Ceuta has offered Europe an uncomfortable spectacle, people are willing to swim around fences, patrols and barriers to reach a continent whose governments insist that its borders are becoming ever harder to penetrate. The lesson should be obvious, yet politics has an extraordinary talent for ignoring things. Build a higher wall, deploy more patrols, add more drones, detain more people and then act surprised when the pressure appears somewhere else.
The recent surge towards Ceuta is not an argument for abandoning borders. States have borders for good reasons, and governments have a duty to manage who enters. But there is a difference between controlling migration and pretending that migration can be defeated by increasingly theatrical displays of force. A person who believes that Europe offers a better future will not necessarily abandon that belief because another metre of fencing has been added.
This is where the politics of walls becomes intellectually lazy. The wall is visible; the reasons people want to cross it are not. A government can photograph a fence. It cannot photograph a failed economy, a corrupt institution, a drought-stricken farm, a collapsing public service or a young person's conviction that his future has been stolen before adulthood begins.
Europe's migration debate has therefore become a contest between symptoms and causes. The symptom is an arriving migrant. The causes are often poverty, weak institutions, insecurity, demographic pressure, climate stress and the enormous difference in opportunity between neighbouring regions. None of these can be solved by ICE-style enforcement imported from America's punitive border politics. Patrols can manage a situation. They cannot manufacture prosperity on the other side of the frontier.
The uncomfortable solution is development and development is expensive. Europe and other rich economies would have to invest far more heavily in poorer countries, not merely to build projects that look good in press releases, but to strengthen schools, hospitals, infrastructure, accountable government, local businesses, energy systems and functioning institutions. The objective should be simple: make staying home a credible economic choice.
Yet this solution has a political sting. Genuine development threatens some of the arrangements from which wealthy societies and corporations benefit. Cheap labour, unequal supply chains, tax competition, resource extraction and concentrated ownership did not emerge from nowhere. Globalisation has produced wealth, but it has distributed bargaining power rather less generously.
That is why the migration argument ultimately becomes an argument about money. If rich countries want fewer desperate people arriving at their gates, they must be prepared to accept lower margins, greater transfers of capital and more competition from economies that are poor. The super-rich cannot demand a fortress around their prosperity while insisting that the rest of the world remain an inexpensive supplier of labour and resources.
There is no sentimental shortcut here. Development requires governance, trade, education, investment and time. It also requires poorer countries to reform themselves and richer ones to stop treating aid as charity while protecting economic privileges at every turn.
Europe can build walls. It can build higher walls still. But if the world beyond them remains unequal, unstable and economically hopeless, people will keep looking for ways through, around or over them.
The border policy is not a wall. It is a world in which fewer people feel compelled to risk all to cross one.
No comments:
Post a Comment