We can’t rely on America to pack up Europe’s current troubles
|
Version 0 of 1. Natalie Nougayrède drew an interesting link between current troubles and the postwar Marshall plan (Europe is in crisis. America, once more, will have to step in to save us, 23 January). Regarding the refugee crisis, perhaps it is our turn to provide a Marshall plan. Whatever they are called, refugees seem to be thought of as immigrants. They are not; they are refugees, and we have no need or duty to expect them to remain in Europe permanently. They are people who have had to abandon their homes, businesses and country because of desperate trauma; they need sanctuary, shelter and food. They do not need or in fact want to stay for ever. While they are in Europe, it would be to our advantage as well as theirs to help them learn our languages, customs and laws and to find space in our schools for their children. Possibly their greatest need is to be given hope of rebuilding their homes and country, just as Marshall gave us hope. Presumably, at the moment they are devastated and in despair; an important part of providing sanctuary is thinking long term and hopefully. They do not need a lot of people telling them they are not wanted. It is also easier for us to accept new people if we know they will go home one day, however long their stay may be. As well as the likelihood of most refugees preferring to be in their own country, they will be badly needed in Syria’s reconstruction, both physically and in nation-building. If Syrians are not there to do the reconstruction, others will move into their space. Some others will be undesirable and some will be multinational companies imposing their ideas of what Syria should look like and making loads of money. We will have to provide aid, but on their terms. If we could think that, in the long term and preferably with US help, Europe could provide a Marshall plan, the refugee problem might seem less of a crisis.Evelyn AdeyAthelington, Suffolk • Isn’t it about time Europe was able to take up the grownup decisions on its own? Is it right that we Europeans indulge our socialist sensibilities by maintaining levels of domestic and international largesse beyond what we can afford so that we can continue to feel good about ourselves in the short term. Then, when we get out of our depth with it all, expect those “rightwing Americans” to sort out our mess for us? Perhaps Natalie Nougayrède might consider that Brexit has only become a possibility because of the soft politics that are undermining the health of Europe. Most of the British people want Europe to make those tough decisions for itself so that it can remain successful going forward without having to rely on help from a big brother across the Atlantic.Gemma PearceLeeds • Natalie Nougayrède is unlikely to have many American takers in a presidential election year in which the demand of the leading candidate in one party to ban Muslim migrants is, like it or not, popular. But, that aside, how is Europe to blame for its own predicament over one of the problems, mass migration from the Middle East? Certain European countries, notably the UK and France (since the Sykes/Picot agreement a century ago) are historically to blame for much of the Middle East’s unrest, but most of Europe can hardly be blamed for having created what is so relatively peaceful and prosperous a continent that millions of outsiders are prepared to risk their and their families’ lives getting to it. At least some of the problems, such as corruption and religious intolerance, in Syria and elsewhere in the Muslim world are home-grown, and they will not be solved in Europe, with or without yet more US largesse.John WebsterLondon • It is breathtakingly naive to assume that any further involvement by the Americans in the current European crisis will make matters better. The present migrant crisis was set off by American support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan to drive out the Russians that developed into a jihad that drove people from the Middle East into Europe. The US’s own jihad against communism, socialism and anything more than a token public sector split off Poland and other peripheral states from the Soviet bloc and left them for Europe to sort out, despite a huge disparity in wage levels that the European project at its inception was never designed to deal with.DBC ReedNorthampton • Natalie Nougayrède claims that Bosnia was a case of intervention being “too little, too late”, and when it did come it was American-led. This is to misread what happened in Bosnia. America intervened before the Bosnian wars broke out. It was admittedly diplomatic rather than military, yet profoundly destabilising. The confederal-cantonal Cutileiro plan was provisionally agreed by Bosnia’s three ethnic leaders at negotiations hosted by the European Community in Lisbon on 23 February 1992. The Muslim leader Alija Izetbegović, who all along wanted a centrally governed Bosnia, flew back to Sarajevo and met the US ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmermann. Encouraged by Zimmermann, Izetbegović disowned the plan. Washington had, in effect, pushed the Europeans aside and paved the way for war. Some three and a half years later, a muscularly interventionist Washington was congratulating itself for having engineered the confederal-cantonal Dayton agreement.Yugo KovachWinterborne Houghton, Dorset • A simple solution to the issue of benefits for EU migrants (Whether Brexit or Bremain, fear will triumph over fear, 22 January) would be for the EU to take over payment of them. Such a move would be symbolic because it would require the creation of an EU welfare fund which would have to be financed from the agreed contributions of member states and ulitmately, therefore, by their taxpayers, but it would make it possible for Cameron to claim that he had ended for ever the entitlement of migrants (whether from the continent to Britain or the other way round) to benefits from our welfare state, and it would avoid any infringement of the principle of the free movement of labour. And if the opportunity were at the same time taken to apply the idea to asylum seekers it would also symbolise solidarity in sharing the humanitarian burden and forestall any ugly pressure within member states to force the desperate to give up even the very little they may have.Michael BriantCambridge • Warnings by former EU ministers and prime ministers that UK citizens inside the EU would have questionable legal status following a Brexit is mere bluster (Report, theguardian.com, 25 January). The 2003 EU long-term residence directive guarantees equitable treatment to non-EU nationals legally resident in the EU.Dr John DohertyVienna, Austria • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |