Middle eastern migration to Europe

migrant crisis
The iconic image of migrants walking across Europe in the summer of 2015. It was used to promote the Brexit vote in Britain.

If there is one issue driving political instability in Europe today, it is mass migration from the middle east.

Emotional commentary on this phenomenon concentrates on the one hand on the humanitarian obligation to care for refugees from war zones, or, on the other extreme, on a supposedly planned Islamic invasion of Europe.

What is generally neglected, in common discourse, if not in elite political circles, are the long term structural causes of this phenomenon. The middle east, including almost all of the Arab world, from the Maghreb to Iraq, but also including non-Arab countries such as Iran, have an exploding population.

The fertility of the average woman in the middle east varies somewhat, but the average is 3.5 births per woman, compared to about 1.5 births per woman in Europe.

In the past of course, fertility was was far higher. In the Arab world in the 1950s, it was about 7 births per woman. But vastly improved healthcare and nutrition has meant that infant mortality has plummeted since that time, with the result that the Levant’s population has multiplied at a dizzying rate since the mid twentieth century.

For instance, at the time of its independence from France in 1963, Algeria had about 9 million inhabitants, but today has 30 million plus and its population is still growing. Syria at the time of its independence, also from France, in the 1950s had a population of 3.25 million (i.e. about the same as the Republic of Ireland at the time), but on the cusp of the civil war in 2011 its population stood at over 20 million, that is five times that of independent Ireland.

The terrible suffering caused by the war and the flight of over four million people has temporarily decreased the population considerably, but the birth rate has has actually risen during the war years.

Most staggering of all is the case of Egypt. Egypt had a population of 18 million in 1947, but today is populated by no less than 95 million people. As the population grows, the rate of numerical increase also grows, so that as recently as 2006, Egypt’s population was 72 million, but has had a net increase of over 20 million people in just over ten years.

Today a phenomenal 50-65% of the middle eastern population is under 25 years old.

At the same time, this region has had very little economic growth, or in other words almost no new jobs for all of these young people. For instance Egypt, which would need something like 50% growth in jobs to cater for its population growth, has in fact seen 4% growth per year since 1992. Which, factoring in the population explosion, amounts to negative growth. And a dip in the economy in 2011, coinciding with the worldwide recession, almost immediately precipitated revolution (see here for the economic figures).

Across the Arab world, youth unemployment stands at over 30%. It is then hardly surprising at all, that the region is riven with instability, revolutions and civil wars. Radical Islam, while certainly a factor in this situation, is not the driving cause, though the rise of political Islam in the 1980s may have stopped a slowing of birth rates, such as took place in Latin America in the same period.

Nor is the generally dictatorial and repressive political systems the principle cause of unrest, though again, these do not help. If dictatorship was the only reason for turmoil in the middle east, then surely we would have seen a lot more of it than we have. No, the force driving both wars in the middle east and flight to Europe is primarily demographic.

Europe by contrast, has a low fertility rate, a slightly falling and rapidly aging population but plenty of low skilled, low paying jobs that Europeans do not wish to do. All of which has meant that Europe will continue for a long time to be a draw to unemployed and under employed Arab youth.

While there are few incentives for young people to stay in middle eastern countries and while Europe cannot solve its own labour and ageing problems, such migration will continue.

Wishful thinking should be let aside here. The optimistic prognosis is that none of this is a problem, ‘immigrants will pay our pensions’. This is a badly thought out idea. For one thing, by this prognosis, a whole new cohort of immigrants will have to be brought in every generation to pay the pensions of the previous generation. Even if immigrants were not ever unemployed themselves and the figures added up, this would mean a radical transformation in the social, linguistic and cultural profile of a country in every generation. By definition this transformation would totally change the nature of a country. And not just once, but repeatedly.

Such massive demographic change is causing and will cause serious social and political problems. It would inevitably do so even if immigrants were keen to integrate into their host countries. But middle eastern (and other Islamic) immigrants generally do not want to become secular, liberal Europeans. They will not integrate as long as they arrive in such large numbers.

Europeans, for their part do not want to see the demographics of their countries transformed by a foreign culture and religion. Commentators such as Mark Blyth make a very persuasive case that the lack of upward social mobility and the freeze in real wages among the working and middle class over 30 years are what is driving the politics of discontent. Perhaps so. But this need not go in a far right, ultra nationalist direction.

What is driving the growth in the radical right across Europe is mass immigration, make no mistake.

This would be the case even if radical Islam and its attendant tactic of terrorism were not a problem, but it is and has the potential to turn animosity into hatred, indeed has already done so on a large scale.

Simply put, a solution will have to be found to curtail mass middle eastern immigration into Europe or the consequences will be dire.




Why the partition of Syria is a terrible idea

As the civil war in Syria drags on into its seventh year, there are no signs that the war is coming to an end.

While the forces of the government of Bashar al Assad, backed by Russian and Iran have retaken Aleppo, the pre-war economic centre of the country, and forced back insurgent forces elsewhere, they have as yet been unable to deal the, mostly Sunni Islamist, insurgency decisive blows in its remaining strongholds of Idlib in the north, Hama province, outside of Damascus and Daraa in the south.

Russian air power and increasingly, its reorganisation and re-training of Assad’s ground forces have saved the Assad government from collapse, but manpower shortages, (notwithstanding the extensive use of foreign Shia fighters) make it difficult for the Syrian state to fight effectively on so many different fronts at once.

A democratic revolution?

syria map may 2017
A map of the Syrian war, May 2017.

The idea that the rebels represented a democratic revolution has long since ceased to be credible. Today the strongest rebel groups are HTS; a militia coalition led by al Qaeda franchise Jabhat al Nusra; Ahrar al Sham, a militia whose stated aim is an Islamic state modeled on the Taliban and Jaysh al Islam, a Saudi sponsored Islamist group based around Damascus. Elsewhere the rebels are extremely splintered into dozens of locally based militias.

Though the term ‘Free Syrian Army’ is still commonly used in media coverage, in reality no such centrally organised group exists. The name has meaning only in that it denotes a rebel militia that does not belong to one of the main jihadi groups and that seeks US military aid.

The rebels cannot win, but nor, as a result of the military and financial aid of foreign powers including the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, France and the United Kingdom,  can they easily be defeated.

In the east of the country, what is for practical purposes a separate war rages between ISIS (the self-styled ‘Islamic State’) and the American backed, mostly Kurdish forces of the ‘Syrian Democratic Forces’ or SDF. The forces of the Baathist state have almost totally withdrawn from this zone apart from an outpost tolerated by the Kurds in Qamishlo city and an enclave besieged by ISIS at Deir Ezzor city on the Euphrates river. The other rebel militias were expelled by ISIS in 2014.

The SDF, spear-headed in practice by the Kurdish YPG and with the aid of US air power, have wrested the north of Syria from ISIS, alarming Turkey to the degree that its forces invaded Syria at the town of Jarabalus in 2016 in partnership with a rebel militia coalition known as Euphrates Shield, in order to prevent the Kurds from seizing the entire border.

While the SDF has begun encircling the ISIS ‘capital’ of Raqqa, it is by no means certain that they are motivated enough to assault it as their American allies wish. Raqqa has virtually no Kurdish population whereas the Kurds actually covet the area currently occupied by pro-Turkish forces.

The many-sided and inconclusive war has killed an untold number of people; estimates now range up to half a million, but there is no reliable figure, and has displaced up to half of Syria’s population of 20 million. Syria has become an incubator for terrorism and Islamic extremism, and floods of refugees threaten to destabilise the neighbouring countries of Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey and even western European nations such as Germany and Sweden.

Partition, a viable solution?

So the question naturally occurs; how can the war be ended?

There are no easy answers to this question. Russia has on numerous occasions attempted to broker a ceasefire between the rebels and the Syrian state, only for these to typically break down within hours. The principle reason for this is that while Russia wants a negotiated solution, Bashar al Assad does not. His stated aim is ‘re-conquer every inch of Syria’.

On the rebel side there is no one political or military body with whom pro-regime backers can negotiate. Those rebel groups that do exist such as the Turkish and US sponsored Syrian National Council have demanded that ‘Assad and his clique’ i.e. the ruling Baath Party, must go before any negotiations can happen. And clearly, in the absence of a military decision, this is not going to happen.

Turkey refuses to countenance the entry of Kurdish representatives into negotiations on the basis that it will not recognise Kurdish separatists linked to the guerrilla group the PKK along its borders.

Finally, no party to the war contemplates negotiating with ISIS, nor has the extremist group asked to be allowed to enter political negotiations.

In short, this is a war that no side looks capable of winning and yet no one is willing to end.

And so, one ‘common sense’ solution constantly re-iterated in the western media is the partition of Syria. Assad, this argument goes, can rule a rump state composed of Allawites (his own sect), other Shia Muslims and perhaps Syria’s Christians and Druze. Sunni Arabs, the bulk of the population, and the rebels’ support base, must have their own state and the Kurds in the north their own. Thus separated, the apparently warring communities can then live in peace. So goes the argument.

But this is in fact a shockingly misconceived idea, for many reasons.

Why partition is a terrible idea

A map showing the demographic distribution of ethnic and religious communities in Syria.

First of all, while it is true that the war in Syria is in part a sectarian war this is far from the full picture. Certainly the rebels are mainly reliant on support from Sunni-majority countries on the basis that they fighting Allawite and Iranian Shia proxies (in the war’s insulting vernacular, Rafidi and Nusrayi) and certainly also Assad’s forces are bolstered by Shia militias from Lebanon, Iraq Iran and even Afghanistan, on the basis that they are defending people of that faith from Sunni extremists or ‘Takfiris’.

On the other hand though, it is quite wrong to think that Bashar al Assad is some sort of Allawite or Shia communal leader. On the contrary, his propaganda is that he is a secular (though Muslim) nationalist fighting off an extremist insurrection funded and armed by Syria’s outside enemies. Assad’s wife is a Sunni Muslim as are the majority of his, admittedly conscript soldiers. Furthermore, at least 70% of the Syrian population lives in government controlled areas, including the cities of Aleppo, Homs, Hama and Damascus, the vast majority of whose population is Sunni Muslim.

In the absence of free elections it would be unwise to conclude that all of them support the government but it is certainly true that many Syrians of Sunni Muslim religion do, if only on the basis that the current Baathist state is all that stands between them and either anarchy or an extremist takeover.There is no reason to suppose that the majority support the rebel factions. When rebel-held east Aleppo fell to regime forces in late 2016 the majority of the civilian population sought refuge not in rebel held Idlib but in government held west Aleppo.

Furthermore, the idea that Assad would hand over Syria’s main cities to a hypothetical Sunni state when the rebels have been unable to take them on the battlefield, on the basis that they have a majority Sunni population, is simply fantastical it will not and could not happen.

Even supposing that Assad and his government were to agree to this proposal it sill makes no practical sense. Christians, Sunni and and Shia Muslims and Druze do not live in neatly segregated blocks of Syria but live intermingled throughout the country. It would take a massive act of population displacement based on religious origin ( I deliberately do not use the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ as these are religious not ethnic groups) to make it remotely practicable.

Finally, even supposing that all Syrians based their political allegiance on their religious origin (Sunni – pro-rebel and Shia, Allawite, Christian or Druze, pro-Government) and even supposing this could be made into a geographic and demographic reality, there is a final factor which should end the conversation; not a single rebel group calls for the partition of Syria. Rather they call for a new state (for most of them inspired by political Islam) for all of Syria. Indeed the rebels have shown intense hostility to the Kurds for their ‘separatist’ ambitions.

Even the Kurds, the most straightforwardly ‘ethnic’ faction of the war, have not called for an independent state of their own. This is largely tactical, to ward off out and out war with either the Syrian regime or Turkey, but also a recognition that there is no area of Syria where Kurds are a large, contiguous majority. The Kurdish PYD party have therefore called for autonomy for ‘Rojava’ or the ‘North Syrian Federation’ rather than independence.

So if none of the actors on the ground in Syria call for a partition on ethnic or sectarian lines, why is the idea so popular with western commentators?

At the risk, no doubt, of being labelled a a conspiracy theorist, I would suggest this is because the partition and weakening of Syria is the western, particularly US and Israeli, strategy. A partitioned Syria would no longer be a conduit for Iran to project its influence, via the Assad government and Hezbollah, into the Mediterranean. A partitioned Syria would no longer pose any threat to Israel’s northern border.

Safe zones and the future

Since I began writing this article, the germ of a new peace process has begun with the agreement, brokered by the Russians at Astana, of ‘safe zones’ in which fighting will cease. Again, this has sometimes been described as the beginning of the de facto partition of the country.

But again, this is misconceived. The ‘safe zones’ in effect are breathing space for Syrian government forces, who will use the deactivation of most fronts in the west of the country to try to reclaim the east from ISIS. This, if successful, would leave Assad in an immeasurably stronger position: de facto ruler of most of Syria again as opposed to occupier of just third of its territory.

Al Qaeda led HTS is excluded from the ceasefire and will attempt to sabotage it, but if the safe zones initiative works, it is actually be the beginning of the end of the rebellion. If and when Assad’s forces reclaim the east of Syria and close the border with Iraq, it will merely be a matter of time before they move on the HTS stronghold in Idlib, in the north west. After the that the surrender of the other rebel enclaves would appear inevitable.

First Post, February 6, 2015.

Me at a wedding. Had to put some picture up.
Me at a wedding. Had to put some picture up.

Just a little first post to whoever comes across my blog. I’ll be posting thoughts on more or less whatever interests me; culture, world affairs, sport, cycling and life in general.

The main idea is to write things not connected with Irish history, which I do on my other site http://www.theirishstory.com