Reality vs. Rhetoric in the EU Refugee debate

The Russia-Ukraine War was inevitably going to lead to new rightwing campaigns against refugees and immigrants. I’ve been following the developments in Austrian politics. From the standpoint of EU and internal politics, it’s not going so well.

The data on the number of Ukrainian refugees provided by the UN require some close reading. As of December 16, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) shows 4.8 million registered for “Temporary Protection” in Europe with 7.8 million “recorded,” which apparently means counts from border crossings. UNHCR also estimates 5.9 million “internally displaced” persons inside Ukraine. (Accessed 12/16/2022)

UNHCR’s Ukraine Refugee Situation website provides a different breakdown that also shows the number of border crossings back into Ukraine. (Accessed 12/16/2022) That breakdown appears to be consistent with a ninimum of 7.8 million in the EU plus Moldova. It also shows 2.9 million recorded in Russia and Belarus, mostly in the former. What portion of those 2.9 million may be people forcibly resettled into Russia as part of the scheme to address the “demographic problem” (i.e., declining population) in Russia.

Ukraine’s population before February 22 was 44 million. That means over a quarter of that country’s population has been displaced in 2022.

This is by far the largest largest movement of refugees into Europe since the end of the Second World War. By far. And it is clear from the Russians targeting of civilian facilities that Russia is deliberately trying to maxime the number of refugees in hopes of creating political divisions in and among EU countries.

Ukrainian refugees who left the country after the Russian invasion are legally classified by “displaced persons” for two years ending February 2024. This makes them eligible to live, work, and receive government benefits under more premissive condition than asylum-seekers receive. Generically they are nevertheless refugees. And many of them will likely never return to live in Ukraine permanently.

The political narrative in Austria in particular is being driven by the far-right FPÖ, and that has been the case for at least the last two decades. The FPÖ adopted the anti-immigration theme three decades ago, and the other four parliamentary parties find themselves responding to the FPÖ’s lead - when they are not outright mimicking it.

Exactly 30 years ago, in 1992, a certain Jörg Haider [then the head of the FPÖ] initiated the "Austria first" referendum. Since then, the Freedom Party [FPÖ] has been pushing the other parties with the "foreigner" issue. Since then, the SPÖ [social democrats], the Greens and now the [liberal] Neos have not brought together a counter-proposal, a clear, broadly communicable, humanistic model that they can hold up against the FPÖ. Walter Müller, Asylthema der FPÖ überlassen: Ein unverzeihliches Versagen Standard 03.11.2022, my translation.)

The current Austrian Chancellor, Karl Nehammer, leads the conservative, Christian-Democratic People’s Party (ÖVP), who has the Green Party as its junior partner in the national government. Nehammer and the national ÖVP compete with the FPÖ as to who can sound more anti-refugee. His predecessor as Chancellor and ÖVP leader, Sebastian Kurz, was stridently anti-refugee and now works in the political operation of the oligarch Peter Thiel, who widely regarded as an actual fascist.

Political rhetoric is often misleading. But it’s strikes me as remarkable how much the political narrative about immigrants and refugees in Austria is divorced from the actual facts. The Austrian migration expert Gerald Knaus who is sharply critical of xenophoblic politics and the misconduct of the EU in many aspects, addresses this disconnect in his recent book, Wir und die Flüchtlinge (2022).

He points out that during the Kurz era of 2018-2021, the political rhetoric was dominated by the Kurz-FPÖ anti-foreigner themes. But during that same period, the Austrian government from the national to the local level, with enthusiastic support and assistance from civil society, adhered to the rule of law - for the most part - and did a great job of processing and assimilated refugees, so much so that Knaus takes it as a model case that other EU countries could and should follow in the actual handling of refugees.

On the other hand, he quotes Kurz the then-Chancellor and future Peter Theil lackey, from 2020: “I opposed this false policy of open borders back in 2015 and was therefore often labelled as right-wing extremist and inhuman. Now I am pleased that many European countries are of the same opinion - a lot has moved in the right direction.”

The EU, of course, did not have a policy of “open borders” in 2015 or any time since.

Knaus comments:

Kurz showed that politicians who want to win elections in democracies need a convincing concept of border control. The questions that Kurz so successfully brought to the center of the debate - How can the business model of nefarious smugglers be destroyed? How can irregular migration be reduced? Is border control possible without violations of human rights and human dignity, even without "ugly images"? - demand convincing answers in all democracies, all the more so in view of the real situation at the EU's external borders today.

But the approach Knaus advocates is for the center and left parties to push back directly against the xenophobic slogans and dishonest representations from the anti-immigration demagogues.