A clash of
Western civilizations
Disagreements
over whether countries should take in refugees are hardly unique to Europe.
Oct 15,2015
PARIS - Images from the refugee crisis in Europe have juxtaposed smiling crowds
in Vienna and Munich with grim, unwelcoming faces in Budapest. The result has
been a surge of commentary about the “two Europes” - one welcoming, one
forbidding. The truth is that disagreements over whether countries should take
in refugees are hardly unique to Europe. The contrast on display is symptomatic
of a deep rift within the Western world.
The divide cuts across the United States, the European Union and Israel - and,
equally important, across Jewish and Christian communities. On one side are
politicians like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, European Commission President
Jean-Claude Juncker, U.S. President Barack Obama, former Israeli Welfare and
Social Services Minister Isaac Herzog and religious figures like Pope Francis.
On the other are Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, French nationalist
politician Marine Le Pen, U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump,
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the cardinal of Hungary, Peter Erd
and legions of other Eastern European clergy.
Each of the camps shares a fundamental outlook on the role refugees play in
society. The first group consists of those who consider democratic values to be
more important than ethnic or national identities. In their view, anyone who
abides by a country’s laws can become a full-fledged citizen and contribute to
the vitality of his or her adopted country.
According to this view, inclusion of “the other” - people from different countries
and cultures - does not destroy national identity; it enriches it with new
ideas and behaviors. Proponents of such cross-fertilization point to outsiders
or their descendants who have attained high positions in their adopted
countries: a Latino member of the U.S. Supreme Court, German constitutional
lawyers of Turkish origin, French prefects whose parents and grandparents
arrived from North Africa, British lords and baronesses with roots in Africa
and the Caribbean, and Italian writers of Indian descent.
Accordingly, advocates of this worldview regard fences and walls as insults to
humanity, proof that those who build and maintain them have no trust in their
countries’ vibrancy and strength. Above all, they adhere to a universal
discourse based on international law and ethical, moral and religious
principles.
Christians and Jews in this camp stress that welcoming strangers and people in
need lies at the very heart of their respective faiths. Taking in the needy is
an ethical imperative, not a politically conditioned choice. Despite the fact
that most refugees come from Arab lands known for their anti-Semitism and
anti-Israel stance, Jewish intellectuals in this camp have been unanimous in
welcoming them with open arms. Meanwhile, Pope Francis has been clear that
Christian values include caring for refugees.
On the other side of the divide are those who fear the other as a threat to
national identity. Their gut-level response is to build fences and walls, as
long and as tall as possible, whether on the border between Mexico and the
United States, on Israel’s border with Egypt or on Hungary’s border with Serbia
(or even with fellow EU member Croatia). It is no coincidence that Hungarian
and Bulgarian policymakers have turned to Israeli companies to seek technical
advice on how to build their fences.
Members of this camp do not believe that dynamic civil societies can integrate
people of different origins within open democratic settings, or that their
countries can benefit from welcoming them. The risk of a few bad apples
(Mexican drug dealers, Islamic terrorists, economic migrants or those wishing
to cash in on welfare systems) outweighs any benefits that the vast majority of
young and determined newcomers could bring.
Nor does this camp believe in international conventions on the rights of
asylum-seekers or the duty of signatory countries to take them in. Any appeal
to human rights is derided as dangerous naivete, as are references to moral or
religious imperatives. Instead, the emphasis is on protecting the “nation”
against foreign viruses. These views are promoted not only by politicians, but
also by leading religious authorities, including the evangelical right in the
United States, Catholic prelates in Eastern Europe and Israel’s nationalist rabbis.
This clash of Western civilizations could not be more important. Those who shut
doors and build walls do not belong to the same family as those who welcome the
needy in the name of higher values. The foundational principles of our
democratic traditions are at stake - principles that are being weakened by the
clash itself.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2015.
*The author is a historian and writer. Her latest book is “Israel Has Moved.”
by Diana Pinto
첫댓글 Sorry All, I'm going to Korea for Mon & Tue due to personal affairs anyway.
Great sessions & see you all on Wed.
Hi~~^^
I finished my second final tests last week.
I was so busy that I couldn't take my son to the eye clinic.
I have to drop by there before I start my work today.
I'm sorry....
Juxtapose 나란히 놓다
Surgr 치밀어 오름,급증
Commentary 실황, 해설
Rift 균열,급류
Proponent 지지자