You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
NewLiving Diary Index
|
item0073D 1036, 1037 1036 1 November 2004
Mike Davis, Australian Immigration Agent, has suggested that the UK should negotiate with sympathetic states to re-direct some of the migrants seeking UK entry. This is my reply to him. Dear Mike
And while simple "racism" is a thread running most of the issues, this is not solely a racist issue. Let me identify three components, by way of example, which are not racist in origin. First, there is Empire. The UK (and to a lesser extent France and Germany, perhaps even Italy and Spain) remain psychologically "imperialist" societies. For many of the 11m UK over-Sixties, there are deep-seated attitudes at work, which are extremely difficult to confront or to change. Much of the collective inherited wealth of these countries is still derived from the Age of European Empire, when they were acquired cheaply, in the sweat of the world's labouring masses. Many of Europe's buildings, including residential houses, civic infrastructure, railway systems - they were all the fruits of the "expansion of Europe", and Europe's pre-1914 dominance of the world. There are counterparts in the recesses of many, many minds. Remember: my Dad was already 27 when WWI broke out, so that in family terms the collapse of Empire is a relatively recent phenomenon. An aunt of mine died recently, having spent her whole life, from 1923 onwards, in the Colonial Service - in East Africa, West Africa and the Caribbean. She and her husband formed an ever-present strand of Empire-consciousness in our family. Politicians must take account of the spontaneous prejudice of these older citizens: they remain a powerful electoral force, with a much higher propensity-to-vote than the young.
Thirdly, there is the Wealth Gap. Throughout Europe there is at work a destructive cocktail of selfishness and guilt, which taints the whole migration debate. It is particularly evident along Europe's former frontier with the Soviet Union, now bridged by the accession of ten new member-states last May. Germany, Austria and Italy are pre-occupied with fears of being overwhelmed by poorer people from the East. We Europeans know that we are by global standards very "well off", and with TV we are becoming more and more aware of the extent of global poverty and degradation. Yet we know that we cannot simply "sell all we have and give to the poor": that was never a realistic strategy. We are trapped into this "richer than thou" stranglehold, powerless in the short term to do anything about it, yet fearful that the hungry masses will "take over" - if they are given the chance. Better not to give them the chance, some say, send them all "back". In Denmark, these ideas have reached disaster proportions. But they bubble under all the time, in many other EU countries, including the UK.
With those driven out of their countries and in need of asylum, the UN should first determine whether or not such refugee status is justified, and then assign successful applicants to receptor-States, within a framework of international treaty. Then there is ordinary "immigration", which each State would manage for itself. The requirements of each State are likely to vary from time to time - its economy may need fruit-pickers, brain-surgeons, au pairs, computer-programmers, nurses, scientific innovators, entrepreneurial investors, bus-drivers, pioneer farmers - the list is endless. New issues are bound to arise about the rights of such migrants, and their entitlements pending change-of-citizenship, but they are easier to resolve.
These are stirring times, when big ideas are needed. My thanks to you, Mike, for a stimulating contribution, yet again - keep thinking! Keep writing! Yours, Roger WE How do these issues play with you? Drop me a line
1037 1 November 2004 Latterday Butterfly... Websites bring together some of the most unlikely correspondents. Eran Buck writes as a non-commissioned officer in the US Navy, from somewhere in Japanese waters...the photo is not of him, but of a Google-inspired stand-in Dear Mr Warren Evans 
My name is Eran S. Buck, and I'm a member of the U.S. Navy. I have served in the Navy for the past four years, and was deployed last year in support of the U.S. military movement in the Middle East. I am currently reading Emmanuel Todd's After the Empire, and I suppose that this is what had brought me to your website. I've just read quite an interesting interview between yourself and Mr. Todd. I wonder if you would be at all surprised that, given my affiliation, I am very interested in the point of view expressed in this book. I cannot pretend that I am nearly educated enough on the subjects of Todd pointed out something that I've felt in my guts for quite some time. Somehow it has never seemed likely to me that the U.S. can support its current endeavour and at the same time remain a strategic deterrent to the possible military movement of China or North Korea. And now it does seem that we are exhausting ourselves in the Middle East.
However, I strongly believe that the conscience of the It is easy to get caught up in a current, and the reasons given us changed so much. It is difficult to follow the political argument and to take care of the bills, the kids, and then go to work again in the morning. It is, however, becoming more and more of a burden on my mind. Young people in the Services, like me, have had even less assistance from the media than the rest of the American population: indeed, we often do not even have access to mainstream media. conscience to patch it up with Iraq and with the rest of our Allies (former Allies)? Protest wildly in the streets? Do drugs and make rock-and-roll songs about the War? Does the American public in its mediocrity really possess the sort of influence that could curb the momentum of this last aggressive year? I know what has had a lot of influence. We have a fat man named Michael Moore that makes dramatic documentaries about the war in Iraq and simply preaches against the conservative presidency in favour of a Democratic presidency - when the issue is larger than Party allegiance. I know what I can do, given my position. I can express, carefully and moderately, my own strong opinions – at the same time upholding an ethical standard as a member of the Armed services. I can attempt to further educate myself on the issues that concern me. That is mainly why I have written to you. To ask a few questions, and to clarify a few things that I may have misinterpreted. Emmanuel Todd speaks of two factors which (he contends) will alienate Europe, all our old allies and the Asian world, with the United States,caught in an irreversible downfall into uselessness.
Oddly enough, I'm married to a Japanese woman. We have a child on the way. I have studied enough Japanese (for about 4 years) to be able to function comfortably in Japanese society. I've grown to like it so much here that sometimes I feel like I may not want to leave. But I still identify myself as an American – and I find it disturbing to hear Emmanuel Todd’s prediction of a falling out of American relations with Europe. Equally, the disintegration of American democracy, and our subsequent uselessness to the world! That is hard to bear. I apologize for the length of this letter. I hope that you read and that
you understand. I just typed out what came to my mind, and I Thank you very much for your time and, if you choose, your
correspondence. from a US Naval posting in Japan... What do you think? Drop me a line
|
|
|
| Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT
NOTICE
|
You
are always able to stimulate debate, even where there are disagreements
between us. In this case, I am sure you are right that we need some
"big ideas" to change the fundamental orientation of European citizens
towards migration (because most of the "political" problems are common to
the rest of Europe, and are not limited to the UK).
Secondly,
the Membership State. This
is an unforeseen consequence of the growth of the post-WW2 "Welfare State".
With the emergence of these valuable collective services, there has
developed a sense of society as "members' club" or "Friendly Society".
This is a deeply flawed model of the State, but it nevertheless exerts great
influence on popular thinking. You pay your dues, by way of indirect
and direct taxes, and you are entitled to the benefits of membership as and
when you need them. The problem with this simple model is that it does
not easily accommodate new members, or temporary visitors - they are
spongers, free-loaders, "benefit tourists", queue-jumpers. At what
point should they become entitled to receive the benefits of Club
membership? That question filters through many of the welfare-state
arguments we are now having, about pension-entitlement, housing
waiting-lists, and the conduct of elective treatment in the NHS. Why
should newcomers, who have not paid their dues,
enjoy the fruits of membership?
These
strands all combine with naked racism, to produce a very dangerous political
potion. And I acknowledge that it is not easy for politicians, in a
democratic society, to finesse these dangers. 
I
say that the United Nations should be prepared to take "asylum-seeking",
under the 1951 Refugee Convention, out of the field of national politics.
I think we should stick with the distinction between "asylum" and forms of
"better-life" migration. And the United Nations should be given
responsibility for assessing each asylum claim: asylum reasoning relates,
after all, not to the features of the destination country, but the country
of origin.