United Kingdom – LONDON – Europe and the US have been facing fundamental changes in their political structures in the last couple of years, a fact that has been made more obvious with seismic events like Brexit and the election of Trump. Political uncertainty has almost become synonymous with Europe and the western world in general. For a while now, electorates have been expressing their dissatisfaction with a democratic deficit and an economy that does not work for them any longer. A key narrative from analysts, politicians and the media has focussed mainly on the effect of populism but fails to accept the underlying failures of the political and the neoliberal economic system. Populism is the effect of these failures and not the cause. This populism has had direct effects on wider and interconnected issues, namely migration; nevertheless if the West had effectively managed migration flows, the rising tide of populism may not have had so much leverage. A recurring theme across the world is the disregard for history and denial of responsibility. In this case, the continuous instability in the Middle East has not happened in isolation. The West with its economic and strategic interests in the region has played a crucial role, would ideally close the door and turn a blind eye.

Against this backdrop, there is an observable destabilisation of the EU system. The gap between the core and periphery EU countries is widening, the political divisions within the European continent seem more prominent than ever and national interests are more important than the common European polity. ‘Never before have I seen so much fragmentation, and so little commonality in our Union’, Jean-Claude Juncker said in his State of the Union Address in Bratislava in September 2016. In this summit, EU leaders did not come to any conclusions on serious issues such as migration, the unstable economic situation and the common defence policy. The EU cannot claim anymore to be the normative model of cooperation and democratic values. Europe’s unease with the continent-wide, democratic deficit has resulted in punitive votes like Brexit, which did not only happen because of populism and demagoguery.

The biggest disgrace of recent years is the shambolic way that migration and asylum has been handled by the EU. Political and media elites, or at least a sizeable portion of them, have managed to shift the dialogue from ‘how to handle the refugee flows into Europe’ into a question of ‘how to keep people out’. The word ‘security’ permeates migration discussions. There is a continuous securitisation of migration (i.e. addressing migration as a security threat) and militarisation of the borders. The security anxiety is clearly prevailing over humanitarian concerns. There is no burden-sharing and there is no evident will for burden-sharing in the future. For example, Visegrad countries have reacted fiercely against compulsory quotas for asylum seekers. Germany has obviously committed to the acceptance of a large number of refugees. However the Mediterranean countries have shouldered much of the weight, especially Italy and Greece. In the context of Greece’s economic woes, the decision to gradually resume Dublin transfers to Greece and the cumbersome EU-Turkey deal will make things even more difficult for Greece in particular. Frontex has received astringent criticism from NGOs for not acting against human rights violations by border police. The European border regime has resulted in mortally dangerous routes and risks for refugees and asylum seekers, i.e. people already escaping conflict and violation of their human rights.

Last year, the EU threatened Greece with suspension from the Schengen system because of alleged neglect of its obligations to address migration and refugee flows at its borders. Scapegoating Greece and striking an ineffective deal with Turkey to receive the refugees that Europe does not want, are signs of the EU’s lost integrity.

The EU has shown an inability to balance its security doctrine with its principles of defending human rights. Securitised migration discourses and practices are in contradiction with the EU’s humanistic ideals and its treaties. The Lisbon Treaty states that ‘the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities’. When we look at the Europe of today, how much of this still rings true?

Looking forward, 2017 bears only challenges for the European and Western world’s societies in general. The economic and political model needs a progressive shift that does not promise unrealistic paths like Trump’s protectionism or suggest failed recipes like European countries’ nationalism.

The coming year will bring further securitisation and criminalisation of migration and this will be amplified even further with the ascending powers of the extreme right throughout Europe and the recent terrorist incidents seen in European cities. The continent that has served as an exemplar of democracy, human rights and cooperation is showing an objective decay in its main beliefs and principles. Security will undoubtedly continue to be at the core of European discussions and policies.

The apparent growing reliance on risk management policies with regards to border security, biometric controls and the overall technologisation of security will be the accepted norm and solution to migration and refugee flows. Even if we accept that these systems are effective against the central fear of terrorism, there is no substantial dialogue in society about these tremendous changes to methods of border control and data collection. The human body has become a source of information, whose data is easily stored and subject to investigation at any time by Europol, Eurojust and local authorities in European countries, which have the ability to exchange information based on the Schengen system and the ‘principle of availability’. Benjamin Franklin once said ‘those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety’.

《新欧洲》：欧盟已无力在安全与捍卫人权之间达成平衡

社会科学报   2017-02-11 18:35

http://www.xwtoutiao.cn/p/oe5rqejh/

社科报 观察

《新欧洲》：西方世界面临制度性挑战

作者：福泰妮·卡兰茨 晓舟/编译

◤今天的欧盟自身已无力在其安全学说与其捍卫人权的原则之间达成平衡。安全化移民的话语和实践与欧盟人文主义理想及其所签订的一系列条约是相矛盾的。

英国脱欧和特朗普当选总统已经反应了西方世界的诸多困境和问题。2017年1月8日，以报道欧盟事务为主的《新欧洲》周报刊登了希腊马其顿大学学者、国际关系专家福泰妮·卡兰茨（Foteini Kalantzi）题为《危险四伏的西方道路》的评论文章，对西方面临的困境作了详尽分析。

欧盟的"最大耻辱"

欧洲和美国过去几年一直面临着各自政治结构的根本性变化，这个事实因发生像英国脱欧和特朗普当选总统那样震撼世界的事件已变得愈加明显。政治不确定性几乎已变成欧洲和整个西方世界的代名词。

来自于分析家、政治家和媒体的一种关键性叙述主要集中在民粹主义的影响上，但是并不承认这种政治和新自由主义经济制度的根本性失败。民粹主义是这些失败的后果而不是原因。这种民粹主义对移民等更加广泛且相互关联的问题已产生直接的后果；然而，要是西方已经有效地管理源源不断涌入的移民的话，那么日益高涨的民粹主义浪潮也许就没有这么大的影响力。

在这种背景下，欧盟体制出现了明显的不稳定。欧盟核心和外围国家间的差距不断拉大，欧洲大陆内部的政治分歧更加突出，国家利益比共同的欧洲政体更为重要。

欧盟委员会主席容克在2016年9月的“国情咨文”中说：“在欧盟中，我从未见过如此多的分裂和如此少的共同性。”

欧盟不能再声称是合作和民主价值观的规范性模式。欧洲对整个欧洲大陆民主赤字的不安已经导致了像英国脱欧那样的惩罚性公投，而原因不仅仅是民粹主义和煽动性行为。

近年来最大的耻辱便是欧盟处理移民和难民庇护问题时所采用的这种极为混乱的方法。

政治和媒体的精英们设法将这场对话的问题从“如何处理源源不断进入欧洲的难民”转变为“如何不让人们进来”。“安全”一词贯穿在各种移民讨论之中。

这种安全焦虑明显胜过了各种人道主义关注。德国承诺接纳大量的难民，不过地中海国家，特别是意大利和希腊已承受了很大压力。在希腊经济不景气的背景下，决定逐步恢复《都柏林公约》里所规定的将难民移交给希腊的做法以及繁琐的欧盟—土耳其协议将令希腊的处境更为艰难。将希腊当作替罪羊以及与土耳其就接纳欧洲不想接纳的难民达成一项无效的协议是欧盟失去诚信的迹象。

自相矛盾的现实

欧盟自身已无力在其安全学说与其捍卫人权的原则之间达成平衡。安全化移民的话语和实践与欧盟人文主义理想及其所签订的一系列条约是相矛盾的。

《里斯本条约》称“这个联盟建立在尊重人的尊严、自由、民主、平等、法治以及尊重人权、包括少数群体的各项权利的价值观基础之上。”看看今日的欧洲，其中有多少听起来依旧是真实可靠的？

2017年对于欧洲乃至整个西方世界的社会来说意味着众多挑战。移民的安全化和刑事化这个问题随着遍及欧洲各地极右势力不断上升的力量以及在欧洲一些城市最近发生的恐袭事件，将会被进一步放大。充当了民主、人权和合作典范的欧洲大陆在其主要的信仰和原则方面显示出一种客观的衰败。安全无疑将继续是欧洲各种讨论和政策的一个核心。

在边境安全、生物特征控制和安全总体技术化方面对于风险管控政策不断增加的依赖将成为公认的准则和解决移民与难民的办法。即使认同这些制度对于对抗恐怖主义恐惧是有效的，但欧洲尚缺乏有关针对边界控制和数据收集方法重大变更的实质性对话。

本杰明·富兰克林曾说过：“那些准备放弃基本自由以换取暂时安全的人们，不够资格享有任何自由和安全。”（文章仅代表作者观点，不代表本报立场。本文原载于社科报总1545期，图片来自网络）