It’s by no means a novelty and it’s not going to go away, but there’s still no real plan to deal with its repercussions or exploit its long-term advantages.
When a person is desperate, a director at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) used to say, their three options are equally desperate. They can rebel, emigrate or die!
The fact that emigration today is one of the most frequent ways to escape hunger or peril is proof of the degree of desperation afflicting parts of the world that are very close to Europe, which has stubbornly refused to acknowledge the full extent of the drama and do what it can to mitigate it.
This time, Italy has provided as much help as it could. It conceived the Mare Nostrum operation, a feather in the cap of a country whose citizens are still enduring the heavy repercussions of the economic crisis. For a long time Italy was a land of émigrés.
The older generations have not forgotten the hordes of Italians camped out on the piers of Ellis Island and the ports along the Rio de la Plata. Another factor is the considerable influence over Italian politics wielded by the Catholic Church, led today by a supreme pontiff who comes from an Italian emigrant family and has very close ties to relief organisations such as Caritas. But how long can Italy, on its own, hope to handle an ever-increasing flow that is unlikely to stop unless better living conditions can be established in the lands from which these desperate people are fleeing? The European Union’s recourse has been unsatisfactory thus far: it has mustered only limited financial aid and a naval operation, Trident, the actual purpose of which is still unclear.
Italy’s efforts on the seas have not been backed by equally effective reception operations on land. Besides the controversies over the allocation of refugees immediately upon their arrival, this sizeable influx of people from foreign countries with cultural backgrounds that differ even one from another has led to a whole new set of problems.
The first is saturation. The experiences of other countries show that when the number of immigrants exceeds between eight to ten percent of the population within a limited time frame, there’s likely to be some form of rejection. The more disadvantaged social classes perceive the immigrants as competition on the labour market and for socially earmarked resources, and their resentment can be exploited by political forces, setting the stage for potentially tense and dangerous situations.
This is a grave risk that can only be defused by working to change society, doing all it takes to make a multicultural future acceptable. This is a long and arduous task that will require no small amount of time and resources.
The second problem concerns society and security. Receiving such a vast number of people without being able to provide them with appropriate life prospects means running the risk of pushing them into the hands of illegal labour or organised crime bosses. This can lead to powerful social tensions, as proven by the clashes between immigrants and the local population in Volturno a year ago. The impossibility of performing appropriate checks on people who are often undocumented makes repatriation more complicated and the infiltration of undesirable characters all the more likely. By this we are not referring to Islamic terrorists, who have other ways of entering Europe. A well-trained mujahideen with a good chance of organising a successful terrorist attack is an asset to the organisation and as such will never be exposed to such a perilous voyage. Petty criminals are a completely different matter, however, especially from the Maghreb, which is already providing its fair share of cheap labour in the drugtrafficking trade in Italy.
The third problem is economic and regards the faction of immigrants who cannot find a foothold in the labour market. It would be advisable to come up with a fast requalification program for these people, who in the short and medium term present a serious burden for Italy’s fragile economy, as a stepping-stone towards subsequent inclusion in the workforce. One crucial question remains: how do we really want to tackle the immigration question?
It is a phenomenon that is here to stay, in different shapes and forms, and will radically change the current world structure. So far, the only solutions envisaged have attempted to stem the flow of migrants on the other side without considering the pressure that is likely to build up at these junctures.
In the Mediterranean in particular, and especially in Libya, the proposed measures consist of deploying a naval blockade to stop the refugee flotillas alongside special forces’ land operations to destroy the boats of the human traffickers while still at anchor. This is an expensive venture of dubious efficacy and highly elevated risk.
Obtaining the essential international green light from the United Nations would be extremely difficult for a start since it is unclear which government or governments legitimately exercise sovereignty in the areas in question. Once identified, they would then be required, if not to collaborate, to at least not hinder the operations. Finally, one must also factor in the risk of an unfathomable number of casualties, which would not sit well with public opinion. This is a real possibility, considering that the theatre of operations is infested with armed militias that are made up of battle-hardened veterans. Furthermore, even in a best-case scenario, the proposed plan is only a means for gaining time and relieving some pressure. It does not aid in confronting, receiving and managing this migratory wave over the long term. The challenge here is of epic proportions and could offer many opportunities if transformed rather than trying to be stopped, leaving swarms of desperate people clamouring at the borders with the only concern being keeping them out of the European fortress.
Fortunately, for some time now the voices that have risen up in defence of the most humane of the possible solutions are growing in number and influence, sparking a debate that assesses the positives, and not just the negatives, of immigration. At the same time, despite the short-sighted opposition of many northern countries, even the EU seems to have realised the gravity of the problem and its responsibility if it were to take wrong or delayed actions.
We hope that in a not-too-distant future the exchange of ideas will finally spur a line of conduct that takes into account the needs and hopes of our friends on the other side of the Mediterranean and fits in with the values on which our union was founded.
It’s by no means a novelty and it’s not going to go away, but there’s still no real plan to deal with its repercussions or exploit its long-term advantages.
