The migration crisis as a symptom of Europe's failure

The plan that Brussels is working on to manage the refugee emergency seems to be based on a project that wants to involve African countries in preventing migration. At present, the distinction between migrants due to wars, such as Syrians and economic migrants, is currently being distinguished, while there is no distinction for those who are forced to emigrate from food and water famines, whereby these people are made Be included in the category of economic migrants. These distinctions contain a certain amount of hypocrisy, especially if one considers the treatment reserved for those who really escape from conflicts in their areas of origin. This premise is necessary in order to frame the situation in which the Union intends to move to prevent the problems that Italy is facing, which is the occasion of a serious diplomatic conflict within Europe. The geographical position of the Italian country favors the migratory movement from the Libyan coast, which is increasing in a less sustainable way for Rome; The problem is that this emergency does not want to be broken down among other European members: the hostility that has been manifested by the East European countries has added the lack of cooperation of the major Mediterranean countries, such as France and Spain. Moreover, there is an increasingly important role played by non-Italian international organizations, who play a meritorious role in terms of the rescue of refugees but which do not lead these people to the ports of their countries but In the nearest ones, that is, always in Italy. The solution in the first phase is to rely on Libyans to stop the flow of migrants through a substantial economic contribution; This hypothesis presents many gaps, which go from the real will and ability of the Libyans to carry out this task to the question of the treatment received by the migrants, which according to numerous testimonies would violate the most elementary rights of the people. This solution, even without the above concerns, remains a short-term plan too subject to so many variables that can preclude its effectiveness. Even major contributions, foreseen in Italy, are a solution that must be designed to handle the immediate, proposal is essential to avoid further deaths, but it does not solve the lack of involvement of other member states, a condition necessary for a solution to European level as an essential element for continuing dialogue between the countries within the Union. Subsidizing African States only with money, an eventuality envisaged by Brussels, is equally critical, both because the governments and political systems of these states have obscure aspects in public affairs, and because it would be more useful to develop economic and productive systems in a way Jointly, so as to directly control the use of funding and the progress of projects. Blocking migration flows at source is only possible by allowing the growth of the countries where this phenomenon comes from, this is possible with a heavy burden of resources, not just economic, that only a supranational organization such as the European Union could guarantee. But the problem is precisely this: the failure to cooperate in Italy, left alone, beyond so many words, to manage a situation that should be more equally divided is the signal and confirmation of a political weakness that is unable to overcome the contingent situations present In individual states, such as elections, pressure groups in order to have an overview, capable of allowing common efforts and goals. The inability of Brussels to handle migratory crises probably goes beyond the financial issue, which has been central so far, just because it invests the ability to prove that the democratic values ​​on which Europe is founded are not just about paper. Without finding a valid consensus, the consequence will be to rediscover the whole system of alliances and the allocation of contributions to Brussels until it comes to laying certain rules, otherwise Europe's failure will only be recognized.