The Tribune

The alarming events over the last few days concerning Syrian refugees passing through Turkey in large numbers and trying to enter European Union countries like Greece and Bulgaria hit TV screens over the weekend. As the numbers grow and violence has broken out - with the Greek authorities using force to prevent migrants crossing the border - I am prompted to follow up my piece in this column last week about Germany and mass migration to Europe. The latest developments could rapidly turn into a major crisis.

For those unaware of the circumstances, last week there was an attack by Syrian government forces that led to 33 Turkish troops being killed. Turkish President Erdogan then announced his government had now ‘opened the doors’ and were allowing Syrian and other refugees to cross Turkey and try to enter neighbouring countries after having previously prevented them from doing so under a financial aid agreement with the EU in 2016.

In response, Greece has already stopped about 10,000 migrants and large numbers are trapped in a no-man’s-land between the two countries’ borders. Reportedly, some are managing to cross into Greek territory, particularly landing on the island of Lesbos, which has already been handling large numbers of refugees including many from North Africa. But more and more are arriving at the Turkish/Greek border in the knowledge that once they are inside an EU country there are no more borders.

Looking at all this made me reach to my bookshelves for a bestselling work, first published in 2017, entitled ‘The Strange Death of Europe – Immigration, Identity, Islam’. The author, right-wing journalist and commentator Douglas Murray, paints a picture of a Europe in crisis through its self-destruction by permitting uncontrolled mass migration to the continent. The right-of-centre Daily Telegraph in London commented that his overall thesis - that a guilt-driven and exhausted Europe was playing fast and loose with its precious modern values by embracing migration on such a huge scale - was hard to refute.

Such migration was partly inspired by the Schengen Agreement in 1995 that created a border-free zone for virtually the whole of Europe. So, Germany’s acceptance of 1.5 million refugees from the Middle East in 2015 opened wide a door that was already ajar.

An important element in the controversy surrounding immigration is the role of EU member countries in pursuing their own policy so it is worth examining the existence of the nation state together with the related issues of patriotism and nationalism.

In his weighty book about China published in 2012, US former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, talks of the medieval structure of Europe dissolving in the 16th and 17th centuries into a group of states of approximately equal strength and the emergence of the concept of sovereignty becoming the basis of international law and diplomacy.

So, from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 until about the end of the 20th century the nation state - with large groups of people sharing customs and speaking the same language gathering together to form independent and unitary states - was generally regarded as the best structure for constitutional order and the protection of liberal rights.

But certainty about this gradually declined - as evidenced, for example, by remarks about the EU by Chancellor Kohl of Germany who, in 1996, insisted dissolution of European nation states and combining them into one large integrated political union was essential in order to solve the problems of the 21st century. Moreover, there is a school of thought that maintains the nation state has changed in modern times and should become a formal association capable of accommodating others from outside traditional borders and with diverse ways of life.

Of course, not all agree with that; and, for instance, one of the reasons why the UK left the EU was that many Britons thought uncontrolled immigration had a negative effect on public services and housing because of overcrowding as well as harming the nation’s sense of identity.

As for patriotism and nationalism, the two cannot be used interchangeably for they have taken on different connotations and, in practice, there is a world of difference between them. Broadly, patriotism focuses on people and nationalism on the state. The former means loyalty and devotion to - and vigorous support of - one’s own country, together with a sense of pride, affection and attachment, resulting in a willingness to work for it and defend it. This means a person views one’s own country as the best in the world without feeling a compulsion to force it in any way on to other people.

Nationalism, on the other hand, is a more unforgiving form of allegiance to one’s country with a strong national identity based on a belief that it is superior to others, and that can lead to a desire to impose its will on them. In his famous essay on the subject, George Orwell of ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm’ fame noted patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally, whereas nationalism is inseparable from the desire for power for the nation to which one belongs, and that can include aggression towards other countries.

European integration is based on the idea that nationalism is the worst of all political ideals, and the EU’s founding principle is that nationalism creates war. Some people question that proposition - unless it is placed in some sort of context - because in modern times it is ideologies like fascism, communism and Islamic fundamentalism that have caused the worst wars; though fascism in Germany, which began as a response to devastation and economic collapse after the First World War, became a form of extreme nationalism.

Europe remains divided on the issue of immigration - with Hungary and others, for example, opposed to anything that weakens nation states which need to be protected from mass migration in order to uphold European values. Thus, this latest crisis on the Turkish/Greek border presents the EU with yet another serious problem in connection with the issue. Observers can only hope that wise heads will prevail before it develops into another humanitarian disaster.

Dissenters need to be heard

On a related subject, a startling headline in the UK press caught my eye the other day – ‘Nation is losing faith in universities due to their sneering attitude to patriotism…’ The article went on to highlight fat cat pay packets and grade inflation as well, but it was the patriotism reference that interested me.

The body of the piece was about a report by the respected Policy Exchange think-tank saying that universities must show ‘they speak for and reflect the whole nation’ and leaders in academia should avoid being the voice of critics who actively despise those who have traditional views of patriotism, family, morality, faith and local customs.

My initial thought was this might just be the first chink in the hitherto impenetrable armour of political correctness. So could the tide be turning, since the evidence suggests that in our higher institutions of learning – not only in Britain but also in the US – genuine debate about controversial issues that do not pass the politically correct test is being stifled, with students being told what to think by left-leaning lecturers pursuing their own political agenda based on a progressive ideology.

Some term it socialist brainwashing which is so effective that the students likewise become aggressively intolerant of opposing views and secure the banning of outside speakers expressing opinions on controversial subjects - or, at worst, inciting violent demonstrations that make such speakers withdraw on safety grounds. But such action is, in effect, a contradiction of what higher education is all about; namely, being exposed to all sides of the debate so that students can make up their own minds on an issue.

Generally, schools are for education, polytechnics (like BTVI here in The Bahamas) are for skills training while the role of a university should be to guide and encourage students to explore subjects through study and research and develop the ability to think critically and objectively in forming their own opinions. To achieve that, an intelligent person needs to listen to alternative or conflicting views and counter arguments. People should be able to attend university to develop their intellectual capacity to decide what to stand for; and, in order to do that, they must listen to others even if they conclude subsequently that they disagree with them.

So universities should not shy away from uncomfortable new ideas and free speech. Rather, they should encourage provocative debate and the development of thinking skills and stop indulging in political liberal propaganda while suppressing opposing views. Another dimension of this is that in many aspects of life today’s heresy is often tomorrow’s orthodoxy. So dissenters need to be heard because society is constantly changing and it might just be that they have a point but are ahead of their time. It must also be remembered that to ensure robust mental health students need to learn how to deal with the challenges of controversial views, bigotry and extremism because that is what they will have to face in the tough real world.

Afghanistan - another false start?

Despite the constraints of space, I should like to comment on the peace deal the US signed with the Taliban last week in Doha aimed at ending the 18-year war and setting the stage for peace talks involving all Afghan factions.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, few could quarrel with the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban which had provided a base for Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

Britain participated on the basis that it was better to fight terrorism at its source rather than on the streets of Western capitals, though this justification later lost credibility when it was discovered after the terror attacks in London in 2005 - and in subsequent similar violence over the years – that this terrorism was largely home-grown insofar as most of the perpetrators were UK citizens.

In 2014, the UK ceased all combat operations aimed to dismantle Al-Qaeda and to deny it a safe base for its activity. Now, Britain is part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force whose task is to help the new government by training Afghan armed forces and police.

To cynics, the new peace agreement is unlikely to succeed because they doubt whether the Taliban can be trusted to fulfil its commitment under the terms of the deal to prevent the country from being a launch pad for terror attacks on the US or its allies. But if its commitment is honoured – though it may be difficult to monitor this – US troops will be withdrawn.

Other critics regard the deal as a foreign policy gamble that gives the Taliban, which now holds sway over half the country, international legitimacy; and a warning sign already is the reported refusal by the Afghan President to release Taliban prisoners in advance of the coming peace talks. Despite all this, the US remains hopeful the deal will turn out to be the best opportunity for peace in a generation.

As for Britain, one wonders whether busy policy makers really learn from history and the Anglo-Afghan wars of the 19th century together with the ultimate failure of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 - and, as outsiders, do they fully appreciate the extreme difficulty of ever establishing a stable and functioning state in the hostile and dangerous environment of one of the least developed countries in the world?