The migration crisis of 2014-2015 hit Europe hard. Although it was an element of the global world trend, many people perceived it as something sudden, like some kind of anomaly that could never get into the attention of a relaxed and a little lazy European.
Mass migration, which began as a result of climate change, natural disasters, deterioration of the ecosystem, exacerbation of armed conflicts in the regions and the collapse of the old world system, echoed across Europe, where it was felt especially acutely. Journalists began to write about the invasion of refugees from Africa or the Middle East, who stormed the fences of wealthy European countries. Politicians rushed to PR on this topic, stuffing themselves with political bonuses in a desperate attempt to conquer the election site. The police dispersed protest after protest, imbued with hatred of these "outsiders" from the south.
In 2015, the number of refugees from Africa and the Middle East who were heading north increased dramatically. The main reasons for the outbreak of migration are the unstable situation in these countries, in particular the war in Syria, the conflict in Iraq and the disintegration of Libya. The revolutionary events of the "Arab Spring" in 2011-2012 shattered the Middle East regional system, as a result of which the countries that were once the main elements of the local security architecture - Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya - collapsed, and with it the entire structure fell. … With the whirlpool of chaos and the flourishing of banditry and anarchy, the borders of these states were no longer controlled by anyone, and the local population, in despair, headed north towards rich Europe. Libya became a "gateway" for refugees, which immediately hit Italy, Greece, France, Malta and Cyprus.
In addition to conflicts, a significant role was played by European budget cuts to protect the external borders of Europe, as a result of which Europe suffered from uncontrolled influx of refugees. The most numerous were immigrants from Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan and other African countries. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), about 103,000 refugees arrived in Europe by sea: 56,000 to Spain, 23,000 to Italy, 29,000 to Greece and about 1,000 - to Malta. And since 2014, the European Union has received more than 1.8 million migrants. For example, Spain, Italy and Greece felt particular tension due to their geographic location.
Refugees entered these countries through the so-called central Mediterranean route, during which migrants enter the ports of Libya or Egypt, and subsequently to the Italian coast. The second option is the Eastern Mediterranean route from Turkey to Greece, Bulgaria or Cyprus. Refugees also entered Europe via the so-called "Balkan route" through the Serbian-Hungarian section of the land border. Many of them continued to migrate illegally from Hungary, and some of the illegal migrants passed through Slovakia towards the Czech Republic, and then to Germany and other Western countries.
It was the “Balkan route” that was the trigger that launched the political hurricane in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and especially in Slovakia. Refugees sought refuge in this country, albeit in much smaller numbers than to the south or west.
In 2016, Slovakia ranked fifth from the bottom in terms of the number of accepted migrants. Despite this, refugees created significant problems for Slovakia through the need for their social security, employment, because of the complexity of their cultural adaptation and because of the lack of a clear legal system regulating their stay in a foreign country.
In addition, two groups of migrants should be distinguished here: the so-called "economic migrants" and refugees who enter the territory of a foreign country in order to get a job, like the first group. There is a possibility that refugees will not find employment over time and will remain on social security, which is disadvantageous for Slovakia. Therefore, most of the refugees who arrived in Slovakia ended up in police stations for foreigners in Medvedovi or Sečovci and were punished up to imprisonment. But many asylum seekers of various nationalities and confessions have successfully integrated into Slovakia, found work and started a new life there. And despite the fact that at the end of 2014, the Slovaks accepted 144,000 migrants who found jobs and satisfy the material needs of the country, the insignificant percentage of refugees who arrived still frightened the Slovak authorities.
But before continuing our Slovak history, it should be noted what was the problem with the EU migration policy. As practice shows, the existing EU legislation is not able to effectively regulate the flows of refugees. Under current regulations, asylum seekers have the legal right to claim asylum in the first EU country they arrive in, and many use this right to seek help from relatives or friends living in the EU, or simply to travel to the country. where the asylum system operates. Such rules were established in 2013 based on the provisions of the 1990 Dublin Convention and became part of EU migration legislation under the name “Dublin Regulations”. Due to the excessive number of refugees and the unwillingness of some of the elites to accept and integrate them into their society, as well as due to the aggravation of the internal political struggle for migration, a number of EU member states called for a revision of the Dublin Regulations.
In addition, in 2015, the EU adopted a quota system for the distribution of refugees, according to which all member states must accept a certain number of migrants - depending on the size of the state and the number of its population. According to the calculations of the well-known magazine The Financial Times, Slovakia, according to quotas, was supposed to accept about 2,800 refugees. On the one hand, such a migration policy is humane and rational, but on the other hand, it caused discontent among the states of Eastern Europe. The Visegrad Four countries - Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia opposed such rules through religious and racial differences between refugees and Eastern European peoples. These states traditionally have a high level of xenophobia and intolerance towards other ethnic groups, too - completely alien to them African or Arabian. In addition, in a number of Eastern European countries, national populists were in power, who oppose the admission of refugees under the dictates of Brussels. Therefore, it is not surprising that very quickly the struggle for the quota plan turned into a real political and ideological confrontation within the EU.
On February 20, 2017 in New York, at the opening of the UN debate on conflicts in Europe, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia and former President of the UN General Assembly Miroslav Lajcak, during whose term of office the main objectives of the pact were defined, spoke on the side of most EU countries and stressed, that member states should accept refugees. Now Lajcak adheres to his position and even agreed to leave the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs if Slovakia did not sign the UN migration pact. In addition, the diplomat refused to travel to Marrakech on December 10-11 for the UN conference on the adoption of the Global Compact for safe, orderly and regular migration, if the Slovak government does not come to a consensus on this deal. According to Lajczak, this document can be a manual that will inspire countries to solve migration problems. He recalled that on November 20, the government of the Slovak Republic approved a document on the promotion of the hiring of foreign workers, is inextricably linked with migration processes. Therefore, Lajcak continues to confront those who question and suspect the UN migration document. It was through this issue that he came into conflict not only with the opposition Nationalist Party of Slovakia (SNS), but also with representatives of his own ruling Social Democratic Party (SMER-SD), calling the current government populists and xenophobes.
For SNS representatives, this pact is unacceptable in meaning and dangerous for Slovakia, and therefore they refuse to participate in the conference in Marrakesh. The content of the pact has been criticized by Prime Minister Peter Pellegrini and SMER-SD Chairman Robert Fico. The latter expressed his dissatisfaction on this issue at the beginning of 2018. Robert Fico has repeatedly drawn attention to the major cultural and religious differences between Slovaks and refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and also mentioned the security risks associated with the adoption of the UN migration pact.
Another weighty argument used by the countries of Eastern Europe, in particular Slovakia, against granting asylum to refugees from Africa and the Middle East is labor migration from Ukraine. Ukrainians are, although massive, but profitable for these countries, migrants, because they do not ask for asylum and do not always issue a residence permit, and, moreover, bring enormous benefits to the economies of these states. That is why the current government of Slovakia adheres to a strict attitude towards refugees, and also repeatedly refused to redistribute refugee quotas, which should relieve the peripheral EU countries: Italy, Spain, Malta, Cyprus, Greece.
At one time, Robert Fico demanded that the European Commission choose a specific specific group of migrants who should arrive in Slovakia in the process of granting asylum: only two hundred Syrian residents who must be Christians. However, the Council of Europe criticized Slovakia, noting that the manual selection of refugees based on their religion is discrimination.
It is worth noting that Slovakia adheres to most of the goals specified in the pact in its migration policy. At the beginning of this year, Slovakia announced its readiness to accept Syrian orphans who were in Greece in local orphanages. But the arguments against the policy dictated by the migration pact are equally weighty.
First, the social integration of refugees is a complex process that concerns integration into the economic, medical, educational and social space, which requires a lot of effort and considerable financial costs. The socio-economic aspects of integration, related to education, employment and the social sphere, play a significant role. In this context, it is worth mentioning that refugees require social assistance from the asylum state, while they themselves do not necessarily seek to enter the labor market. And this scenario is not beneficial for Slovakia, which already has working migrants from Ukraine. However, there is a possibility that refugees can do jobs that require low qualifications and work in areas where Slovakia has a low level of employment.
Secondly, aspects related to cultural adaptation, general norms and social contacts of immigrants play an equally important role. There is concern that refugees will find it difficult to adapt in countries with a different culture, and that residents of the country that provides asylum will have negative attitudes towards them. For example, 61% of Slovaks believe that their country should not accept a single refugee. Gallup calculated that the majority of Europeans had a negative attitude towards refugees in the past, but the migration crisis only exacerbated their perception.
Slovakia found itself in a quandary. Together with other countries of the Visegrad Four, it stubbornly opposes EU plans for the distribution of refugees or any migration pacts that provide for at least some kind of refugee integration. The ruling government is under pressure not only from a part of the predominantly conservative population, but also by the nationalist opposition, whose ratings are growing as the migration issue aggravates.
The issue of migration in Europe is generally paralyzed. Countries are forced to balance between the interests of the wealthy northern and poor southern countries of Europe, as well as between the western Franco-German liberal bloc and the Eastern European right-wing conservative bloc. If European countries choose the path of strengthening control on the borders of their states, the confrontation between the West and the East in the EU will only intensify, and the main value of the EU - the free flow of goods, people and services - will disappear, which will be a blow to the integrity of the union. And given the migration conflicts between the south and north of Europe, such a policy is unlikely to satisfy the interests of all EU member states. In addition, it is worth remembering that the world should not make a choice towards accepting or rejecting migration, but looking for a rational legal way to manage it. After all, migration is an inevitable phenomenon of our time, which means that the clash of cultures, races and religions requires coordination and reconciliation. Migration is not a piece of luck that populists can take advantage of, or a catastrophe that nationalists are demanding to eliminate, but a problem for which Europe has a common responsibility. It is necessary to tackle its solution, ceasing to ignore the reasons, and the ethics of responsibility should be higher than the ethics of beliefs.
