Event Summary	Events > Event Announcement > Event Summary

May 4, 2004

Mr. Kjaerum began by emphasizing the changes in the left/right wing axis of European politics. Right wing parties and politicians in Europe are forcing the development of European immigrant integration policies. Mr Kjaerum asserted that instead of assimilation, other avenues should be explored.

Mr Kjaerum briefly highlighted some of the preconditions for the policies prevailing in Europe today. He noted the gain in momentum of right wing extremist parties across northern Europe on the national and the local political levels. This had been most recently demonstrated in France during the controversy over the wearing of headscarves in public schools.

Xenophobia is increasing and the number of attacks of racist nature is growing at an alarming rate. Furthermore, the enlargement of the EU to include 10 new countries, eight of which were formerly communist, has added to the feelings of insecurity being expressed Europe-wide.

In light of this growing sense of insecurity, politicians want more than ever to be able to guarantee ‘control’ in the eyes of their constituents. Immigrants, refugees, and other vulnerable members of society easily become targets in this situation. Mr. Kjaerum also noted that integration policies in many European countries have largely failed. He cited as an example of this the fact that the unemployment rate among immigrants from the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa is 50% or more in most EU countries.

In order to limit the influx of asylum seekers and economic immigrants, European countries have in the last decade or so begun to rely on non-arrival or non-entrée policies. Often these policies are combined in various ways to suit a specific situation. Such policies have been at the fore, and more strictly enforced, since September 11, 2001. The fight against terrorism has been used in general to tighten a number of laws related to refugees and immigrants. The linkage between the restrictive asylum and refugee policies and the fight against terrorism has been clearly reflected in the decrease in the overall number of asylum seekers arriving in Europe since 9-11. The number of asylum seekers decreased from approximately 700,000 in 1992 to 300,000 in 2003.

However, the restrictive policies are also reflected in the number of people dying in their attempts to reach Europe by sea or otherwise. The restrictive measures demonstrate the politicians’ need to bring the influx down to a manageable size. Thus, the focus has shifted to a discussion on integration of not only newly arrived immigrants but also the second, and third generation immigrants.

European integration policies can, thus far, be characterized as falling into three categories or models:

• The British ‘multi-cultural’ strategy;
• The French assimilation approach; and
• The German/Dutch/Nordic mixture of the first two approaches.

Mr Kjaerum argued that to a large extent all of these policies have had the same effect in that they have often led to the general exclusion of immigrants from mainstream European society. Moreover, international treaties and policies which could guarantee the rights of immigrants are generally not being supported or ratified. To Mr Kjaerum this indicates that the European governments are reluctant to strengthen the rights of minorities other than the very traditional centuries old minorities who have found their place in an uncontroversial way in society. An important exception from this is Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which introduced in EU countries a general anti-discrimination clause which is now being implemented.

These general policies are influencing the daily lives of immigrants all over Europe. Mr Kjaerum spoke about two areas:
• The right to family life with respect to forced marriages; and
• The freedom of religion as far as headscarves are concerned.

EU anti-discrimination initiatives are being implemented although many governments resisted. The EU is focusing on all sorts of discrimination including race, sexual orientation, age, disability, etc. The EU is therefore, according to Kjaerum, taking a diversity-based approach. It is too early to assess the impact of these initiatives, however one thing that can be said is that they create a solid human rights framework for dealing with problems when they arise. They are also well formulated to address a variety of issues affecting the new member states, such as the Roma issue.

In addition, the proposed changes to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Discrimination to develop a EU Fundamental Rights Agency should address discrimination as well as human rights problems in general. The interaction between UN treaty bodies or regional monitoring mechanisms and national human rights institutions is developing rapidly and creates a more comprehensive protection and support regime. Therefore, the fight against discrimination and the work towards ethnic equality is to an extent being addressed within a broad human rights framework. One of the strengths of adding this dimension to integration is that there is universal acceptance of human rights standards, through the Universal Declaration for example.

According to Mr Kjaerum, although European states have taken a number of positive steps, they have also come close to violating the rights of many ethnic minorities. Laws have been tightened in relation to family formation and reunion. The freedom to choose a spouse has been limited. The freedom to choose your religion and adhere to its dress code according to your understanding has been limited in the headscarf issue.
Integration is needed to level socio-economic differences over time in a welfare state. At the same time the objective of fighting discrimination, prejudices and racism sets limits to what kind of multicultural policies and minority rights states should pursue.

Mr Kjaerum suggested abolishing the concept of multiculturalism because it implies a society in which separate cultures coexist side by side. He prefers to speak of diversity as it allows for the difference without any implication of an obligation to be different. He calls this new approach to integration a “rights-based diversity approach”.

Questions and Answers

Could a risk approach rather than a rights approach be more appropriate?

Mr Kjaerum explained that his fear would be that in a welfare society, a risk approach would turn citizens into clients rather than people with rights.

Discussion ensued including reference to the fact that many immigrants prefer to keep their own citizenship rather than apply for citizenship of their new European home country, thus preventing them from participating in domestic political life and the democratic system.