Why are Many Nordics so Sceptical of Asylum Seekers?

Nordic parties critical of immigration have had astounding successes at the polls recently. The Danish People's Party was the clear winner of the parliamentary elections on June 18, becoming the country's second largest party and nibbling at the bait of participating in a new coalition government before finally pulling out. In Finland the EU-sceptical Finns Party is in government since late May, with four ministers, among them the Foreign Minister. The Norwegian immigration-sceptical Progress Party has been in a government coalition with the Conservatives since 2013.


In Sweden, the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats had a "shocking" success last October (2014) - winning 13% in the parliamentary elections. Their success has caused havoc in the Swedish political landscape, with the other parties scrambling to avoid shaking hands or having any other contact with "the fascists" (as they have repeatedly been called by Prime Minister Stefan Löfvén). Though coming out of a neo-fascist past in the early 1990s, and having some rough elements in their ranks, the Sweden Democrats have since cleaned up their act and follow normal democratic procedures and policies. They have now consistently been polling 18% for several months.


Scepticism of national and EU immigration policies is clearly behind the success of these parties, sometimes labeled "center extremists" - rather than right-wingers - by political scientists who follow them closely. That is because they all emphasize the value of the welfare state, unlike other right wingers.


Nevertheless, reactions outside Scandinavia have been aghast, not least in the United States, but also in the UK. Such reactions are misplaced, in my view. First of all, EU standards for the treatment of asylum seekers are high and generous, and Nordic countries exceed their fulfillment in many casesr. The main reason many North Europeans are critical of the level of immigration is not xenophobia, but the contrast evident between the expense lavished on asylum seekers and the social turbulence they bring. Nordic citizens in increasing numbers take this as signs of ingratitude and a lack of will to adapt to the society receiving them. Nordic citizens also worry about their already overburdened welfare states, and the undermining of traditional values of their countries. Only Norway is exceptionally well off among the Nordics, the others are struggling economically. 

EU asylum policy requires member states to satisfy asylum seekers' basic needs: shelter, food, health care, education for children, even work permits (after a waiting period). These benefits go to applicants whose decisions have not yet been made. Waiting periods can extend to more than a year.


By comparison, according to Human Rights Watch, in the United States "... asylum seekers are ... ineligible to receive nearly any type of government benefit while awaiting a decision on their cases." HRW also claims that "The United States stands alone among developed countries in denying both employment and governmental assistance." (Human Rights Watch, "US: Catch-22 for Asylum Seekers Arbitrary Ban on Working Causes Extreme Hardship and Should be Lifted" Human Rights Watch, November 12, 2013,) The US Government confirms this.*


In Sweden, the minimum for a single asylum seeker living in free accommodation with food provided is 75 euros per month in cash for personal needs. If living on his own outside asylum shelters, he gets 230 euros. In Germany, France and the UK cash benefits are roughly 350 euros a month for individual adults living outside asylum shelters. But Sweden has more to offer for those willing to sign up for language courses and job market training. In such cases, a single mother with three children 12, 13 and 14 years old, seeking asylum and renting a flat, is entitled to nearly 2500 euros a month, a salary roughly like that of a nurse, only tax free!


The Nordic right wing populist parties are mostly recruiting middle of the road voters, not extremists coming out of hiding, as social democrats or others on the left tend to imagine. Many middle of the road voters are getting impatient with the cost, the criminality and the lax justice for asylum-seeking offenders. The example of unaccompanied refugee children in Sweden is typical: While the age limit all over Europe is 18 for this category of refugee (which is given preferential treatment), Sweden has decided not to test their age medically, in order not to offend their "personal integrity". Fraud is often discovered. Norway introduced such tests a few years ago, after first testing an "honors system" which soon proved a failure.


The challenge of the right wing populists to the mainstream parties in Scandinavia is simply, speak frankly, bring the truth out. Both Sweden's previous and present government have refused to discuss touchy issues in parliament, such as the cost of the immigration policy, the abuse of benefits and the rates of crime associated with asylum seekers. Moreover, Swedish cultural self-confidence is often surprisingly low. School principals in many districts with many immigrants have forbidden the use of the Swedish flag at the school and the singing of the national anthem.



The desire of the rebellious populist parties is not a country without immigrants, but (unrealistically) one with fewer immigrants, and especially one in which immigrants respect the local culture and show a will to adapt. In the Nordic countries imigrants will always have ample space for their own culture as well. 

The way for the mainstream parties (Social Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives etc) to stop the populist parties is to take over some of the most sensible "populist" demands and satisfy them. No preferential treatment of immigrants is perhaps a good way to start.  


* NOTE: The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
website, under the heading "Obtaining Asylum in the US" says: "Affirmative asylum applicants are rarely detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). You may live in the United States while your application is pending before USCIS.  If you are found ineligible, you can remain in the United States while your application is pending with the Immigration Judge.  Most asylum applicants are not authorized to work."

Main Cause of the South China Sea Dispute: China's Claim

The various conflicts between the claims of the littoral states of the South China Sea are, with one exception, easily solvable. The claims of Brunei, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia are made within the principles and parameters set by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They can be easily resolved by mediation or arbitration. There is only one outlier in these debates, China. Where other states claim zones of ocean off their coasts, China claims the ocean in toto. (See also my blog on the South China Sea, June 30, 2011.)

No other state in recent history has made such preposterous claims, and even brazenly called them "rightful, justified" on account of "Chinese sovereignty". It is as if Japan were to have claimed all of the Eastern Japan Ocean, or Russia to have claimed the entire Black Sea or the whole Baltic, or for the UK to have claimed the North Sea. This unprecedented quality is also the reason why reading the documents put out by the Chinese Foreign Ministry in defense of its stance has very little interest in this case. The global community spent years debating this in the 1970s, and China like most other states ratified UNCLOS. Only UNCLOS just does not recognize such claims. 

China puts its own case down to the rights said to be due to it because of its sovereignty. But the reason all of China's neighbors claim their respective shares of the ocean according to UNCLOS is also their sovereignty. The only thing that differs is that China has a bigger territory and a vastly bigger population. China's coastline on the South China Sea is very small, especially compared to its claim.


No one has heard such curious claims in modern times. Yet most commentators are too polite to say so. It might have been possible to suffer this foolish posture if it were not for the fact that a huge share of international maritime trade passes through the area. For one littoral state to take control of it all would be an unacceptable grab. The danger is that China has shown its ambition to be just that kind of grab, and that it is prepared to use violence to defend its provocative claims. 

(On October 29, 2015, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague gave its first decision in the case raised by the Philippines against China. The court concluded that it was indeed competent to decide in this case, thus deciding in favor of the Philippines. The court now proceeds to the substantive part of the case.)