Quite recently, we have all witnessed “the struggle for democracy in Syria”, proclaimed by London, which as a result of the “help” rendered to the Syrian armed opposition turned into banditry and terrorism in this country, resulting in the senseless deaths of thousands of civilians.
Through their actions in the international arena, official London repeatedly tried to emphasize that “in the name of democracy,” they were willing to take all efforts just to help nations living outside the UK have access to common values and to improve the living conditions of the citizens of other countries and their children’s futures. It is for these reasons, that London, with its unfurled “democracy” banner as well as bayonets took an active part in the armed invasions of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and was ready to continue this “business” in Syria and elsewhere in the world.
The consequences of these “democratic” interventions are vivid: a ruined economy and infrastructure, poverty and the constant threat of banditry and terrorism in Iraq, and Libya.
It should be noted here that all these steps of official London were taken not with disinterest, but rather to gain access to the national wealth of those countries, the intervention in which it was always ready to participate. After all, it was in Iraq and Libya, where the main goal of the armed invasion was access to the energy resources of these countries. However, why be surprised here? – This is just a continuation of the imperialist colonial policy, which was conducted by London for centuries on many continents, pumping wealth out of other countries, condemning the local population to poverty and powerless slavery.
Thus, over the years, nothing has changed, either in the English perception of the world, or in implementation of policies. Of course, there are new faces in the national establishment, new slogans with which British politicians lure the unsuspecting inhabitants believing their beautiful words. This is happening now as well, when London is beginning attempts to portray itself as a “defender of democracy”. However, what do we have in reality?
Between 2001 and 2011, when the Labour Party was in power, the British government argued that migrant workers were needed for economic development. Then, an immigration boom occurred in Great Britain: almost four million immigrants came to the country. Recently, however, the Labour leader acknowledged that in terms of immigration policy, his party made a mistake, so the door of “democratic Britain should be closed to foreigners”. Absolutely “non-democratic” campaigns against immigrants of all types began in the national media. Not only against natives from Asia or Africa, but also against members of the European Union, whom London began to divide by race and national criteria.
For many months, Cameron’s government has been supporting and artificially spinning in the national media informational campaigns against immigrants, presenting them as guilty of the financial and social failures of the current government, rather than to limit its military spending, especially on the military actions in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Syria. In particular, articles about the fact that almost three-quarters of young mothers in London and other major cities of the country are foreign migrants are increasingly visible in the British press. Migrants are accused of receiving undeserved social benefits, and various privileges. The national media indicates that they should not be allowed to move freely, not only in the country but also across Europe. There are calls to restrict the rights of migrants legally, start a media campaign on anti-advertising of the benefits of the UK, to reduce the interest of migrants in this European country.
Very revealing in this regard is the campaign against migrants, organized at the end of November this year by the British Prime Minister David Cameron not only in Great Britain, but also in Europe, and beyond it. Having published in The Financial Times his vision of migration policy under the heading “The free movement in Europe should be less free”, David Cameron offered a whole programme of action against immigrants, including legal restrictions on their movement in Europe, rights in England, and terminating the payment of their social benefits.
He proposed to start such “democratic processes” with citizens of the European Union – the Bulgarians and Romanians, as representatives of the “second class”.
Statements and actions of the British Prime Minister have been criticized not only by non-governmental organizations, but also by the president of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso, reminding the “Democrat” Cameron that free movement in Europe is a fundamental principle of the EU, and it must be fulfilled by all the Member States of the Union. It is remarkable that at the end of 2011, the European Union rather sharply criticized the British “democracy” for its policy in respect of foreign workers, and demanded from the UK to change its rules of granting social benefits, so that they could be received not only by those who have the right of residence in the country.
The EU has even threatened London that it will file a lawsuit against the government if the authorities did not present a plan for the abolition of restrictions on social benefits for migrants within two months.
In these circumstances, official London found a “decision” which seems to be quite profitable for themselves and other countries of Western Europe. In particular, on London’s initiative, which was picked up by other European “pillars of democracy”, the EU has made an offer to Latvia: in exchange for a reduction in the country’s public debt, to significantly increase the quota for hosting migrants from Arab and African countries, thus actually becoming a haven for immigrants inconvenient for Old Europe. After all, according to current rules of the European quota allocation, namely the European Union determines how many migrants each member country of the EU is obliged to accept, regardless of the wishes of the indigenous population. It is not surprising that such a proposal was made to Latvia – one of the former countries of the Soviet Union, now an EU member state, an attitude towards which, as to a stepdaughter and an explicit burden, many Europeans do not hide in their private conversations.
Such is the price of European integration, which the people of this Baltic country so persistently sought.
I wonder if in Ukraine people know about this? After all, the territory of Ukraine is much larger than that of Latvia, and here much greater amounts of European foreign workers can be placed! For what other reason is Ukraine needed by the European politicians, and first of all by the British, who are ganging up on the Ukrainian government for its unwillingness to become an associate member of this “democratic” union on the obviously unfavourable conditions for this country.
Vladimir Odintsov, political commentator, exclusively for the New Eastern Outlook online magazine.