An Ideological Crossroads

Historians have written extensively about the profound political, economic, and cultural changes ushered in by the Second World War. But in the greater narrative of that era they have paid much less attention to the western world’s shift toward a liberal, globalized ideological status quo, central to which is an emphasis on human rights. The United Nations, the most tangible and overarching reaction to the war, serves not only as a global intergovernmental organization devoted to international relations, but also as the foremost custodian of human rights and the liberal values which constitute them.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, perhaps the UN’s most explicit expression of its devotion to a utopian vision of tolerance and justice, lists a variety of liberties deemed worthy of the lofty title of “human rights.” Among these is a right to freedom of movement. While immigration had been unregulated for the vast majority of human history, restrictions on immigration, in the western world at least, began to emerge with the solidification of modern nation-states. The most salient examples were the exclusionary policies against various ethnic groups adopted in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Since the establishment of the UN and other intergovernmental organizations, which formalized an increasingly globalized and liberal world agenda, the trend in immigration legislation has predominantly been to reverse the past tightening of restrictions and to strive toward greater openness. The best illustration of this progression is the European Union, which has gradually relaxed policies to the point where part of the continent has become the largest area of free transnational movement in the world.
The present refugee crisis in Europe, however, has brought the question of unrestricted movement as a human right into the limelight once again. It presents particular challenges for the leaders of countries that have the liberal values of tolerance and emphasis on human rights deeply enshrined in their laws and respective political cultures. For example, Germany’s Basic Law, its equivalent to a constitution, guarantees both the right to free movement, at least within its own borders, and the right to asylum. Similarly, the United Kingdom, in compliance with European Economic Area mandates, has adopted legislation to facilitate entry into its borders and has implemented a tribunal specifically devoted to admitting asylum-seekers. Although David Cameron has largely fumbled in his dealings with the influx of immigrants, the mere fact that the Prime Minister has attempted to ameliorate his shortcomings and temper his strongman stance with a more compassionate one—not to mention notable public support within Britain to welcome more refugees—suggests that the values that inspired the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are still alive and well in the United Kingdom.
Many other European leaders have exhibited even greater facility and leniency in handling the present predicament. Angela Merkel, in stark contrast to the iron fist she used to manage the Greeks this past summer, has utilized her status as the de facto head of the EU to call for greater European solidarity and generosity in accepting refugees. French president François Hollande has joined with Chancellor Merkel in this call, but he has also distinguished himself from the German leader’s potentially self-interested motivations by voicing France’s commitment to solving the crisis based on principle rather than practicality.
But adhering to liberal values is far from an easy choice. As if balancing the economic implications of receiving thousands of asylum seekers and a dedication to human rights were not enough, the problems leaders face in navigating the influx of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa are exasperated by the added pressures associated with the rise of nationalistic, anti-immigrant parties throughout Europe. Not only do these parties, in many cases, represent formidable political opponents, but they also strain the idealistic values of tolerance and human rights that are deeply woven into European political culture. If support for the UK Independence Party, the National Front in France, and the like continues to swell, leaders will find themselves in increasingly precarious situations politically, perhaps even within their own governing coalitions.
More significantly, however, the mounting xenophobic sentiment bolstering far-right parties suggests that the Europe is coming to a critical ideological crossroads. Leaders across the continent have much more at stake than their own political livelihoods when considering how to handle the current refugee dilemma—the future of Europe as a bastion of tolerance and human rights is on the table as well.