Mediaboss Marketing

During the 2015 refugee crisis Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed refugees to enter Germany in unprecedented numbers. Her historic decision to adapt the so-called open-door policy continues to shape contemporary German politics. More precisely, it will likely define Merkels legacy and political future. This article analyzes her decision through two major IR theories: liberalism and realism. It aims to contribute to the disciplines understanding of the open-door policy by assessing what each theory can explain well and less well. While the article analyzes the decision through competing IR theories, it does not suggest that one theory is more suitable to explain the event. It rather concludes that each theory explains Merkels refugee response differently and is able to better explain some aspects of her decision than others. Thus, the article highlights the importance and significance of analyzing a global political event through multiple lenses (i.e. IR theories).

During the height of the 2015 European refugee crisis, Germanys chancellor Angela Merkel decided to allow refugees, mostly from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, who had arrived at the German border through the so called Balkan-Route, to enter the country. Nearly one million refugees arrived in Germany during that year. Merkels decision is commonly referred to as implementing an open-door policy. At the time, the move was applauded as humanitarian by the public, media, and politicians across the political spectrum. However, years later, despite the refugee intake having declined significantly, the decision has arisen to define not only Merkels legacy but her political future. More precisely, the issue of refugee intake and immigration assimilation has become the main topic of political discourse in Germany. Merkels government coalition (grand-coalition), based on her partys alliance with the CSU, has been on the brink of collapse multiple times over disagreements on immigration. Several members of her own party, including members of her cabinet, remain opposed to her stance on immigration and have repeatedly threatened to bring her 15-yearlong chancellorship to an end. Furthermore, her open-door policy allowed the right-wing and anti-immigration party Alternative fr Deutschland to rise to political significance, fueling the growing polarization of Germanys society and politics (McAuley & Noack, 2018).

Due to the continuous weight of Chancellor Merkels 2015 decision, explaining the dynamics behind it remains relevant. In other words, analyzing her open-door policy implementation is crucial because understanding the decision is a key component of explaining international relations and state behavior. Furthermore, it will assist in conceptualizing the legal as well as ethical obligations states have to both refugees and their own citizens. However, how do we best analyze the decision, its origins, and its consequences. More precisely, can different IR theories explain different aspects of it. Can a certain theory see things that another might not be able to?

Accordingly, the article analyses Merkels decision to allow refugees into Germany through the two major IR theories: liberalism and realism. Using texts written by the most prominent liberal and realist IR scholars as well as secondary readings, it attempts to explain her implementation of the open-door policy. While this article will draw from multiple authors of liberal and realist IR theory, it will not discuss how Merkels policy is seen through individual scholars explanations. In other words, a generic liberal and realist framework and its main assumptions which have been developed and are widely agreed upon by the discipline will be used to analyze the 2015 decision. While an analysis of individual scholars would certainly be a valuable contribution to the discipline, it would go beyond the scope of this article.

Through the relevant and contemporary case study open-door policy, this article highlights how a global event can be interpreted vastly different, if analyzed through competing IR theories. In other words, I expect that liberal and realist IR theory can explain certain parts of the decision well and others less well. More precisely, realist theory might be better in explaining aspects associated with power, rationality, national interest, and considerations of sovereignty. Contrary, liberal theorys focus on international cooperation and its study of the individual as the basic unit of political life can provide an explanation of Merkels ethical and normative considerations as well as the role of the European Union during the refugee crisis. However, while the two theories come to competing conclusions on the dynamics underlying Merkels decision, I do not suggest that one theory is more suitable than the other to explain the event. In other words, neither liberalism nor realism offer a superior explanation of the decision. Each theory just explains Merkels refugee response differently and might better explain some aspects of her decision than others.

I begin by evaluating the implementation of the open-door policy through a liberal lens. Afterwards I focus my attention on realist theory and its explanations of the decision. Each part commences with a short description of the major principles of the respective theory. Following, I analyze in greater detail what part of Merkels refugee response the theory can explain well and less well. The article concludes by discussing the similarities and differences of each approach, highlighting each theories strengths and weaknesses.

Liberal IR theory, also often referred to as idealism, focuses its analysis on the individual as the basic unit of political life. State-power is derived from individuals, who are acting independently through a social contract. Thus, the population as well as domestic policy shape states, who consequently behave differently on the international level. While states are rational actors, they are increasingly interdependent, e.g. though trade. Even though liberal scholars believe that the international system is anarchic, they share the central and optimistic outlook that state cooperation for mutual benefit is possible. Hence, change, progress, and peace in the international system is achievable. Moreover, natural laws and justices, which proceed the sovereign, exist. Liberalism suggests, that some institutions and values are normatively better, namely liberty, equality, autonomy, individual freedom, and private property. Accordingly, these values need to be protected and advanced. This can be achieved through the spread of democracy, the rule of law, and institutions. Hence, liberal thought gives considerable attention to international organizations and international law (Matthews, 2017).

To understand Merkels open-door policy we must first explain in what kind of international structure Germany operates and makes policy decisions. Liberal theory demonstrates particular strengths in such analysis. Its focus on cooperation and international organizations allows us to understand the emergence and continuing existence of the European Union. As a project of integration and collaboration, it provides an important starting point of such analysis. Peace and progress are indeed possible, highlighting a core assumption of liberal theory. In other words, the context and structure in which Germany is forced to respond to the refugee crisis can be explained well by liberalism. Furthermore, Germany, as a member of the EU and the international community, has agreed to follow universally accepted rules and definition for asylum seekers. Accordingly, Germany and the EU have a legal and moral obligation to assist refugees in their attempt to claim asylum. Thus, it is important to note not just the humanitarian aspects behind Merkels decision, but the weight the international structure and its organizations (including its rules and norms) have on German state behavior. Furthermore, international legal constraints prevent states from enacting certain policy options when responding to a refugee crisis. More precisely, according to liberal theory, due to Germanys membership to the international community, the country cannot act entirely sovereign but is expected to respond to the refugee crisis based on agreed upon norms and rules. Thus, a sovereign above the state exists, defining the legal and ethical obligations a state has not just to its own citizens but to asylum seekers (Betts, 2015).

A refugee crisis is foremost a humanitarian crisis. Thus, state behavior in response to such crises should not be guided by considerations of power but by universal norms and values. Liberal theory further suggests that some values are normatively better than others (Gibney, 1999). Merkel herself framed her decision to implement an open-door policy on normative and humanitarian grounds. Thus, liberalism is well suited to explain the moral and ethical considerations of Germanys refugee response. The theory successfully highlights how Merkels attempt to act based on European norms, was an effort to advance and protect those values (i.e. liberalism, tolerance, solidarity). Trying to show that Europes ideals are valid also in difficult times, she passionately defended her stance: If we start having to apologize for showing a friendly face in emergencies, then this is not my country (The Economist, 2015). Furthermore, she tirelessly urged other EU countries to show more international cooperation, responsibility, and solidarity. Doing so, she directly linked the EUs refugee response to Europes identity and its liberal interpretation of human rights: If Europe fails on the question of refugees, if the close link with universal civil rights is broken, then it wont be the Europe we wished for (Eddy, 2015). Accordingly, it is obvious that the refugee crisis and Germanys response to it can only be fully explained if considering normative and humanitarian aspects. That is why liberal theory is more suitable than other IR theories to shed light on such considerations.

Moreover, the liberal focus on the individual as a basic unit of political life allows an analysis of the decision conceptualizing Merkel as an individual. Even though leaders are acting in unique political environments, the role of their personality (i.e. background, beliefs, motives, personal characteristics) in decision making deserves particular attention (Sprout, 1956). During the 2015 refugee crisis, Merkel relied on her own individual policy preferences which were mostly motivated by humanitarian concerns and personal beliefs (Mushaben, 2017). Where do these values and beliefs originate from? Much attention in the literature has been given to Merkels own past, living under a communist regime. There is little doubt that her background of growing up in East Germany has significant impact on her political ideology as well as her decision making, namely her humanitarian response to the refugee crisis. Stefan Kornelius, the author of Merkels authorized biography, argues that one cannot understand Merkels political life without considering her background: The mystery that is Merkel, has its roots in that doomed republic (Kundnani, 2016). Merkel herself cited her experiences of living in East Germany as a core principle of her stance on migration. Criticizing the lack of solidarity in the EU and the national isolation of member countries during a summit in Brussels in October 2015, she tuned to Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban: I lived behind a fence for too long [] to now wish for those times to return (ibidem). To the people close to Merkel, it is clear that her decision to implement an open-door policy during the 2015 refugee crisis was based on humanitarian grounds. Her autobiographer Kornelius concludes: Angela Merkel shows a lot of understanding for people who flee from war and despair. There is no moral questioning of her motives (Lebor, 2015).

However, Chancellor Merkel was only able to implement an open-door policy because of the normative resonance between international and domestic levels in Germany. Liberal theorys attention to the impact of domestic policy on state behavior provides a compelling description of Merkels refugee response. Domestic and social factors were a central factor in the decision because they significantly influence Germanys state behavior in the international system. In other words, the state was only able to react in a humanitarian manner because of circumstances and dynamics within Germany. The country had not only the economic strength to take in a large number of refugees but a civil society who was in agreement with the decision and willing to assist in its implementation. Additionally, Merkel was on her height of power during the summer of 2015. More precisely, she knew that her institutional and political power would be able to legitimize and back her decision (idem: 46). Her unchallenged power in combination with the initial support of the German population which welcomed refugees into the country, allowed Merkel to hold a strong pro-migrant stance during the refugee crisis. There is no doubt, that Germanys history and its considerable experience of benefiting from the kindness of strangers played a part in the embracement of refugees. The world sees Germany as a country of hope and opportunity, that was not always the case, Merkel explained the significance of welcoming refugees into the country (Eddy, 2015). Moreover, civil societys importance in assisting and making up for gaps in state efforts were unquestioned. Even though the German population had no agency in the policy decision of the state, its support was crucial in providing legitimacy (Funk, 2016: 293.)

All of the mentioned dynamics within Germany are relevant in explaining the states refugee response. Liberal theory is able to see them and explain its impact on state behavior in the international system. Thats why the theory provides a unique analysis of the refugee crisis, explaining many aspects well which might be overlooked by other IR theories. However, analyzing Germanys refugee response through liberal theory also has limitations. Its focus on normative considerations and sensitivity to human security makes it easy to neglect German aspirations of power in the international system. Furthermore, its emphasis on international organizations and cooperation might lead to inattention to issues of sovereignty during the refugee crisis. Likewise, it is possible that we miss one of the core aspect of German state behavior (i.e. self-interest) when focusing too narrowly on the impact of domestic policy and the individual as a basic unit of political life.

After exploring the refugee crisis through a liberal lens, I will now turn my attention to realism, examining what the theory is able to explain well and less well. Are there key aspects of Germanys refugee response which only realist IR theory can explain?

At its core, realism suggests that no justice can exist before the sovereign and that the state of nature in the international system is a state of war. Because the international system is a state system, scholarly focus should be on individual independent states. Hence, sovereignty plays a key part in realist theory. Moreover, the international system is anarchic, making war always possible while peace is not. No sovereign to control an anarchic system exists. Accordingly, states cannot rely on one another, making cooperation and progress impossible. Due to their lack of sovereignty, international organizations, NGOs, and transnational corporations have less power in the international system and thus should be given little attention by IR scholars. States on the other hand are rational actors which act based on their national interest. Realism aims to be a theory of objective analysis. In other words, its goal is to observe and conceptualize rather than being used to advocate for change in the international system. However, two of the most prominent realist scholars, Morgenthau and Waltz, differ in their approach. Morgenthau focuses his analysis exclusively on the state and explains outcomes through the actions of sovereign states. His so-called classical realism perceives states as power maximisers and the driver of insecurity being human nature. In Waltzs structural realism, the international system is the level of analysis and the structure itself does the explanatory work. The international system is anarchic precisely because of its structure and thus states are forced to be security maximisers (Morgenthau, 1946 & Waltz, 1979).

While it is certainly true that the EU as an international institution was meant to foster cooperation between member states, realism can explain well why that did not occur during the refugee crisis. Sovereign states were the entities reacting to the crisis because in times of emergencies states always act in their self-interest. Moreover, they do not follow normative considerations, particularly when they derive from international institutions not domestic ones. The EU itself is lacking a strong sovereign leader and hence could not consolidate a singular position. When discussing the refugee crisis, member states followed realist principles and preferred to maintain their sovereignty (Hellman, 2016: 4). Some realist scholars like Waltz go even further, arguing that because of the European Unions lack of sovereignty it is of no interest to IR: Europe will only become interesting when it forms a genuinely unified sovereign country (idem: 5). The refugee crisis could have brought European integration, but it did the opposite, precisely because member states wanted to vigorously keep their sovereignty. Thus, realism is well suited to contextualize the lack of European cooperation in response to the crisis as well as the erosion of the EU. Founded on shared principles and values (i.e. tolerance, human rights, solidarity) the project was doomed to fail because of the anarchy of the international system and the unfeasibility of cooperation. No realist is surprised that the international community and the EU were unable and unwilling to respond collectively to the worst refugee crisis since WW II. Even Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, resented the inability of the European Union to respond to the crisis at a panel discussion in Rome: In former times, we were working together []. This has totally gone. While proponents of the EU might argue that the refugee crisis was a singular incident highlighting a lack of willingness to work together, realism suggests that the envisioned cooperation was never feasible in the first place. One example which emphasizes that international cooperation does not work in the long-term is the suspension of the Schengen agreement during the refugee crisis. Furthermore, the European Union is facing historic challenges: the increasing support of far-right parties, historic unemployment in some member states, Brexit, and a persistent questioning of European identity and values. According to realism, none of these challenges can be solved through international cooperation. In the contrary, they might even be a result of an international organization which acts on normative grounds without any form of sovereignty. Any organization which lacks legitimacy and the ability to act in concert can only be described as weak. Even threats of the EU to withhold EU transfers to member countries not taking in their fair share of refugees had virtually no impact (Funk, 2016: 295). That is why during the refugee crisis Germany was forced to respond as a sovereign state without putting any trust into the assistance of other states or the institutions of the European Union. Hence, Merkels attempt to work towards a European solution was not only naive but impossible to achieve in an anarchic international system (Hellmann, 2016: 15).

Realism suggests that states always act based on their self-interest to strengthen and increase their power. Thus, Merkels refugee response could have been underlined by just that, Germanys national interest. It can be explained as an attempt to solidify its leadership in Europe. Germanys response to the refugee crisis reinforced Chancellor Merkels image as the leader of Europe. In the months after the decision to implement an open-border policy, she was even frequently called the leader of the free world by the international media. Following the decision, Germany was perceived as becoming a global player, increasing its power in the international system (Steinmeier, 2016). However, it is important to note that this understanding of power is more sensitive to human security and based on moral humanitarian action not military strength. Thus, it stands in sharp contrast to a realist definition of power. Nevertheless, realist theory provides a compelling explanation of Germanys push for an EU-wide solidarity solution to the refugee crisis. It might have been an attempt to strengthen the countrys leadership in the region and to mold European institutions, processes, and decisions to serve its interest and preferences (Hellmann, 2016: 9).

Furthermore, Germanys refugee response can be explained by examining not only the countrys economic capabilities but its potential economic gains from implementing an open-door policy. Germany desperately needs migrants to fill a growing shortage in the workforce due to an aging population and chronically low birthrates. Projections by Eurostat, the statistical office of the EU, suggest that Germanys population will decline from 82 million to 65.4 million by 2080 (Lebor, 2015). Thus, Merkels response to the refugee crisis might have little to do with humanitarian concerns but the countrys long-term economic interests. In other words, it was the rational response to the crisis because the positive economic ramifications outweighed the costs. Because of it, Germany would acquire additional material capabilities and power, in terms of labor force and population. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, 40% of Syrian refugees entering Europe at the time were university educated (idem). While Merkel never explicitly referred to the economic benefit of welcoming refugees, she argued that her decision would be in Germanys long-term interest if shaped so that it grows into something that is of benefit to us all (Connolly, 2015). Thus, the sharp reversal of policy in regard to Germanys refugee response was only possible because it was in alignment with the countrys national interest.

Moreover, realist theory provides a suitable explanation why Merkel called for a European solution to the crisis while defying European regulations as well as striking bilateral treaties with individual EU member countries, namely, Spain, Italy, and Greece. According to the EU Dublin III agreement, every refugees asylum claim has to be processed in the EU member country in which he/she first arrives. However, Merkel suspended the agreement on August 24, allowing all refugees who arrived in Europe to enter Germany. Whether her decision was grounded on humanitarian grounds or national interest is irrelevant. Important to note is, that she found Germanys sovereignty to exceed any international agreement, constituting a core realist assumption. Additionally, the Dublin agreement in itself can hardly be described as a product of solidarity and international cooperation as it pushes the burden onto the Mediterranean EU member states where nearly all refugees first arrive. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that Germany valued its sovereignty more than any international agreement and that the suspension of the Dublin rule was in the countrys self-interest.

Furthermore, once Germanys willingness to accept refugees diminished, Merkel was instrumental in negotiating international treaties on the behalf of the EU to prevent further migration into Europe. Most notably, Merkel and the EU signed a treaty with Turkeys President Erdogan to prevent refugees from entering the EU through Greece. Turkey would monitor its coastline to avert further refugee migration into Europe and admit rejected asylum seekers from Greece. In return, Erdogan would receive six billion euros for the care of refugees and a pledge from the EU that it would consider visa free EU entry for Turks. This deal with an increasingly repressive leader on the back of refugees can hardly be explained normatively. However, realisms focus on power, security, and self-interest offers a rational for such agreement. Precisely, it was in the interest of Germany to prevent and discourage further refugees from taking a journey to the EU. With that goal in mind, there was no room for normative or humanitarian considerations (Funk, 2016: 290).

Realism offers a thorough and compelling explanation of Germanys response to the refugee crisis. It was in Germanys national interest to welcome refugees, because it would solidify its leadership in Europe and be of economic benefit. Moreover, the European Union and international cooperation should be neglected in the analysis as it had little to no impact on Merkels refugee response. Realism is well suited to explain why the international community failed to respond collectively. Furthermore, Germanys attempt to maintain its sovereignty played a key role in its policy considerations during the refugee crisis. Nevertheless, while realist IR theory provides a convincing explanation, significant shortcomings are visible. The theory is unable to make normative considerations, which is inadequate when analyzing a refugee crisis which is at its core a humanitarian crisis. Additionally, realism fails to see domestic factors within Germany which allowed Merkel to make the decision to implement an open-door policy.

After analyzing Germanys response to the 2015 refugee crisis through a liberal and realist lens, this article will conclude by contrasting each theorys findings. More precisely, it will outline each theorys strength and weaknesses, assessing what it can explain well and less well.

There is no doubt that the 2015 refugee crisis was a defining moment for Germanys position in the international system and Chancellor Merkels political future and legacy. However, liberalism and realism offer different explanations for Germanys response to the crisis. Liberal theory is well suited to highlight the moral and humanitarian considerations, while realism is unable to see any such concerns. Furthermore, both theories offer an explanation for the role of the European Union. However, while liberalism explains aspects of international cooperation and international norms and rules well, realisms strengths are in conceptualizing the lack of a unified European response to the refugee crisis. Moreover, realism provides a compelling analysis of issues linked to EU member states understanding of sovereignty. Nevertheless, realist theory is unable to see any factors within Germany which might have influenced the decision to implement an open-door policy. Chancellor Merkels individual policy preferences and her own beliefs, characteristics, and background can only be seen through a liberal analysis.

Liberalism and realism are both well suited to examine Germanys response to the 2015 refugee response. While they come to different conclusions on the dynamics behind Merkels decision, they are equally valid to offer an explanation. In other words, each theory can see some aspects well and others less well. Thus, this article highlights the importance of analyzing a global event through competing IR theories. Nevertheless, it has limitations due to its lone focus on liberal and realist theory. Future research is advised to examine the 2015 refugee crisis through other IR theories, including non-traditional ones (i.e. post-colonial, feminist). Moreover, an analysis of Germanys refugee response through the literature of individual IR scholars theoretical frameworks could offer additional interesting insight.

Betts, Alexander. The Normative Terrain of the Global Refugee Regime. Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 29 (4), 2015: 363-375.

Connolly, Kate. Refugee crisis: Germany creaks under strain of open door policy. The Guardian, 8 October 2015.

Eddy, Melissa. Angela Merkel Calls for European Unity to Address Migrant Influx. The New York Times, 31 August 2015.

Funk, Nanette. A spectre in Germany: refugees, a welcome culture and an integration politics. Journal of Global Ethics, 14 December 2016: 289-299.

Gibney, Matthew J. Liberal democratic states and responsibilities to refugees. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 93 (1), 1999.

Hellmann, Gunther. Germanys world: power and followership in a crisis-ridden Europe. Journal of Global Affairs, 11 May 2016: 3-20.

Kornelius, Stefan. Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography. (London: Alma Books Ltd, 2014).

Kundnani, Hans. Angela Merkel: enigmatic leader of a divided land. The Guardian, 13 March 2016.

Laegaard, Sune. Misplaced idealism and incoherent realism in the philosophy of the refugee crisis. Journal of Global Ethics, 14 December 2016: 269-278.

Lebor, Adam. Angela Merkel: Europes Conscience in the Face of a Refugee Crisis. Newsweek Magazine, 5 September 2015.

Matthews, Elizabeth G. & Callaway, Rhonda L. Liberalism in International Relations Theory: A Primer. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).

Morgenthau, Hans (1946). A Realist Theory of International Politics. (New York: Routledge, 2014).

McAuley, James and Noack, Rick. What you need to know about Germanys immigration crisis. The Washington Post, 3 July 2018.

Mushaben, Joyce Marie. Angela Merkels Leadership in the Refugee Crisis. Current History, Vol. 116 (788), March 2017: 95-100.

Ostrand, Nicole. The Syrian Refugee Crisis: A Comparison of Responses by Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Journal on Migration and Human Security, Vol. 3 (3), 2015: 255-279.

Sprout, Harald and Sprout, Margaret. Man-Milieu Relations Hypothesis in the Context of International Politics. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956).

Steinmeier, Frank-Walter. Germanys New Global Role: Berlin Steps Up. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 95 (4), 2016.

The Economist Group Limited. Merkel at Her Limit. The Economist, 10 October 2015.

Waltz, Kenneth (1979). Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory. (New York: Routledge, 2014).

Betts, Alexander. The Normative Terrain of the Global Refugee Regime. Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 29 (4), 2015: 363-375.

Connolly, Kate. Refugee crisis: Germany creaks under strain of open door policy. The Guardian, 8 October 2015.

Eddy, Melissa. Angela Merkel Calls for European Unity to Address Migrant Influx. The New York Times, 31 August 2015.

Funk, Nanette. A spectre in Germany: refugees, a welcome culture and an integration politics. Journal of Global Ethics, 14 December 2016: 289-299.

Gibney, Matthew J. Liberal democratic states and responsibilities to refugees. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 93 (1), 1999.

Hellmann, Gunther. Germanys world: power and followership in a crisis-ridden Europe. Journal of Global Affairs, 11 May 2016: 3-20.

Kornelius, Stefan. Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography. (London: Alma Books Ltd, 2014).

Kundnani, Hans. Angela Merkel: enigmatic leader of a divided land. The Guardian, 13 March 2016.

Laegaard, Sune. Misplaced idealism and incoherent realism in the philosophy of the refugee crisis. Journal of Global Ethics, 14 December 2016: 269-278.

Lebor, Adam. Angela Merkel: Europes Conscience in the Face of a Refugee Crisis. Newsweek Magazine, 5 September 2015.

Matthews, Elizabeth G. & Callaway, Rhonda L. Liberalism in International Relations Theory: A Primer. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).

Morgenthau, Hans (1946). A Realist Theory of International Politics. (New York: Routledge, 2014).

McAuley, James and Noack, Rick. What you need to know about Germanys immigration crisis. The Washington Post, 3 July 2018.

Mushaben, Joyce Marie. Angela Merkels Leadership in the Refugee Crisis. Current History, Vol. 116 (788), March 2017: 95-100.

Ostrand, Nicole. The Syrian Refugee Crisis: A Comparison of Responses by Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Journal on Migration and Human Security, Vol. 3 (3), 2015: 255-279.

Sprout, Harald and Sprout, Margaret. Man-Milieu Relations Hypothesis in the Context of International Politics. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956).

Steinmeier, Frank-Walter. Germanys New Global Role: Berlin Steps Up. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 95 (4), 2016.

The Economist Group Limited. Merkel at Her Limit. The Economist, 10 October 2015.

Waltz, Kenneth (1979). Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory. (New York: Routledge, 2014).

See the article here:
Liberal and Realist Explanations of Merkel's "Open-Door Policy" During the 2015 Refugee Crisis - Inquiries Journal

Leaders Message

The COVID-19 pandemic is ravaging the world physically, emotionally, and economically. And Latin America has been hit particularly hard. Migrant and refugee populations are feeling it the worst especially the children among them. Hunger and hardship reign as living conditions deteriorate for millions of families.

As of November 2020, nearly 5.5 million Venezuelans have ed the country seeking food, work, protection, and a more stable life. And about 7 million people inside Venezuela need humanitarian assistance. A recent World Vision survey of Venezuelan children in seven countries revealed that one in three of them goes to bed hungry. For those living in Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile and Venezuela, a lack of food and basic hygiene supplies, the fear of being evicted, and the absence of education is their everyday reality. We believe that restoring hope to the most vulnerable is the key to reversing this tragic trend of poverty and heartache brought on by societal collapse and a global pandemic.

Our multi-country response to the Venezuela crisis, Hope Without Borders, has brought hope to more than 455,000 Venezuelans and host-community residents since January 2019. Over the past two years, more than 115 World Vision staff and countless partners, community leaders, and volunteers expanded our response from one to six host countries and registered and grew our presence in Venezuela. The global response remains one of the least-funded crises in the world$648 million (U.S.) received of $1.4 billion required. For our part, World Vision has managed to nearly triple our budget from about $12 Million in 2019 to almost $34 million in 2020.

This report is testimony of the effectiveness of collaboration to ease the burden for and bring hope to those suffering most in this crisis. It is also proof of the overwhelming needs still at hand. The backbone of our work in Venezuela is the collaboration with Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs). In the midst of institutional failure, churches and other FBOs act as lifelines close to the needs of the most vulnerable.

Well-intentioned efforts to help struggling families endure this double crisis and break out of the cycle of poverty must be met with serious funding commitments by donors, private and public alike. As you read the following pages highlighting two years of impact by World Visions Venezuela Crisis Response, we hope you will be moved to walk with us to continue to bring hope to the most vulnerable children and families caught up in the Venezuela crisis.

Joao Diniz,Regional Leader World Vision Latin America

Fabiano Franz,Director World Visions Venezuela Migrant and Refugee Crisis Response

Read more here:
Two years on: Hope in the midst of heartache - Venezuela Crisis Response Report 2019-2020 - Colombia - ReliefWeb

Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina Zoran Tegeltija talked yesterday with the Special Representative for Migration and Refugees of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe Drahoslav Stefanek about the current situation in BiH in the context of overcoming the migrant crisis.

Stefanek informed Tegeltija about previously held meetings, as well as his visits to migrant camps, emphasizing that the situation on the ground is significantly better compared to his findings based on media reports.

On this occasion, Chairman Tegeltija pointed out that BiH, as one of the countries particularly affected by the migrant crisis from the last quarter of 2017, pointing to the need for greater European Union solidarity on this issue.

The interlocutors agreed that greater coordination and joint cooperation of all relevant institutions and security agencies in the region would significantly contribute to improving the solution of the issue of illegal migration.

Read this article:
Tegeltija: BiH unjustifiably bears a too heavy Burden of the Migrant Crisis - Sarajevo Times

An Afghan girl pulls her baby sister along in a pram through the mud and snow. Saman is six and baby Darya is 10 months old. They and their family have been pushed back into Bosnia 11 times by the Croatian police, who stripped Darya bare to check if the parents had hidden mobile phones or money in her nappy.

They searched her as though she were an adult. I could not believe my eyes, says Daryas mother, Maryam, 40, limping through the mud and clinging to a stick.

The Guardian followed the journey of Darya and that of dozens of other migrant children who, every day, walk, or are carried on their parents backs through the snowy paths that cross the woods around Bosanska Bojna, the last Bosnian village before the Croatian border, in an attempt to reach an increasingly inhospitable central Europe. Few families are successful. Most of them are stopped by Croatian police, searched, allegedly often robbed and, sometimes violently, pushed back into Bosnia, where, for months, thousands of asylum seekers have been stranded in freezing temperatures, without running water or electricity.

In December, fire destroyed a migrant camp in Bosnia, making the situation worse.

Out of a total of about 8,000 migrants in Bosnia, about 2,000 people are basically left to fend for themselves in abandoned buildings, squats, makeshift settlements and in forests, Nicola Bay, the Danish Refugee Councils Bosnia director, says. These people include families, children and unaccompanied minors that have practically no shelter, no access to basic services and no access to proper healthcare.

According to the council, in 2020 more than 800 children were pushed back by the Croatian authorities, including many under the age of six. The number of families living on the border between Croatia and Bosnia has increased considerably in recent months, and thus the number of children.

Most of those in transit have come from Greece, where a new law approved by Athens last year has stymied the administrative procedures for the recognition of refugee status. Tired of waiting, just when they thought their odyssey had ended, it has pushed many to get back on the road and try to reach the heart of the European Union through the Balkans.

Its very difficult to have a complete overview on the motivations pushing people to leave Greece and move north to the Balkan road to reach other destinations in Europe, says Stephan Oberreit, head of mission at Mdecins Sans Frontires (MSF) in Greece, but its clear that increasing delays in the asylum processes and in family reunification claims, the appalling living conditions, and lack of protection and integration lead people to continue their perilous journeys until they find safety and dignity.

It is a strenuous journey, crossing mountains and snow-covered forests, with virtually no welcoming facilities for migrants. Many of the children of the migrant crisis living in abandoned or destroyed houses in Bosanska Bojna today were born along the route, like Darya, whose name means sea, and who was born in Lesbos before a blaze in September destroyed the Moria camp.

We were tired of waiting for the Greek authorities to consider our asylum application, says Hasan, 52, the father of Darya and her six siblings, who left Kunduz, in northern Afghanistan, a year and a half before. Hasan says that if there had been no war in his country, he would never have found himself in these forests, watching Croatian policemen search Daryas nappy the searching of babies being a common practice, according to the watchdog organisation Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN).

Although, in most cases, women and children are not directly subjected to physical violence by the Croatian authorities, they are still subjected to what can be described as psychological violence, abuse and humiliation, a field coordinator for BVMN, says. Women and young girls have reported being searched everywhere by male Croatian police officers. Moreover, there are incidents in which the police have searched childrens clothes or babies nappies, thinking their parents have hidden phones or money.

On 16 October 2019, two Palestinian and Syrian families were stopped near the village of Glina, Croatia, and forced to undress. The children were also searched and the babies diapers had to be removed. They were naked, in the forest, in the middle of the night, one told BVMN. In October, BVMN reported the case of an Afghan mother who described feeling uncomfortable when the male officers touched her body to look for phones and money, and then when an officer stuck his hand into the nappy of her 11-month-old baby boy.

We also have had a significant number of cases of women, some of them underage girls, being forced to strip by the Croatian police, Bay says. Their father is asked to cover them with a blanket. When you listen to their testimonies, they say, Im covering my teenage daughter with a blanket, but theres obviously one part of the blanket where you can see through, because you cant pull it all the way around and theres a policeman standing right there.

Numerous women say they were beaten in front of their children, who were also pushed around.

During the last pushback, my four-year-old son, Milad, asked the police for water, Maryam tells the Guardian. But the Croatians denied him, took him by the shoulder and pushed him away. I tried to react and explain to them that they couldnt do it. Then they kicked me on the back and I rolled to the ground. Today, we will try to cross the border again and inshallah, we hope to make it.

On the road that leads from the Bosanska Bojna valley to the Croatian forest trails, other families leave their shelters and set off again with their entourage of children and strollers. Today, we go for game! yells a smiling six-year-old.

Although there is little fun, the game is what migrants call the crossing from Bosnia into Croatia so that their children see it as a sort of adventure, with the aim of not being caught by the men in black uniforms who hide in the woods. The goal is to reach an elusive place called France, Italy or the UK. In the frost and the mountains, they are encouraged by their parents to play, chasing each other and climbing trees.

But in the late evening, when the children return to their wet and crumbling shelters in Bosanska Bojna, after being pushed back once again by Croatian police, it is easy to see that they did not have fun.

Families including children, the elderly, women and young men who experience this brutality will carry the psychological trauma with them for years, says Maham Hashmi, an MSF humanitarian officer. They will always have in mind that Europe brutalised them instead of protecting them and their right to seek asylum.

The most common mental health issues that we observe among children on the move are related to symptoms of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress as a result of the violence they have witnessed and that can potentially leave long-term consequences on their mental health, says Tatiana Olivero, a coordinator in Bosnia and Herzegovina for Mdecins du Monde (Doctors of the World). These children have been through highly stressful experiences, such as war and persecution in their country of origin, and have witnessed violence during their path towards Europe, including the abusive treatments imposed on their parents during multiple pushbacks. Some are losing hope for the future and see their childhood denied.

Zohra, 33, a Kabul lawyer and mother of four, says her children are struggling: When we get our things ready for the crossing, my children dont want to go. They cry because they are afraid of being pushed back, or being kicked, like last time.

In 2016, a bomb attack during Ramadan killed her seven-year-old son. His twin, Nourin, now 11, was paralysed on one side of her body. Last November alone in Kabul, a series of bomb attacks launched by insurgents left at least 88 people dead and more than 193 injured. But many European countries continue to repatriate asylum seekers to Afghanistan.

During the lastest attempt at crossing, captured on Guardian cameras, Nourin and her siblings remained hidden for almost an hour in a dried-out ditch at the side of a trail, as two Croatian policemen guarded the area from a hill less than 200 metres away. Zohra and her husband, Ibrahim, later decided this was too much of a risk and not a good time to move on. They will try again tomorrow. During their five-month stay in Bosnia, they have been pushed back 37 times, despite informing the border authorities of their request for asylum.

The pushback record in Bosanska Bojna is held by Fariba Azizi and his three children who, at around 7pm on 22 January returned from the Bosanska Bojna woods after their 54th pushback. When they got back, they found their shelter reduced to rubble: Bosnian special forces that week burned all the informal migrant camps in Bosanska Bojna. According to charities, citizens in the area had protested over the presence of migrants in those places. But mostly the inhabitants of the villages around Bosanska Bojna offer food, blankets and clothing to the migrants. Memories of the war are still fresh in many Bosnians minds. They know all too well what it means to be forced out of their homes.

Of at least eight families the Guardian followed over five days last week, only two managed to cross the border into Croatia. On 28 January, Daryas family informed the Guardian they had made it to Zagreb. It is an important step, but not the last. There are many cases of migrants who reach Croatia and are sent back to Bosnia by the authorities there. The same happens in Slovenia and Italy, where, last week, the court of Rome declared more than 700 pushbacks perpetrated by Italian police in Slovenia illegal.

Pushbacks are illegal, whether they are violent or not, it doesnt matter, says Bay. They fundamentally undermine the right to international protection. Croatian pushbacks are a consequence of EU policy aimed at transferring the responsibility for protecting people outside of the EU. It has become a situation in which member states regularly ignore, circumvent or directly violate EU law, and this has [become] a standard way of managing borders.

The perpetrators need to be held accountable. For member states that dont comply with these measures, there have to be real consequences. There have to be sanctions of some form. Up until now, for years, essentially, there has been impunity for violations of European [Union] laws.

The Croatian ministry of the interior told the Guardian said they will thoroughly investigate the incidents, including alleged violence against children. However, a spokesperson said in order to achieve their goal, migrants are willing to use all means necessary, including bringing their own lives and the lives of their family into danger, knowing that if they find themselves in such a dangerous situation that the Croatian police will save their lives. Likewise, if the Croatian police prevents them in their attempt of illegal entry, they are ready to falsely accuse the same Croatian police of violence and obstruction of access to the system of international protection.

We would like to point out that the Croatian police are authorised to check persons and their luggage in order to find items which may be used to escape, attack or inflict self-harm. This is a legal power, which police officers regularly exercise during their work in order to protect themselves and to establish general security, they added.

In the email, the minister announced that a group of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) intended to visit Croatia to observe the Croatian polices anti-immigration practices.

The delegation of Italian MEPs, belonging to the parliamentary group of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), arrived in Zagabria last Saturday. They decided to visit the Bosnian border area that same day to witness migrants as they make their way into Europe. But their plans were immediately thwarted as Croatian police chased and stopped them just as they reached the check-point at the Bosnian border, sparking a row in Italy.

This is a grave act, without precedent, the MEPs told the guards as the Italian newspaper Avvenire filmed the exchange. Whats beyond that border? What do you want to hide from us?.

Bosanska Bojna, with hundreds of children stranded in the snow, lies just on the other side.

Some names have been changed to protect the privacy of individuals.

Sign up for the Global Dispatch newsletter a fortnightly roundup of our top stories, recommended reads, and thoughts from our team on key development and human rights issues:

More:
Police searched my baby's nappy': migrant families on the perilous Balkan route - The Guardian

During the springtime lockdowns in Europe, a poem-turned-video you clap for me now, went viral. Its message was to protect the migrants in the EU, who work to keep home-office populations safe, but who often face discrimination and stigmatization.

Between 13% and a third of essential workers are migrants.

Many are left behind in terms of access to unemployment benefits and spiral into hunger, poverty, isolation, and illness. Out of 250,000 undocumented migrants in Switzerland, 90,000 have not accessed healthcare during the pandemic, for fear of being detected, denounced and deported.

Migrants are at a triple loss by the pandemicnot only are their jobs more precarious, their journeys more perilous, but they also face twice the risk of contracting the virus than non-migrant populations.

At the peak of the refugee crisis in 2015/16, some EU Member States raised the resettlement conflict to the UN in the hopes that sharing responsibility for large population movements would be resolved more evenly at the global level. This led to the formation of the Global Compact for Migration (GCM). The GCM figures as the first UN-led global instrument entirely devoted to international migration, which, even if not legally binding, restates the existing international legal obligations on migration and provides a benchmark of where the protection of migrants human rights currently stands at.

The UN Agenda 2030, is a non-binding UN instrument, adopted in 2015, which commits states to achieving 17 Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Though the Agenda does not have a particular focus on migration, it does address issues that are vital to migrant rights such inequality, labor and education, calling for well-managed migration policies that facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility. Other goals include eradicating poverty and hunger, achieving gender equality as well as health, and well being.

In 2020, COVID-19 was a big test for these UN initiatives. But have they proven useful in the response to the global pandemic especially in protecting migrants?

Surprisingly little can be found in the GCMs 23 objectives about mitigating the effects of a public health emergency, including COVID-19 on migrants. Data about how COVID-19 affects the migration lifecycle is still scant. The GCMs objectives are still far from being achieved, especially when it comes to access to basic services, empowering migrants or eliminating discrimination. In its current form, the GCM is more set to strengthen the global governance of migration under the auspices of the International Organisation for Migration rather than allow a deviation from it.

States like Italy, Portugal and Spain, have been experimenting with regularising undocumented migrant populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is no international framework to monitor and review these one-off programs.

They remain subject to potential arbitrariness, fraud by employers or selectiveness.

For instance, in Italy protection only included undocumented migrants who work in the frontlines, leaving out those working in construction or logistics. More global oversight can help avoid such arbitrary or short sighted decisions and to make sure the rights of migrants are protected and health prevention during the pandemic is insured.

In addition to Italy, Portugal also regularised the status of undocumented migrants who were carrying out frontline functions, including harvesting, healthcare and domestic work. Likewise, Spain considers normalising its roughly 430,000 undocumented migrants. It is no coincidence that the pandemic prompted the city councils of Geneva and Zurich to finally implement a city card for the undocumented, allowing them to seek emergency health care and allowing their children to access schools.

Clearly, to regularise status, means improving access of migrants to health, education, food, and shelter. Yet, the EU return directive only justifies case-by-case authorisations of stay for compassionate, humanitarian or other reasons.

Continued here:
COVID-19 was a big test for UN migration initiatives. Did they succeed? - Open Democracy