ime is running out for German Chancellor Merkel to cope with the country's refugee crisis. She hoped the EU to reach an agreement on the refugee issue and tide over the difficulty. A number of EU countries are against the agreement, however, leading Germany to an isolated position in Europe.

Merkel called for a national humane spirit, adhering to the “welcome refugee” culture, but citizen complaints are heard everywhere in the overwhelmed Germany. “Mother Merkel”, also known as Time magazine's "Person of the Year for 2015"  globally, who had opened the door for numerous Syrian refugees, is facing a toughest test in her political career. Her political favorable rating has plummeted from the popularity peak to the bottom in just a few months. What she did wrong? I believe Merkel miscalculated at least in the following three aspects:

Firstly, Merkel believed that accepting the refugees is a great opportunity for Germany, which can alleviate thus its population decline and stimulate economic growth. But she ignored the cost of the process and time.

Experts were optimistic about the arrival of the refugees, considering it a rare opportunity to create a favorable economic climate. Last November, the OECD experts predicted that the government measures to rescue refugees would spur the economy to achieve the high growth in 2016. The Deutsche Bank also forecasted that the “refugee economy” would contribute to German economic growth by 0.25%. The economists consent with government’s policy, looking forward to benefit from it. Experts were also optimistic that a great number of refugees would compensate the population deficit, which amounts to 300 thousand people every year to keep the structural balance. Taking into account that over half of the refugees are under 25 years old and adaptable, we may speak to the fact of the long-term supply of manpower after training that can be provided by German education institutions. On the other hand, there are 2 million idle houses among the nation, and 600,000 of them can be used to accommodate refugees.

However, divergence among coalition government parties put off the release of a relevant policy, as well as a solution to the issue, leading to the failure of any specific measures. Merkel has underestimated how difficult it will be to realize policy coordination inside the government; overstated the tolerance of the public. As a result, no effective solution is formed.

Secondly, in the terms of culture, motivated by salvation, Merkel believes that Germany and Europe have the mission of humanity and observance of human rights to save those sufferers. However, the fact that she ignores the fierce challenge brought by the refugees' cultures turned the moral highland into cloud-castle and polarized the whole German society.

Those who know Merkel’s past, in particular, that she grown up from a Protestant priest's family, believe that the idea of salvation pushes her to insist on opening the borders  to refugees regardless of the objections heard from home and abroad, But she underestimates the severity of the cultural conflict brought by the refugees.  Most of the millions of refugees are Muslims. Ten years ago, a government report once pointed out that German Muslims were more easily to become violent than any other religion believers. Recently, with the expansion of an “anti-islamization” group, more and more Germans refuse to accomodate the refugees. Some elites even claim that the Muslims will never fit the German society, but instead “destroy the whole country”.

No matter which side is right, the fact is that solving refugee problem simply from the point of morality can’t be acknowledged by the German public. The word “nice guy”, referring to those who help the refugees, is on the list of the annual evil words inGermany. This reflects the divergence of the German society on the issue of refugees.

Thirdly, in the context of Europe, Merkel hopes that the EU could escape the refugee flood by carrying out a “solution for Europe”. But in this she meets objections from other countries, thus, facing a failure and resulting in turning the  refugee problem from a world’s issue into a strictly“Germany’s issue”.

A large number of the refugees rushed into Europe last summer, making the whole continent face a humanitarian crisis. Merkel stood out firmly and welcomed the refugees to come to Germany. This made Germany become “the Holy Land” for the refugees and also let Merkel become their “Mother Merkel”. But Germany’s “welcoming culture” put heavy economic and moral pressure on other countries unwilling to accept the refugees. Some state leaders even believed that the afflux of the refugees is a kind of a foreign invasion and what Germany had done just encouraged it. Therefore, Merkel’s advice, including the strengthening of the European Union's external border control, setting no upper limit to accept the refugees, keeping the borders of EU countries open and sharing responsibilities for the “European solution” towards the refugees, were not accepted by a majority of EU countries. Even Austria, Germany’s closest neighbouring country, had abandoned its proposal and called the Balkan countries together to forbid the refugees from entering. That is to say, Germany got into isolation.

Nevertheless, Germany’s solution has its rationality. According to the prediction of the Bertelsmann Foundation, a famous think tank, the control over the inner borders will cause economic losses of at least 4.7 trillion euros in a decade. But fellows ignored its sincere advice. Germany, who originally wanted to solve the EU’s trouble under its leadership, became a trouble itself.    

The European refugee crisis doesn’t disappear after the failure of Merkel’s “European solution”, but is further intensifying now. The refugees, who are stopped now in front of the border between Greece and Macedonia, are easily triggering a humanitarian disaster. The progression of events may prove the correctness of Merkel’s solution, but Germans consider the current benefit only. Merkel’s welcoming solution has been gone against people’s desire of peaceful and secure life. It is not enough if statesmen care only about economy and morality. They must take the citizen’s acceptance level toward a particular issue in consideration simultaneously. Otherwise, good intentions will be no warrant to irregular actions.

The author is the Chair of the Univesrity Council of Shanghai International Studies University (SISU) and the former Minister-Counselor for Educational Affairs at Chinese Embassy in Germany.

--

Translated and Edited by Li Meihui, Zhang Liwen, Wang Yuanzhuo, Vasyl Kucherenko