With Merkel’s inclination for moral righteousness that is resulting in turbulence, the call for a series of protectionist and rejectionist approaches becomes louder.
Angela Merkel, a proponent of moral self-righteousness is fixated in a dilemma of adhering to human rights deliverance and restricting immigrants from diluting the fabric of German culture, a renowned “welcome culture”. On the one hand Merkel is upholding human rights by keeping Germany’s borders open and accepting refugees, and on the other hand increased refugee-led violence and terrorist attacks are posing critical questions to her leftist inclination. Should she have rejected refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and other countries immediately when a supposed threat to German citizens was anticipated, more so when there were actual incidence of refugee violence? There are no straight answers to such questions, rather a more unconventional stand becomes essential in such cases involving issues of multiculturalism.
A country which had been secularly welcoming citizens of all regions being led to a situation of repetitive terror attacks and violence against national citizens, is an issue that must be addressed, and addressed solely to mitigate concerns. Ever since Merkel enthusiastically started welcoming refugees originating from the Syrian crisis in 2015, her responsibilities have become multi-fold. Human rights obligations, impeccable track record of immigrant handling, and consciousness of Germany’s conflict resolution capacity led Merkel to open doors for refugees.
In 2016, Germany withered seven different terror attacks killing 22 innocent German nationals, aside from hundreds who were left wounded and several unregistered cases of rape committed by refugees. These attacks instilled a wave of fear among citizens who now seem critical of Merkel’s refugee policy. Trust in the government and in social institutions is waning, and incompatibility of culture has originated sporadic clashes among nationals and refugees. The far-right view is being repeatedly used now against Merkel’s leftist inclination. Multiple survey indicates that 80 percent of German citizens are critical of Merkel’s refugee policy. These citizens are rigidifying their stand of disowning and rejecting further refugees to curb all possibility of violence. A polarised stand is distinctly visible in angry citizens, asking for a resolute government initiative.
Germany is probably the sole willing receiver of refugees, since Austria closed its borders after election, and other nations have either blocked refugee entrance or restricted them to manageable levels. The way forward for the country is to immediately block refugee entry for a time period, and simultaneously ponder on possible policy options with EU nations. Reportedly, Merkel has agreed to keep aside an asylum reversal fund that will pay each refugee immigrant to return to their country of origin. Germany could negotiate a deal with EU that imposes equal distribution of gradual refugee acceptance on EU nations, until conditions improve in refugees’ home country. When a policy, popularly influenced by political correctness and, which, on implementation damages the country’s efforts of sustaining peace, it in itself is politically incorrect lacking moral considerations. Germany has the right to protect its own territory when it anticipates external threat, which no country can claim to be rejectionist or isolationist, cost it may even allegations of human rights violations.
The present condition is not a product of a single pertinent issue, but of multiple geopolitical deficiencies; there is no singular solution for the crisis. A series of repetitive steps to remove and deport violent refugees, establishment of corporeal punishment as a sign of intolerance, and simultaneous assessment of gradual transmission to a renewed global identity are essential for Germany to regain its lost glory. This is inevitable since Merkel owes a duty of care to German citizens, a right that even the constitution cannot demerit.