Nice, Vienna, Kabul attacks: a migration issue?

I took this photo some time ago in Paris, with the same mood as now: looking at new perspectives from the same essence. The output is amazing, especially when you decide to be generous and open to see new faces of the same cruel reality. COVID19 invites us to do so, and the attacks also push us to look at different shapes of the same stone: cold and static as the barbaric of killing civilians, in Europe and the Middle East.

It makes us reflect on the real purpose of these attacks: if they are part of some sort of vindication, war, or just a sinister move coming from international movements to create instability and boost an agenda based on obscure goals across the world: from Nice to Kabul without stops.

Recently Marine Le Pen stated that: “l’immigration massive, inconsidérée, anarchique, dans notre pays, alors nous ne réglerons pas un problème qui tue des Français sur notre territoire ».*

I do not agree with most of Mme Le Pen´s statements, particularly because of the nationalist focus on free movement restrictions, suspicions towards foreign of any nationality, distrust of other cultures and religions, and indifference to learn and interconnect with others. However, these attacks and even without them, the general atmosphere of aggression and collective violence drive us to agree with Mme Le Pen, that France and the rest of Europe holds an unsafe force us to revalue our idea of a 100% full free movement of people.

When we defend globalisation and the principle of free movement of people we never thought about a global migration crisis or a complete collapse of basic standards of living. Is precisely the defence of a global model that drives us to look at the current migration model more closely and within a new dimension. Free movement of people supposes the capacity of integration of all countries and a steady but balanced path that allows all citizens to move from one country to another without constraints but with full respect and compliance to host country rules. The scenario of violence, attacks or a forced change of local culture is not part of the idea of a global model, but the integration. It means that each migrant gradually adapted to local culture and the host country also learns and change resiliently through that enrichment of interacting and empathising with other cultures. .

Within President Macron Administration, 43 Synagogues have been closed which only means that they were not delivering their normal religious services, instead they were at the service of violent goals. Unacceptable. For nationalists and globalists.

The construction of a new European Union should be built through a new paradigm and not more of the same: bureaucracy, spending, weak leadership and, also migration.  We are facing a real global crisis on migration coming from Muslim countries. This is not only one-responsibility from Europe to take migrants but as a global responsibility to make a fair distribution. Solidarity is not anarchy, is not less security, and is it the correct time to create a security framework. A must-have in times of crisis to give direction to an overwhelmed number of migrants and integrate them into the fabric of the society, not without trauma but, no doubts, with certainty that is a safe and confident process of merging cultures and religions.

Migration is not about changing religions or traditions, but accepting -without complains-, social codes pre-established in the host country.  No compliance with legal or social requirements cancels any possibility to deploy a global plan on free movement. Is that conclusion that leads us to disagree with President Macron and their support of Charlie Hebdo cartoons mocking the Muslim religion. When we defend freedom of expression we never refer to harassment, defamation, or attacks on other religions. Lack of respect will never contribute to better integration and is not the way to live within a European or global style.

Muslim migrants do not have to accept that their religion is insulted or humiliated which is a contradiction in itself with the own meaning of a global society and their values around integration. Integration is equal to respect for each other and is it also a duty from the host country.

Is it my conclusion that all the attacks in Vienna, Nice, and Kabul* –within few hours of each other- are not part of a “migration issue” but of international groups that use violence as a way to destabilize and gain benefits to obscure goals. Different are the attacks as the recent shooting in Montpellier. Is not possible to even consider “the integration of cultures” under this violence. Migration is not an issue until it faces war.

That shows clearly the need to reshape globalisation and adapted to the new challenges. Is it here when I see that a global model as currently conceived, is not working and do not contribute to creating a better world based on full open societies and interconnected systems. Especially for the European Union is imperative to become resilient: attached to global values on solidarity and empathy and at the same time aligned with a commitment towards a full reshaping of the structure: decentralised within more power to national EU offices –see my article “Reshaping the European Union: decentralisation”.

The timing, seriousness and level of violence of Nice, Vienna and Kabul attacks –including Montpellier shooting- exposure the need to enter into a new dimension and look at the a broken global system from new shapes. A new paradigm that makes of the European Union a safe place within a global structure, and for living safely we need to make an even safer Union that guarantee individual freedom through a new focus.

New crises, new rules.

Not more of the same…





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s