Luxembourg’s highly-developed economy and location in the heart of Europe have attracted spectacular levels of immigration. Foreigners currently make up 47% of the total population, so Luxembourg is a country where integration and social cohesion are part of daily life and of social policy. Luxembourg’s targeted investments and projects have been used successfully to avoid cultural tensions and promote the peaceful coexistence of around 170 nationalities.
One challenge, though, is the job market. Luxembourg has three official languages, which can be an obstacle for immigrants looking for work. Although unemployment has decreased over the last few years, it remains a challenge in terms of integrating immigrants, especially those with lower levels of education. But access to employment is essential to integration. Struggling to find work can lead to dangerous frustration with the country itself.
The Ministry for Family Affairs and Integration offers, among other things, a “Welcome and Integration Contract” (CAI), including language and citizenship classes and an orientation day. This contract allows immigrants to get acquainted with the history, customs, values and, most importantly, languages of our country. We put a lot of effort into increasing the numbers of language
classes as well as continued professional training classes. Many initiatives – from the government, the private sector or NGOs – facilitate training paths and offer access to special training and
conversation classes.
Municipalities play a very important role in the integration process, as they are on the front line, welcoming immigrants. Some of Luxembourg’s local authorities have even developed local integration plans. The Luxembourg Reception and Integration Agency (OLAI), which is part of the Ministry for Family Affairs and Integration, in collaboration with the Union of Luxembourg
Cities and Communes (SYVICOL), elaborated a practical guide to integration at the local level. This guide aims to help municipalities and local policymakers implement a long-term integration policy. The OLAI also grants subsidies to municipalities, to help them get started.
But social cohesion can be achieved only if integration works both ways. Immigrants need to make a step towards the host country, just as we need to consider their needs. Successfully integrating foreigners also hinges on good collaboration between the various government bodies, the municipalities and civil society.
The importance of this approach becomes clear when looking at the real estate market, for which Luxembourg tops the list of the most expensive countries in Europe. The housing shortage is a known issue for immigrants and nationals alike. For this reason, housing is also a priority on the government’s agenda. In an attempt to create affordable housing, the government launched a lower-cost housing scheme. It also financially supports municipalities that create and offer social housing. An important partner in the housing sector is the social real estate agency (Agence immobilière sociale), which helps socially-deprived people access housing and offers support and advice. Immigrants are systematically directed towards this body.
These measures, of course, have financial implications. But it’s first and foremost an investment in the future of our society and a necessary step towards social cohesion. It’s essential to support
immigrants in finding affordable housing, which can be a very difficult endeavour for anyone, and to offer them various services to which they can turn for help. By supporting them, we promote
their independence and boost their integration. We appeal to the immigrants’ sense of responsibility and ensure that the same support is offered to immigrants and nationals alike – thereby helping to avoid cultural and social tensions. So far, Luxembourg has managed this balancing act very well.
Education is a different story. There is no shortage of school places. Immigrant children, who may lack the necessary language skills and knowledge, are assessed by the Ministry of Education, which identifies the right class or school for those children. Specially trained teachers – so-called “intercultural mediators” – have been employed. They speak the most common native languages
of immigrants – such as Serbo-Croatian and Arabic – and help children catch up with the national school programme. Welcome classes, with the ultimate goal of integrating children and young adults into regular classes as soon as possible, have been multiplied recently to receive refugee children. This also entails costs, but our system has proved very effective. School is an important element in the integration process, as it allows the children to become familiar with Luxembourg’s culture and connect with local people. Furthermore, it can also be an incentive for their parents to integrate as fast as possible into society.
The arrival of refugees fleeing the Syrian conflict has presented new integration challenges for Luxembourg, from the lack of housing possibilities to communication problems. All our good practices were put to the test, as they weren’t necessarily designed for the particular needs of people from such a different cultural, linguistic, political and often religious background. We face a double challenge. First, we have to offer housing opportunities and social support for all – financially as well as psychologically. Second, when we integrate these people into our society we must make it understood that integration is not a one-way street, but a process that demands effort from both sides.
So far, we have managed this exceptional situation well thanks to good collaboration between various government bodies, the municipalities and civil society. Special language classes are offered, some municipalities provide housing, and the ADEM job agency is assessing employability. OLAI has launched a project called “Welcome to Luxembourg”, which is designed to give asylum-seekers basic information about the country and help them understand where they live. At the invitation of the Ministry for Family Affairs and Integration, and with government financing, the Red Cross created “LISKO”, a service that promotes integration and social cohesion for those granted refugee status by supporting them in administrative procedures and creating links to services and the population.
Cultural tensions can arise in a society where different religious beliefs, political views and cultural backgrounds have to mix and merge over a long period of time. But Luxembourg has proved that this doesn’t have to lead to permanent conflicts in a country whose multiculturalism is reflected in all aspects of society. We have succeeded because we give immigrants the tools and means to understand and integrate into a new society. We offer them the opportunity to participate in our society. That is what integration is all about.
IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – Franz Ferdinand Photography
The post Integration is a two-way street appeared first on Europe’s World.
La Cour des comptes a rendu public un rapport de 160 pages sur les opérations extérieures du ministère de la défense, demandé par la commission des finances du Sénat.
La Cour constate (à son tour) que les opérations extérieures (Opex) militaires menées par la France à l’étranger (au nombre de 25, sur neuf théâtres d’opération principaux, entre 2012 et 2015) représentent un coût croissant, qui n’est pas intégralement inscrit en loi de finances initiale et qui est mal évalué. Voir le graphique ci-dessous:
Cette enquête montre également que les Opex représentent un poids important dans l’engagement opérationnel des armées et des directions de soutien, ce qui limite la préparation opérationnelle des forces et fait apparaître les fragilités et les lacunes du soutien des forces projetées.
La Cour formule huit recommandations:
1. inscrire en loi de finances initiale une dotation réaliste et sincère pour financer les dépenses liées aux opérations extérieures ;
2. procéder à une revue interministérielle des coûts découlant de l’emploi des forces en OPEX à retenir comme surcoûts et des calculs afférents ;
3. établir une estimation périodique des principales composantes des coûts liés aux OPEX non prises en compte dans les surcoûts annuels ;
4. pour un effectif projeté fixé, déployer des effectifs de soutien en proportion suffisante par rapport aux effectifs de combat, notamment en s’appuyant sur des ratios indicatifs ;
5. développer et suivre des indicateurs comparables entre armées et avec les directions et services interarmées afin de mesurer le degré de sujétion opérationnelle des militaires ;
6. dans la gestion des ressources humaines du ministère et des armées, améliorer le suivi et la prise en compte des compétences critiques identifiées lors des opérations et anticiper le besoin de maintenanciers très qualifiés ;
7. évaluer, avant la prochaine loi de programmation militaire, les moyens et les conditions d’une restauration d’un niveau de préparation opérationnelle suffisant, pour ne pas obérer les capacités futures des forces françaises ;
8. pour mieux répondre aux besoins de transport aérien stratégique et dans l’attente de la mise à disposition de moyens patrimoniaux, développer le recours à la mutualisation multinationale et améliorer l’efficience du recours aux moyens externalisés.
Le rapport, qui ne se limite pas à ces constats et à ces recommandations, peut être consulté en ligne via ce lien.
Europe has never been so prosperous, so secure nor so free’. These words may sound grotesque today, but they were used in good faith as an opening line of the first European Security Strategy only thirteen years ago. Its successor, published in June by the EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, begins with a starkly different assessment of the world: ‘We live in times of existential crisis, within and beyond the European Union’. This point of departure in the new strategy may indicate the EU is finally ready to take off its rose-coloured glasses of the early post-Cold War era.
The European neighbourhood, both to the east and south, is plagued with democratic backsliding, fragility and war. Even more disturbingly, the European project is facing unprecedented internal challenges to its unity and stability. To cope with this rapidly-deteriorating environment, the EU Global Strategy has pushed several new ideas, such as strategic autonomy, principled pragmatism and resilience. While in principle these ideas might refresh a stale strategic discourse in the EU, the new strategy has articulated them in a rather ambivalent fashion.
Let’s begin with so-called “strategic autonomy”. Instead of taking this idea to its logical conclusion, the strategists hastened to water it down to pre-emptively appease Atlanticists. The Strategy has thus pledged to ‘keep deepening the transatlantic bond and our partnership with NATO’. Building the autonomy of the EU within NATO is inevitably a step to full autonomy from NATO. More integrated defence in Europe doesn’t automatically mean the end of NATO, but it does mean a decreased political need for having both. An organised denial of this simple geopolitical reality may massage the concerns of certain capitals, but it’s also a recipe for inaction.
Second, the Global Strategy has endorsed “principled pragmatism”, which combines ‘realistic assessment of the strategic environment’ with ‘idealistic aspiration to advance a better world’. While striking a better balance between realism and idealism is a welcome move, old habits die hard. The Global Strategy has declared the EU’s intention to ‘invest in win-win solutions, and move beyond the illusion that international politics can be a zero-sum game’. As a result, the “realistic assessment” that the strategy allegedly endorses relapses into a worldview according to which power politics is nothing but an illusion. This is too sloppy for a global power wannabe.
Third, the strategy has strongly endorsed the concept of “resilience”, or the ability to reform in the face of internal and external crises. Moreover, the EU aspires not only to enhance the resilience of its own democracies but to promote resilience throughout its neighbourhood. A cynic would suggest that resilience is just another smoke-screen buzzword adding little substance to the debate. While there may be a grain of truth in this, the use of the term is also a symptom of increased anxiety over the EU’s own fragility, as well as its inability to Europeanise its neighbourhood. If the EU is serious about promoting resilience abroad, it has to first demonstrate that it is itself resilient.
“The most resilient thing the EU could do in the face of Brexit would be to push forward defence integration”
Brexit is a big blow for the EU’s security and defence policy, as one of the most powerful military, diplomatic and economic states is due to leave the bloc. Brexit, though, has also created a unique window of opportunity for the EU to bounce back. The first step is for the Union to be honest about its own weaknesses. The EU cannot be both a normative power and a strategic player; a civilian power and a military powerhouse; autonomous from NATO and dependent on it; democratically deficient and a champion of democracy. The EU cannot have its cake and eat it. It’s about time the EU made some bold choices.
Some easy wins may arise from the fact that the UK has, for decades, slowed down Europe’s defence integration. London has blocked many initiatives that could have increased the EU’s strategic autonomy and weakened the role of NATO, from CSDP Operational Headquarters to the use of Battle Groups. If resilience is the ability to withstand crises and emerge from them stronger, the most resilient thing the EU could do in the face of Brexit would be to push forward defence integration, which is long overdue and widely supported by a majority of Europeans. This will signal that the EU means business in world politics and that ever-closer union is a vision to be reckoned with.
Finally, if the EU seriously seeks to be a credible promoter of resilience in its neighbourhood, it will need to step back from its liberal tunnel vision that has characterised so much of its external action. Instead of trying to copy-and-paste European institutions into Africa or the Middle East, where they often produce façade democracies, the EU should start fostering organic solutions to security problems. These will often diverge from European practices, but allowing them to flourish is the only path to a neighbourhood that can take care of itself.
It is a moment of truth for the European project – a time to see whether the EU’s leaders can seize the opportunity and turn ambivalent rhetoric into a new strategic paradigm that will make the EU stronger, safer and better off.
IMAGE CREDIT: CC / FLICKR – European External Action Service
The post The EU’s Global Strategy needs some straight talking appeared first on Europe’s World.