the external borders of Europe are now being knocked over from all sides by the influx of tens of thousands of destitute and penniless migrants, rushed at the risk of their lives towards this El Dorado, the praise of which has always been vocalized in terms of rights and liberties.
But what good do rights and liberties bring when an economic and financial wealth does not follow? Yet, Europe is not America, and it has long ago ceased to be destined an immigration land. The crisis and unemployment stretched out their tentacles, and the refugees are not driven by the search for a better future to knock on the doors of the old continent, but rather by the survival instinct. This sort of primal reflex that drives men, women and children to throw themselves into the arms of dishonest and unscrupulous smugglers, to brave raging seas, and to find themselves, once they get out safe, confined in camps that are officially temporary but are obviously meant to last.
Today, Europe is overwhelmed and has to beg for some indulgence from Turkey’s part to agree on containing the flood of migrants on its land. A strange appeal to generosity in return of hard cash: 3 billion Euros at the time of the first request, probably followed by 3 more, with the hope that Ankara will settle for this…
In light of this rather dishonorable result, two questions pop naturally into one’s mind:
How come not a single wealthy Arab country suggested assuming at least a meager share of the migrants, instead of leaving Lebanon and Jordan, who had already drew the short straw, bear such a heavy burden, all by themselves?
Why does Europe, and more generally the West, continue to compete over the urges of generosity towards refugees and conversely manifest so much permissiveness in imposing a solution in Syria?