Jeffrey D. Sachs has had a colourful career. He progressed from working with the IMF to defending social values. Nevertheless, his article of 9 October in this paper struck me because some of the things he said about the United States apply with equal strength here. The true extent of globalisation is never more apparent than when you see that the ills besetting the leading Western nation are also shared by one of the smallest on the globe.
Sachs claims that the language of compassion has more or less been abandoned in the United States and that both political parties serve their rich campaign contributors. I don’t think that the first applies here yet, at least not to the same extent that Sachs is suggesting, but the second certainly does. He also states that America today presents the paradox of a rich country falling apart because of the collapse of its core values. He paints a desolate picture, one where “Almost everybody complains, almost everybody aggressively defends their own narrow and short-term interests, and almost everybody abandons any pretence of looking ahead or addressing the needs of others.” Am I being pessimistic when I say that his words should be immediately recognisable here? It reminds me that in the animal world the concept of a future does not exist. It is the present that dominates in that world; a very important fact to bear in mind animal behaviourists tell us, when it comes to training your dog and controlling his behaviour.
The politics of division
Sachs also touches another cord that is audibly vibrating in the EU, and that is the problem presented by the multicultural societies of today. Sachs claims that America is vulnerable to social breakdown because it is a highly diverse society. That means a fragmented society that not only presents conflicting demands that are almost impossible to reconcile, but worse, encourages politicians to align themselves not with the real needs of the country but with the claims of the larger voting groups. Sachs describes this as the politics of division.
What is happening in Europe and the EU? Liberal Sweden elects an explicitly anti-immigrant party to Parliament for the first time. The President of France and the European Commission tear into each other in public over deportations of the Roma. Angel Merkel has declared that multiculturalism has failed in Germany, that the cerebral dream of different communities living in peace and harmony cheek by jowl has been proved to be what it always was – a dream concocted in the reading rooms of libraries. And even Britain moves forward with plans to cap economic immigration: a cap destined to be largely cosmetic, given that citizens from EU countries will continue to be able to seek work there and everywhere under free movement rules. Nor has the movement of peoples run its course despite the temporary breathing space Malta has had. Germany and Austria will lift transitional restrictions on the free movement of workers from eight Central and East European countries next year. All EU countries must do the same for Bulgaria and Romania by 2014.
The immigration conundrum
As one European think-tank points out, what EU officials should remember is that what they often doctrinally dismiss as merely ‘free movement’ is immigration in anyone else’s language, which now includes most of Europe’s politicians as well as those of the local variety. In evidence, we are no longer using the cosmetic phrase “irregular” immigrants but are now calling a spade a spade. The Commission has plans to toughen up the application of EU rules on asylum seekers over the next two years. It will propose higher standards for the treatment and accommodation of refugees and access to the job market for those who wait a long time for their claims to be heard.
The EU’s Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, wants EU rules on free movement to be more strictly enforced in every member-state. Whether this will happen, now that the rules have been suspended in the case of France and the deportations of the Roma, remains to be seen. After all, several EU countries complain that the free movement directive is too broad in scope, especially after a 2008 court ruling expanded free movement rights even to non-EU nationals in certain circumstances. On the other hand, if the Commission backs down on this, it might have to back down on other issues, and that might lead to the possible fragmentisation of the EU. As I long foresaw, the immigration battle has yet to begin in earnest.
The crisis of the euro has by no means been overcome despite some glib political talk; indeed, some respected economists are still forecasting doom. Therefore, the cost of maintaining asylum seekers touches a very raw nerve, especially in countries that are faced with budgetary austerity. The Sweden Democrats owe their electoral success in part to widespread public concerns over the country’s recent generosity to thousands of Iraqi refugees. The cost implications of the Commission’s proposals, however high-minded the latter might be, could further erode public support for the EU since governments are likely to portray such measures as being imposed by Brussels.
A crisis of humanity
Sachs points out that America in the 1960s enacted programmes to rebuild poor communities, to fight air and water pollution, and to ensure health care for the elderly. Today’s Anglophone countries seek to protect a financial system firmly located in the private sector, but heavily dependent on state support to protect it from its own recklessness.
The appropriately labelled “great generation” of Americans that marched to the rescue of Europe during the last two great wars gave birth to a generation addicted to consumerism, which drains their time, savings, attention and inclination to engage in acts of collective compassion. This too is a global ill and helps to explain why, although collectively we may be better off than at any other point in our history, we have lost that inner core of peace and contentedness so necessary to the balance of life.