One of the usual envy debates

Despite all the problems, ten years ago Turkey was a much more open country. 

Most Muslims in Germany are likely to follow Erdogan’s visit in general with great concern. There are growing fears that Islamophobia will continue to be nourished. Because the social protest against Erdogan and his controversial opening of the central Ditib mosque in Cologne will contribute to hardening the enemy images. 

Against this background there is a justified hope that Mr. Erdogan’s star will fade among the German Turks and that his influence on them will wane. Erdogan has done a lot of damage to German society in recent years. Even beyond Gülen sympathizers or Kemalists, it is dawning on many German Turks that Erdogan’s policy can quickly turn against their wishes, hopes and ideas. 

Lamya Kaddor is an Islamic scholar, religious educator and publicist. Your new book is called "The thing with the bratwurst. My somewhat different German life" and was published by Piper. You can also follow our columnists on Facebook or Twitter.

The UN migration pact has been attacked from the right for weeks. What is it about the criticism’s allegations? t-online.de asked migration researcher Gerald Knaus.

His opponents speak of forced mass immigration. Its proponents see an important sign of humane treatment of refugees. In the morning, the Bundestag will deal with the United Nations Migration Pact, which is to be passed in Morocco in December. The migration expert and architect of the Turkey deal, Gerald Knaus, classifies what is in the pact and what is true of the criticism’s allegations. 

Mr. Knaus. The Bundestag deals with the UN Migration Pact. What is your impression of the debate?

Gerald Knaus: In recent years Germany has offered protection to many people in need. I hope that the German parties are not afraid of populists and defend this standard. The UN migration pact is also intended to bring other countries in the world closer to this standard. It is absurd that this is now turning into an ideological struggle in Europe.

Gerald Knaus: The pioneer of the EU-Turkey deal founded the European Stability Initiative (ESI) think tank in 1999. (Source: Francesco Scarpa / European Stability Initiative / dpa)

What is in the pact?

With the UN migration pact, many countries in the world have committed themselves to principles that have long been in force in the European Union. The Human Rights Commission or the Human Rights Court has existed in Europe for decades. The migration pact is about other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, cooperating on the basis that migrants have human dignity. And ultimately, it is also about other countries helping to reduce irregular migration – but with methods that are in accordance with human rights.

What would these goals change in Europe?

Nothing at all. All of these standards have long existed in Europe, in national and international laws and conventions. Nevertheless, the UN Migration Pact is a signal to other countries outside Europe to strive for this status. It is intended to exert moral pressure on those countries in which the rights of migrants are still being trampled underfoot.

So the implementation of the pact would not change anything in Germany either?

Exactly, but that is also one of the problems for defenders of the pact. So far, many supporters have had a contradicting communication strategy. On the one hand it is said that the pact is not binding, on the other hand it is emphasized that it is important. Both are correct. It is a signal for the world, but it would not change the situation in Hamburg or Cologne. We have far higher standards here.

So there are no legal obligations?

No. But we already have standards that are legally binding.

Are these standards implemented?

We have European standards for the initial reception and treatment of asylum seekers, but some countries ignore or violate them. For example, European law is broken in the centers for asylum seekers in Hungary. The conditions on the Greek islands also contradict the standards and Greek law.

Accordingly, Hungary and Greece are violating European law.

There is no plaintiff. In Europe there is also the Dublin system: asylum seekers who have been registered in Italy for example and are in France should actually be sent back. It cannot be implemented because Italy does not participate. These problems cannot even be solved by binding contractual texts.

The UN migration pact is not binding. Where does the criticism come from?

This stirs up fear and arouses expectations that this pact cannot meet. It is noticeable that the criticism of the pact initially came from governments that reject international law and universal human rights on principle.

Who do you mean?

Viktor Orban or Donald Trump, for example. The criticism of the UN migration pact is a proxy war.https://123helpme.me/argumentative-essay/

Why?

There have long been legally binding refugee and human rights conventions in Europe. The critics are actually aiming at universal human rights, which are legally binding. That must become clear in the debate. For Trump and Orban, the age of international human rights is out of date and they say it openly.

The criticism of the pact in parts of the public still falls on sustainable ground. Are people’s fears unfounded?

These fears are unfounded. There are no obligations in the UN Migration Pact that do not already appear in the European states, for example in the Basic Law or in the guidelines of the European Union. It is really about setting a minimum standard worldwide and that is in Europe’s interest.

Is the migration pact very much about symbolism?

I agree.

Nevertheless, there is panic in some political camps.

In Hungary only 3,400 asylum applications were made last year; in the whole of the Mediterranean region, less than 9,000 people came on average per month this year. So the numbers are very low – there is no invasion and no unsolvable problem. But there are parties that live from the fact that migration is spoken of with a tone of panic.

What’s behind this policy?

These parties stir up fear. Voters should think that the current parties and elites have all failed and that they must bring a party to power that does not allow itself to be restricted by human rights considerations. If the voters do not do this, so the thesis of these parties, Europe will be inundated by a wave of refugees and migrants. But now someone should tell me how 9,000 people a month are supposed to be an invasion of a European Union of 500 million people. This policy is only about instrumentalization.

But the discourse is not only fueled by right-wing populists. The Union in Germany also questioned the migration pact in parts.

Many politicians are clumsily led by right-wing populists on the subject. The politicians should actually say clearly that there is no invasion from the south. There is no evidence that more people will come to Europe in the next five to ten years than in the previous 30 years.

However, migration in Europe is not without its problems.

We have specific problems and we have to solve them. Our asylum procedures are too slow, people are turned down and not sent back. We have humanitarian problems, for example in Greece. But all of these problems are solvable.

That sounds optimistic.

The real problem, however, is that some parties claim that Europe’s entire civilization is at stake. For that they need a disaster scenario – and that became the alleged immigration of millions. In doing so, they want to take over the European institutions.

How should the rest of the parties deal with these political forces?

Many parties and politicians lack self-confidence. You must be clear about the human rights convention, the torture and refugee convention, because we in Europe have been campaigning for a civilized international legal system for decades. That is our lesson from World War II.

How should the parties position themselves specifically on the issue of migration?

They need to make it very clear that they know how to control migration. It was a social democratic government in Spain that drastically reduced the number of boat refugees in 2005 using legitimate methods. Migration also decreased as a result of the EU-Turkey Agreement. There are always solutions, but you need partners. In doing so, we have to go on the offensive and make it clear that mass migration that cannot be managed, which is coming our way due to the demographic development of Africa, is a myth. 

UN Migration Pact: What the United Nations Really WantDebate about refugee policy: "To seal the border off, you would have to build a wall"The big overview: You should know these facts in the asylum debate

Many people in Europe are receptive to this myth. Has the UN migration pact been made sufficiently transparent?

No. Even for experts, it has been difficult to see what this pact will bring. Such things are often formulated in a way too vague – and that creates distrust among people. One should have simply declared that through the pact human rights should also apply to migrants in all countries. In addition, it should have been made clear that it is impossible to control maritime borders and that, for example, Europe is therefore dependent on cooperation with other countries. The UN should argue realistically here and not clauses or abstracts.

We spoke of the pact as a symbol. But isn’t it also a worrying sign when countries like Austria or the USA get out?

Countries like Hungary, the USA or Austria are more concerned with discrediting political elites. Trump has pulled out of several agreements. Should other states join in, nothing would change in Europe in the short term. But Europe has long pursued the goal of a world order based on standards that one wants to strive for. This goal would thus become a long way off. It’s a political signal, but it would only be the first step in a campaign. After that, the Refugee and Human Rights Convention would be called into question. That would be the next logical step.

Thank you for the interview, Mr. Knaus.

An expensive watch on the wrist of an SPD politician? So what? Too often, unnecessary debates waste our time. A plea against the deterioration of our discussion culture.

Unfortunately not for the first time this week we have been able to follow a media debate that is of no benefit to anyone and that has basically just annoyed everyone except the manageable number of its authors. To prevent this from happening so often in the future, there are a few things that we all – and I mean each and every one of us – could do.

In the specific case, it was about the Berlin State Secretary Sawsan Chebli. The social democrat was at the center of an orgy of indignation because someone dug out a four (!) Year old dpa photo of her on which she wears a Rolex. The person in question has an advertising poster for the clock in the picture and then photoshopped it as a criticism of the SPD, the "Little people’s party", sent into the virtual world.

Justified criticism? – SPD politician Chebli because of luxury watch in shit storm

Justified criticism?

SPD politician Chebli because of luxury watch in the shit storm

The Berlin State Secretary Sawsan Chebli from the SPD got into a shit storm because of a luxury watch. Is the criticism justified? (Source: dpa) Video

One of the usual envy debates

To determine whether a debate is important, I think four questions can be asked:

Is the subject new? Or has it already been discussed umpteen times? Who is affected? Is it someone who is constantly in the eye of the storm, is the dynamic new? Or do you already know the originators and the methods? Is the debate worth taking? Would it have any social use? Is she pursuing an honorable purpose? Or is it, for example, just about getting someone down?

Well, the case is certainly not new. It is one of the usual debates of envy, like the Cohibas of former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the Hermès ties of the former CSU pop star Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg or the Porsche of ex-left-wing boss Klaus Ernst. A Rolex for 7,300 euros is not suitable for a scandal, not even on the wrist of an SPD politician. Because for someone with a basic salary of almost 9,000 euros per month, it is quite affordable. It is in the lowest price segment of these luxury watches. Usually you have to put tens of thousands, sometimes more than 100,000 euros.

There is no cause for indignation

Affected is Sawsan Chebli, a Muslim woman with an Arab migration background who confidently speaks out in public. She has long been a favorite victim of Islam haters, right-wing extremists, racists and chauvinists. That is not new either. On the contrary. Unfortunately, it is now all too well known that women (with a migrant background) who are in public are often attacked. In addition, Chebli’s party, the SPD, is currently under such massive political pressure that its opponents would use any opportunity to finish the party off.

This also answers the second question.