"Illiberal democracy" in Hungary

Hungary is currently run by the Fidesz Party of President Viktor Orbán and is the most prominent practioner in the EU of what he calls "illiberal democracy," inspired in significant part by the oligarchical government of Vladimir Putin in Russia. Berhard Knoll and Constanze Jeitler have a very helpful analysis of developments in Hungary in the Vienna weekly Falter (29:2018 17.07.2018), Best of Böse: die Ungarn-Edition.

The whole notion of "illiberal democracy" is what can also be called "plebiscitary democracy," in which voting involves approving or disapproving decisions already taken by the government, like in a plebiscite. But doing so with institutions that effectively prevent free, competitive democractic choice by an informed electorate and allow the governing party to rule without the kinds of formal limitations on abuses like the separation of powers between legislative, executive, and judicial branches that are part of the EU standards of democratic governance.

Hungary (dark green) in Europe

Under the rules set up by Orbán, his Fidesz Party won an overwhelming parliamentary majority in this past April's election, 133-68, large enough to make consitutional changes without any opposition votes, without having to win nearly so large a majority in the popular vote. The New York Times reported on the results of the election (Marc Santora and Helene Bienvenu, Hungary Election Was Free but Not Entirely Fair, Observers Say 04/09/2018):

On the national voting list, Fidesz secured more than 49 percent of the vote, with some 2.6 million voting for the party and its Christian Democratic allies. That was roughly the same as the seven largest opposition parties combined.

Fidesz also won convincingly in local elections, securing a two-thirds majority in Parliament, which will give the party a free hand to pursue still deeper legal and constitutional changes that have already given it firm control over courts and other state institutions.

The April election was formally observed by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe). Knoll and Jeitler summarize the OSCE's findings as follows:

Die Überschneidung von Ressourcen des Staates und der Regierungspartei machte es anderen Kandidaten geradezu unmöglich, einen Wahlkampf auf Augenhöhe zu führen. Den Wählern standen viele politische Optionen offen, der Raum für echte politische Debatten war aber beschnitten. Einschüchterungen und fremdenfeindliche Äußerungen, die Voreingenommenheit der Medien und die undurchsichtige Finanzierung des Wahlkampfs behinderten Wähler, eine sachkundige Entscheidung zu fällen, hieß es im Abschlussbericht.

{The overlap of resources of the state and the ruling party made it nearly impossible for other candidates to conduct an election campaign on a equal basis. The voters had many options available to the them, but the space for real political debates was circumcised. Intimidations and xenophoblc declarations, the prejudice of the media, and the untransparent financing of the election campaign hindered voters from making an informed decision, said the final report.}

As they report, there are still independent media in Hungary, but the UN Human Rights Council has warned that the current "Hungarian media laws can no longer fully guarantee that press coverage can occur in an uncensored and unhindered fashion." (my translation)

Knoll and Jeitler describe how government-friendly oligarchs also take part in the subordination of much of the press to the government position:

Die Politik übernahm die Medienlandschaft im Laufschritt. Nicht nur der öffentliche Rundfunk wurde zum Propagandasender der Regierungspartei. Private Medien fürchten um ihre Werbeeinnahmen und verhalten sich deswegen still, oder aber sie werden von regierungsnahen Oligarchen aufgekauft, wie zum Beispiel der Sender TV2. Nachdem der ungarischamerikanische Hollywood-Produzent und Orbán-Intimus Andy Vajna den Sender erworben hatte, wurde er schnell zu einem regierungstreuen Kampfhund, der gerne von der Leine gelassen wird, um Oppositionelle und Redakteure zu attackieren.

{Polical power overtook the media landscape in double-time. Not only did public broadcasting become the propaganda arm of the ruling party. Private media fear for their advertising income and stay quiet because of that, or either they are bought up by government-aligned oligarchs, as for example the station TV2. After the Hungarian-American Hollywood producer and Orbán intimate Andy Vajna had bought the station, it quickly became a loyal government attack dog that likes to be let off the lease to attack opposition figures and editors.}

Knoll and Jeitler highlight Orbán's aggressive campaign against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) promoting mainstream democratic practices and defending human rights. Some of it is in the form of intimidation by the youth wing of Fidesz. But they also describe a new law taking effect at the end of July that imposes a 25% tax on organizations that engage in "propaganda activities," which is aimed in particular at groups supporting immigrants and opposing the government's xenophobic propaganda. George Soros' Open Society Foundation is one of the NGOs targeted.

That is a case in which two favorite Fidesz propaganda themes, xenophobia and anti-Semitism, intersect. Orbán and his cronies are perfectly happy to have one of their Hungarian-American oligarch buddies buy an annoying news outlet on their behalf. But they are very, very unhappy about the alleged dealings of the most famous Hungarian-American, George Soros.

Soros, of course, has been a favorite bogeyman for Jew-haters on both sides of the Atlantic for, well, it seems like forever. George Soros is a real person who is active in politics both in the US and Europe. And, of course, the real-world George Soros is fair game for praise and criticism, just like anyone else active in political affairs.

But the "George Soros" of the anti-Semites is just a symbol for the imaginary Worldwide Jewish Elders of Zion Conspiracy against good Christian white folks. And the Hungarian government and the ruling Fidesz Party promote that version with shameless demogoguery. As Knoll and Jeitler report, during the election they promoted the hate-image of George Soros "as the puppeteer of Muslim mass migration" and declared him an "enemy of the state." Jews as puppet-masters was a stock image of Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda.

Im Wahlkampf hatte die Regierung von Steuergeldern finanzierte Plakate affichiert, die einen geifernd grinsenden George Soros zeigten: „Lassen wir nicht zu, dass Soros als Letzter lacht.“ Im Staatsfernsehen und Rundfunk liefen Spots mit antisemitischen Untertönen. Die Fidesz-Jugend bastelte ein Plakat, das Soros als Puppenspieler zeigte, der ungarische Oppositionspolitiker wie Marionetten tanzen lässt.

{During the election, the government placed placards financed with public funds that showed a greedily grinning George Soros [and capitioned], "Let's don't let Soros have the last laugh". In public TV and radio, spots ran with anti-Semitic undertones. The Fidesz Youth pasted up a placard that showed Soros as a puppetmaster who had Hungarian opposition politicians dancing like marionettes.}

The centerpiece of Fidesz propaganda is the supposed menance of hordes of refugees coming into Hungary. This scare is still riding on the back of the alarm generated by the surge of refugees to Europe from the Middle East and North Africa in 2015, most of whom wound up someplace other than Hungary.

The refugee/immigraiton issue - which European xenophobes prefer to call "migration" because in the current political lingo that sounds like "freeloaders" - has been particularly potent in Hungary. That despite the fact that Hungary has a notably lower percentage of immigrants as part of its population than other European countries like Austria. That may sound superficially paradoxical. But it's a general pattern. In Germany, Austria, the United States, the strongest anti-immigrant sentiment if found in areas with relatively few immigrants. People with actual, real-life contacts with immigrants are distinctly less receptive to xenophobic political demagoguery.

But, in a manner similar to the practices implemented by Donald Trump and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III in the US, Orbán government uses gratuitous cruelty to immigrants as a way of acclimatizing people to escalating levels of brutuality and human rights violations. Although, to be fair to Hungarian authoritarians, I have not yet seen reports of Hungary systematically kidnapping immigrant children from their parents as ICE does in the US as state terror against immigrants. The reality in Hungary is nevertheless more than ugly enough. Knoll and Jeitler report on immigrant detention camps inside Hungary near the Serbian border:

Die zwei Transitzonen Röszke und Tompa suchen ihresgleichen in Europa. Hochsicherheitskomplexe gleich hinter dem Zaun, den Ungarn 2015 an der Grenze zu Serbien aufgezogen hat. Stacheldraht, Stahldrehtüren, Container und Überwachungskameras. Das Muster für die Pläne von Herbert Kickl und Horst Seehofer? Die ungarischen Behörden haben im Vorjahr knapp 4000 Menschen gestattet, Asylanträge zu stellen. Heute lassen die ungarischen Behörden durchschnittlich pro Arbeitstag zwei Asylwerber in die Transitzonen. Alle anderen, die im Land aufgegriffen werden und nicht eine der beiden Zonen passiert haben, werden, ohne einen Asylantrag stellen zu können, sofort nach Serbien zurückgeschoben.

In den ersten vier Monaten dieses Jahres wurde 267 Menschen, vornehmlich Afghanen, Schutz zugesprochen; 326 Anträge wurden abgelehnt. Das Verfahren innerhalb der Transitzonen dauert zwischen drei und sechs Monate – und das nach durchschnittlich achtmonatigem Warten in offenen Asylzentren in Nordserbien. Medizinische oder psychosoziale Betreuung gibt es genauso wenig wie effektiven Schutz minderjähriger Flüchtlinge vor Misshandlungen und sexueller Ausbeutung. Als Journalist kann man die Transitzonen zwar von außerhalb filmen, sie aber nicht besichtigen. Was in Röszke geschieht, bleibt in Röszke.

Der Europäische Menschenrechtsgerichtshof stellte unter anderem fest, dass zwei Bangladescher, die mit attestierter posttraumatischer Störung vor ihrer Zurückschiebung nach Serbien 2015 drei Wochen in der Transitzone angehalten wurden, ihrer Freiheit unrechtmäßig beraubt wurden und keinen Zugang zu wirksamen Rechtsbehelfen erhielten (die ungarische Regierung hat gegen das erstinstanzliche Urteil Berufung eingelegt). Röszke steht heute für eine weitverbreitete und systematische Rechtsverletzung.

{The two transit zones Röszke und Tompa are without comparison in Europe. High security compounds right behind the fence Hungary erected in 2015 on the border to Serbia. Barbed wire, steel revolving doors, containers, and surveillance cameras. The model for the plans of [Austrian Interior Minister] Herbert Kickl and [German Interior Minister] Horst Seehofer? Hungarian officials have approved barely 4,000 people to make application for asylum last year. Today, Hungarian officials allow on the average two asylum-seekers per day into the transit zones. All others who are captured in the country and haven't passed through either of the two zones are immediately sent back to Serbia without being able to apply for asylum.

In the first four months of this year, 267 people were granted [asylum] protection, primarily Afghans; 326 applicataions were rejected. The processes inside the transit zones last between three and six months - and that after an average eight months waiting in public asylum centers in Northern Seriba. Medical or psychosocial support services as so little present as effective protection of underage refugees from abuse and sexual exploitation. Journalists can only film the transit zones from outside, but are not allowed to visit them. What happens in Röszke stays in Röszke.

The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that, among others, two Bangladeshis with attested post-traumatic disorders were held for three weeks in the transit zone before being sent back to Serbia in 2015, unjustly deprived of their freedom, and were provided no access to effective legal assistance. (The Hungarian government has appealed the initial ruling.) Röszke today represents a widespread and systematic violation of human rights.} [my emphasis]

To get a sense of proportion, Hungary's population is around 9.8 million and projected to shrink. Admitting 265 asylum-seekers is anything but a flood of newcomers and in no meaningful way can that be called a serious problem. Also, as long as Hungary wants to have a growing GDP, they need immigrants.

What's striking about so much of the anti-immigrant rhetoric in EU politics right now is that the problems are wildly exaggerated and lied about by xenophobic politicians. And the "solutions," when they go beyond rhetorical hot air, tend to be little more than performative brutality against immigrants. And stunningly irrelevant to the very real longterm immigration issues facing Europe, issues which will go through recurrent acute phases, especially as wars in the Middle East and North Africa break out or intensify.

This is what the death of democracy looks like. The Hungarian version of it, anyway.

Joschka Fischer on the rise of China and "the descent of the West"

"The global Western era is coming to an end in our time." - Joschka Fischer, Der Abstieg des Westens: Europa in der neuen Weltornung des 21.Jahrhunders (2018)

Joschka Fischer's latest book is a broad sketch of the state of world politics. Obviously a very large subject! And the satellite's eye view inevitably involved in such an undertaking can induce dizziness at times. But as a former Foreign Minister of Germany and as someone who have been intensely engaged in politics since his youth, Fischer does a respectable job of it, with particular emphasis on the challenges the changes present for European foreign policy.

Fischer sees the rise of China toward being the world's leading power in the world as being the geopolitical consideration already defining the world in the 21st century. He looks at this development through a foreign-policy "realist" lens, viewing China's rise not as a threatening menace to be suppressed or some ideal to be supported but rather as a normal development in the relative power of nations in the world. He sees us as now being in a "global transition phase to a new, Asia-centric world order." (The quotes from the book in this post are my translations from the German original.)

Many Americans are inclined to see US predominance in the world as some kind of inevitable historical development, even divine providence. But that predominance didn't show itself on the world scene until the end of the First World War, and even then proceeded in fits and starts until the end of the Second World War. The "Westphalian" system of nation-states as we know it began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1848. Just two centuries ago, the dominant powers in the world were the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, Prussia, and the Ottoman Empire. All of those had ceased to exist by 1918.

Very mindful of the risks that the relative decline of the US in world power and China's rise to the leading role, his hope is that the process will involve more active, pragmatic cooperation than military hostility. He calls this option "Chimerica." Neither German nor English readers are likely to miss the suggestive ambiguity of that term because of its resemblance to "chimera/Chimäre." Unlike much of the current political conversation in the US, Fischer views Russia realistically as at most a secondary player for the foreseeable future. He sees three major options for Russia, due to its weak economy, retarted innovation, and heavy dependence on fossil fuel production: stay weak and isolated; become a junior partner to China; or, develop a cooperative relationship with Europe.

Fischer has a Malthusian streak that sees world population growth almost as a self-evident evil, to which he apparently sees no real solution in sight. In fact, urbanization and the growing demand by women worldwide for equal rights create a strong tendency toward the stabilization of the world population in the 21st century.

He also seems to have a bit of a techno-utopian perspective, although his general comments on the role of progress in "digitalization" seem pretty sensible.

I'm tempted to say that his observations about the need for greater EU political unity are fairly pedestrian. But they are downright radical-democratic in comparison to the notions of the far-right nationalists and their supporters. And he actually does advocate for an aggressive political strategy by EU advocates to win a solid popular majority in Europe for more substantive political integration: "it seems to me the moment has come to leave behind the bare integration-pragmatism and widen it to a political strategy to win back a wider political integration."

Which is very appealing. But it's how to see how any option, including the two-speed one he advoates, can reasonably move forward without at least simultaneously creating a eurozone that can survive as an "optimal currency area" and reaching a general European strategv for a real (not theatrical only) solution to the longterm immigration situation which no amount of magic conjuring will make go away. Fischer explicitly acknowledges the difficulty and urgency of the latter. National solutions "no longer make sense," he states in saying what should be obvious but the xenophobic parties are trying hard to deny. The euro's problems, though, he mostly skirts around.

Fischer optimistically views China's rise to its current position as the ascendent leading power in the world as having been "exclusively peaceful," though that might be overgenerous, unless we start the time count after China's armed incursions into northern Vietnam in 1979, aka, the Sino-Vietnamese War, the Third Indochina War.

The US, by contrast, achieved its role as world hegemon through two world wars and the Cold War, which included hot wars of various levels of intensity, most notably the Korean War and the US' own Indochina War. But Fischer stresses that US "soft power" also "played a very decisive role in its rise and, above all, for its roll as 'benevolent hegemon' through the decades."

One of the things I appreciate about Fischer's political perspective on the United States is that he stresses the central importance democratic traditions of the US, "the basic values of the American Revolution, [of] democracy, human rights, and the rule of law." But he also notes that the American tradition of "territorial conquest" is not one that should be perpetuated or defended. To me, this is a sensible and obvious perspective, one that has important differences from the Hamilitonian-Whig ideological version of US history that is currently dominant, remarkably not only on the left but if anything particulary on the left.

Fischer even credits the "idealistic committment" that has accompanied the hard-headed pursuit of American national interest in foreign policy. Although foreign policy realists like Fischer are also accutely aware of how easily and frequently the idealistic rhetoric has been used to justify brutal and unjust policies. He had direct experience of that as German Foreign Minister during the Iraq War.

He also makes an important historical observation that the US even prior to its overseas imperialism at the turn of the 20th century was nevertheless oriented to an internationalist outlook. And he attribues that in particular to its culture of immigration, which in the 19th century was primarily European immigration:

[The US] was, in contrast to other nations, almost from the beginning on founded as interally "globalized," despite the breadth and thin settlement of the huge country, through the immigration-related combination of its population from all dominant countries and parts of the world - on a universalism of values, and that had consequences for its popular culture. What made and makes the immigrant population "Americans" were the Constiituion and the value of the USA, all of them immaterial, normative values, and in their innner core an unparalleled freedom for the individual.

Fischer's general perpective in this book is describing the longer-term shift in world politics from the US as the so-called unipolar hegemon in the early 1990s to the current period, in which he sees China's process of rising to be the world's dominant power as defining world politics. And with that point, he is stressing how radically the Trump white nationalist view misunderstands so very much of what America's influence in the world has been.

I'm totally sympathetic to Fischer's perspective on that. But in terms of historical perspective, there are some obvious problems left unstated by Fischer's prsentation, which is not primarily focused on illustrating the major conflicts of 19th century US history. The United States was also defined, of course, by the exclusion of the indigenous Indian population and by a very particular treatment of immigrants of African origin. There were good reasons slavery was known as the Peculiar Institution. The Calhounian (not Jacksonian) political tradition from which Donald Trump and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III draw today is unfortunately also very much a part of the history of the American brand of internationalism.

Fischer understands Trump's America First blustering not as isolationism but as narrow nationalist belligerence. Presumably the book manuscript was finalized in late 2017. But even without the events of this year - US rejection of the Iran nuclear agreement, more intensely expressed hostility to NATO and the EU - Fischer sees Trump as already having made a decisive break with the previous level of commitment to NATO common defense, one that increases the urgency of better European cooperation on military matters and European security. Though he does not understand the latter to be Europe pursuing new and expanded military roles in the Middle East.

He describes the major US soft-power assets this way:

... the attractiveness of the US way of life, the popular culture of Hollywood, pop music, and jazz all the way to Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Starbucks. As well as a policy of open borders, which brought the best and most clever into the country and many more besides. The gigantic land simply needs people. Through immigration developed not only growth, but also a strong dynamic of upward mobility. And obviously there was also the language, an easy-to-learn and globally spoken English, which through the worldwide media dominance of the USA via TV and the Internet became the lingua franca of modern times.

(People who didn't grow up as native German speakers might have a somewhat different perspective on how easy English is to learn!)

Fischer doesn't see a comparable soft power potential for China on the historical horizon.

He closes the book with a chapter on the rise of 1930s style authoritarianism in the West today and another on the history of German nationalism and its immensely destructive and self-destructive consequences.

Fischer seems especially comfortable writing on political theory, as in the chapter on contemporary authoritarianism:

The ideological cadavers of National Socialism and fascism - and the previous "conservative revolution" of the 1920s - are being exhumed again and used by rightist intellectuals as the newest theoretical faschion [Dernier cri] of Western democracy and its fundamental values. An anti-democrat and intellectual henchman of the Nazis like Carl Schmitt counts these days as the pillar-saint of this New Right.

This Carl Schmitt.

Varoufakis on extend-and-pretend solution to euro and refugee problems

Yanis Varoufakis in an 11-minute interview with Bloomberg News on the two mega-problems that endanger the future of the European Union: the flaws of the eurozone currency construction, and the long-term refugee crisis:

https://youtu.be/PJB-iP9EmV4

He talks about how the current extend-and-pretend pseudo-solutions to both are are a deceptive mess. (The more I hear about Angela Merkel's recent deal on refugees with her Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, the more I'm impressed with what vapid political theater it is, a non-solution to a non-problem.) Phony solutions are a staple of normal politics, of course. But the EU program for Greece and the Merkel-Seehofer deal are both classic examples of the genre. The first is far more significant, the second more dramatic in its obvious phoniness.

He deals with the extend-and-pretend "solution" to the Greek debt crisis in Profiles in European Denial Project Syndicate 07/29/2018:

When bankers try to cover up bad loans on their books, they extend new loans to enable their insolvent borrowers to pretend to be servicing the original loan. When the new loan is exhausted, the client is allowed to suspend repayment for a few years, with interest accumulating. This keeps the net present value of their asset (the loan) constant while postponing the day of reckoning (when they have to confess to their regulator that the loan is unrecoverable).

Since 2010, Greece’s creditors have been practicing this extend-and-pretend strategy as though they were training for an Olympic event. Instead of a courageous and therapeutic haircut, or the moderate GDP-indexing solution, the Eurogroup’s recent decision, proclaimed as the “end of the Greek debt crisis” boiled down to the apotheosis of this cynical practice.

The politics of fakery on European immigration

Immigration makes some people crazy. And crazy, as a general rule, is a bad basis for policymaking. (Marc Brost et al, Tage des Irrsinns Die Zeit 04-05.07.2018)

With both Putin and Trump eager to weaken the European Union, the EU countries are floundering on the twin dilemma of a "the obscenity of a currency union which imposes a strict system of rules to the benefit of its strongest member states but does not in compensation provide the latitude for joint political action on the European level" (Jürgen Habermas, Die Zeit 06.07.2018) and the inability to set up an effective and fair system for handling refugees and asylum-seekers.

The EU continues to deal with the problems of the eurozone by what amounts to magic conjuring with the holy phrases of Herbert Hoover/Heinrich Brüning economics. And with the immigration crisis by staging bad theater. But since we're dealing with major government policies here, the fakery comes with real costs to real people.

In a recent lecture, Jürgen Habermas described how Angela Merkel's nationalistic posturing during the debt crisis fed nationalistic sentiments in the EU, a process that is backfiring on Germany in visible ways (Sind wir noch gute Europäer? Die Zeit 04.07.2018; English: Are We Still Good Europeans? 06.07.2018):

If you listen closely to the German chancellor, it is striking that she makes rather peculiar use of the words "loyalty" and "solidarity." During a recent appearance on a talk show hosted by Anne Will, Merkel demanded joint political action on asylum policy and in the tariff conflict with the United States, and in this context called for the "loyalty" of the EU partners. Generally, it is the boss who expects loyalty from her employees, while joint political action generally requires solidarity rather than loyalty. Depending on the constellation of interests, it is sometimes the one, sometimes the other, who must subordinate their own interests to those of the whole. When it comes to asylum policy, for example, not all countries – because of their geographical locations, for example – are equally affected by migration nor do they all have the same capacity to take people in. To take another example, tariffs on automobile imports threatened by the U.S. would hit some, Germany in this case, harder than others. In such cases, joint political action means that one party takes the interests of others into consideration and takes on its share of responsibility for the jointly approved political resolution. Germany's interest is obvious in these two examples, just as it is in the insistence on a joint European foreign policy.

The fact that the chancellor speaks of "loyalty" in such cases is likely a consequence of her having spent years using the world "solidarity" in a different, strictly economic context. "Solidarity in return for each country's own responsibility" is the euphemistic slogan that became familiar in the course of the [debt] crisis, a reference to the conditions imposed on credit recipients by those granting the credits. What I am getting at is the conditional redefinition of the term solidarity: that is the semantic breaking point where cracks are now showing in the certainty that we Germans are the best Europeans. Contrary to the raving clamor about transfer payments, which have never actually come to pass, what is slowly creeping into the public awareness is both the lack of legitimacy and the dubious effects of investment-hampering budgetary constraints, along with labor market reforms that result in entire generations being jobless. [my emphasis]

Habermas refers to the nationalistic demagogues and policies that are currently threatening the EU's existence as "the Trumpian dissolution of Europe."

There was a political confrontation the last few weeks between German Interior Minister Ernst Seehofer (CSU) over a narrow slice of the current set of immigration and asylum issue in which Austria's Chancellor Sebastian "Babyface" Kurz intervened in a reckless way that was over an issue whose substance seems almost esoteric. (Wolfgang Münchau, German refugee compromise ignores underlying issues Financial Times 07/05/2018; Andrea Böhm, Europas Flucht vor der Realität Die Zeit 07.07.2018; Max Fisher and Katrin Bennhold, Germany’s Europe-Shaking Political Crisis Over Migrants, Explained New York Times 07/03/2018)

But too much of the immigration debate - far, far too much - depends on symbolic posturing that translates into headlines the xenophobes can exploit for their own demagoguery.

I saw a small example in a local insert for the state/province of Upper Austria from the Austrian Neues Volksblatt ", Hoamatland for July 2018, which is associated with the politics of the Chancellor's conservative People's Party (ÖVP). The second half of page 6 carries three headlines: "Christliche Werte zu OÖ!" ("Christian values appertain to Upper Austria!"), "Zwei Moscheen in OÖ geschlossen" ("Two mosques in Upper Austria closed"), and "Bevölkerung für strikten Kurs" ("Population for a strict course"). Christian values, closing mosques, a strict course against "migration" - all are favorite framing constructs for Austrian xenophobes.

But if the reader bothers to look closely, something odd is happening. The first is a report about a new "integration" policy statement for immigrants by the Upper Austrian state government, featuring the leading government officials of the government coalition, Landeshauptmann (Governor) Thomas Stelzer (ÖVP) and deputy governor Manfred Haimbuchner, together with representatives of the opposition SPÖ and Greens, the same photo featured in this story at Volksblatt.at, „Kompass für das Zusammenleben“ 04.07.2018. It's about the release of a general policy statement called Integration Verbindlich Gestalten - Zusammenhalt Stärken. The "Christliche Werte" article certainly leaves the impression that all parties in the state Landtag were endorsing a policy that specified "Christian values" as government policy, which is understood in the present context as a anti-Islamic framing.

But the Hoamatland article doesn't include the quote cited in the headline. Nor does the longer Volksblatt are includes a statement supporting "Christian values and traditions," in a context which quotes the title of the Integration Verbindlich document and leaves a clear impression that it includes a Bekenntnis ("profession" or "allegiance to") "our Christian values and traditions." Here's the paragraph in German:

Unter dem Titel „Integration verbindlich gestalten — Zusammenhalt stärken“ bringe das neue Leitbild Ziel und Aufgabe der Integrationspolitik zum Ausdruck und stelle einen Handlungsrahmen für die zukünftige Integrationspolitik und Integrationsarbeit einschließlich des Förderwesens im Land auf, heißt es in einer Stellungnahme der Landesregierung. Und, so wird betont: „Wesentliche Grundlagen und Schlüsselfaktoren für ein gelungenes Zusammenleben sind unter anderem das Bekenntnis zur gemeinsamen Sprache Deutsch, das Bemühen um Selbsterhaltung und die Teilhabe am Arbeitsmarkt sowie das Bekenntnis zu unseren christlichen Werten und Traditionen.“

But the thing is, the Integration Verbindlich statement on the Upper Austria official website does not say that. A simple Cntl-F search shows 25 instances of "Werte" (values) in the 20-page document, none of which are identified as "Christian". Or "Islamic" or "Muslim" or "religious". The same combination of Windows keyboard, Adobe Acrobat, and my own eyeballs search combination finds only one reference to "Christian": "Österreich ist ein offenes, christlich geprägtes Land,
das dem Humanismus und der Aufklärung verpflichtet ist." ("Austria is an open country shaped by Christianity and which is committed to humanism and the Enlightenment.") And the document is explicit about what it assumes to be Austrian values in a section called "Central Basic Values":

• Democracy and the rule of law ("Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit")
• Separation of church and state/religious freedom ("Trennung von Staat und Religion/Glaubensfreiheit")
• Integrity of body and spirit ("Körperliche und geistige Unversehrtheit")
• The individual right to shape one's life and freedom of opinion ("Recht auf individuelle Lebensgestaltung und Meinungsfreiheit")
• Equality of the sexes ("Gleichstellung der Geschlechter")
• Educational opportunities and educational responsibilities ("Bildungschancen und Bildungspflicht")

In other words, like any official document passed through endless committees and designed to be acceptable to the entire ideological spectrum of the parties in a state legislature, it's a safely bland statement of general liberal democratic values of tolerance and mutual respect.

So why present the story with a headline that makes the whole thing sound like a defiant declaration of the primacy of Christianity as such in Austrian identity? Even allowing for Austrian journalistic practice of putting quotation marks in headlines around summary statements that aren't exact quotes, it's an odd presentation. I was unable to locate the quote from the Hoamatland headline in a Google search.

Briefly, the other two headlines have similar issues. Two mosques in Upper Austria were closed, it reports, a move announced in a June 8 press conference statement Chancellor Babyface, Vice Chancellor HC Strache, and Interior Minister Herbert Kickl. The article leads with a quote from Landeshauptmann Stelzer to crow about fighting "political Islam," hostile subcultures ("Gegengesellschaften"), radicalization, and violence. All associated with the closed mosques.

In reality, there was much less to the June 8 announcements that the PR hype suggested. The announcement was about withdrawing official recognition from some small Islamic associations. As Austrian specialist on rightwing extremism, Thomas Rammerstorfer, explains in Der große Schmäh mit der bösen Moschee Falter 13.06.2018, not only were the grounds for the closures practically and legally questionable. But also their practical effect on Islamic affairs and "political Islam" in Austria is to strengten the relative prestige and influence of groups friendly to Turkey's authoritarian President Tayyip Erdoğan, which were not touched by the actions. Erdoğan is a favorite bogeyman for the Austrian far right despite the similarities between his autoritarian leanings and theirs. Turks form the largest group of Austrian Muslims, all of whom are regularly trashed by rightwingers. None of that would be conveyed by the Hoamatland piece.

The third article is an uncritical paragraph saying that 83% approve of German classes for children who haven't managed German sufficiently for their grade level in school. This sounds perfectly harmless, a liberal and generous measure. But the current national government has been pushing for a particular kind of German classes in publisc schools for foreign children that would tend to segregate them in schools from their native German-speaking peers, a position means to promote stigmatization of immigrant children and make it even harder for them to integrate successfully into Austrian society. That really is just a filler article. But it fits with the other two in promoting a very superficial picture of current policies on immigration and their practical effects.

There's quite a bit of discussion in American politics right now about whether countering far-right Trumpist with facts is effective, or even counter-productive. But as these Austrian examples illustrate, the left and pro-democracy centrists have to counter these propaganda claims with facts. But they also have to be very mindful of countering the framing of the issues as well. When the right peddles with deceptive framing and appeals to fear and hatred, their opponents also have provide attractive framing and persuasive emotional appeals at the same time as countering false claims with facts. A big part of the advantage of advocates for "reality-based" understandings and advocacy for realistic policies based on facts is that reality has a persistent ability to impose itself on crackpot theories and policies.

The Empire (Angela Merkel) strikes back at Austria's Chancellor Babyface

The EU countries are going through their own version of coming up with non-solutions to not-really-problems of immigration.

The latest round was a compromise on Tuesday between German Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) and her Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU). Which seems to have resolved a power struggle between the two. (Angela Merkel's last-ditch migrant compromise under scrutiny Deutsche Welle 03.07.2018) At least for this week. Wolfgang Munchau suggests that Merkel's trademark extend-and-pretend solutions are having "rapidly declining half-life."

My FT column on the rapidly declining half-life of Angela Merkel’s fudges. https://t.co/xJ4lD5hfT9

— Wolfgang Munchau (@EuroBriefing) July 3, 2018

The EU's immigration crisis is real, in my view. It's a long-term problem since at least 2011 that will not go away any time soon. People fleeing war and civil violence and desperate conditions in war-torn countries like Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya. There was a crisis moment in 2015, when a big surge of refugees headed north, most of which Germany absorbed.

The current EU solution - arguably the only one in place - is that Turkey, Italy, and Greece are holding large numbers of refugees from North Africa and the Middle East in camps of varying quality. Under the "Dublin" rules governing EU immigration, the EU country of first entry is responsible for processing asylum applications. So the burdens really are unfairly distributed to Greece and Italy, and other EU countries have not been forthcoming, to put it mildly, in accepting refugees that initially enter the EU through other countries.

But for the EU as a whole, the crisis is a longer one, and 2015 was an unusual event in terms of the suddenness of the influx for much larger numbers of refugees. In countries like Germany and Austria, the influx of asylum-seekers has declined year by year since the drastic high of 2015 and can't reasonably be said to be serious problems for either of those two countries in 2018.

But rightwing demagogues have made hay with the issue through anti-immigrant agitation.

While the long-term immigration crisis is a distinct issue itself, in the EU it is intimately connected with the ongoing euro crisis, which is currently in a dormant stage but can break out against at almost any moment. Joe Stiglitz gives a good description of the interconnection in How to exit the eurozone 07/02/2018:

The resulting schisms [in the EU over the euro crisis] have also made it harder to solve other problems, most notably the migration crisis, where European rules impose an unfair burden on the frontline countries receiving migrants, such as Greece and Italy. These also just so happen to be the debtor countries, already plagued with economic difficulties. No wonder there is a rebellion.

In the current situation, Italy is in a particularly volatile moment because it's a country where the immigration and eurozone crises intersect in a particularly visible way.

Ruth Wodak of the Centre for the Analysis of the Radical Right describes several factors on which people need to focus if we want to have a realistic picture of the current immigration issue in Europe in her The Revival of Numbers and Lists in Radical Right Politics 06/30/2018.

The German compromise on Tuesday was mainly a cosmetic one for (at the moment) a non-problem. Leading up to it, Austria's 31-year-old Chancellor Sebastian "Babyface" Kurz meddled in an unusual way in German internal politics. He very publicly supported Seehofer in his power play against Merkel. The provocative nature of this is compounded by the fact that Merkel's party (CDU) and Seehofer's party (CSU) are international "sister" parties of Kurz's Christian Democratic People's Party (ÖVP). And Babyface started on July 1 as the President of the Council of Europe the European Union, a position that rotates to different EU countries every six months.

I'm very critical of Angela Merkel in many ways. But she is one of the most accomplished politicians of my lifetime. And she knows how to shove the (political) knife. So I expected retaliation on her part. And part of it has begun. The Merkel-Seehofer deal said Germany wouldn't accept new asylum-seekers entering from neighboring countries. This is to be handled by bilateral deals. And other countries like Czechia or Poland who doesn't want to accept their return will be sent to Austria under a bilateral agreement with them. An agreement that, uh, doesn't yet exist.

After weeks of conflict between German chancellor Angela Merkel and Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, conservative sister parties CDU and CSU reached a deal last night.

What did they agree to? Here's a summary: pic.twitter.com/zv2ldcpeyX

— DW | Politics (@dw_politics) July 3, 2018

This is the visible beginning of Angie's payback to Babyface. It won't be the last. She's telling him, hey, you want "closed borders" to Austria, fine. We'll close the German border and any people we get we don't want, we'll dump them back onto you, you silly whining twat.

One of the key points in the migration deal between Germany's conservatives is that asylum seekers will be rejected at the German-Austrian border if they are registered in another EU country.

How did Vienna respond to the CDU/CSU agreement? pic.twitter.com/t30KirQmrB

— DW | Politics (@dw_politics) July 3, 2018

If you take a political shot like this at Angie, you'd better makes sure it hits its mark. Otherwise, there will be repercussions.

This is mostly Kabuki theater at the moment. Because there aren't hordes of scary immigrants pouring over the border into Germany. Or Austria either.

The even the Kabuki illustrates some of the limits of trying to operate in an international movement of nationalists.

Stay tuned. There will be more. It's unlikely that Babyface will fare any better in the next rounds.

[Minor updates included]

Chancellor Babyface among the Visograds

Austria's not-quite-32-year-old Chancellor Sebastian "Babyface" Kurz has been hard at work promoting anti-immigration events that generate free publicity and enflame nationalist hostilities without committing Austria to actually have to do much of anything to actually address the chronic refugee crisis that the EU has been facing at least since 2011.

Kurz had more experience in political office before he became Chancellor in December 2017 than, for instance, Donald Trump. But he seems to be an opportunist with no particular principles other than promoting his own political career.

I attended a live event last September during the campaign when Kurz (ÖVP) debated his now Vice Chancellor and coalition partner HC Strache (FPÖ) and the then Chancellor now opposition leader Christian Kern (SPÖ). It was obvious in that appearance that Strache was clearly more experienced and at ease with retail politics than either Kurz or Kern. I've wondered since then if Strache as the junior partner in the national coalition, even though his far-right FPÖ is smaller than the ÖVP.

Kurz was clearly showing his opportunist side during the campaign by demagoguing against foreigners, something the FPÖ has been doing for Babyface's entire life. It's not yet clear after half a year if Kurz is clearly in command of the political direction of his coalition government. It may be. But he's still enthusiastic about the foreigner-baiting. And the FPÖ seems to be getting what they want on that front for the time being.

Kurz raised a lot of diplomatic eyebrows very recently by calling for an "axis of the willing" with Italy and Germany (or at least the German state of Bavaria) against immigration.

Thursday he was in Hungary for a meeting the Visegrad Group of states, which includes Czechia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, three of which share a border with Austria. Hungary's President Viktor Orban is one of the main European models for what he calls "illiberal democracy," authoritarian government in nominally democratic form. Xenophobic nationalism has been one of his political themes. (Hungary PM says Visegrad countries and Austria to promote EU border defence Yahoo!/Reuters 06/21/2018; Visegrad-Gruppe und Österreich pochen auf harte Flüchtlingspolitik Salzburger Nachrichten 21.06.2018)

Quelle: https://www.sn.at/politik/weltpolitik/visegrad-gruppe-und-oesterreich-pochen-auf-harte-fluechtlingspolitik-29473321 © Salzburger Nachrichten VerlagsgesmbH & Co KG 2018)

A look at a map of the Schengen Area in Europe (this one from Wikipedia; Schengen area in dark blue) gives an idea of not only the geographic context but the political element, much of which is a PR scam.

Chancellor Babyface, Orban, and the other Visegrad states are demanding the "securing" of the EU's external borders. The diplomatic device that has been in place for years is the Schengen Agreement, which actually predates the EU though it has been expanded since . In order to abolish routine border checks for travel within the EU, the states on the outer borders of the Schengen Area enforce the commonly-agreed external entry standards. Those are shown in dark blue on the above map, with Switzerland and Liechtenstein being non-EU members that are in conformity with the Schengen standards.

Three of the Visegrad countries have external Schengen borders: Hungary with Croatia, Serbia, Romania, and Ukraine; Slovakia with Ukraine; and, Poland with Ukraine, Belarus, Lituania, and Russia. Czechia has none.

Non-Visegrad Austria also has none. So when Austria and Czechia are fretting over the "outer borders" of the EU, they are talking about other countries' enforcement of the borders.

None of the Visegrad countries or Austria is currently dealing with anything that could reasonably be called a level of refugees that they can't handle. The European border and coast guard agency, Frontex, currently has figures on the January-April 2018 illegal border crossings into Europe:

This presumably doesn't include legal entrants, which include people applying for asylum that may not get it. But what this map of the significant immigration routes is that most of them involve people from the Middle East and North Africa. Those immigrants are not directly entering The Visegrad states or Austria. Italy and Greece are holding large numbers of refugees from Middle East and North Africa. And Greece especially has very legitimate complaints about inadequate solidarity on support and resettlement of immigrants from their fellow EU members.

But solidarity and support are not what the anti-immigrant policies of the Visegrad states and especially not from Austria and Czechia are about.

In Austria's case, Chancellor Babyface is trying to posture as the defender of Austria's borders by posturing over issues on which Austria has no direct control.

Starting in July, Chancellor Babyface will represent Austria, which holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Which is not the same as the President of the European Council, who is currently Donald Tusk. The lack of clarity of roles in the EU is one of the various reasons for the "democratic deficit" in the EU.

But Kurz, who will be formally one of the key leaders of the EU in the second half of 2018, is actively undermining the EU with his demagogic anti-immigrant policies and posturing. To him it must look like cheap political gains. Because Austria itself doesn't have to directly implement these tougher external border policies he's promoting because Austria is not a Schengen border country.

Most importantly, Kurz and his Visegrad buddies are not promoting real solutions to the refugee problem. Politicians like Kurz and Strache aren't interested in solving the actual problems, only in exploiting them to promote authoritarian rightwing politics.

The broad outlines of a real European solution to the crisis are actually fairly obvious: stop supporting American wars in the Middle East and engage diplomatically to avoid wars in the Middle East and other external military interventions like those of Russia (and, yes, that will damage the profits of some European arms dealers and that's a good thing); a fair and comprehensive program for settling prepare adequate emergency services to handle unexpected surges in refugees like those in 2015; sufficient or more-than-sufficient support for the refugee camps in Greece, Italy, and Turkey.

There's a lot of empty talk right now about setting up asylum center in Libya and other places to process asylum claims there. This is largely a joke. First of all, if you're trying to flee a country persecuting, killing, raping, or starving you, is anyone in their right mind going to go to the government doing that apply for asylum elsewhere? Asylum applications involved preparing legal cases. Are countries like Libya going to provide those? That's really a bad joke.

Chancellor Babyface has a great chance the second half of 2018 to use his diplomatic visibility in the EU to promote some real solutions and not just PR stunts. So far, there is no indication that he intends to do so.

And for Kurz and Strache to promote the fascist anti-immigrant and anti-Roma (Gypsy) politics of the new Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini is about as destructive it can be for any serious effort to address the real (not imaginary) refugee problems of the EU.

Xenophobic theater - that does real harm to real people

Xenophobia sometimes makes good political theater for rightwing, authoritarian politicians and leaders. That's not to say that center-left and labor parties don't sometimes indulge it, as well. But it works particularly well for authoritarian parties.

We're certainly seeing that right now with Trump's policy of kidnapping children of immigrants at the Mexican border and putting them in makeshift prison camps. This report on flight attendants' reactions to serving on planes acting as the transport to the child prison camps is revealing, Anonymous Flight Attendant On Child Prison Plane Tells All The Young Turks 06/19/2018:

Trump is implementing a solution to what is in many ways a non-problem. Net immigration from Mexico has recently been negative, i.e., more Mexicans return to their country each year than those that move to the US. The American economy in many ways is currently dependent on undocumented workers, particularly agriculture but by no means only that sector. Trump's repeated claims that Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers, and MS-13 gang members are just not true.

The children coming across the US-Mexican border are certainly not a significant threat to Americans. Even taking into account that some of them may end up in gangs, particularly if their opportunities to integrate into American society are restricted even more.

But dehumanizing immigrant children is a typical xenophobes' propaganda pitch. In Europe, the image of kindergarten kids wearing a hijab (Muslim head covering) is used by the far right and anti-immigrant politicians in Germany and Austria. It's a way of taking innocent or positive images - a headscarf can keep your head warm and dry in the winter, a kindergarten-age girl for most people is an image of someone who needs affected and be protected from harm - are transformed into a scary threat to Western white Christian civilization and a menace of terrorism in the form of a five-year-old girl in a hijab. Which is about as much of a non-problem as it can be. Because not only is a small girl no immediate threat to an adult man or woman in any remotely normal circumstance. But even devout, conservative Muslim families require their kindergarten-age children to wear hijabs.

The American term "anchor baby" serves a very similar function. Anchors keep your boat safe and stable, and babies are harmless and cute. But in the form of "anchor baby," they become a threat of undermining everything dear to white folks who understand themselves as the only Real Americans.

The Austrian Chancellor Sebastian "Babyface" Kurz (ÖVP) is currently promoting what he describes as an "axis of the willing" with Germany and Italy to promote anti-immigrant sentiment and policies in Europe. Kurz on Wednesday was meeting with Bavarian Landeshauptmann (Governor) Markus Söder (CSU) in the Upper Austrian capital city of Linz to promote the position of the German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, head of the CSU and one of Söder's predecessors as Bavarian Governor, to turn back asylum-seekers at the German border. This is essentially a non-problem, as well. It just gives Seehofer and Söder a way to demonstrate their hostility to immigrants and promote anti-EU sentiment. Seehofer is also using it in the moment as part of a tricky political game with Chancellor Angela Merkel. (Nina Weissensteiner, Kurz und Söder machen im Asylstreit auf enge Spezln statt neutraler Nachbarn Standard 02.06.2018)

Matthew Karnitschnig reports (Angela rises from the ashes Politico EU 06/19/2018):

CSU leader Horst Seehofer, who is also interior minister, agreed to put off enforcing a new rule to turn back refugees at Germany’s borders until after the upcoming European Council summit, in order to give Merkel more time to negotiate with other EU capitals.

It’s a long shot that Merkel will actually succeed in securing a sweeping deal over the next two weeks to return refugees who show up at Germany’s border from Italy or Greece. Whether the CSU is ready for another face-off with Merkel is another matter.

Meanwhile, Kurz' far-right Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister HC Strache was down visiting with his comrade in the (informal) Nationalist International, new Italian Vice-Premier and Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini of the far-right anti-immigrant League party. Salvini attracted favorable attention from xenophobes in his brief time in office by refusing to allow rescue ships carrying refugees from Africa to land in Italy, defying international law. Salvini declared himself and Strache to be "friends and allies in defending our peoples." Defending them, that is from taking refugees rescued from drowning int he Mediterranean Sea. (Vizekanzler Strache bei Vizepremier Salvini in Rom Salzburger Nachrichten 20.06.2018)

Salvini was also thereby "solving" a non-problem. Europe does face a continuing long-term crisis in emigration from the Mideast, Afghanistan, and North Africa, not incidentally places where the United States has been fighting wars for the last two decades, more-or-less. A surge in refugees in 2015 set off a political panic that has not yet ended, although immigration declined drastically the following two years and is significantly down even in Italy from 2018. "Despite recent immigration data from the Italian interior ministry showing a 76 percent drop in arrivals in the first few months of the year, the country’s new allies [Austria and Hungary] have migration [sic] as a prime-mover in common, though they differ significantly over what to do about it." (Jacopo Barigazzi, How Italy plans to blow up Brussels Politico EU 06/18/18)

But real harm to real people and real institutions can come from this kind of nationalist demagoguery. Salvini has also announced his taking moves to more closely monitor Roma (Eric J. Lyman, Italy's interior minister wants census for Roma; critics call controversy 'racist' USA TODAY 06/19/2018) in Italy and expel some of them.

Economist and former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis tweets:

Salvini's facist moment is building momentum. After targeting refugees and the Roma Italian community, he is now promising "a mass cleansing, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood". Time for all democrats to call him out as that which he is: a fascist on a rampage

— Yanis Varoufakis (@yanisvaroufakis) June 20, 2018

Correction 07/15/2018: The Foreign Minister of Austria in the Kurz government from 12/18/2017 to now has been Karein Kneissl; Heinz-Christian Strache has not been Foreign Minister. Strache is Vice Chancellor and Minister of the Civil Service and Sport.

The Aquarius and its refugees headed for Spain

The anti-immigrant fanaticism in the EU, facilitated by the irresponsible nationalism that has left both the euro crisis and the long-running refugees crisis unsolved for years with effective solutions still not on the horizon, is putting more lives of desperate refugees at risk in the Mediterranean.

Chris Stephen reports in Italy bars two more refugee ships from ports Guardian 06/16/2018:

Charities say the NGO boats are a vital lifeline, rescuing more than 88,000 people in the past two years, but critics say they are a pull factor, encouraging people to make the dangerous sea journey.

More than 600,000 migrants have made the crossing from Libya to Italy in the past four years, and Salvini’s stance reflects frustration that the rest of Europe refuses to take its share of arrivals. At least 13,000 people have drowned trying to reach European shores. ...

If the NGO boats are unable to land the people they rescue and cease to operate, Operation Sophia, an EU anti-smuggler mission patrolling the Mediterranean, may take up some of the slack. NGOs, however, say its warships operate too far out to sea, given that people traffickers favour towing rubber boats full of migrants to the edge of Libya’s 12-mile territorial waters before setting them adrift.

It's a key talking point for the xenophobes in the EU is that all the refugees are "migrants," and their preferred term is "migration crisis" rather than "refugee crisis" or even "immigration crisis." The "migrant" label is taken to be more favorable to portraying the refugees as freeloaders coming to live high on the hog off the benefits provided in western Europe by worthy Christian white people.

There is a huge amount of cynicism in the anti-immigrant agitation, of course. People don't undertake a trip like that without being desperate. Letting further thousands or tens of thousands of them to drown in the sea is not an acceptable solution for any "European values" or any Christianity worth the names. And it's a very serious business for Italy to turn away ships carrying refugees in violation of the international laws made to deal with such emergencies.

During the acute phase of the refugee crisis in 2015, around 1,000 refugees drowned at sea in 10-day period. (Factsheet Mittelmeerroute OGPP 2017)

If we had a normal government in the US instead of one intent on running a campaign of state terror even against perfectly legal immigrants, they might be expected to object to this, as well: "Sea Watch refused last week to take 40 migrants rescued by the US navy ship Trenton off Libya, fearing a fate similar to that of the Aquarius. Trenton waited four days before being allowed to dock in Sicily." (my emphasis)

Presumably the US Navy registered some kind of protest. But Stephen doesn't provide further information on the US response.

The Aquarius is on its way to Valencia, Spain, after the new social-democratic government there agree to accept the 629 immigrants. The plan is to resettle them in various parts of Spain. France has also agreed to take some of them. (Francia ofrece acoger a los migrantes del ‘Aquarius’ que quieran ir a ese país El País 16.06.2018)

Italy and the refugees rescued from the Mediterranean Sea on the Aquarius ship

Italy is still refusing to let the ship Aquarius with refugees rescued from the Mediterranean dock in Italy. (Steve Scherer and Massimiliano Di Giorgio, Italy and France try to patch up migrant row, draw papal rebuke Reuters 06/14/2018)

This is the new Italian face on immigration, and a grim, ugly start for the new left/right coalition government of Five Stars and the League. Interior Minister Matteo Salvini of the League is the public face of the policy. But the new Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte is going along with it. And, as reported by Dominik Straub und Irene Brickner in Nach geschlossenen Grenzen nun auch gesperrte Häfen Standard 13.06.2018, the ban on letting the ship with people in distress rescued from the ocean, a illegal position in international law that is the way it is for good reasons, could not have been implemented without the consent of the Five Stars Transportation Minister.

This is not a question of national security at all. It's a very cynical, bad-faith posture by the Italian government seeking to exploit nationalist hatreds as a basic part of its political project. As Reuters notes, "The [Italian Prime Minister and the French President] confirmed a lunch meeting on Friday to discuss 'new initiatives' on immigration, a day after Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini announced an 'axis' with Germany and Austria to fight illegal migration." (my emphasis)

Salvini's talk has to be taken seriously, though like our American xenophobes, we can't assume they have any particular devotion to accuracy in their public claims. Austria does have an anti-immigrant government, a coalition of conservative Christian Democrats and hard-right Putinists, i.e, the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ), which has a formal "working agreement" with Putin's Russia United party. (Rechtspopulisten und Putin-Partei rücken enger zusammen FAZ 19.12.2016) The FPÖ/Russia United agreement commits them to the "strenthening of friendship and raising the young generation in the spirit of patriotism and joy in labor." Kind of an "Arbeit macht Frei" kind of thing, apparently.

But whatever political "axis" there may be among the Italian League and the Austrian governing parties, both Italy and Austria are EU members and both are still bound by general international law. In Germany, Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, a rightwing leader from Bavaria who is from the CSU, one of the parties in Angela Merkel's national coalition, has been playing footsie lately with Austria's Christian Democratic Chancellor Sebastian "Babyface" Kurz on anti-foreign politics. But, for all of her government's failings on immigration issues - and the general impression in the US that Merkel is very pro-immigration is a mistaken one - she isn't making a "axis" with Italy to drown immigrants in the Mediterranean Sea. The strange courtship between Chancellor Babyface and is actually aimed politically against Merkel.

(Dont' even try to shoehorn the mixing of internal and external policies in the EU into the framwork of the discussion on the Russian meddling in the US elecitons; you'll just give yourself a headache.)

Not to understate what a prick Seehofer is being on the subject. He is claiming that as Interior Minister, he has the authority to turn back refugees at the border, Angela Merkel and international law be damned. (Asylstreit: CSU droht mit Alleingang und Ultimatum ORF 147.06.2018) So far, this looks more like a weird political stunt than an actual move on immigration policy. But I wouldn't want to underestimate the possibility of it turning into something worse.

Immigration and the eurozone are currently the two biggest threats to the future of the EU. Both have been hampered by nationalist posturing by EU countries. Although as the de facto leader of the EU, Germany, and Angela's Merkel's governments in particular, bear the heaviest responsibility for it. I think of the both as chronic crises, both of which hit acute turns in 2015. Both are currently "solved" by classic Merkel extend-and-pretend non-solutions, forcing Greece to become Bangladesh via draconian austerity policies, on the euro front, and by contracting out the solution of the Mediterranean refugee problem to Turkey, Italy, and Greece. Both are highly unstable solutions.

The sad part is that the general shape of realistic solutions are very clear. The eurozone either has to be unwound with a return to national currencies, or change it into an optimal currency area with a common budget, shared public debt obligations, and "transfer union" structures.

With immigration, the broad solution is also clear: stop supporting wars in the Middle East, whether by direct intervention, facilitating American or Russian intervention, or selling arms to belligerent parties; get real about the fact that mass immigration to Europe is for all practical purposes a permanent situation that requires a structured, systematic sharing of burdens, i.e., accepting refugees, including, yes, the richer countries like Germany and Austria; and, systematic development work in North Africa to provide safer conditions and better opportunities there. Did I mention that to stop supporting wars in the Middle East is a critical part of this? Oh, and getting emergency services in shape to handle entirely predictable future surges in immigration.

But the obvious eurozone and refugee solutions aren't being undertaken as they should be, largely because too many political parties and groups and business lobbies like weapons manufacturers in particular find it advantageous to demagogue the issues.

But reality does have a nasty way of catching up with wishful thinking and flat-out denial. Facts do matter, despite being singularly inconvenient for narrow nationalists and xenophobes. Turkey, Italy, or Greece could change the calculation overnight by just sending a bunch of the refugees they are holding to parts northward. That would be irresponsible in itself absent real practical agreements on how to do it. But Hungarian, Austrian, and German politicians would have to respond with more than slogans about "close the borders." Austrian Chancellor Babyface likes to claim credit for "closing the Balkan route," but that's a joke. Angela Merkel's agreement with Turkey is what mitigated the acute phase of the immigration crisis of 2015, not any whizbang diplomacy by Austria.

And there's this fact-based reporting from Straub und Irene Brickner, illustrating how cynical and dishonest it is for the Matteo Salvinis of the world to conjure up phony claims to justify xenophobic cruelty:

Frage: Wie viele Flüchtlinge haben die Mittelmeerstaaten heuer bisher aufgenommen?

Antwort: Italien hat in diesem Jahr bis zum 12. Juni insgesamt 14.441 Bootsflüchtlinge aufgenommen; hinzu kommen die 932 Migranten, die am Mittwoch von der italienischen Küstenwache in Catania an Land gebracht wurden. Insgesamt knapp 80 Prozent weniger als im Vorjahr. Spanien hat im laufenden Jahr bisher 11.308 Flüchtlinge aufgenommen, Griechenland 12.065. Es kann also keine Rede davon sein, dass Italien die ganze Immigration allein schultere. Wahr ist aber, dass die nördlichen Grenzen Italiens – jene nach Frankreich, in die Schweiz, nach Österreich und Slowenien – für Flüchtlinge seit langem faktisch geschlossen sind.

[Question: How many refugees have the Mediterranean states taken on up until now?

Answer: Italy has taken 14,441 boat refugees; that includes 932 migrants who were brought to land by the Italian Coast Guard in Catania on Wednesday. In all, 80% less than in the previous year. In the current year, Spain has accepted 11,308 refugees, Greece 12,1065. So that can be no claim that Italy is shouldering the whole immigration alone. But what is [true], is that the borders north of Italy - that to France, in Switzerland, to Austria and Slovenia - have in fact been closed to refugees for a long time. [my emphasis in italics]

Xenophobia, the Austrian right, and the rescue ship Aquarius

I'm not sure whether this is more silly than it is obnoxious, although it was presumably meant to be the latter: FPÖ will "Heimat" in Oberösterreichs Landesverfassung verankern Die Presse 08.06.2018.

The state government in the Austrian state of Upper Austria is run by a coalition of the conservative, Christian Democratic People's Party (ÖVP) and the far right, anti-immigrant "Freedom" Party (FPÖ), the same party combination currently running the national government. This proposal was announced by Vice Governor Manfred Haimbuchner (FPÖ) aund FPÖ state party leader Herwig Mahr.

The language they are proposing to be included in the state constitution reads, "Das Land OÖ bekennt sich zur Heimatpflege durch das Bewahren der landestypischen Brauchtümer und Traditionen" ("The state of Upper Austria commits itself to preserve the Heimat through guarding the customs and traditions typical to the state.") Haimbuchner suggested that handshaking would be protected by the provision. And also would prevent pork from being banned.

We aren't exactly talking high constitutional theory here.

As you might guess, protecting pork against being banned is a dumb-as-dirt Islamophobic pitch. If there is any proposal in the Austrian Parliament or the Upper Austrian Landtag to ban pork, it has somehow escaped my notice. And, I'm guessing, everyone else's, too. It a non-solution to a non-problem.

The wording cited is so vague I wonder if it would have any definable effect at all. But putting dumb and irrelevant stuff is always a bad idea. Because some judge may seize on it as a way to make an absurdly political decision that makes no sense. Like, say, ruling that a health-food grocery has to close because it doesn't sell pork there. Or whatever.

Really, it's just cheap publicity for Islamophobic hate propaganda.

This, on the other hand is considerably more serious. Austrian Vice Chancellor and head of the xenophobic FPÖ, H.C. Strache

The Strache statement says, "Under the new Italian Interior Minister Salvini, illegal migration will no longer be tolerated. Good so!" The Austrian anti-foreigner right use "migrant" to refer to desperate refugees from war zones being rescued from drowning to suggest they are just trying to come mooch off good Christian white Europeans.

He's talking about the ship Aquarius, a humanitarian rescue ship that saves people from being drowned in the Mediterranean trying to flee from the Libyan coast on often unsafe boats. The rescue ship has been stranded mid-way between Italy and Malta, with both countries refusing it permission to land. Angela Giuffrida reports in Mediterranean rescue vessel crew keep migrants calm during standoff Guardian 06/11/2018:

Onboard the vessel are 629 people, including 123 unaccompanied minors, 11 babies and seven pregnant woman. The ship is operated by the French-German charity SOS Méditerranée and has been undertaking risky year-round, search-and-rescue missions in waters north of Libya since 2015.

Victoria Russell, a spokeswoman for Doctors Without Borders (MSF), which has staff working on the boat, said the situation was under control but could change at any moment.

“None of the people on board have any idea about this whole diplomatic standoff that is unfolding around them, but they are starting to ask questions: why has the ship stopped?” she said. ...

More than 15 people onboard have serious chemical fuel burns requiring regular care, due to oil spills from the cheaply made rubber boats they travelled in from Libya. There are also a number of cases that require orthopaedic surgery.

Some of the passengers had to be resuscitated after almost drowning during a challenging overnight rescue operation on Saturday.

“They have sea water on their lungs … they’re stable right now, but it could change at any moment, and they would need assistance that we can’t provide on the boat,” said Russell.

So, seriously, do Strache and his Burschenscaften party have any actual solutions to refugee problems like this other than to bitch and moan about foreigners?

What do they suggest that Italy and/or Malta do with this boat? Just sink it? Let all the people on it drown? It's a serious question.

The new social-democratic Prime Minister of Spain has a more human response:

I have given instructions for Spain to welcome the #Aquarius ship in the Port of Valencia. It is our obligation to provide these 600 people a safe harbor. We comply with international commitments regarding humanitarian emergencies.

— Pedro Sánchez (@sanchezcastejon) June 11, 2018

Demagogic anti-immigrant rhetoric leads to this eventually leads to callousness and brutality.

It always worth remembering in connection with news about the chronic refugee crisis in Europe that a major contributor, currently most likely the main cause, is the wars in the Greater Middle East the last two decades, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Yemen and Syria, mightily encouraged by the US and other NATO powers not just diplomatically but by direct intervention and massive arms sales to the belligerent parties. A war against Iran would add yet another major source of refugees.

Anti-immigration sentiment in Italy and Austria

The European Union is facing a new round of the Greek debt crisis of 2015, only this time with Italy. Anti-immigrant sentiment is also intensifying, with the new Italian government saying they want to expel hundreds of thousands of refugees. There has not been any new upsurge in refugees like that wave of 2015. But mass migration would be a longterm reality for Europe just from the effects of climate change alone. But military conflicts in the Middle East, fed and sometimes initiated by outside powers, including massive arms sales.The US, Russia, and various European countries are in on this ugly and destructive game.

Angela Merkel became known for her extend-and-pretend solutions on the euro crisis, especially with Greece, where the unsuccessful anti-austerity pushback from Greece in 2015 highlighted. Piling on unpayable debt burdens to the eurozone "periphery" countries was the core of her economic extend-and-pretend approach. In immigration, the main extend-and-pretend solution was an agreement with Turkey to house refugees coming their direction. Ironically, they also rely on Greece for the same thing. And Italy to a smaller but significant degree as well..

Meanwhile, there has been no meaningful progress on practical intra-EU arrangements in meaningfully dealing with refugees on a fair burden-sharing basis. (The xenophobic politicians in Germany and Austria prefer to call them all "migrants," to more easily brand them as moochers coming live high on the hog in good white Christian countries.) Meanwhile, Greece has knuckled under to enduring a permanent depression on the orders of the EU establishment, and of Germany more particularly, and is in chronically desperate states. Italy is also fighting the austerity trap. And name-calling and hostile statements against Turkey are popular favorites for conservative politicians in Germany and Austria. Plus, Germany has known for years that BAMF, its own refugee-resettlement agency, had severe management problems and wasn't prepared for the 2015 upsurge. And still isn't prepared. (How Germany's BAMF refugee agency became a 'political scapegoat' Deutsche Welle 30.05.2018)

So this is an inherently unstable situation. And Greece, Italy, and Turkey can threaten to send large groups on their way north.

In Italy, the new Interior Minister, the national official in charge of law-enforcement - not natural resources like the Interior in the US - is Matteo Salvini, a toxic xenophobe from the far-right League party, which is the junior partner in the new national coalition government. Chico Harlan writes (The torchbearer of Italy’s far right is now in power and wants to make good on anti-migrant promises Washington Post 06/04/20118):

With an Italy-first message, Salvini has rocketed into the center of Europe’s battle over migration. He is recasting the cultural debate about how to treat those fleeing the Middle East and Africa, highlighting examples of migrant criminality and describing the influx as an “invasion.” And now, in his first week in control of Italy’s interior ministry, he has power to do what he has pledged: more tightly close the doors of a country that, several years ago, ranked among the most welcoming in Europe.

Salvini has risen to power on a mix of grass-roots anxiety and his own political acumen. He is the leader of Italy’s far-right League, a once-fringe regional secessionist party that polls now show is on the brink of becoming the country’s most popular party. He styles himself as a friend of Russian President Vladi­mir Putin and a thorn in the side of Brussels bureaucrats. He is an irrepressible social media user. He has a public profile far larger than that of ­Italy’s new prime minister, an academic with little political experience. ...

Among those who crossed the Mediterranean last year, 64 percent landed in Italy. Some 400,000 have applied for asylum here [Italy] over the past four years ...

What makes Salvini stand apart, though, is that he so unsparingly highlights what he sees as the problems with migration. When a Nigerian immigrant was arrested this year in the killing of an 18-year-old, Salvini wrote on Facebook, “What was this maggot still doing in Italy?” Last week, during negotiations to form a government, Salvini posted video footage of what he said was a supposed migrant plucking the feathers of a pigeon. “In broad daylight in the middle of the street,” he wrote. “Go home!!!”

Michael Brooks gives a good summary of the Italian coalition in the first 12 minutes or so of this video, TMBS - 43 - How Not To Do Identity Politics 06/06/2018 (?):

Syria war escalation and the European refugee crisis

I began this post before the news a few minutes ago that the US, Britain, and France are making some kind of military strike on Syria. My Congresswoman's initial reaction:

By illegally bombing Syria, President Trump has once again denied the American people any oversight or accountability in this endless war. Congress, not the president, has the power to authorize military action. https://t.co/9P25HQ8zq6

— Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) April 14, 2018

My preferred Democratic California Senator candidate reacted:

No, it's less than zero. The American treasury will be robbed billions, U.S. lives will be at risk, Syrian people will be massacred, untold terrorists bred, & the world will be an even more dangerous place. #SyriaStrikes

REPEAL AUMF.
REPEAL TRUMP.https://t.co/KQufZIu3rj

— Alison Hartson (@HartsonForCA) April 14, 2018

Sadly, the question about Congressional authorization is rhetorical. I hope it will change, sooner rather than later.

There is no way this action is legal but that horse left the barn decades ago.

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) April 14, 2018

Britain and France decided to join Trump in this military escalation in Syria. Angela Merkel has saids Germany won't participate. (Maxime Schlee, Merkel rules out German participation in military strike on Syria Politico EU 04/12/1)

Robert Fisk is always worth reading on Middle Eastern military adventures. In As Theresa May gears up for war in Syria, we should remember what hypocrites we are about chemical warfare in the Middle East Independent 04/12/2018. He tends to take a dim view about NATO countries declaring their high-minded reasons to justify military intervention there.

So there we are. [British Prime Minister Teresa] May holds a “war cabinet”, for heaven’s sakes, as if our losses were mounting on the Somme in 1916, or Dorniers were flying out of occupied France to blitz London in 1940.

What is this childish prime minister doing? Older, wiser Conservatives will have spotted the juvenile quality of this nonsense, and want a debate in Parliament. How could May follow an American president who the world knows is crackers, insane, chronically unstable, but whose childish messages – about missiles that are “nice and new and ‘smart’” – are even taken seriously by many of my colleagues in the US? We should perhaps be even more worried about what happens if he does turn away from the Iran nuclear deal.

It continues to surprise me that European political discussions of the refugee crisis refer so little to the role of NATO wars in the Greater Middle East. And that European discussions of military strikes, interventions, and regime change refer so infrequently to the significant effects on the refugee crisis that those wars have.

But in reality, when Britain and France talk about military intervention in the Middle East or Northern Africa, they are talking about something like to significantly increase the number of refugees trying to come to Europe. And not just to Europe.

The UN Refugees website as of this date provides the following graphics on refugees:

The graph on the right apparently applies only to the three countries show in the middle graphic.

The website also provides this information:

The conflict in Syria, now in its seventh year, was the world’s biggest producer of refugees (5.5 million). Humanitarian needs in Syria have increased significantly since the beginning of the crisis, with 13.5 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, including more than 6 million children. Over 400,000 people have been killed and more than 1 million injured since 2010.

Many Syrians have been forced to leave their homes, often multiple times, making Syria the largest displacement crisis in the world with 6.3 million people internally displaced and almost 4 million people registered as refugees in neighboring countries. An estimated 4.53 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in hard-to-reach areas and besieged locations.

Turkey hosts over 2.9 million registered Syrians. The majority of them live in urban areas, with around 260,000 accommodated in the 21 government-run refugee camps. There are more than a million registered Syrians in Lebanon and 660,000 in Jordan. Iraq has also seen a growing number of Syrians arriving, hosting more than 241,000, while in Egypt UNHCR provides protection and assistance to more than 122,000. [my emphasis]

South Sudan is also a significant source of regugees: "In 2016, the disastrous break-off of peace efforts in July in South Sudan contributed to an outflow of 737,400 people by the end of the year. That number has continued to rise during the first half of 2017."

This article from the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR gives the following description of the refugee situation in Syria, Syria conflict at 7 years: ‘a colossal human tragedy’ 03/09/2018:

The relentless suffering of Syrian civilians marks a shameful failure of political will and a new low in Syria’s long-running conflict, which this month reaches a depressing seventh anniversary, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi said on Friday.

“This seven-year war has left a colossal human tragedy in its wake. For the sake of the living, it is high time to end this devastating conflict. There are no clear winners in this senseless pursuit of a military solution. But the losers are plain to see – they are the people of Syria,” he added.

Seven years of fighting have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, driven 6.1 million people from their homes inside Syria, and forced 5.6 million refugees to seek safety in neighbouring countries in the region.

The conditions faced by civilians inside Syria are worse than ever, with 69 per cent languishing in extreme poverty. The share of families spending more than half of their annual income on food has risen to 90 per cent, while food prices are on average eight times higher than pre-crisis levels. Some 5.6 million people endure life-threatening conditions in terms of their security, basic rights or living standards, and require urgent humanitarian assistance. [my emphasis]

And the United States? Dara Lind reports in The US has all but slammed the door on Syrian refugees Vox 04/13/2018:

In the last years of the Obama administration, the US resettled tens of thousands of Syrian refugees. When Trump took office, that number plummeted — partly because of the 120-day “refugee ban” that prevented nearly any refugees from being brought into the US over the summer of 2017, and partly because of specific scrutiny facing refugees from several countries, including Syria.

The result is that the US is on pace to resettle fewer than 100 Syrian refugees in the fiscal year that ends September 30. And it might not even be that many.

Rather than bombing Syria, the US should be admitting hundreds of thousands of refugees. https://t.co/9S2mxVlqnJ

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) April 12, 2018

Chris Hayes was retweeting this:

US. # of Syrian refugees admitted in

Fiscal year 2016: 12,587
Last 5 months: 11

Via @WSJ

— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) April 12, 2018

The US was taking only a trickle of Syrian refugees under the Obama Administration. But, "almost as soon as Trump took the oath of office, his administration slammed the door shut" on them.

The German statistical office reports that at the end of 2017, Germany had a total of 10.6 million people in Germany with only a non-German citizenship. (Ausländische Bevölkerung wächst im Jahr 2017 um 5,8 % 12.04.2018) Most of them come out of other EU countries, especially Poland, Rumania, and Bulgaria. They show the foreign population of the country growing from 8.2 million to 10.0 million from 2014 to 2016. 2015 was the acute phase of the chronic refugee crisis that generated political unrest in Europe, although about 500,000 of that growth was from the EU-28 states.

Spiegel Online reports (Zahl der Ausländer auf 10,6 Millionen gestiegen 12.04.2018 ) that the number of Syrian refugees coming into Germany dropeed from 260 thousand in 2016 to 61 thousand in 2017. the number from Afghanistan dropeed from 119 thousand in 2016 to five thousand in 2017. The national statistics office indicates that some of the refugees coming in 2015 appear in the figures as though they arrived in 2016. The real drop in Syrian and Afghan refugees was from 2015 to 2017.

Der Standard reports that an EU payment payment due under the EU's 2015 agreement with Turkey, which is a very large part of the solution to the refugee problem. A classic Angela Merkel extend-and-pretend "solution." Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, and Sweden are all pushing to have it come out of the EU budget. With some grumbling to be heard about how Merkel crammed the thing down everyone's else's throats. (Adelheid Wölfl, Flüchtlingsabkommen mit Türkei: Merkel soll an EU vorbeiverhandelt haben 12.04.2018)

See also:

Dominik Peters und Maximilian Popp, Für Flüchtlinge die Hölle - für die EU ein Partner Spiegel Online 12.04.2018

Kickl will Asylanträge auf europäischem Boden verhindern Die Presse 11.04.2018

Thomas Mayer, EU-Türkei-Deal: Merkel allein gegen fast alle Der Standard 12.04.2018