To: letters@guardian.co.uk
Re: Why I disagree with Kofi Annan about Europe's supposed need for immigration
Date: Monday 2  February 2004

Dear Editor,

In response to "Annan attacks Fortress Europe over immigration" in last Friday's Guardian, and to the following quotes taken from Kofi Annan's address to the European Parliament and the associated press release: Brussels address on immigration ; "Why Europe needs an immigration strategy".

"As time goes by, the continent [Europe] is also experiencing an enlargement of what it means to be European.  I look forward to the day when Europe rejoices as much in diversity within States as it does in diversity between them. Many of your societies are already very diverse.  But all of your societies –- and many others around the world too –- will become more diverse in the decades to come.  This is the inevitable result of the movement of people across international borders.

"That movement is not going to stop.  As an international community, we need to manage the movement of people across borders far better than we do -– not just for the sake of those who move, but for the sake of the countries they leave behind, those they travel through, and those they migrate to."

"There can be no doubt that European societies need immigrants. Europeans are living longer and having fewer children. Without immigration, the population of the soon-to-be twenty-five Member States of the EU will drop, from about 450 million now to under 400 million in 2050.

"The EU is not alone in this. Japan, the Russian Federation and South Korea, among others, face similar possible futures – where jobs would go unfilled and services undelivered, as economies shrink and societies stagnate. Immigration alone will not solve these problems, but it is an essential part of any solution.

"We can be sure that people from other continents will go on wanting to come and live in Europe. In today’s unequal world, vast numbers of Asians and Africans lack the opportunities for self-improvement that most Europeans take for granted. It is not surprising that many of them see Europe as a land of opportunity, in which they long to begin a new life – just as the potential of the new world once attracted tens of millions of impoverished but enterprising Europeans."

While I can perhaps understand Kofi Annan's views on immigration to some extent, from his standpoint as a black person, as a native European, I am totally opposed to them. I want the dominant race and culture in Europe to remain EUROPEAN. If Kofi Annan has his way, native Europeans will eventually become an ethnic minority on their own continent. Many people, quite a few native Europeans among them, apparently seem to agree with him and even to delight at the prospect. But not me. Neither do I want to see the ethnic composition of any other part of the world radically changed: ethnic Japanese "be-long" in Japan, ethnic Chinese in China, black Africans in sub-Saharan Africa, fair-skinned Europeans in Europe, etc. That is DIVERSITY, and far more besides, which will be lost (slowly but surely) if we allow the degree of migration and mixing that is going on now to continue. Europe is NOT America, where all but a handful of native Americans are immigrants. Europe has a largely indigenous (i.e. European) population which is racially, culturally and historically closely related, yet, thanks to its multitude of languages, hugely diverse. We have natural diversity in Europe, which is being undermined by the massive, economically driven migration of peoples from the far corners of the Earth. 

Why do some native Europeans (especially among the English) look forward to the day (which, if things continue as they are, will not be long in coming - just a few generations) when they will cease to be the ethnic majority? Could it be an expression of deeply ingrained Christian guilt and a subconscious desire to punish themselves for the sins of their forebears?

If Europeans have more opportunities for self-improvement than others it is because Europeans have created them. It was also overwhelmingly Europeans who created such opportunities in North America and Australasia. Some Asian countries have also created their own prosperous societies, Japan being the prime example. Other countries, for whatever reasons, particularly in Africa, have been less successful. But instead of seeking a shortcut to prosperity and opportunity by migrating to affluent countries, it would be far better for everyone if they were to persevere in creating it in their own country of origin. It requires a high level of social organisation and hard work, but it can be done. Europeans had to pull themselves up by their boot straps, developing the technology and social institutions as they went along. Others can now take advantage of their achievements, adopting technologies that are already highly developed. That should make things a lot easier than it was for Europeans, who, I hasten to add, also have a great deal to teach the world from their mistakes. European genius is matched, if not exceeded, by European stupidity, one more recent example of which is allowing, if not actively encouraging, millions of immigrants into their already overcrowded continent.

There is nothing inevitable or unstoppable about the movements of people across international borders on the scale that is happening at present. European governments simply need the will to say "enough is enough! We don't want ANY more NET immigration. Thank you! It is very considerate of the United Nations to want to help Europe out with its aging population, but we (most of us) would rather manage without, which we are quite capable of doing. After all, for example, one 60-year old European farmer using European technology can do as much work on his farm as 100 youthful Africans working with African technology.

If Asian and African immigrants continue to pour into Europe we will not be "rejoicing" in the diversity that it brings, but suffering from the conflicts that it will inevitably, is already causing.

I have the greatest respect for foreign peoples and cultures - but not when they are transplanted into my OWN country and culture. At home I want to be among my own. I do not want to become an ethnic minority in my own country, although in some parts of Britain (in the London borough of Brent, for example, where I grew up) I already am.

To be continued . . . .