“Europe should unite and act over Libya”.

For the past decade, there have been not one, but three wars raging right at Europe’s borders. The most known and reported is the one in Syria, which has forced millions of refugees into our continent, however we cannot be too complacent about what is happening in Ukraine and even more so, in Libya.

Since the NATO backed overthrowing and killing of the Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the North African nation has experienced instability, two civil wars and a growing foreign intervention. Most of Europe was focusing on its internal troubles like Brexit, however it recently became apparent that this conflict should not be ignored.

Thus-and rightly so- the German Chancellor Angela Merkel organized in Berlin a Conference for Libya on the 19th of January. Invitations were sent to both warring parties of Libya, the Tripoli based GNA and its leader Fayez al-Serraj, plus the Tobruk Government’s (HoR) Libyan National Army General, Khalifa Haftar.

With them, a selection of foreign powers with interests in the region were also invited, most of them already present and engaging in the conflict, siding with either party. The leaders of France, Turkey, Russia, Italy and the United Kingdom, together with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were present.

In addition, representatives from the EU, the African Union, the UN, the Arab League, Egypt, UAE, DR Congo, China and Algeria.

The Conference’s outcome seems to have been successful, if only the participants- especially the two rivals in Libya and their foreign supporters, stick to what it has been agreed; that is an end to any interference in the country's ongoing civil conflict, plus to uphold a UN arms embargo.

Twice before, in Paris and in Palermo similar agreements were made, but not upheld. In addition, there was a failed effort for mediation by Greece in 2016 between Libya and Egypt and in 2011 between Gaddafi’s regime and NATO. Thus, one would wonder, why now Greece was excluded from the talks, since it has played an active role before.

Many in the Balkan nation, were angered by Germany’s snub towards Greece, especially since Turkey’s President, Mr Erdogan was present. The German government chose to keep the reasons away from the public knowledge, while many notable Greek politicians such as Dora Bakoyanni, called the move “a mistake”.

  

Yet, there are many reasons why the German initiative should be applauded, although they could have involved Greece in some ways. The US has hinted that Libya is mainly Europe’s problem and it avoided until now in getting actively involved, apart from sporadic attacks on ISIL targets.

To fill this void, Turkey and Russia have both stepped in, each siding with a rival warring group. In order to promote its interests, Turkey has signed two agreements with CNA, one on maritime borders and the other on military cooperation. The first one has hit a nerve with Greece, as it considers the maritime memorandum a violation of international law and an attack on its sovereign rights.

Turkey and Greece have seen their relations deteriorating the past few years, with Turkey trying its best to interfere or sabotage the developments in East Mediterranean and the successful cooperation between Cyprus, Israel and Greece on gas exploration.

Bitter because it has been left out, Turkey went on to sign its own deal with Libya, although not only it is illegal, it is supported by no one. Both the US and the EU have thrown their support around Greece, yet sadly only in words.

The EU has numerous times condemned Turkey’s actions around Cyprus and East Mediterranean; however, it has until now avoided to actively and decisively penalize Erdogan’s antics. Similarly, the US government although supportive of Greece, they are too passive when it comes to Turkey, a major and valuable ally of theirs in the Middle East.

The whole dispute between the two NATO “allies” is around the right to oil and gas exploration, just as in Libya. It is such a pity that Turkey is not focusing on its recent successes, such as launching their first ever Turkish made automobile and its own economy, but instead is trying to bully two EU member states- Greece and Cyprus- while extending their sphere of influence.

Such attitudes have kept the whole region backwards and harmed the economies of both Greece and Turkey. The latter is now to trying to infringe on Greek national maritime territory- all the way close to the island of Crete- in order to satisfy the megalomaniac plans of Mr Erdogan and his government.

Turkey maintains that the Greek islands do not constitute Greek sovereign rights on the continental shelf. In this way, it wants to extend its right to drill all the way deep in Greek waters. It is only to be seen when Europe will truly treat Greek and Cypriot national maritime borders as European, acting accordingly and cutting the appetites of Erdogan once and for all.

Because of Turkey, Greece was forced to intervene in the Libyan crisis and declare allegiance with HoR. The Greek government invited the group’s leader Khalifa Haftar in talks prior the Berlin Conference, plus it clearly indicated that it would block any decision adopted by the EU regarding Libya, unless the Turkey-GNA maritime deal is cancelled. 

 Overall, we should be hailing Chancellor Merkel’s initiative as Europeans, although ultimately, it should be the EU taking such lead. It is about time Europe started flexing its muscle in its own neighborhood and taking the lead in solving international disputes. How does it want to be taken seriously as a global player, if it cannot decide collectively or show determination during such threats and crises?

Until now, EU member states were fragmented or indifferent towards the Libya conflict, too absorbed by Brexit and Syria at best. Italy is supportive of the Tripoli based GNA, while France and the UK switched sides according to their and US interests. Now that Greece is forced to enter the game by Turkey’s antics and Germany by its own accord, it is evident that this conflict is becoming a European issue.

If we leave Russia backing HoR and Turkey supporting GNA, we will have an outcome that ultimately will affect Europe, but without any of our input or our interests protected and promoted.

Germany might have made a blunder by not inviting Greece to the talks, or it may just have saved the day. With a Turkey so hostile towards Greece, if the two were engaged in the Conference, it could possibly derail any agreement and turned it into another heated debate and diplomatic incident between the two.

That was not the point of such meeting after all. Besides, Greece has not attained a great record of diplomatic success in the region previously. Plus, Erdogan was unable to get what he wanted from the Conference and had to-seemingly at least- accept a ceasefire, a UN arms embargo and a peacefully resolution to the conflict.

No word was made about the Greek concerns, at least not openly and the Germans with their European counterparts were wise this time around to avoid it. It is always better to focus on one issue and not try to carry two melons under one arm. However, if there should be a continuation in this dispute, Greece cannot be ignored again.

At least not since it pledged and showed interest in sending together with France, Germany and other European nations, a military mission to monitor the ceasefire. It is the country of entry for many refugees from the Middle East and Africa, it has maritime borders with Libya and since Turkey’s stance, will be most affected by the Libyan civil war outcome.

Following the Berlin Conference over Libya, Europe is debating about what path to follow next. Ministers are currently in Brussels, discussing ways of how to treat Turkey, with Hungary being one of the states opposing sanctions against its aggression towards Greece.

Another topic is focusing on the realization, that since Europe needs to secure the outcome of the Conference, it really needs to get both militarily and politically involved, even if it is with the collaboration of the UN and the African Union.

In conclusion, Merkel’s initiative has finally got Europe talking about Libya and Turkey. It now only remains to be seen how able EU member states can be, in showing solidarity with a member state, leadership in the region and agreeing decisively on a matter that can shape their future.

Europe needs a common immigration policy, if it wants to secure its future integration.

With Brexit now cemented after the British elections last month, we are starting to taste the first consequences of the populist and Euro-skeptic policies and governments we all chose to adopt since the economic crisis, from the newer EU members to the old.

The sad thing is that we resolved to those choices when our pockets were hurt, however we disturbingly opted to vent our anger and frustration once again towards migrants and in addition, to turn against our greatest political achievement of the past decades; the EU.

Admittedly, it is hard to have all countries of Europe agree on something. They have different economies, mentalities, cultures and historical “baggage”, that even though they strive for the same thing, they squabble.

Take immigration for example. One would have thought, that while having established freedom of movement and a market economy which every political elite on the continent reveres and defends, immigration especially within the EU would not have caused such ripples.

Our economic model needs immigrants, so unless we chose to radically change it and alter our social template, we must accept that immigration is here to stay. We cannot have the welfare benefits we enjoy, without someone working and paying for them.

Of course, there must be a distinction between migrants and refugees, the second causing such a terror in Europe lately, that people would happily prefer to give up their freedoms and privileges as EU nationals, in order to keep them out.

Not that the arrival of so many people outside or Europe in such a short time, does not pose serious challenges and problems, or it is only our problem to tackle. But for most, it is the least we can do until their countries are livable again.

With the people escaping from war torn regions, come naturally economic migrants and others who see our continent as a land of promise and opportunity, just as many of our ancestors saw other continents in the past.

They are the ones that are most unwanted. Understandably, native Europeans fear the drastic change that a large number of new comers bring, especially when politicians fail to explain to them the conditions these people live and work in, the benefits they bring and of course, how many enter but also are repatriated or deported.

  

With a single market and freedom of movement long established, Europe should by now have its common immigration policy and unity, when dealing with such crises and challenges. However, the EU is comprised by states with a very different view on citizenship, nationality and immigration laws, that have formed through very different paths in history.

The Western part, had for centuries colonized other continents, resulting in vast, multi-ethnic and multi-religious empires. To them, citizenship and national identity is more tolerant of multiculturalism, because their elites had to convince their subjects that they share a common identity, in order to justify their rule over such a mosaic of peoples.

In addition, they enjoyed economic growth and wealth far earlier, thus they experienced immigration into their countries since the ‘50s in some cases; enough time to develop a new sense of ethnic identity and citizenship, or at least get used to migrants.

Contrary to them, many Eastern and Central new EU member states have a more nation-oriented sense of citizenship, as they were not as exposed to multiculturalism for as long as their western piers. So, when they were faced with such societal alterations such as inward immigration and dealing with refugees, understandably there was fear and skepticism.

Something that local populists exploited and used the failures of Western Europe as an example, in order to help promote their xenophobic agenda. Because yes, even after so many decades of experiencing inward migration, the western European states haven’t in all cases achieved to manage immigration properly.

In a discussion with a Belgian national last year, we ended up talking about the state in the city of Brussels, in which large parts have turned into immigrant ghettos, an image that often is used by populists as an example of “what is to come”, if other countries fall under the “islamisation”  of Europe.

He explained some of the grave mistakes that the Belgian government has made, when out of guilt for their actions in their African colonies in the past, in combination with their need of labor force due to their nation’s industrialization, they have decided to attract many immigrants from their former colonies like Congo to live and work in Belgium.

With them, others followed from countries like Morocco and the Belgians loosened their immigration laws in order to facilitate the enrichment of their country’s labor force, plus to compensate many from their former colonies.

When their economy and industries changed and they clearly did not need as many immigrants, the establishment found it hard to touch the sensitive matter of immigration, out of complex and guilt, or simply out fear of being branded racists. 

As Brussels is divided in different districts and jurisdictions and Belgium itself in two major language-based authorities, the immigration issue soon became a matter that was passed on from one authority to the other like a hot potato. In the end nobody took responsibility for it, so any efforts for integrating or controlling the number entering the country was left to run by old laws and an outdated approach.

Thus, we have today not just Brussels, but many other western European capitals and large cities, faced with the same problem and that is something that others use as an example to refuse to open their borders to refugees; breaking the ranks with their European partners and exposing the EU’s inability to promote solidarity among its members on such issue.

In the western part of Europe too, immigration has become a hot topic, one of the main reasons-or excuses- for Brexit, the rise of the far Right in France, populist government in Italy, terrorism in Norway in the face of Anders Breivik.

These incidents simply express Europe’s identity crisis, but also the failures of our governments which are the real cause of the problem and not immigration itself or the free movement.

Although everyone benefits from them, in dire times it is easier to blame Eastern European workers for unemployment and the loss of jobs, even though in recent years, large numbers are returning to their economically booming homelands.

Under the current social and economic model we adopted, non-EU immigrants are necessary to maintain our social security, growth and investments. Yet we are finding hard to integrate them and once we do not have jobs for them anymore, out of guilt and complex we do not encourage them to return to their home countries or seek new opportunities to other EU member states.

They are forced to live in poverty-stricken ghettos, with less opportunities than the rest and naturally, wherever there is poverty and exclusion, come institutionalization and radicalization. The native population is confused, as they fear they are losing their identity and control over their communities and societies.

In addition, when their governments fail to secure them jobs, they become desperate or angry and rightly so. However, they also often oppose necessary reforms, in order to maintain benefits and privileges that are not in sync with the modern reality.

Thus, consequently and out of desperation they want to return to what they know best: the nation state that raised them comfortably. European countries have shown two trends when dealing with the refugee crisis, some like Sweden and Germany accepted many people in, while others like Hungary are trying hard to keep as many out.

  

It remains to be seen how well the first two countries can integrate their new arrivals on their own and not conduct the mistakes of Belgium, or for how long Hungary can have the tolerance of their European partners.

Europe needs strong leadership right now and an EU that will convince its members to agree to a common immigration policy, that will heal these divisions and soothe the mistakes conducted by the national governments in the past.

A policy that will complement the freedom of movement and allow people from within, but also outside the EU, to be able to contribute with their knowledge and expertise, move freely in the block and enrich their own skills.

We could decide on the educational background of the immigrants we would like to attract, just like Canada and Australia are doing. Perhaps we could even open immigration centers in the regions of the migrants’ origin, instead of allowing them to enter illegally in Europe.

The list of what we could do to streamline Europe’s immigration policy is endless, however all is blocked by national governments who wish to maintain control over this issue; but in most cases it is them who are failing.

Sharing responsibility and resources, could be the solution and the answer to the immigration question, which has become so prominent in our continent recently. Yet we are a long way in accepting this reality and thus, we prolong the problem with a negative impact on everyone individually, but above all the future of European unity and integration.