more liberal laws that provided migrants with shelter and gave them corresponding benefits. There were really generous welfare systems, especially in the Nordic countries.
But it is easier in the UK. A tunnel can be closed, or it can be under control. But other countries, such as Greece, the southern part of Europe, are virtually defenseless. There are virtually no borders. I think that no one expert-Europeanist could have predicted this. The tragedy happened in May. More than 1000 people died and everybody was terrified. But no one thought that there would be such a wave after this tragedy.
Frolova: Will a migrant return home if he doesn't find a job within a few months? Does the rule work?
Fedorov: In my opinion, Europe has become a victim, getting itself into a dead end with the help of tolerance, permissiveness, in the best sense of this word. Do you remember the story with the Albanian girl Leonardo two years ago?
Remember two years ago there was a story with a Spanish girl Leonardo? She lived in Paris with her parents, who were illegal immigrants, and the police wanted to deport them. The girl was removed from the school. A series of demonstrations took place in Paris after this with the participation of high school students, who said that it was not humane and it was fascism. It is said that the leftist lyceés forbade others to attend classes, blocked the school entrance, calling for solidarity. Such an insignificant episode, in our view, forced Francois Hollande to speak on television and apologize to the family and the girl. I think it was really too much! A President should not condescend to such things.
Averin: On the other hand, there was a mental imbalance, the child's tears…
Fedorov: So we receive a million migrants. Therefore, Putin said his famous phrase at the UN, which is cited by all: "Do you realize what you've done?" It seems to me that now they are beginning to understand it. As the French Prime Minister in the 1990's, socialist Michel Rocard said: "Certainly we are humanists, but France cannot receive all the poor from around the world." I have a feeling that now Europe is trying to receive all the world. We all understand the feeling of humanity and compassion, but everything has its limits.
Averin: But if the poor all over the world want to live in Europe, what will they do in this case? A fortress wall, narrow arrowholes and shoot everyone who approaches? What should they do?
Fedorov: All this comfort was created in Europe with the participation of migrants, and new generations also tend to it. In addition, a sense of guilt for the colonial past also plays its role. But no one knows what to do. There is a social disaster in France and in Germany. I participated in a conference in Berlin at the end of September. People described the real state of things, but no one knew what to do. A meeting with the participation of the EU and the Mediterranean countries took place in Malta, but unfortunately the so-called 'co-development' and investments of billions in Africa in order to create the conditions for potential migrants hasn't produced any significant results.
Frolova: Dear guests, do you believe in a European capital living according to Sharia law? According to some opinions, it will happen sooner or later.
Ledeneva: I don't think so. Though being a scientist, who deals with these issues, I cannot rule out such a situation. The trend continues. But I hope that politicians will find a way out. There should be a consolidated and systematic migration policy. Not actual and situational, when something happens and everybody starts to gather at once and immediately take some decisions. Migratory flows should be regulated accurately. They need to understand that they won't get rid of them. These are the modern trends. 80% of the population live in developing countries of the world. They are poor countries. Whether we like it or not, these flows will move somewhere, and above all to Europe. As Europe has created the European Union and it manages the whole European situation, it should be responsible for the other countries. The matter is not in the number of migrants, but in that you need to understand where, how, what migration processes are needed to be considered, taking into account external migration. Who are they, where do they go, what are their professions, have they a family, or not, as well as their age and gender. All these details are needed in order to regulate and control the process. I think that we can resolve these processes both in Europe and in Russia.
Fedorov: Non-European immigration to the EU is around 30 million people. The total population of the EU is 500 million.
Averin: But you said that 5% of visitors and the indigenous population begins to feel uncomfortable.
Fyodorov: Yes, it confirms sociological conclusions. So I want to encourage us to be optimistic about the future. Now we can see the fight against radicalism, represented by ISIS and others. It is terrible and cruel. We have an opportunity to win and kill this hydra. I'd like to hope that the majority of people of different faiths, including Muslim, are normal people, who aspire to live in peace and good-neighborliness with their neighbors.
Averin: Can Russia learn any lessons from the situation in Europe?
Fedorov: Without any doubts we have to learn from the mistakes of others, including building up our relations with the former Asian republics and understanding how to establish a dialogue of cultures, as well as realizing problems begin not with the first generation of migrants, but with the second and third generations. These things can be seen in Europe now.
Averin: Not let them root themselves?
Fedorov: Not necessarily. This is a very difficult balance: both moral, and social, and other problems, including religious. No one has ready recipes.
Averin: While we were discussing it, Esen wrote us: "Although I am a citizen of Kyrgyzstan, I want to integrate into Russian culture, I love it and if it's necessary I will fight for it against Europe and the United States."
Fedorov: This sounds good! In my opinion, it is an example of the fact that we have quite a unique situation in comparison with Europe. We often criticized the Soviet Union and the Soviet people, who were homosoveticus. But they were in fact. And these things we can feel now in the example of the people of the Central Asian republics. I don't think that everybody suffers from some extremists of an Islamic persuasion and so on. There are a lot of normal people.
Averin: But let's not create illusions about the first generation, the second is much more radical than their parents.
Fedorov: In my opinion, it follows the main task. There is talk about the end of ideology, but there is no one ideology, except for the ideology of radical Islamism for example. We need to think how to work with young people.
Averin: An idea must appear, including for Europe, because there is also a request from the radical youth regarding justice, a certain repleteness of the mind and the soul, which is not promoted by the consumer environment. Can it provide them with anything? It is a difficult matter. It is good when a person lives in easy circumstances. Although it is possible that the current processes happening today in Europe will reduce the number of people living in easy circumstances. No one starves, but this anxiety may appear and give rise to a new Erasmus Roterodamus, as happened a long time ago.
