DIVIDE AND CONQUER - Social Policy and the Division of Labor in the Upcoming European Economic Area (EEA)
Much has been said about the role Schengen and TREVI will play in Fortress Europe. The policing of the external borders and internal labor markets of the European Community will indeed endanger the already precarious situation of EC non-nationals in the coming years. Little attention has been paid, however, to the effect the social policy scenarios now being debated within the EC organizations will have on the position of third country nationals within the Single Market. The following brief overview will deal with the impact that the proposed division of the foreign labor force will have on the rights of migrants now legally residing within the EC, as well as on those hoping to immigrate here in the future.
The EEA and the EC Single Market will presumably both take affect as of january 1, 1993. Whereas immigration and refugee policy will remain under the auspices of the various multilateral agreements already discussed at length in this newsletter (Dublin, Schengen, TREVI, Berlin and Vienna groups, etc.), social policy must be harmonized within the EEA, with one exception, by the end of this year. Switzerland has been allowed, considering the fact that over 80% of its ca. 1 Million non-nationals are EEA citizens, to gradually comply to community rules within the next five years. Existing EC migration policy will become EEA policy. Those changes recently agreed upon during the Maastricht Summit are not binding within the EFTA states, who have reserved the right to opt out of any future European Community or European Union proposal not considered compatible with their respective national migration policy agendas.
The Three Sphere Concept
The EEC has, as of the mid 1960's, attempted to eliminate all discrimination against Community citizens working in other member states. With the implementation of the Single Market, all EC citizens, including students, the retired, and the unemployed, will be covered by this non-discrimination policy. The EEA has extended this protection against discrimination to the citizens of the seven EFTA countries Austria, Iceland, Finnland, Lichtenstein, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. The citizens of the 19 EEA states make up the privileged central sphere of migrant workers now residing in the European Economic Area.
The second or outer migrant labor sphere is now mainly made up of nationals of the Mediterranean basin states, such as Algeria, ex-Yugoslavia, and Turkey. This group, numbering over 12 million, immigrated during the 1960's, 70's, and 80's. The EC Commission, the Economic and Social Committee (CES), and the EC "ad hoc Group Immigration" all consider this non-national outer sphere to be of utmost economic importance. According to the CES documents 560/91 and 1122/91, dating from April 24, 1991 and September 26, 1991 respectively, the improvment of the status of migrant workers from third countries is a prerequisite to the stabilization of the internal labor market of the Community. As early as 1985 the Commission also proposed the gradual harmonization of EC policy toward non-nationals and their gradual assimilation into the Community. This process should include, according to the Commission and CES, broad non-discrimination protection for third country nationals, allowing them to move and settle freely within the EC, and presumably the EEA as well. On October 23, 1991, the Commission again emphasized its longterm non-discrimination goal in document "SEK(91)1855 endg.". The European Parliament has also demanded far reaching improvments and protection against discrimination for third country nationals.
The proposed improvments for non-nationals, though now blocked by the EC-Council, would enable those migrants now legally residing in the EEA, to consolidate their present hard earned economic and social status within the coming years. The ulterior motivation for this ostensibly high-minded policy of non-discrimination of third country nationals becomes evident, however, after considering the far reaching social and security policy proposals the "ad hoc Group Immigration" (ad hoc group) has submitted to the Maastricht Summit (SN 4038/91) on December 3, 1991. According to the ad hoc group, the EC, and thereby presumably the EEA as well, should clearly differentiate between the outer sphere of legal third country "migrants" already present in the EC and those potential "immigrants" and "asylum seeekers" yet to arrive. Through the use of non-discrimination policies, the ad hoc group hopes to fully integrate the outer sphere of non-national migrants. Social assimilation should, according to this plan, go hand-in-hand with beefed up border controls and cooperation with the countries of origin, encouraging them to repatriate those illegal immigrants caught by the police forces of the EC member states as well as those asylum seekers turned down by a harmonized EC refugee board.
The Poor versus the Poorest
The long term proposals of the Commission, CES, and ad hoc group will divide the foreign labor market into three segments or spheres, i.e. EC migrants, third country migrants, and potential immigrants and asylum seekers. If the present trend towards EC harmonization continues (despite the growing opposition to Maastricht, this can be assumed to be the case) spheres one and two will be intergrated by the end of the decade. Assuming that a large percentage of those EC migrants now abroad are located at the lower end of the income ladder, the social and cultural assimilation of both migrant spheres could be facilitated by confronting them with a common threat, i.e. potential newcomers from Eastern Europe and the non-Community countries of the Mediterranean basin. At the moment, this seems to be the policy most favored by the trade unions, Social democrats, and a large section of the Greens. Under the guise of multi-culturalism, the longsighted policy makers within the EC hope to incorporate the "guest-workers" into the social policies of Fortress Europe, thereby elevating them to helper's helpers in a common cause.
Considering the current lack of a feasible alternative, this concept will most likely succeed.
by Eugene Sensenig
Contact: Dr. Eugene Sensenig, Hofhaymerallee 21/31, A-5020 Salzburg, Tel: +43/622 82 36 51. The author is a lecturer in politology at the universities of Innsbruck, Salzburg and Vienna.