Written on 06 February 2016.

   When German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced last August that her government would allow unregistered refugees to come to Germany, she set off the biggest migrant wave since the Second World War.

   Despite the negative effects this huge influx of people has had on the German economy and society, such as the mass sexual molestation and rape of hundreds of women last New Year’s Eve in Cologne, increased crime and concerns for personal safety among native Germans, supporters of Merkel’s action believe it was nevertheless justified by the humanitarian emergency and the need to save lives.

   But in an exclusive and revealing interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, an internationally recognised migration and Third World expert, Paul Collier, author of the book Exodus: How Migration Is Changing Our World, convincingly debunks this myth. Collier, a former director of the World Bank who currently holds an economics professorship at Oxford University, believes Merkel’s open-doors decision “…did not save a single Syrian from death.”

   “Despite best intentions, Germany has, instead, dead people on its conscience,” Collier told Die Welt. “Many people understood Merkel’s words as an invitation and only after that did they actually set out on the dangerous journey, sacrifice their savings and entrust their lives to dubious smugglers.”

   Meant as a humanitarian gesture, Collier maintains Merkel’s announcement had the opposite effect in regard to migrants’ safety and well-being. The refugees, he said, were already in safe, third states, such as Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, and did not come to Germany directly from “war and crisis countries.” But it was this “invitation” that caused them to leave these relatively safe havens, where most lived in tolerable conditions, and risk their lives on the arduous trip to Germany.

   "With her communication,” Collier said, “she (Merkel) made migrants out of refugees.”

   And for some, the journey was deadly. Three-year-old Alan Kurdi was the most famous child/refugee death that occurred after Merkel’s “invitation.” Along with his mother and a sibling, he drowned trying the smuggler’s route of reaching Europe, travelling by boat with his family from the Turkish coast to a nearby Greek island. A picture of him lying dead on a Turkish beach where his little body washed up flashed around the world, generating deep concern and much sympathy for the migrants. One report stated his father had paid smugglers more than $5,000.

   While there is no exact figure regarding how many unfortunates have lost their lives on the trek to and through Europe, drowning deaths have increased in recent months. It is believed more than 250 people perished last month alone trying to reach a Greek island. And many of those who drowned were also children like Kurdi. They obviously would be the least able to fend for themselves in an emergency.

   And even if the migrants reach the Promised Land, the “affluence heaven” of Germany, their suffering often does not end there. In fact, for some, this may constitute the worst part of their ordeal. In the refugee asylums the Germans hastily erected, life can be very dangerous. As is now well known, violence between young men of different ethnic groups is rampant, and the police’s ability to control it is minimal. But even worse, it is the women and children in these cramped accommodations who are most often victims of sexual assault.

   In his Die Welt interview, Collier expressed a special interest in potential African migrants, especially the 100 million people living south of the equator. He cites a former World Bank economist, Serge Mikhailov, who holds that this region is “the next Afghanistan.” And it is this mass of humanity that could pose Europe’s next huge migrant crisis. 

   “The chaos in Africa is definitely increasing,” he said. “… above all, the situation in Mali and Niger is already very unstable. And then the German chancellor comes along and announces that Europe’s doors are open. Simply consider for a moment how that catches on with these people.”

   When one speaks of Syrian refugees, Collier says this concerns 14 million. But hundreds of millions more living in poor countries “are setting out for the rich, western world." 

   “A colossal mass, which, when it is once set in motion, is scarcely still controllable,” he said.     

   To avoid such a frightening prospect and human tragedy, Collier states that “a radical swing” in communication has to be made.

   “Europe must clearly state that economic migrants should not even bother to set out on the journey at all,” he said.

   And while Collier believes it is essential for Europe to help genuine refugees, those who fled their countries for reasons of “sheer survival,” this should be done in the secure, neighbouring countries of the conflict regions. These neighbouring nations are the ones legally obligated under international treaties for accepting them. They are also much easier and much safer to reach than Europe for those fleeing war. Besides, even genuine refugees have “no claim to a place” in Europe. And Collier can’t understand why this claim is even being discussed, calling it a “false debate.”

   “Under international law, the European Union is not responsible for the acceptance of refugees,” he said. “It is however responsible for securing its own borders, either together or, when that is not possible, then just every state on its own.”

   European aid to genuine refugees, Collier says, should take the form of helping the safe, third countries bear the costs of hosting the refugees. This is the policy Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States follow. The United Arab Emirates, for example, financially supports a camp in Jordan that houses thousands of refugees.

   Collier would also like to see the European Union help create jobs for the refugees in these third countries. It is this lack of “prospects,” he says, that cause many to set out on the dangerous trip to Europe to seek their fortune there. Collier agrees with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble’s proposal for a Marshall Plan for refugees in the countries bordering the Syrian conflict.

   The recent, mass influx of migrants will, in the end, benefit neither Syria nor Germany, Collier believes. Regarding Syria, educated and qualified Syrian migrants will want to set down roots in Germany. But these are exactly the people Syria will need to rebuild once the fighting stops.

   As for Germany, the arrival of such large numbers of migrants will make integration “difficult.” And the more that arrive, the more challenging the integration task will become.

   “For then the necessity to really open oneself language-wise and culturally to the host country sinks,” he said. “In future, difficult to control parallel societies will come into being.”

   Collier says he cannot understand “even until today” why Merkel took the action that she did last August. Until last year, refugees were “no great theme” for Europeans. The Oxford professor blames the German chancellor for the refugee crisis, telling Die Welt: “Who else?”

   “With that, she has definitely burdened Germany and Europe with a colossal problem, which no longer can be so simply solved.”

Stephen Brown -- Frontpage Mag

Written on 01 February 2016.

   A YouGov poll of 18,000 people in 17 countries found only 9.2 percent of Americans rank global warming as their biggest concern. Only Saudi Arabians were less concerned about global warming at 5.7 percent. The biggest concern for Americans was global terrorism — 28 percent of Americans polled listed this as their top issue.

   A Fox News poll from November found only 3 percent of Americans list global warming as their top concern.

   Then, government scientists declared 2015 the warmest year on record. This news only emboldened politicians and environmental activists who want to build public support for more regulations on fossil fuels.

   A CNN poll from January 2015 found that 57 percent of Americans did not expect global warming to threaten their way of life. “Meanwhile, only 50 percent of Americans believe global warming is caused by man-made emissions, while 23 percent say it’s caused by natural changes and 26 percent say it isn’t a proven fact,” CNN reported.

   A Gallup poll from March 2015 found Americans’ concern about global warming fell to the same level it was in 1989. Global warming ranked at the bottom of a list of Americans’ environmental concerns— only 32 percent said they worried. 

For the full report please visit the  Daily Caller

Written on 02 February 2016.

La rassegnazione del Meridione

    In un suo editoriale Ernesto Galli della Loggia evidenziava l’indifferenza degli stessi meridionali rispetto alla drammatica condizione del Sud. È vero, molti meridionali hanno rinunciato ormai da tempo a pensare a come il Sud è e a come lo vorrebbero. Lo vivono ogni giorno, ma è come se non sapessero. La corruzione e il malaffare hanno prodotto i panorami terrificanti, gli ospedali malfunzionanti, la Salerno-Reggio Calabria ancora da completare, ma hanno soprattutto fatto piazza pulita di aspettative e ambizioni. Hanno impedito ai meridionali di essere orgogliosi della loro terra e di sognarne un futuro.

    Più che di indifferenza, si tratta di rassegnazione. Quella descritta da Carlo Levi con il famoso “Io pensavo a quante volte, ogni giorno, usavo sentire questa continua parola (…). Che cosa hai mangiato? Niente. Che cosa speri? Niente. Che cosa si può fare? Niente”.

    La sensazione di impotenza coinvolge anche molti intellettuali meridionali che nel denunciare le condizioni di arretratezza economica e sociale del Sud si scoprono nell’imbarazzo di non riuscire a individuare adeguate risposte. Chi vuole cambiare il Sud sa che fornirgli risorse non basta. Sa che sono del tutto inappropriati i paragoni con la Germania che nel suo Mezzogiorno (la ex Ddr) ha investito il 5 per cento del Pil. Il Sud, nel corso degli anni, ha ricevuto soldi che però non hanno innestato nessun processo di crescita (si vedano, ad esempio De Blasio e Accetturo, 2012, Ciani e De Blasio, 2015 e il volume della Banca d’Italia “Mezzogiorno e Politiche Regionali”, 2009).

    Se il Sud avesse ricevuto più risorse le cose sarebbero andate diversamente? Difficile averne la certezza, è molto probabile però che non sarebbero comunque bastate. Il Sud ha sprecato denaro sia nazionale che europeo (ad esempio, per finanziare scadenti corsi di formazione o per creare imprese che non hanno funzionato neanche un giorno). È successo anche in altre parti d’Italia certo, ma maggiore è lo stato di bisogno, minore è l’ammissibilità degli sprechi.

    C’è qualche segnale che ci lascia sperare che quanto accaduto in passato non accadrà in futuro? Bisogna ammettere che la classe dirigente del Sud, la società che la esprime e che dovrebbe controllarla, non hanno dato grandi segni di cambiamento.
E allora, nessuna politica per il Sud? Col tempo si è anche persa la speranza che lasciandolo da solo il Sud trovi il suo modo per avviarsi finalmente sulla strada dello sviluppo e del riscatto. Il federalismo fiscale doveva responsabilizzare le amministrazioni locali attraverso un più stretto controllo da parte dei cittadini e permettere una migliore selezione dei politici-amministratori. Invece, ha portato a un incremento della pressione fiscale e a poco altro.

    Non ha funzionato neanche l’approccio bottom-up che affidava a livelli decentrati di governo la funzione di individuare progetti e programmi. L’intenzione di valorizzare le competenze locali si è scontrata con la tendenza dei politici a cercare consenso e quindi a frammentare gli interventi, oltretutto molto spesso realizzati senza neanche aver definito in maniera chiara gli obiettivi da raggiungere (il più delle volte è impossibile fare una pur grossolana analisi dei costi e dei benefici delle politiche).

Priorità e strategie

    Che fare dunque? Non ci sono ricette miracolose. È possibile però cercare di evitare di ripetere gli errori commessi in passato. Con il Masterplan per il Sud, presentato dal governo, in cui si demandano le scelte operative concrete ai quindici patti per il Sud si rischia la stessa frammentazione di interventi già vista. Il Sud rappresenta una risorsa cruciale per la crescita dell’intero paese ed è a livello nazionale che devono essere individuate le priorità e le strategie che lo aiutino a utilizzare a pieno le sue risorse, compreso un impegno a combattere la criminalità che con le sue attività nell’economia legale altera le regole di mercato. Dopodiché è necessario realizzare progetti strutturati in modo tale da poter essere opportunamente valutati. Le valutazioni sono di importanza vitale perché permettono di capire cosa funziona e cosa non funziona e gettano le basi per una efficiente spesa futura (nel documento del governo non se ne parla da nessuna parte).

    Se si vuole intraprendere un’azione decisa a favore del Sud, le politiche nazionali devono tener conto delle differenze territoriali e garantire standard minimi uniformi nei servizi essenziali.

    Ad esempio, non si può sperare che bastino le ore di formazione organizzate con i fondi comunitari a compensare la peggiore qualità complessiva delle scuole nel Mezzogiorno. Bisogna pensare a come migliorare la qualità dell’istruzione nelle aree a forte disagio sociale ed economico, a come incentivare buoni docenti e buoni dirigenti a lavorare in quelle scuole. Lo stesso vale per le università. Ben vengano i sistemi di valutazione, ma non ci sarebbe nulla di scandaloso nel premiare di più chi fa bene al Sud: servirebbe solo a compensare le maggiori condizioni di disagio. Sistemi di questo tipo aiuterebbero il Sud a non continuare a impoverirsi di capitale umano.

    Il Sud continua a perdere le sue risorse migliori, i più talentuosi e quelli che sono più dissonanti al sistema. È importante, quindi, contribuire a creare le condizioni che permettano loro di restare e che anzi attraggano forze nuove (anche non meridionali) che possano infondere nuova linfa al tessuto sociale e produttivo. Lo si può fare creando meccanismi automatici che non richiedono l’intermediazione dei politici e dei dirigenti locali.

Maria De Paola -- lavoce.info

Written on 30 January 2016.

What it i

by Dr. Shawki Allam -- Grand Mufti of Egypt¹

Image credit

    Far from a medieval code of capital punishments, the Shari’ah is a dynamic ethico-legal system designed to safeguard and advance core human values. In fact, just as the US Constitution references the basic human values of unity, justice, tranquility, welfare, and liberty, so too each of these is also a fundamental value of the Shari’ah.

    The two, however, diverge at a fundamental point – their source. Whereas the US Constitution was written by great men, the Shari’ah derives from canonical scriptural sources that have been continually interpreted and reinterpreted over the centuries like Christian Biblical Law and the Halakha of the Jews. The comparison between the US Constitution and the Shari’ah, in fact, is based on an oft-made error that is made time and again.

   The word Shari’ah quite literally denotes the “way to a watering place”, indicating that the ethics, morals, and legal principles contained in it lead its adherents to the very source of life. Interestingly, the word Halakha denotes “the path that one walks.” This “path” is a set of moral and ethical values, not just a series of do’s and don’ts that are to be applied with no regard to context. Muslims believe that all of God’s prophets – Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, John, Jesus, and Muhammad, among others espoused a “shari’ah” for each of their communities.

    The rules of the Shari’ah are derived from the Qur’an and the model behavior of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, which complements and/or supplements the Qur’an on issues where it may be silent or require clarifying teachings. “Islamic law” is not just the Shari’ah but rather is a methodology and the collection of positions adopted by Muslim jurists over the last 1,400 years. That period is marked by a remarkable intellectual diversity with dozens of schools of legal thought at one point.

    Interpretation is the endeavor of scholars in each generation. In other words, some rules can change with time and place. The articulation of the Shari’ah is based on built-in mechanisms which aim for articulations of “Islamic Law” to be purpose-driven and considers the prevailing customary, social and political contexts of the time.  This makes the system fluid and dynamic. In the words of the leading African American Muslim intellectual Dr. Sherman Jackson, the Shari’ah is “the negotiated result of competing interpretations”.

    Practically, the twenty-first century finds us in the providential position of being able to look back on this tradition in order to find that which will benefit us today as well as develop new positions for situations which may lack direct precedent.

    The sensationalism over the Shari’ah we see time and again is simply fear mongering. As much as it may bother those who spread hate, American Muslims put core tenets of the Shari’ah into practice every day when they operate soup kitchens, donate their time to community service, get married or divorced, practice their professions, run their businesses, have children, visit the sick, and much more.

    Simply stated, the purpose of the Shari’ah is not to establish theocracies, to subjugate non-believers or to subject people to capital punishments. Rather, the Shari’ah, aims to facilitate a believer’s attaining God’s pleasure, secure human welfare in this life and attain human salvation in the hereafter—ideals common to all Abrahamic faiths.

    The experience that Egypt went through can be taken as an example of this. The period of development of Shari’ah was begun by Muhammad Ali Pasha around the early nineteenth century and was continued by the Khedive Ismail who attempted to build a modern state in Egypt. This meant a reformulation of Islamic law, but not a rewriting of it.

    Many people are under the impression that Egypt adopted French law. This is not the case. Islamic law was rewritten in the form of French law, but retained its Islamic essence. This process led Egypt to become a modern state run by a system of democracy.

    None of the Muslim scholars of Egypt objected to this. Muslims are free to choose whichever system of government they deem most appropriate for them. The principles of freedom and human dignity, for which liberal democracy stands, are themselves part of the foundation for the Islamic worldview; it is the achievement of this freedom and dignity within a religious context that Islamic law strives for.

    The flexibility and adaptability of Islamic law is perhaps its greatest asset. To provide people with practical and relevant guidance while at the same time staying true to its foundational principles, Islam allows the wisdom and moral strength of religion to be applied in modern times. It is through adopting this attitude towards the Shari’ah that an authentic, contemporary, moderate, and tolerant Islam can provide solutions to the problems confronting the Muslim world today.

¹⁾  In February 2013, during the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, a clerical selection panel rejected the candidate of the Brotherhood for the post of Grand Mufti, the head of Islam in Egypt.  Instead, the panel, comprising senior clerics from the Al-Azhar Islamic University --  the oldest and most prestigious religious school in the Sunni Muslim world -- chose Shawki Ibrahim Abdel-Karim Allam, a professor of religious jurisprudence and a compromise candidate not affiliated to any of the leading political or religious factions, The Telegraph reported.