The burgeoning migrant crisis in Europe has become the latest Rorschach test, both for commentators and for the larger public.
Those of a liberal and progressive bent (often self-proclaimed as such) laud nations—most notably Germany—that have thrown their doors open to large numbers of assorted refugees and migrants, while at the same time decrying other nations—such as the UK, the US and France—who have been less generous. Neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks (again, often self-proclaimed) fret that more than a smattering of potential Islamist terrorists (whether ISIS, Al Qaeda, or otherwise affiliated) have embedded themselves within the migrant flow, and will quickly establish new terror cells, or tie up with existing ones, once they are comfortably ensconced within the gates of Fortress Europe.
Economics analysts, meanwhile, see the current migration crisis in Europe as a reminder of the asymmetry of the treatment of labour as against capital in the institutions of global governance as currently constituted. Not to be outdone, assorted security affairs scholars are quick to proclaim from their perches in universities and think tanks that the refugee problem is but a symptom of the much larger political and military crisis unfolding in the region of West Asia.
Highlighting a different set of concerns, nativists and protectionists (rarely self-proclaimed, but easy to identify as such) find common cause, and argue that the bulk of the putative refugees are, in fact, economic migrants, and that they will put pressure on the social welfare infrastructure, and the social and cultural fabric, of the states to which they migrate. At the same time, cultural theorists and those given to philosophical maundering (often hard to distinguish) note that the migration of tens, or in the near future, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of Muslims into the heart of European Christendom represents a unique inflection point in recent world history, in which adherents of one large proselytizing religion find themselves at the mercy of the adherents of the world’s other major proselytizing religion—creating the possibility that Mohammed will become Martin, as evangelic Protestants and zealous Roman Catholics seek the harvesting of countless Muslim souls who just happened to have washed up on their shores, penniless and in need of succour.
This is just a scattershot of the varied (and variously ill- or well-informed) opinions from the Anglo-American commentariat, each trying to strike close to the bullseye of a cherished ideological tenet, opinion, prejudice or analytical framework (the latter often indistinguishable from a hotchpotch of the first three).
Meanwhile, progressive and liberal opinion in India (these are always loudly self-proclaimed) sees in the Syrian refugee crisis an opportunity for India to step up to the high table of global governance, by voluntarily agreeing to accept and house large numbers of migrants—thereby acceding to the responsibilities inherent in putative regional or world leadership without, of course, partaking of the requisite rights which flow as a matter of course to the hegemon in the current global political economy, who may or may not choose to accept responsibilities commensurate with their power within the system. (Cue, at this juncture, a boilerplate critique of the US failing to live up to its leadership role in the system as the principal provider of global public goods, which ought to be in its long term, enlightened self-interest.)
In some contexts, the Rorschach test takes on a local colouration. The photograph of a toddler washed up on a beach —which, in a culture of the image, galvanized global attention and an outburst of collective angst on Facebook—struck a particularly poignant chord in Canada, from where I write this column. Early media reports suggested that the dead child’s family had sought, and had been refused, asylum in Canada. No matter that the reports were quickly falsified, as it was revealed that no application had been received: the damage was done.
Quickly, the trope of a callous and uncaring Conservative government presided over by a heartless and tone-deaf leader, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, became fodder for an ongoing federal election campaign, and seemed to turn the tide—emotionally, if not yet in polling numbers—against the embattled incumbent. The meme of the dead Syrian child became, thus, a badge of honour for all those who opposed the ruling dispensation, whether or not they had especially strong or well-formed views on the Syrian situation or on the political economy of global migration. What is more, refugee policy—seldom a hot-button political topic in socially progressive Canada—suddenly came out of left field to whack the beleaguered Tories over the head and vault into contention as a bona fide election issue. Indeed, if Harper’s Conservatives do end up losing the election, it may have more to do with the image of Aylan Kurdi’s body washed up on the shore, and the apparent lack of an empathetic response by the prime minister, than it does with any dispassionate analysis of the government’s track record or assessment of the alternatives on offer.
But that is because reactions to Kurdi’s image tell us more about those reacting than it does about the benighted infant: a true Rorschach test, indeed.
Every fortnight, In the Margins explores the intersection of economics, politics and public policy to help cast light on current affairs.
