In theory and in practice, migration is something positive. This is one of the aspects on which I base my history course on migration which I offer to students at university. Having said this, I do not mean that migration is not without challenges or that it cannot be a threat to indigenous cultures. There are various examples in history where mass migration brought about rapid and sometimes disastrous changes or even the annihilation of previous cultures.

Nonetheless, I do not think that the current brouhaha in Europe regarding migration derives merely from the fear that Christianity can be obliterated by this current migratory flow. In part, this is the result of a number of past policies, which had nothing to do with migration but were related to identity. For a number of years, the European Left challenged the established cultural paradigm with the aim to build a new identity based on the concept of diversity.

The result is there for all to see. The current opposition does not result from racial or colour factors but from fear; the most important fear derives from Islamic values which are seen incompatible with western secular traditions. Yet many Muslims, who have settled in Europe for quite some time,  are not interested in this debate. The interest comes from fundamentalist Muslim states which have an interest to re-ignite Muslim fundamentalism in Europe. What is not being stated is that Western States are in league with powerful NGOs that, wanting to please Wahhabi and Salafist states, are supporting a specific plan of deChristianization, in return for money. 

These same Western politicians - schooled to achieve this end - together with a number of Leftist organizations are finding that the same arguments they used against religion are now being used against migration. Sponsored deChristianization was based on the premise that Christianity is no longer compatible with European values. Is this not the dispute currently being adopted by those who oppose the Left and Liberal agenda regarding mass migration into Europe?

Europe has finally realized that supporting cultural wars has destroyed what were supposedly its own values. And regrettably, whether one likes it or not, democracy in Europe has become synonymous with corruption and nepotism. While Alfred Sant has written in his recent blog (9th July 2018) that Europe has lost its coherence, I believe that one should actually say that it is Brussels that has truly lost coherence and not necessarily the individual states. Until recently, many academics thought that conservative values were dead and buried. Conservatism is now returning with a vengeance.

A number of international foundations, amongst which is the Open Society Foundation of George Soros, were set up around the world to fight for freedom of expression, accountable governments and societies, promoting justice and equality. Soros alone has already given more than $32 billion towards all these noble ideals. Societies inspired from Soros’ ideals became privileged receivers of money, while others, which appeared to cherish Christian values were chastized in their bids for money.

Yet, these Open societies have failed to improve even the most basic of values. The strategy was to weaken the cultural identities of the respective European States through migration. Instead of weakening them, identities became more important in Europe than before. The misuse of migration towards the formulation of an identity brought a general negative reaction all over Europe.

While one cannot deny the fact that there are a number of important NGOs who are honestly interested in the plights of these migrants, there are others who ended up in the limelight for the wrong reasons and rescuing of drowning migrants is just a façade. All this has led to a case of dyspepsia. All because of the incompetence and lack of good will from those operating in Brussels to take the right decisions at the time of crisis and not allow the crisis to get completely out of control, exasperating sovereign states.  There is a saying in Maltese which explains the resulting situation. “Mal-ħażin weħel it-tajjeb” or ‘with wicked, even the good ended up being chastized’. Even well-meaning NGOs ended up under the spotlight.

Migration is like food. Food is indispensable but when one overeats or indulges in gluttony, one gets indigestion. This is what is happening. What is interesting is that this fierce attack on migration all over Europe is happening at a time when the numbers moving to Europe are on the decrease. Decreasing figures should not have created the present chaos.

It is thanks to the Italian Minister Matteo Salvini that Europe started questioning NGOs and illegalities started to be exposed.  There has and is a lot of abuse behind the setting up of foundations and many have become businesses.

The good side of Matteo Salvini comes from the fact that he does not owe his rise to power to either Brussels or the Davos group. Taking the cue from an article in the Financial Times, La Repubblica affirms that none of the coalition parties in Italy are under the aegis of these two influential political lobbies. Therefore, these two structures cannot threaten to bring down the Italian government, though a section of the Italian media is harping on a personal split between Salvini and Di Maio to foment chaos within the present Italian coalition, or trying to bring in the Mafia favour. What is not being stated, that after Mussolini freed Sicily from the Mafia, it was America and the West that reinstated Cosa Nostra in Sicily and the rest of Europe.   

This is extremely interesting as Europe wants us to believe that we are living in a democracy, when in reality we are under the dictatorship of relativism. It is becoming clear, even to journalists of the Left, that our democracy and elected democratic leaders owe their accession to power to these potent lobbies. Even politicians of the centre are controlled by them. Salvini is a serious threat because he does not fall under this political paradigm. The text reported by La Repubblica is as follows: "quel che rende la minaccia di Salvini all'ordine Ue prestabilito così potente è il fatto che sia senza paura", in quanto "è il primo politico italiano moderno senza un bisogno emozionale di essere tra amici a Davos o a Bruxelles". [What strongly threatens the EU’s pre-established order is the fact that Salvini is fearless insofar as he is the first modern Italian politician without the emotional need to be among friends in Davos or in Brussels]. 

I believe that elections in Malta are determined by these same groups. None of our present and past prime ministers would have risen to power without their support. The only parties that, at present, are capable of defying this world order are the populist ones. So far they do not appear to be controlled by either Brussels or Davos. Whether one likes it or not, it was thanks to this debate about migration that the European electorate started to question a number of political issues that were being taken for granted.

At the moment, we are mesmerised by the fact that we, in Malta, are enjoying an economic surplus and we are doing well. But I don’t think that this economic surplus is coming from our investments as used to happen in the past. It is a surplus that is coming from EU money that was given to us because we are subservient to these two powerful international lobbies. They have allowed us to sell passports and visas besides engaging in other trading for the exclusive benefit of exponents from both the two major parties.

Yet, such surplus is not destined to continue indefinitely. Perhaps, we can still boast that we had a second year of surplus.  Meanwhile, I continue to affirm that Italian right parties are using migration to strike foreign deals. The last tirade is another case in point.

There would not have been a redistribution of migrants amongst EU states, if Salvini did not tell Europe again to smell the coffee. The time when some individuals can speculate on migrants in order to make a quick buck is now over.

Let’s hope that after these diplomatic stand-offs, migration reassumes the positive value that it had in the past, among the European population. This should start with all the European states assuming their responsibilities and not let the countries in the periphery of Europe carry the burden all alone.