External relations and immigration matters
caused much outrage in Israel, fearing that later generations will be liberated from the historical responsibility. The so-called “intellectual-moral turn” became the keyword in describing Kohl’s new politics (Neumayer 2016). When Gerhard Schröder became chancellor, he defused this statement: “at our house there is no one who refers to the 'mercy of the late birth' ”. When the Israeli government requested defensive missiles, Schröder responded that if the Israeli government needs more safety, Germany was going to help, it being a corollary of the German moral and historical duty (Schröder 2002). A similar path was taken by Angela Merkel. She might even be the greatest outspoken supporter of the moral and historical responsibility towards the Jewish state. Almost seven years ago in March 2008, in a speech before the Israeli Parliament, she stated that Israel’s security was Germany’s reason of State. Hereby she reiterated the subsisting principle governing the German’s politics towards Israel: Germany will not take any steps which would endanger Israel’s security or damage their interests (Kaim 2015).
An ethical imperative ? The study of behaviors and choices of eight German chancellors raises questions. How is it possible that the same nation which committed a genocide against a certain people, completely makes a U-turn declaring the survival of the very same group as its “reason of State” ? And further how stable can such support be when based on guilt ?
At first, due to external pressure a common feeling of guilt emerged in Germany. The US initiated a denazification program and started the Nuremberg trials. The allies tried to put opponents to the former system to leading positions in the country. Their informal behaviors vis-à-vis Germany and how its population should repent for war crimes impacted the future relations between the latter and Israel. A further element to be taken into consideration is the dynamics of the Nazi totalitarian system itself. It didn’t allow for any opposition or alternative views. Obviously, not all Germans where fanatically convinced of race ideology or of the idea that Jews are the enemy of the people. Conversely, the great majority of the people weren’t opponents to governemental policy in this area either. Many could have been characterized as opportunists or merely “not-concerned”, having little regard for principles or potential adverse consequences on others’ life as long as they were safe. Therefore, one could argue that the ethical imperative decribed previously was mostly a consequence of the defeat and presence or occupation of Germany after the war. A normative expectation seems to have emerged, based on the feeling of shame and guilt. However, when hypothesizing about the future a different picture could be drawn. The upcoming generations will most probably feel less and less responsible for the crimes committed by their ancestors. The unconditional support already visibly started to water down during the Gaza war in 2008/09. When Merkel told Israeli Prime Minister Elmut Olmert that Israel’s reaction was justified, she gave rise to a strong wave of criticism in the Germa, Parliament (Weiland 2008). Ever
since criticisms vis-à-vis Israel and its controversial policy intensified and all the more since Netanyahu became the Israeli Prime Minister. Hence, the support based on a normative expectation is on the brink of shifting. On the one hand thus, the German Wiedergutmachungspolitik notion (i.e. compensation policy) has been, for decades, the Leitmotiv for German politics vis-à-vis Isreal. It entails both the ethical and moral responsibility for WWII and especially the debt towards the Jewish people and the Jewish State. The Italian political scientist Voltolini summarized it as a “sense of guilt”, describing something that has become a fundamental part of Germany’s position (Voltolini 2012). This sense of guilt, however, will probably not linger and prevail forever. Current and future generations are increasingly less inclined to withhold their critical opinion vis-à-vis some Isreali policies only on grounds that they bear an historical responsibility.
Camille Nessel is a second years MA student at the IEE Photo Credit © Moshe Milner GPO Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu with German Chancellor Angela Merkel Berlin
The EU and illegal immigration : Unsatisfactory achievements The Odysseus annual conference workshops identified two main features of the EU immigration policy. First, the European institutions increase their role as a collector of personal data to ensure a “smart boundary” system. Second, amidst distrust and terrorism, the Union has chosen to subcontract its immigration policy away from the old continent. The collection of data : a proportionnality issue ?
The European Union has created six da-
tabases (SIS, SIV, Eurodac, Ethias, RTP & EES). In 2016, the different stakeholders reformed the framework of this policy to ensure a smarter boundary system. This new concept means that the Member States and the institutions must aim at eliminating institutional duplications and allowing for better interactions between the different bodies in charge of immigration policy and the management of data collected. According to R.
Rozenburg, from the DG Home of the Commission, what is needed is not a substructure to run the policy, but rather a smooth EU architecture which eases communication. Within this new trend, Eurodac has been reformed. This fingerprint database was created to identify asylum seekers and illegal migrants to ease the implementation of the Dublin legislation. R. Rozenburg considers this legislative package as one of the most protected system in the world. For him, it focuses on qualitative rather than quantitative information with a high degree of data protection. MEP Monika Hohlmeier (EPP), supports this system and highlights its role in the protection of children 37
against slavery. She also supports the reduction of the age to collect fingerprints from 14 to 7 years old.
The collection of data doesn’t make consensus and maybe one of its justifications is the political context with terrorism and strong migration pressures on borders. But is it a good justification to accept this U-turn of presumption and the relative proportionality in the legislation as Ms Niovi Vavoula stressed ?