At today’s EU summit in Brussels, governmental leaders and heads of states are tackling the redistribution of refugees. The debate triggered by quotas suggested by the European Commission last month has turned out frighteningly furious. Reminding us of this main thing: whatever the solutions will be for Estonia, the way forward will not be via emotions and heresies, rather thru facts and soundness of mind.
On his Victory Day speech, President Toomas Hendrik Ilves called us to speak about our fears – but peacefully. To be able to do that, we ought to take time out to review the principles allowing us to do that.
To begin with, it would be solidarity and that in two ways. Firstly – as also underlined by the President – our help is needed by the very states who are currently busy helping protect us. Secondly, the xenophobic and extreme movements in nations left alone with the refugee-flood are eating away at European unity, and its outcome may not be what we desire.
The second important aspect comes down to the facts, both terminological and numerical. As revealed by a survey released a year ago, we are not able to differentiate between «immigrants», «asylum seekers», «refugees» and «fugitives». As shown by moods in this past month, the upset is based on faulty numerical assumptions on possible refugees. To say nothing about the mistaken notion that the money to support the refugees would come on account of our children or people worse off.
The third aspect concerns making a difference between Estonians options and our message. True, options need to be prudently assessed. Which will not mean that we fail to communicate the message of solidarity.
The fourth and perhaps the weightiest aspect is differentiating between xenophobia and fear for the nation’s future. While the first reflects an intolerance poisoning a society, the other is a concern well understood and shared as a small nation. Again referring the speech by the President – any vibration in the field of population, culture and language we sense as threat to our continued existence as a nation and a state.
But let’s then think about fear as part of the immune system without which an organism cannot function. Yet, organisms are not closed to the world outside, only rejecting what is perceived as genuine threat. The problems begin when an error occurs: when the organism thinks it detects a danger where it does not exist, and will begin to work against it’s very self. And that’s the situation we need to avoid.
And with the entire discussion, this is a vital aspect – feeling afraid cannot be banned; who could say it’s wrong to be afraid. Instead of that, we need to ask: what are the reasons for the fear, so we can deal with these reasons. Otherwise the fear will not diminish but may end up turning against us all. And that was the tendency detected in the discussions this past month.