RUAZ

International Project of the Public Union “For Human Rights”

The Decline of Europe

PreviousNext The Decline of Europe — Part I. Crisis of multiculturalism

Part I. Crisis of multiculturalism

Main page Choice of Germany as the initial monitoring country Background “On the Crisis of Liberal Values and Multiculturalism in Europe” Objectives, character and methodology of monitoring Part I. Crisis of multiculturalism Part II. Corruption Part III. Violation of freedom of expression Part IV. Challenges in penitentiary, law enforcement and judicial systems of Germany, drawbacks in the legislative practice Part V. Unwarranted use of force when dispersing actions of protest Part VI. Observance of human rights in the system of education of Germany Conclusion The Public Union “For Human Rights”

The collapse of multiculturalism ideas in Germany has long been talked about by top officials of the country. In October 2010, during a meeting with members of the Christian-Democratic Union (CDU), German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany “have utterly failed.” Merkel said that Merkel said the idea of people of different cultural backgrounds living happily "side by side" did not work She publicly declared that immigrants should be integrated and adopt the culture of Germany and its values. Her statement came to be a reflection of general sentiments in the European Union, currently in crisis. Of paramount importance is the fact that this statement was made by the leader of a country whose politicians have always evaded harsh criticism against representatives of other peoples over the second half of the 20 century. This statement gave impetus to heated debates in  Germany over immigration questions and gave rise to collisions in this area. 

Merkel’s statement shocked the public with its straightforwardness, especially as the Germans, so delicate on the subject since the World War II, willingly touched upon a question of domination of their national culture. From the very outset, this statement was received by many analysts quite seriously due to its possible social and geopolitical consequences. The statement set up a greater context of perception: it concerned not only the German response to the problem of immigration but also the reaction of Europe as a whole.

In the beginning of 2011, the UK Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy agreed with Angela Merkel. Addressing a conference in Munich in 2011, David Cameron touched upon the issue of multiculturalism saying that “In the UK some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional Islam practiced at home by their parents … But these young men also find it hard to identify with Britain too, because we’ve allowed the weakening of our collective identity. … We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.  . ”

In a couple of days the British leader was backed by Nicolas Sarcozy: “'My answer is clearly yes, it [multiculturalism] is a failure… We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him … If you come to France, you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France. ”

Subsequently, identical statements were made by Dutch Vice-Premier Maxime Verhagen, CE Secretary General and former Norwegian Prime Minister Thornbjorn Jagland, former Belgian and Australian Prime Ministers Yves Leterme and John Howard respectively, etc.

Under the paradigm of multiculturalism, the cognition of cultural distinctions is a prerequisite for justice while the society is stronger when its members are perceived as they are. A paradox of multiculturalism arises due to the discrepancy between theoretical postulates and practical methods of their realization. In other words, it manifests itself when exaltation of national minorities (their culture, mode of life, etc.) reaches the point where to gets into a conflict with the main principles of multiculturalism - openness and tolerance.

Causes of tolerant attitude to other nationalities lead to emergence of certain “taboos” within society which limit the majority of its members in displaying their own identity and criticizing the mode of life of migrants (first of all, Moslems). No debates between representatives of various peoples are welcomed, although a dialog between cultures is a pivot of multiculturalism.

Tolerance in lieu of multiculturalism

It is well-known that the basic principle of multiculturalism is “an equal co-existence of different forms of cultural life”, as Jurgen Habermas, a contemporary German philosopher puts it, i.e. equality between minority and majority. That requires programs of special support and protection of minorities. Support of minorities is not a mere part of the state policy; it is a part of the whole socio-political system.

Multiculturalism implies the building of society by means of the interaction of social structures based on ethno-cultural, confessional and other foundations. In the meanwhile, the principle of territorial sovereignty rests on the nation, and multiculturalism becomes the key principle of the law on citizenship, system of social welfare, and the social policy, education, electoral system, labor legislation, regulation of labor market, and migration legislation as a whole.

As a matter of fact, multiculturalism that emerged in Europe in the end of the 1960s became the ideology and legal basis of the policy of attracting labor migrants. Its adoption as an official ideology meant pursuing the policy of “open doors”. Multiculturalism is a policy aimed at developing and preserving cultural differences in a single country and the world as a whole, and the ideology that underpins this policy. Within the framework of multiculturalism, various cultural groups (ethnic and religious) exercise collective rights and can act as a single subject in the sphere of politics, culture and education. To preserve the multiculturalism status, various groups have to possess their own identity and necessary potentiality to reproduce it.

An alternative to multiculturalism is assimilation, i.e. sometimes voluntary, but most often compulsory refusal from ethnic features and adoption of features of the receiving society. Referred to as a compromise variant is acculturation where various ethnic groups come together in their behavioral standards and interpretation of history. At the same time, they succeed in preserving their ethnic boundaries and avoid being merged into a single society.  Although the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates the right to freedom, national and cultural self-identification, freedom  to choice nationality and a language of communication, freedom of religion, in fact, all the rights above come down to a declaration of the group affiliation without the right to secure it by everyday practices. In the meantime, the European countries, including Germany, have lately been successful in sidestepping human rights issues and promoting, instead, assimilation projects.

Germany is a state traditionally based on the homogenous German society. Over the past decades, migration flows have appreciably intensified in the context of globalization. Commencing from the second half of the 20th century, the immigration proceeded in several directions. The recruitment of workforce was necessary for the German economy which was rapidly developing in the reviewed period. The 20th century saw two powerful surges of immigration, following which a share of immigrants per capita in Germany in the 1980s even exceeded indices of such classical immigrant states as the United States, Canada and Australia.

At present, there are about 15 million people with their immigration past in Germany. According to the Federal Statistical Office, these include persons who immigrated to Germany, as well as children, whose parents (at least, one of them) are immigrants. Approximately 7 million of them are foreigners; about 8 million have acquired the German citizenship or belong to a group of 4 million refugees of German origin. Another largest group is the group of immigrants from Turkey (2.5 million) and former Yugoslavia or its succeeding states (1.5 million). The number of Moslems residing in Germany is estimated as 4 million. A lot of migrants are employed as unskilled workforce because Germany recruited them for a specific kind of work only. Surveys show that migrants face difficulties when they try to make a career or improve their living standards in Germany.

Having let a great number of hired workers in Germany, the country’s leadership expected this phenomenon to be a temporary one. However, the majority of migrant workers, who arrived in Germany after the postwar economic boom of the 1950s, largely from the countries of Southern Europe, as well as Italy, Turkey and later from neighboring countries, remained in the country. The German society, traditionally closed, wasn’t eager to accept these groups of migrants. Within almost three decades, the German society and the German state showed no interest in the integration issue. Immigrants were allowed entering the country, though they were deprived of opportunity to completely integrate into the German society.

In the 1980s the government started dealing with the issue of integration. Of a particular problem was the second generation of migrants, born and brought up in Germany, yet uninvolved into the society. Aspirations of the political elite for solving the integration problem were clearly manifested in the policy of multiculturalism. However, there have always existed some practices of assimilation in Germany, including compulsory language and integration training courses.

Under the current circumstances, previously hushed up problems brought to life by multiculturalism became apparent. As a result, the government, which couldn’t work up a mechanism of interaction with immigrants, had to declare the failure of multiculturalism. The policy of multiculturalism in Germany was a part of ill-considered and belated integration policy. It is for this reason, combined with the problems accumulated within several decades, the German authorities started to voice the fact of failure of this policy.

Results of our monitoring of the situation in Germany confirm the conclusions of sociological surveys and demonstrate the crisis of the policy of multiculturalism in Europe. This is explained by the fact that very often the term “multiculturalism” in the European political vocabulary implied, in the first turn, “tolerance”, i.e. the conceptual vision of European governments was based not on integration of migrants of the second and third generations into society but rather proceeding from more tolerant attitude to co-existence with representatives of alien cultures. The governments of European countries carried on the policy of multiculturalism not with the purpose of integration but in an effort to meet their political and electoral considerations and pursue their own narrow populist and pragmatic interests.

Shortcomings of the immigration policy are vividly echoed in the so-called “systemic violence”, expressed in the lack of TV-broadcasts in the language of immigrants, creation of obstacles for establishing such mass media, and adoption of specific measures towards political immobilization of newcomers. Talk of collapse of multiculturalism policy intensified after the Turkish newcomers demanded to protect their religious rights and cancel Germany’s integration and adaptation strategy in respect of migrants.

“The case of Sarrazin”

Any manifestation of intolerance in Germany had regularly been suppressed in the course of implementation of the policy of multiculturalism. However, it was the publication of the book “Germany Is Doing Away With Itself” by Thilo Sarrazin that changed the situation radically. A provoking factor was that a new “theory of national segregation” was authored not by a representative of a marginal far-right political structure but a brilliant representative of the German elite, a Social-Democrat, who had previously held top positions in the German leadership. This book uncovered formerly concealed problems of the German society

From now on, people started speaking openly of things they hadn’t dared to touch upon before, primarily, because of their complex of guilt after the World War II. It turned out that the tolerant German society was supportive of the statements against immigrants (70 percent of respondents according to survey of the leading sociological services of Germany.)

The book of Thilo Sarazzin, a member of the Board of Directors of the German Bundesbank, coincided with the statement of Angela Merkel about the failure of the policy of multiculturalism in Germany, and stirred up and split the German society leading to heated debates about ethno-confessional prospects of Germany. Above 1.3 million Germans queued up to buy this book in a hope to familiarize themselves with the thoughts about their country’s future.

What does Thilo Sarazzin claim? He is confident that an essential part of Arab and Turkish immigrants is not ready and even unwilling to get integrated into the German society. Thus, Sarazzin declares: “Integration is the task of those being integrated. I don't have to accept someone who lives off a state they reject, doesn't properly take care of the education of his children-and keeps producing more little girls in headscarves”.

From the standpoint of German leftists, this book is a xenophobia and fascism combined. However, this circumstance did not prevent the political elite of the country from backing the scandalous author.

As a matter of fact, the official refusal of the ideas of multiculturalism, which form the value basis for the concept of the “Common European Home”, has led to the growth of collisions in the immigration policy of Germany and consolidated the stance of ardent nationalists and advocates of compulsory assimilation. From this point of view, subsequent restrictions on construction of mosques and bans on hijab were none other than manifestations of the assimilation policy. The aim of this policy is not to protect freedoms and fight against any type of religious or ethnic limitations. As viewed by many experts, this policy pursues an aim to forcibly assimilate labor migrants and refugees and turn them into respectable burghers with traditional national traits typical for the German society.

In all, Germany is formally a state where any intolerance, at least, in its public manifestation, has traditionally been rejected until recently. For example, when a mass media discussed the necessity of the stay of Turkish or Arab migrants in the territory of the country, it was immediately accepted as xenophobia. Most articles in the German press, traditionally advocating leftists, used sickly-sweet expressions like “let’s live on friendly terms”, “let’s enrich our cultural potential”, “we are a multicultural society”, and “we cannot survive without migrants.” However, it was a representative of the ruling elite of Germany who had first expressed a view contrary to the established public opinion. A question arises: is it really contrary? Activities of the leading German TV-channels and mass media that started promptly publicizing a new theory of racism, made many representatives of the German society, particularly, representatives of national minorities to suspect whether this campaign was coincidental. Isn’t Sarrazin expressing views of the German elite?

Regretfully, many representatives of the German establishment reject claims of Sarrazin’s critics that he advocates the ideological concepts of Nazism and racizm. Sarazzin openly writes that, intellectually, immigrants from Northern Africa and Middle East are inferior to Germans. Even worse, these immigrants are having “genetic abnormalities” due to the practice of kindred marriages (according to the author, this figure stands at 20 percent, in Turkey). Therefore, Moslem immigrants are damaging the economy and society of Germany because of their low intellectual and professional level. To conclude, Sarazzin insists that the continuing immigration is sure to make Germany absolutely dumb. If not racism and Nazism, what is it? 

Thilo Sarrazin is not a random person in the German establishment, as is evident from his past. From 1975 to 2000, he worked at the Ministry of Finance of FRG and of the united Germany, where he headed some key departments. In 1989-1990, Sarazzin was responsible for drafting monetary reform due to the unification with GDR. In 2000-2001, he worked at the Deutsche Bahn; in 2002-2009 he was a member of the Berlin Senate for finances and a member of the Board of Directors of several large companies. In spring 2009, Sarazzin became a member of the Board of the Deutsche Bundesbank in charge of monetary emission and cash circulation. Since summer 2010, Thilo Sarrazin was the first of senior officials to have openly raised a question of Moslem migrants in Germany.  

In an interview of 2011, he reproached Turks and Arabs residing in Germany for their unwillingness to get integrated into the German society.  The public scandal went so far that the management of the Deutsche Bundesbank had to release from Sarrazin his responsibilities aside from managing some sectors. “We are on the right way to growdumber,” said the 65-year-old banker at a congress of the union of entrepreneurs in Hessen. To his opinion, intellect is 80 percent dependent upon genetic indices and just 20 percent upon upbringing and education. He was backed by Peter Trapp, expert in domestic policy of the Berlin branch of the Christian Democrat Union Party, who insisted on testing IQ of all migrants.

Simultaneously with provocative statements of Sarrazin, federal and regional authorities in Germany began “providing” the public with a kind of practical materials in support of the racist theory of the new ideologist of national segregation. It was a sudden coincidence – publication of the Sarazzin’s book, the high-sounding statement of Angela Merkel, and unexpected results of “sociological polls” initiated by the German government – all these predetermined the start of a new national policy of the united Germany seeking to drive “non-intellectual nationalities” out of the country.

In April 2011 results of sociological polls made by a request of the German government among migrants became publicly known. It turned out that each fourth Turk in Germany does not speak the German language, while each second Turk does not communicate with Germans. Nearly 67 percent of the Poles and 60 percent of the Greeks residing in Germany have secondary education. As for Italians and immigrants from the former Yugoslavia, this figure stands at about 44-45 percent. As for Turks, this figure is 41 percent. Of them, 15 percent are public welfare recipients, while the respective figure for Greeks is just 7.5 percent. According to Thomas de Maizière, the Minister of the Interior of Germany, 10 - 15 percent of migrants in Germany openly refuse to being integrated into the German society.

In early June 2011, results of the research made by the Institute of Criminology of Lower Saxony showed that the religious Moslem youth of Germany is notable for the greater inclination for crimes and violence. Surveyed in the poll were 45,000 teenagers aged 15-19. Of them, 10,000 are children of migrants, including those from Moslem countries. The results obtained were made public upon approval of the Interior Minister of Germany Thomas de Maizière.

According to the poll, nearly each fourth Moslem (23.5 percent) resorted to violence against his coevals or committed thefts. Among Moslem juveniles, who identified themselves as “non-religious”, a share of transgressors was much lower – 19.6 percent only. Of juveniles, who committed more than five violent offences, 10.2 percent identified themselves as “very religious”; 9.2 percent - as “religious”; and 7.7 percent as “non-religious.”

As for teenagers of Catholic or Protestant belief, their inclination for violence is slightly lower.  A share of aggressive teenagers among migrants from Christian countries – Poland, Slovakia, Russia and the Baltic countries made up 21.8 percent of the “religious” group and only 12.4 percent of the “non-religious” group.

However, the poll carried on by the EMNID Institute for Bild in September 2011, demonstrated that 18.7 percent of German residents were ready to vote for the Party of Thilo Sarrazin, if it is established. A share of Sarrazin’s supporters in the Social Democratic Party of Germany proved to be even higher – 29 percent. As for those supporting centrists from CDU/CSU, 17 percent were ready to vote for “Sarazzin’s Party”.

For the Germans, Sarrazin is somebody who is finally saying what many are thinking,” said Klaus-Peter Schoeppner, Director of the EMNID Institute. In his opinion, Germans are concerned about the growth of the number of migrants from Asia and Africa; however, for a long period of time no debates over this topic were under tacit ban.

According to the poll conducted by the TV-company ZDF, 56 percents of German citizens agreed with Sarrazin’s theses and only 28 percents disagreed.

At first, Thilo Sarrazin’s book got a hostile reception by the German top political establishment. However, later on, leading politicians of the country had to confess that multiculturalism in Germany yielded no positive results. 

The most principled question is why the German’s elite has suddenly agreed with Sarrazin. The simplest explanation is that the elite felt the support the German society had rendered to the ideas of this disgraced official. As far as Germany is a democratic country, the public opinion is sometimes lent an ear to. This argument is reasonable; however, it does not explain why this formerly tabooed topic has suddenly been put on the agenda of the German society; why state bodies have begun leaking the results of close sociological polls; and why Sarrazin, a German official, decided to ruin his own career.

In our view, the reason of Germany’s refusal of multiculturalism is largely of economic and partially political nature rather than public.

Underlying reason of a new anti-immigrant policy

As of 2009, there were 7.22 million foreigners in an 82-million country. Of them, Turks and Kurds make up a quarter. Citizens from the former Yugoslav republics constitute about 12.5 percents. Above 15 percents are migrants from the Middle East and North Africa states (Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, etc.) as well as Afghanistan. Some 12 percents are natives of Sub-Saharan Africa (Somalia, Nigeria, etc.). Meanwhile, about 8 million people, who are not native German speakers, have already been naturalized and are no longer formal migrants in Germany. At present, almost each fifth resident of Germany is not German.

A net migration flow to Germany in 1991-1999 comprised approximately 3.2 million migrants. However, the figure went down in the first decade of the 21 century. In 2000-2008, it made up only 970,000 migrants; the year 2008 saw a negative balance of nearly 56,000 persons first ever in the past 30 years. 721,000 moved to Germany whereas 734,000 left the country in 2009. As it appeared, Germans themselves started leaving Germany: 155,000 ethnic Germans left the country in 2009 alone. As a rule, they are leaving for Switzerland, Austria, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia.

That is the primary reason that made the German political elite revise their views on the subject. Despite various tricks, Germany is viewed by them as a national state but not a poly-ethnic state formation abandoned by natives. The second, no less important reason is the harsh economic reality. The financial crisis of 2008 made it clear that a greater portion of EU countries is either in “intensive care” or hardly makes ends meet. In fact, the present EU survives at the expense of Germany only, with France’s minor contribution.

Nowadays, the German economy demonstrates rapid growth, to a greater extent thanks to its unique sector – engineering industry – which products are actively bought up by China, Brazil, India, and other countries. It would be appropriate to remind that in 2009 the German engineering industry, this backbone of country’s economy, suffered heavy losses: volume of orders dropped by 58 percents with more than33,000 related jobs cut. Total sales results dropped by 24.5 percents. However, in the first quarter of 2010 an aggregate turnover of companies increased by 8.7 percents against the respective period 2009, while orders in April rose by 36 percents against the respective month of 2009.

As Germany gradually becomes dependent upon growing economies of China, Brazil, India and other states, and a complex science-consuming engineering industry  comes out as the pledge of country’s competitiveness, it is obvious that the country is not in need of millions of uneducated and culturally alien migrants. The question is that Turks, Afghans and Egyptians are not employed at engineering industry enterprises, don’t create new technologies or contribute to science. Peddling, barber’s shops, car repair shops or simply social welfare allowances are the main occupations of these migrants (to say nothing of drug trafficking, dens, etc.). That is not the right way for Germany to develop.

Adherents of immigrants’ participation in the Germany’s economy had a solid argument – the country needed foreigners to ensure its development. However, there are all kinds of migrants. Thus, young Poles are intensively employed on eastern lands of Germany with their catastrophic demographic situation. These Poles are provided not only with education but with jobs as well.

The third essential reason of Berlin’s revision of its domestic policy is socio-economic budgetary expenditure. Financial support to  EU is a heavy burden which can only be compensated by social budget cutting. This caused numerous protests across the country. As distinguished from Spaniards, Greeks, Irishmen or Italians, Germans had not been involved in creating economic bubbles in real estate or financial sectors, and growth rate of their salaries have not exceeded inflation rate over the past 8 years. That’s why the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the authorities enabled them to kill two birds with one stone: to focus on newly found “enemies” of the German society and reduce social welfare payments.

In considering the above-stated, it is obvious that the statement by Thilo Sarazzin and publication of his previously unthinkable book in Germany, as well as proclamation of death of multiculturalism by politicians are just links in the chain. Germany officially declared that it was and remained to be the German state, which is interested in preserving its leading economic, scientific and industrial position worldwide, and it has reached the ceiling as concerns uneducated and culturally alien immigrants.

In this context, the solution to the crisis of multiculturalism may be reached through implementation of the following measures: First, it is necessary for governments to take specific measures concerning integration of immigrants and cease talking profusely about the tolerance as a basis of organization of the society. Second, it is essential to pay attention to promotion of tolerance not only among citizens of the receiving state but also among immigrants themselves. Third, it is necessary to work out specific rules and principles of multiculturalism in the entire European area. This problem has to be resolved at the level of the EU, not at the level of separate states. However, implementation of these specific measures aimed at protecting civil rights of “non-natural Germans” (the term was put into circulation by Susanne Stemmler, a researcher of multiculturalism problems) is feasible provided the state itself is sincerely interested in the creation of multicultural society. However, scandalous developments around Thilo Sarazzin’s book and the planned actions to frighten migrants, especially, acts of terror against alien Turks as the main irritant of “natural Germans” (certain public authorities were behind these acts of terror) are illustrative of different intentions of the German establishment, specifically, the continuation of the policy of assimilation of other peoples and cultures. The case of NSU, the so-called “kebab case”, as well as the case of revived Ku-Klux-Clan are the vivid examples of these intentions. The secret services of Germany were behind all these cases. 

The case of NSU (nationalist-socialist underground)

In 2000-2006, right extremists committed a series of murders in Germany. Eight Turkish entrepreneurs were killed in Nurnberg, Munich, Hamburg, Rostock, Dortmund and Kassel since September 2000. An explosion occurred in the Turkish quarter of Cologne in 2004. Police have failed to detect traces of criminals, as in the case of assaults against Jewish immigrants in Dusseldorf in 2000.

These murders remained unsolved for six years, despite the fact that all of them have been committed with the same weapon - a Czech ‘Ceska’ pistol. It was puzzling that for a long period of time the professional German police with their great experience and skills of operative work for unknown reasons failed to disclose such a demonstrated and open crime. The investigation remained at the dead stop, albeit there was a lot of evidences. Breakthrough in the investigation took place after a police woman was killed by the same weapon in the town of Heilbronn in 2007.

Yet after the racist terrorists have attacked on a representative of authorities, the German police have declared that a gang of neo-Nazis that operated in this region since 1998 had finally been caught. In other words, only in November 2011, i.e. 11 years after the creation of the “National-Socialist Underground” organization that had committed at least 10 murders, law enforcement agencies declared that they had done away with terrorist underworld. Police immediately proved this organization’s involvement in the killings of eight Turkish immigrants.

And the most sensational matter discovered through the journalist investigation was that all conspirators of this group were secret collaborators – informants of German security services.

Founders of this group – 36-year-old Beate Zschäpe, a professor’s son Uwe Mundlos, and odd-job man Uwe Böhnhardt were secret agents, whose activities have been known to the secret services since 1995. Archives of the state security service of the land Saxony-Anhalt made public the copies of Uwe Mundlos’s interrogation made by military counterintelligence (MAD) officers in June 1995. Furthermore, the copies of these documents have been kept in the archives of other secret services - Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, and security agencies of Thuringia and Saxony. Following the establishment of a special investigatory commission of Bundestag in November 2011, MP’s have requested the military counterintelligence service to provide them with archive materials on the NSU case. However, the German counterintelligence has destroyed all the available materials on the matter and thus actually refused to provide the parliamentary commission with necessary materials.

The case of Ku-Klux-Clan

An interrelation between the case of NSU (founded by secret officers of German security services) and the participation of German policemen in the racist American organization of Ku-Klux-Clan can be noticed in a remarkable manner. It was the NSU that killed the German policewoman Michele Kiesewetter in 2007. However, it soon became known that two colleagues of Kiesewetter proved to be members of Ku-Klux-Clan. Even worse, two policemen, in in particular direct superior officer of Kiesewetter were members of the “European White Knights KKC, German branch” group since 2002. One of them was a member of this group for six months, while the other one for a shorter period. The most striking thing was that yet in 2003 the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Interior became aware of the KKC membership of these policemen following the search in the flat of the leader of the German branch of Ku-Klux-Clan. However, these policemen kept on serving in the Ministry of Interior and remained unpunished.

Even after a number of Bundestag MP’s, in particular Mr. Sebastian Edati, SPD, raised in 2012 a question of scandalous involvement of the German policemen in the racist organization, the Federal Ministry of the Interior failed to hold internal investigation and to punish officers involved, especially in the light of the murder of M. Kiesewetter. Federal Police and the Staatsanwaltschaft (Public Prosecutor’s office) have also failed to hold investigation in order to identify links between the NSU case and the Ku-Klux-Clan, albeit investigatory authorities should have displayed interest in the murdered policewoman’s colleagues, members of the illegal organization.

Neo-Nazism in Saxony

“The German federal state of Saxony in May 2012: Two men in the city of Bautzen assault a Colombian exchange student, calling him names and kicking him. In Hoyerswerda, right-wing extremists lay siege to the office of a member of the Bundestag, Germany's parliament, smashing windows and attacking an employee. In Limbach-Oberfrohna, neo-Nazis attack a center for alternative education. In Geithain, an explosive device detonates in front of Pizzeria Bollywood, a restaurant owned by a Pakistani. Sayal, the owner of pizzeria, describes the harassment he's experienced from neo-Nazis in the five months since he opened his restaurant. The very first night, they smashed his windows. In May, a group of 10 of them showed up in front of his restaurant, wearing masks and wielding knives. They kicked at the door, threw a stone through the window and shouted, "You shit foreigner, we'll get you. If you don't get out of here, we'll kill you." A week later, an explosive device wrecked his restaurant. Here, young men are hanging around revving their car engines, listening to loud neo-Nazi rock and drinking beer. As the evening progresses, more come to join them, some greeting the group with a Nazi salute.”Maximilian Popp, well-known German investigative journalist reveled these facts this year.

Note that this youth are activists of the National-Democratic Party of Germany, de facto protagonists of the ideas of national and racial segregation. It has to be kept in mind that the ultra-right nationalistic, de facto Nazi, Party NDPG is active in Germany quite legally; moreover, it is officially registered, takes part in the elections, has secure positions in the eastern provinces of Germany and seats at municipalities. In 2004, the Party gained 9,2% votes during the election to the Saxony Parliament; in 2009 – 635,525 voted for the Nazi Party. Activists of this Party are actually engaged in propagandizing Nazi ideas and concurrently intimidating the population with the connivance of police and other law-enforcement bodies. The Nazi Party has no influence on the German society since 1968.

As viewed by leading contributor to the weekly “Stern” Katja Gloger, in spite of the fact that the government of Germany, Bundestag and Bundesrat have repeatedly attempted to disband the NDPG while the Federal Constitution Court of Germany turned these initiatives down, the NDPG keeps on sticking to nationalistic ideas. However, due to the fact that formally there is no Nazi propaganda and symbolics in the party program, the highest judicial authority has no formal reason to cease its registration. Is that so Saxony developments and participation of Rolf Wohlleben, NDPG member, in the case of NSU are not formal reason to disband the Party and deregister it? Or maybe, the “deep state” as referred to by critics of the German Government is not interested in losing an effective lever of influence that predetermined the collapse of the multiculturalism Mrs. Merkel regretted about?

According to Viola von Cramon (Greens), NDPG is closely linked to the State’s security services, and its activity is carried out with their financial support. Such statement of Mrs. von Cramon, an authoritative MP of Bundestag and the EU Parliament, explains why the Federal Constitution Court turns down Bundestag’s request to deregister the Nazis.

It’d be appropriate to note that all these developments occur in German following the disclosure of the Nazi-Socialist underground. For some reason or other, the German authorities are not in a hurry to oppose a new tide of the fascist and racist movement. Instead, the German authorities prefer to deny the problem roundly, as it did during the NSU activity. Suffice it to cite statements of German top officials. Saxony's Interior Minister Markus Ulbig from the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) considers the FN nothing more than an "Internet portal," a kind of Facebook for Nazis. And state governor Stanislaw Tillich, also of the CDU, has stated that Saxony does not have a significant problem with right-wing extremism.

It was Saxony where a famous “trio” had been active for a decade. However, both in the midst of Nazi underground activities and after its liquidation (or self-liquidation?) authorities have been neglectful of the Nazi propaganda among secondary school pupils. Nazis are eager to get young people involved in their work. An impression is that the authorities are dispensing patronage to local Nazis. For instance, all those seeking to withstand racists, unmask their ideology and stand for restriction of their activity immediately become an object of persecution. An eloquent testimony to this is the destiny of the well-known German journalist Gunter Wallraff, organizer of readings and high-profile antifascist journalist investigations, who was subjected to persecutions from neo-Nazis.

Barbarous actions of neo-Nazis aimed at arbitrary rule and violation of public order take place with the connivance of police. Phone calls from citizens, victims of neo-Nazi violence to the Saxony police may serve an example to that. Policemen proved to be suspiciously indifferent to complaints of citizens. On 13 June 2012, German journalist Maximilian Popp published in the weekly “Stern” his much-talked-of article titled “Nazis Left to Strive in Parts of Eastern Germany”. The author has cited phone calls from Saxony citizens to local police stations. This is one another example of glaring inactivity of police authorities of Germany (a shorthand record from “Spiegel”):

“7:49 p.m., a female caller: "Something's about to happen at Sophienplatz in Colditz." "What's happening?"

"There are all these masked men down here."

"So?"

"They're kicking everything here to pieces down here."

7:51 p.m., a male caller: "There are more than 50 people here at Sophienplatz in Colditz, wearing masks."

"And why are you calling?"

"Because these guys down there are kicking at a building, hitting things, throwing explosives."

8:04 p.m., a female caller: "They've destroyed everything at Sophienplatz. And they wanted to set something on fire up here at the youth club, too, at least that's what I heard."

"Well, if you've observed damages, you can come by the police station at any time to file a report."

8:43 p.m., a female caller: "I called before, and I need the police here. We already asked you to send someone."

"Yes, but there's no one available."

"Please, please, send someone."

8:44 p.m., a male caller: "They've bashed in the windows four times already."

"And what do you expect me to do? Should I go and stand in front of the windows, or what were you expecting?"

Like in the case of NSU, the surge of racism in many towns and provinces of Germany - including Bavaria; the connivance to Nazism have caused policemen to fall a victim of Nazis. For example, Germany was shocked by a Nazi knife attack on Alois Mannichl, Passau Police Chief, well-known fighter against the right extremism - happens with the tacit consent of law-enforcement agencies and the German State. An impression is that German authorities intentionally stir up the tide of popular indignation and aggressive attitude to the newcomers in order to turn “unnatural Germans” out of the country. The first results of this policy are obvious: the great immigrant bulk of the Turkish population is leaving its second homeland. This process is induced also by sudden leap of the Turkish economy during the office of Erdogan’s Government. Around 22,300 Turkish citizens have already left Germany, primarily highly qualified specialists.

As viewed by Rita Ulrich, expert of the Ministry of Economy of Germany, “the aces of aces are leaving while those willing to immigrate to Germany have no qualification of this sort.” Turkish specialists hastily leaving Germany are replaced by people from Eurozone countries facing severe economic depression. According to the expert, the leavers are seeking to get rid of the stupid German bureaucratic machine” or, maybe, they are rescuing both themselves and future generations from ever growing historical revanchism.

In any event, the number of those willing to arrive in Germany for permanent residence or get a job dropped by 11%, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).At present, there are above 6,000 active Nazis in Germany who have committed more than 200 xenophobia-caused crimes.

It has to be kept in mind that the racism reached Berlin as well. The eastern part of the capital is overcrowded by aggressively minded racists. Former SDPG member of the Westphalia parliament, lawyer Clause Hoppstadte claims that immigrants are apprehensive of appearing in the eastern part of Berlin for fear of Nazis and racists’ assaults. NDPG is consolidating its positions in this part of the city.

The case of Murat Kurnaz

In addition to the above examples, the case of Murat Kurnaz, a lawful German resident and a prisoner of Guantanamo, is illustrative of the direct involvement of the governmental circles in implementing the state concept of national identification that led to the collapse of the multiculturalism concept. The State treats “unnatural Germans” as second-rate citizens, and the case of Murat Kurnaz reveals cynicism of the Germany’s State policy.

Born in Bremen, Murat Kurnaz, straight after the 11 September terrorist attacks, left for Pakistan. Subsequently, Kurnaz gave evidence to the Bundestag committee of inquiry as saying that he left for Pakistan “to make a closer study of Islam”. In November 2001 he was arrested in Peshawar by local policemen and given to Americans. Without any further delay, Americans jailed him in the camp for military prisoners in Kandagar and then took him to Guantanamo as a person suspect of terrorism. While at Guantanamo, Kurtaz was inhumanly tortured, sexually abused and beaten; these facts were mirrored in numerous publications in German and world’s mass media.

Since 2002, at his relatives’ request, interests of Kurnaz were represented by lawyer Bernhard Doke who insisted that his arrest and camp imprisonment had been contrary to the law. Representatives of German special services, particularly officers of Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, went to Guantanamo in autumn 2002, met with Kurnaz and suggested him to act as informer in the Moslem milieu. Later on, the intelligence service changed its plans and lost interest in the Turkish prisoner. Even worse, the German Foreign Ministry cancelled its citizen’s residence visa on formal basis: Kurnaz abandoned Germany for a period exceeding the one specified by the German legislation.

On August 24, 2006, Kurnaz was released and returned to Germany. A political scandal broke out in Germany straight after his return. The point is that in the reviewed period the German Foreign Minister Mr. Frank Walter Steinmayer held a post of the head of office under Chancellor H. Schroeder and was in charge of the Kurnaz case. Many of Bundestag members have demanded the Steinmayer’s resignation. However, in response to opposition reproofs, Foreign Minister Steinmeier replied cold-bloodedly in an interview to “Spiegel”: “I wouldn't decide any other way today”. Answering the questions of the special commission of Bundestag, German Interior Minister Otto Schily stated that actions of all the departments of his Ministry “were absolutely correct”.

Cases of Russians subjected to discrimination in Germany

Not only the Turkish community but a new wave of immigrants from the former USSR and the Russian-speaking population of Germany are subjected to discrimination in Germany. According to the German human rights activists, “the Russian population of Germany is one of the most infringed national minorities of the country”. Thus, head of the Cologne office of the Human Rights Union of Germany (HRUG) Harry Murray pointed out that in 2011 the Cologne office received above 1500 appeals from Russian-speaking citizens who needed urgent legal assistance. Over the past three years, the HRUG received and registered 3762 appeals from citizens. In his words, the rights of Russian-speaking citizens are frequently infringed by the judicial system. Courts deny translation services; proceedings are being conducted without lawyers, mass media and human rights activists. This practice is at variance with the decision of the Federal Constitution Court of Germany which says that court decisions vital to human’s destiny must be translated simultaneously and word-for-word.

The basic problem of migrants from the post-Soviet countries, particularly Russia (the same is true of Russian Germans who also failed to get integrated in the German community), is a German Government’s decision to deprive this category of pensions and social allowances. Such a discriminatory decision applies even to participants of the World War II, though veterans of the Wehrmacht and Nazi divisions draw pensions.

Amidst the restrictions on rights of Russian-speaking people in Germany, this segment of the German society has no chance to protect its legal civilian and social rights. The HRUG has repeatedly criticized the German authorities in the protection of human rights of its own citizens, as well as the rights of immigrants. In common with the infringement of rights of the Turkish community, the infringement of rights of the Russian-speaking community is an eloquent testimony to the current situation in the field of human rights, reveals a new concept of minority assimilation or its banishment from the country. Cases of Lilly Vansidler, Medvedev-Bernhardt and Eugene Skvortsov also raises interest. The latter faced police violence in Germany.

The case of Eugene Skvortsov

Eugene Skvortsov, a Russian of German origin, moved to Langenfeld, Germany in 2003 he together with his mother and sister. Straight after his resettlement, E.Sidorov came in sight of law-enforcement agencies.

In September 2005, Skvortsov together with his fiancée attended the birthday party of his friend Andrey S. At 1.00 a.m. when Skvortsov together with other guests entered a car park,  patrol police car approached. Shortly before the Skvortsov’s appearance, a scuffle happened in this locality. After the policemen checked passports of all those present, they forced five of them to clean snow in a neighboring park. Three weeks later Skvortsov was invited to the police station, and police took his fingerprints.

In May 2006 Skvortsov was invited at the municipal court of Langenfeld where he was acquainted with another “suspect” V.Kononov. They were accused of resisting the police. The court revealed that the police protocols were falsified. Skvortsov was not familiar with Kononov, he was not arrested on September 23, nor detained. The file was closed in the absence of evidence of guilt of the Russian “suspects”. However, in November 2006 the town police searched the flat of Skvortsov charging him with possessing the stolen audio and video devices. The search was made without witnesses of inquest. The immigrants were charged with stealing a bicycle of the owner of apartment. With the assistance of the HRUG, Skvortsov lodged a counter-claim, so the investigation failed to prove the guilt of the immigrants.

In a month, the police patrol again detained and searched Skvortsov near his home. The policemen demanded Skvortsov to cease smoking; however, when the immigrant tried to know the reason of the search: the policemen pounced on him and inhumanly bashed him up. As a result, Skvortsov fainted and later found himself handcuffed at the police station where he faced inhuman treatment, mockery and beating. In August 2006, the prosecutor’s office of Dusseldorf accused Skvortsov of obstructing the police and imposed a penalty on him in amount fo 400 euros. The immigrant was charged with obstructing the police, using a lighter and a penknife as crime instruments. However, the court, on the basis of evidence of witnesses, quashed a charge of Skvortsov.

Position of Amnesty International

The international human rights organization Amnesty International harshly criticized the German authorities for unfair attitude to immigrants. This organization also criticized the German authorities for inadequate treatment of foreign citizens who filed their applications to be granted the status of political refugees. The organization demanded to renounce the practice of deporting refugees to their homeland where they are usually subjected to tortures. According to the Amnesty International, the point is, in the first turn, about Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as some African states where the observance of human rights gives rise to serious complaints.

Position of Human Rights Watch

Another influential international human rights organization Human Rights Watch also criticized violation of human rights in Germany and called the authorities to remedy the situation. Report of this organization about the situation in the field human rights in 2012 stressed that in August 2012 the land Rhineland-Palatine became the sixth federal entity that provided persons seeking political asylum with the freedom of movement. “However, in 10 other federal lands the persons of this type should remain within the bounds of a certain geographical zone. If they violate this zone, they are either penalized or jailed”. 

In November 2012, Germany had to face the UN Committee against Tortures regarding the use of diplomatic guarantees and deportation of migrant-children unaccompanied by adults, according to the Human Rights Watch. As a whole, the situation with migrants and national minorities in Germany, especially in terms of the crisis of multiculturalism, causes serious concern.

UN Position

In July 2012, the UN Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) voiced its concern about inadequate social conditions of residence, material welfare, employment and medical services of persons asking for political asylum. 

In September, the Parliament of Germany passed a law that exempted the personnel of school institutions from the necessity of informing the authorities about unregistered migrants. Efforts of opposition parties to extend this law to the public health servants and courts were a failure. In July, CESCR recommended Germany to step up efforts for removing obstacles that hamper migrants to get an excess to the education and employment.

In October, the Parliament prolonged for 4 years the law on opposing terrorism, as well as set up an independent monitoring commission. Pursuant to the current legislation, it is admitted to carry out supervision and analyze the data obtained. In December 2010, the court of Cologne refuse a claim of Khaled Al-Masri against the German Government for refusal of extraditing thirteen American citizens supposedly guilty of his being giving to Afghanistan in 2004.

In October the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention expressed its concern about preventive detention of persons pleaded dangerous. In May the Constitutional Court of Germany recognized this action as unconstitutional.

Position of the German Government

In October 2010, Chancellor Angela Merkel analyzed consequences of multicultural policy in her country and openly expressed her Government’s stance and vision on the future co-existence of peoples in Germany. “At the beginning of the 1960s our country invited foreign workers to come to Germany, and now they live in our country… We kidded ourselves for a while that they wouldn't stay, but that's not the reality. Of course the tendency had been to say, 'let's adopt the multicultural concept and live happily side by side, and be happy to be living with each other'. But this concept has failed, and failed utterly”.

Distinct from the post-colonial Great Britain and France, Germany has openly rejected a concept of peaceful co-existence of peoples with the right to preserve their cultural identity. For national minorities, the only way out of this inflammable situation is to reconcile with the assimilation or leave Germany, this historical homeland for migrant-children.

Official position of German authorities lies in the fact that representatives of national minorities, immigrants, mostly representatives of the Turkish community, decline from getting integrated into the German community and prefer to live an enclave existence in a newly developed, post-industrial society. On the one hand, this stratum of the population joins social and political achievements of the developed German society and reaps the fruits of the guaranteed and safe life; on the other hand, it rejects alien values and social morale of the new environment.

As a consequence, the aspiration to preserve one’s national and cultural identity leads to the building-up of inter-cultural antagonism which gives birth to the growth of nationalistic tendencies; strengthens majority’s negation of the concept of co-existence of peoples with alien cultures which undermines a dominating role of historical identity of the German people.

Next part