Does Immigration Have a Future

by

Joty ter Kulve-van Os

On both sides of the Atlantic, we are experiencing a rising tide of hostility towards immigration. Immigrants who have lived for decades in Holland, and have done extremely well for both themselves and for Holland, feel threatened. Turkish emigrants run eighteen thousand of Holland’s small businesses, which provide work for sixty thousand people. Talk with them and you find that many feel increasingly threatened.

I recently talked with one second-generation Dutch-Turkish gentleman who said his young daughters have started asking questions about anti-Turkish remarks made to them in school. This anti-immigrant wave is rolling across Europe. The Internet reports that Germany’s Chancellor Merkel made it official. Merkel reportedly announced, “The multicultural society in Germany has totally failed. We feel tied to Christian values. Those who do not accept them have no place in Germany, in Europe.” Similar opinions are expressed throughout Europe. One wonders what the five million Muslims living in Germany felt about the Chancellor’s pronouncement.

Such sentiments seem oddly out of place from a Germany and Europe whose ancestors happily settled in Africa and Asia reaping the rewards of those fertile lands and their hardworking citizens. Africans and Asians might be forgiven for thinking that now Germany and Europe, in some small way, might realize what an earlier generation of Africans and Asians felt about having foreigners becoming so prevalent in their lands.  

When I hear politicians saying that a multicultural society has failed, I always wonder what planet they are on. The reality is that Europe has become a multicultural, multiethnic society in the past sixty years. We cannot go back to the “purity” of a strictly Caucasian culture. We profited from the hard work of foreign immigrants, even though we haven’t been perfect in handling the problems that accompany immigration. Correct those mistakes; but history would be a harsh judge, indeed, if we took it out on people whom we accepted for five decades to be part of our social order.  

What short memories we have! Building a multicultural society in Europe actually started immediately following the end of World War II when Europe urgently needed to expand its workforce. At that point, Europeans welcomed those people who flooded into Europe from Morocco, Turkey and other Islamic lands. The first migrants after World War II to come to Holland came from former Dutch colonies such as Indonesia. I was one of them. Holland gave me a new life and home after three years in a Japanese concentration camp.

 And now globalization has become the pivotal economic and political challenge of our time. It is a cultural and economic challenge, but above all, it is a supremely human and personal challenge. Two stories poignantly illustrate globalization’s realities. As well, each story speaks to the essence of the spirit of Linggarjati. For both stories tell of people, just like you and I, who moved to a new country.

The first story tells of a lady, perhaps forty years of age, whom I met at the swimming pool in my hometown of Delden. We struck up a casual conversation which, as frequently happens, turned to talking about our families and about where we live. She was from Delden, as were her parents. Her ten-year old son and fourteen year-old daughter were temporarily staying with her parents.

My friend then said that she has been living in Egypt for the previous twenty years, as she was married to an Egyptian gentleman. I asked her how, as a Western woman living in Egypt, she coped with the complexities of the Middle East situation, and how her Egyptian parents-in-law treated her. She said her husband came from a traditional Egyptian family, that her sisters-in-law wore veils, and that she had good relations with them. “It all depends on the husband and how he treats you, and if he appreciates cultural differences,” she explained.

My friend described herself as a student of Arabian history and custom, and that her husband also had advanced educational degrees. The fact that both of them were well-educated is a significant factor in their harmonious relationship. She added: “But I believe that, underneath the cultural differences, people all over the world are fundamentally the same, We all want to be happy and to give our children the best in life.” She was originally of the Roman Catholic faith and had studied at the Catholic University of Nijmegen. But she had converted to Islam because of her children. “Allah would approve, don’t you think?” she remarked with a twinkle in her eye.

As we talked further, my friend said she had worked for several foreign embassies in Cairo, some of which gave courses in Egyptian culture and religion. “And that is fine,” she said.  “When in public, we are Egyptians, while at home we are Dutch.”  Her husband worked for an American consulting company, which meant he had been stationed in Iraq for two years. At the moment, he was working in Afghanistan. “Two days ago,” she said, “he wrote me that has he met many American boys who didn’t seem to realize the dramatic situation in which they operated. Many of them had no idea of the background of the Afghan people.  Because of that,” she said, “they couldn’t cope with the challenges confronting them at critical moments. You end up at crucial moments with a bunch of dead-scared young boys not older than nineteen. Thus, accidents are inevitable. They hear shooting, and their instant reaction is to return fire without too much thought.  That’s asking for trouble.”

The story of an experienced Dutch woman, with a clear outlook on life, married to an Egyptian, made me realize that, in one way or another, we all have to deal with a globalizing world. It is the reality in which we live, and to which we must adapt.

My second story is about Joe and Diana, a married couple I met recently in the United States.

Joe was a young man whose family immigrated to the United States from the Philippines. He married a lovely American girl, and they have three children. Joe was a Roman Catholic; his wife was a Protestant. Her great-grandfather had been a distinguished U.S. senator, and her paternal ancestors had immigrated to the US from Scotland in 1774. Just as their third child was born, Joe was diagnosed with an advanced stage of lung cancer.

When they had moved from the Washington suburbs to the nearby Virginia countryside, Diana had planned to leave her job as the chief executive officer of a small high-tech company, and to devote herself to raising the children. Joe’s cancer, however, forced her to reconsider. They decided that Diana would continue her professional job, while Joe would take care of the children and their home. Three years passed as they fought Joe’s cancer. They were strongly supported by both their families, as well as neighbors and good friends from all over the world.

I visited Joe and Diana and their three children when I was last in America. As I prepared to leave their home and return to Washington, Joe walked to the car with me. In a quiet but strong voice he said, “My fate is in God’s hand.” A few months later, Joe died.

Why do I tell you about Joe and Diana? Their story is the story of the world today. A Philippine family moved to America, thus enabling them to attain what they considered a fuller life with greater opportunity. At the same time, their presence in America contributed to the enriching and broadening out of many American’s perspectives

Joe’s family’s move to America tells part of the story of the contemporary phase of globalization. Indeed, my own story began in the 1920s when my father moved from Holland to Indonesia, to Linggarjati, which was my home for the first seventeen years of my life. It was in Linggarjati, in my very home, in fact, that the Indonesians, Dutch and British representatives negotiated the terms of Indonesia’s independence in 1945. Thus my roots are deeply embedded in the story of migration, which characterizes so much of the upheaval that has taken place in the past half-century. The contemporary phase of globalization gave me my Dutch-Indonesian identity and heritage, which I treasure.

Holland, Indonesia and the world dramatically changed in the post-World War II years, especially as former colonial lands became independent. Television, the Internet, easy travel…they all have contributed to the shrinking of the world, perhaps the dominant reality of our twenty-first century world.

What does such a reality mean individually for us today? My own experience suggests that, first and foremost, it means gaining a broader perspective on the relationship between nations, as well as on other people’s culture and aspirations. Globalization is not about abstract theories; it is about deeply held human perspectives and emotions. Our former nationalistic worldview, as rich as it has been, is now too narrow a perspective for life in a globalized world. In fact, as a guiding philosophy for a people, it’s become detrimental.

Most of the world crises today are, in part, a result of a bygone outlook, which served its purpose in its day, but has now been overtaken by new events. Today‘s world requires, indeed demands, that we broaden our perspective so that it includes the needs and aspirations not just of “my group,” but also of other cultures and nationalities. The starting place for a greater unity is not simply focusing on our differences, but rather building on our commonalities. We must build on our agreements in order to bridge our differences. In this way, we shall help cure the suffering from the past and provide a vision for the future, individually and nationally. The fate of our world today depends on our moving beyond the pain, hate and bitterness of the past, however justified they might have been.

Consider for a moment the events of 1945- 1949 as they relate to the Dutch-Indonesian relationship. Focused on the very survival of Holland and the defeat of Germany, 1945 saw the Dutch government, our nation and,  without the requisite awareness of the significance of the enormous changes that had taken place worldwide as a result of the war. Sweeping changes had evolved in the outlook of Asian and African leaders. A strengthened desire for independence, for the right and ability to be sovereign members of the world community had arisen in the minds and hearts of the leadership of former colonial nations. The Dutch had been so isolated during World War II that they were not fully aware of the significance of such stirrings.

As frequently happens in moments of crisis, 1946 saw both Dutch and Indonesians with foresight, people who could rise above their historic differences and jointly tackle the seemingly insoluble problems jointly confronting Indonesia and Holland. The statesmen who signed the Linggarjati Agreement, statesmen such as Lord Killean, Hatta, Soekarno, Schermerhorn , were people with the requisite perspective and maturity to seek long term solutions .. Linggarjati was an example of the highest degree of international mediation, negotiations which might be compared with “tawar” on the “pasar”…you get this and I get that, so together we achieve an equitable solution.

In Linggarjati, the two delegations sought a solution representing the interests of both parties. For Indonesia, it was to be its independence and control of its own affairs. For the Netherlands, it meant beneficial trade relations, as well as gaining a new relationship with Asia’s former colonial states, which included potential commercial interests throughout Asia.

In sum, Linggarjati not only is the Perudingan for the Indonesian people, but it can also be a living example for the future we all must adopt in order to survive and prosper in a world that has entered a new phase of human experience.

Linggarjati could be an instructive focal point for students and future leaders to come and study the relevance of today’s challenges in the light of the pattern laid out at the original Linggarjati conference. Such study might include:

1.   The study of other peoples, countries and cultures. Such studies would comprise    the essential ingredients for differing cultures and nations to survive and prosper in a global community.
2.  To create an atmosphere where continued historic resentments and prejudices are acknowledged and resolved.
   
3.  To learn the art of true listening to other people in such a way as to understand the deeper significance of what they say and do. This would be expanded to include all peoples, cultures and countries.
   
4. To be prepared to see and admit one’s shortcomings, as well as those of one’s   nation; and to be humble enough to admit them. This is the starting point for optimal cooperation between individuals as well as nations.
   
5. To apply Socrates’ advice of “know thyself”. For only when one knows oneself, the good and the bad side, does one truly understand the other person, country or culture.

In this way, Linggarjati could be a gift from Indonesia to a pained and confused world. The gift would be an example of true mediation by statesmen who understood that humanity, if we do not want to destroy ourselves, must adopt new insights and ways for a new period of human history. Such adaptation has happened before, and now it is our turn.

In this way, too, Linggarjati may hold a lesson for today’s Germany, as well as for the rest of Europe.

Wassenaar
30-10-2010

www.linggarjati.org