Angela Merkel’s Legacy as Europe’s Iron Chancellor
[Faseeha Hashmi]
Having presided as Germany‘s Chancellor since 2005, few and far between can argue that Angela Merkel has left a lasting impact on Europe. She has sealed her legacy as the European Union‘s longest-serving incumbent head of government through her leadership in forging a common European identity, while her foreign policy achievements have cemented her status as Europe’s leading figure – both central and essential to the EU’s continuing stability and prosperity.
Merkel, known affectionately as “Mutti” (Mummy) by her admirers, is often described as the de facto leader of the EU – with Times magazine having lionised her as the most powerful woman leading the Free World. Having topped the Forbes’ list of 100 most powerful women in the world for eight years running, Merkel has repeatedly shattered the proverbial glass ceiling.
Early in her career, Merkel built her name as a Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. While her leadership has spanned 13 years and 4 terms, as of October 2018 the Iron Chancellor signalled her desire to withdraw from power – having announced that she would not seek re-election as leader of the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), and indicating her plans to step down as Germany’s Chancellor in 2021. While her anticipated exit from political life will have an indisputable impact on the rest of Europe, her defining policies and leadership style will leave an enduring impact on the region and the world.
According to former Prime Minister Tony Blair the rise of anxieties in the UK, and its promise of departure from the EU, could be replicated in any other country – potentially diminishing the authority of the bloc as an political and economic entity. This was expanded upon by Blair, who further outlined that the changing power dynamics within Europe have created an environment where the continent is defined by political power over diplomacy and negotiation, with the UK having much to lose if it is no longer tethered to the European continent.
“In an increasingly multipolar world, in which GDP and population will increasingly be correlated, the rationale for Europe is stronger than ever. Together, Europe’s peoples can wield genuine influence. Alone, they will over time decline in relative importance.”
Having built a reputation in crisis management and consensus-building domestically, Merkel’s dexterous skills have transferred well internationally. When the EU faced a financial crisis in the aftermath of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, Merkel’s notorious austerity measures and leadership worked to prevent a collapse of the Greek economy. Inching towards bankruptcy, Greece and many EU members perceived the measures as arduous and taxing upon their economic development. Regardless, the measures later proved necessary in order to protect the health and integrity of the Eurozone amidst the global recession.
Under international law, asylum has been settled as a fundamental right – granting asylum has been considered an international obligation since the 1951 Geneva Convention on the protection of refugees. However, the crisis stemmed from the Dublin regulations, adopted in 2003, which governs how EU member states examine asylum applications. Under that instrument, the country where the migrant enters is legally required to deal with the claim. While the Dublin system assumes that the asylum laws and practices of EU States are based on the same common standards, in reality asylum legislation and practice still vary widely from country to country, causing asylum seekers to receive differing treatment across Europe.
During the crisis, it became clear that the geographical points of entry for refugees into the EU had resulted in a considerably uneven share of people between member states. Owing to conflicts between EU law and the Dublin regulation, there existed no clear-cut system for dealing with the border crisis. Indeed, the Common European Asylum Policy currently faces an enduring dilemma where some nations have been consistently overburdened. Countries such as Italy, Greece, and to a lesser extent Malta and Spain, which are at the frontline of migrants’ routes to Europe, have repeatedly protested against the disproportionate responsibilities that Dublin imposes on them.
In response, Merkel advocated for an open and streamlined remedy, touting that Europe was obligated to honour its international agreements, preserve freedom of movement as outlined within the Schengen Treaty, and respect the human rights of refugees fleeing persecution by establishing a common distribution system. Since announcing its open door policy in August 2015, Germany has to-date greeted nearly 1 million migrants and refugees as part of what Merkel had christened Germany’s culture of welcoming or “Willkommenskultur.”
Accordingly, Merkel reiterated Europe’s duty to shoulder its responsibilities as an EU member, and pioneered a humane European response. She did this by opening Germany’s borders and temporarily suspending EU laws requiring asylum seekers to register within the first member state they entered. Unfortunately, many EU members have buckled under the increased volume of people marching through their territory en-route to Germany, leading to an increase in right-wing nationalist sentiment.
Regardless, Germany’s decision to reimpose border controls in September 2015 was followed closely by other EU countries. This policy reversal caused many to deem Merkel’s leadership inconsistent, including Mekong Mesghena – an expert on migration and diversity from the Heinrich Boll Foundation – who stated that Merkel “may not have a plan”. While Merkel’s decision to reimpose border controls may prima facie appear hypocritical, in reality it was a strategic act designed to pressure fellow EU leaders into accepting more refugees while allowing Germany time to prepare to properly accommodate the overwhelming numbers of new migrants.
Although the numbers of people seeking safety has since greatly diminished, EU leaders have not yet established a systematic regional cooperation system to manage the flow of migrants and asylum seekers into the region. Moreover, the lacklustre political will to do so leaves the situation unresolved for the foreseeable future. Establishing a quota system must be considered necessary from an economic standpoint, especially when considering how an efficient distribution of people may even out the marginal costs of integrating refugees.
Comments