The asylum-seekers in the Jungle come from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Eritrea, Kuwait, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and even Palestine. Anyone who has followed world events since 2001 will clearly see the pattern behind these movements of people.
High profile wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, the fallout from these in neighbouring countries such as Pakistan, the Arab Spring affecting Egypt, Libya and Tunisia - not to mention the influx of ISIS into the same region - and political oppression in Iran, Kuwait and Eritrea have forced the inhabitants of the Jungle from their homes.
They come in search of a peaceful and stable life on a continent famed for upholding the human and political rights of its citizens. A reputation that has been amplified since 2001, due to the dominant narrative of the European powers allied with the USA which claim to be engaging in wars in Central Asia and the Middle East in order to liberate the people from politically oppressive dictatorships and bring them democracy. Calais is proof that this propaganda has been extremely effective.
But the illusion is short-lived once they reach Calais. Arriving hungry, exhausted and stateless they are met not by Europe the guardian of human rights but by Europe the violent oppressor of human rights. A Europe which bears the familiar hallmarks of the kind of state-sponsored oppression from which they have fled.
Weber’s theory of the state posits that the state is an organisation possessing the monopoly on violence. Therefore, the state can legitimately use violence against its own citizens whereas the use of violence by the citizens of a state is severely restricted. Over time, as Charles Tilly points out, the use of violence by the state pacifies the citizens thereby improving law and order and legitimising the monopoly.
This is not a process that takes place overnight. Europe has been working on it for hundreds of years, with the birth and growth of capitalism sealing the deal due to capitalism’s ability to pacify with material comfort and consumer goods. The relationship between capitalism and violence is, therefore, mutually reinforcing. In advanced capitalist societies such as Europe, once pacification has succeeded sufficiently, the state’s monopoly on violence can be legitimately turned against any ‘other’ deemed to threaten peace and prosperity, raising few moral objections. And this is exactly what we have been witnessing during the Jungle evictions in Calais.
On day one, the French state arrived in the form of a small army of CRS (Compagnie Républicaines de Sécurité, the French riot police) officers equipped with tear gas, rubber bullets and batons as well as a water cannon. They swept in at 8am, surrounding shelters and forming a frontline that aid workers were forbidden to cross. They physically pulled residents from their homes despite the court ruling from the previous week stating that no shelter could be demolished if it was inhabited. They physically pushed aid workers and activists, who were documenting events with cameras, away from the frontline. This was a mild exercising of the monopoly but worse was to come when the residents of the jungle, whose homes were being illegally demolished, attempted to resist. The violent pacification began in earnest.
A very small group of residents threw stones at the line of CRS blocking the southern end of the camp but many more attempted to dissuade them from doing so. The CRS were wearing full riot gear –helmets and body armour – they were carrying shields, tear gas guns, rubber bullet guns and batons and were equipped with the monopoly. Any recourse to violence was entirely sanctioned by the state. A few stones were unlikely to harm any of them very seriously. So, what was their response? To fire tear gas at unarmed asylum-seekers and later in the afternoon to use the water cannon against them.
On day 2, residents in the affected section of the camp took to their roofs in protest. The previous day this had slowed the demolition down somewhat and houses with residents on the roofs had been left standing. But the monopoly soon put an end to this as police mounted roofs and beat residents into coming down – including a pregnant woman.
By day 3, the monopoly had pacified both residents of the jungle and their supporters sufficiently. The small army of CRS had been reduced and the demolition continued with hardly an eyelid batted or a protestor in sight. Mission accomplished.
European states have been building up the means to exercise their monopoly on violence for hundreds of years but they have become victims of their own success. Their own citizens, for the most part, have become sufficiently pacified not to warrant its use very often. But the monopoly is always ready for action. Another target must be found. And in Calais, that target is unarmed asylum-seekers.
Unarmed asylum-seekers. People in fear for their lives who have left their homes because of war and political oppression. People who are not afforded the protection of their own states because they have either disintegrated or are oppressive. Vulnerable people living on the margins of society. Non-conformists. And the monopoly exists to turn non-conformists into conformists.
Is this what the Europe, whose wars prompted the creation of the League of Nations and the United Nations had in mind? Was there a caveat in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights allowing asylum-seekers who arrive in Europe illicitly to be excluded from its protection? Does the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees contain a clause permitting asylum-seekers searching for refuge in the United Kingdom to be excluded from its protection? I think not. Yet this is exactly what is happening in Calais.
When asylum-seekers are sewing their lips together in protest at the destruction of their homes, when pregnant women are being beaten by state-sanctioned thugs and those in search of a peaceful life are routinely tear-gassed and shot at with rubber bullets in Europe, then Europe has lost any right it may once have had to bask in the glory of its reputation as the world’s custodian of human rights, freedom and democracy. The signatures of European states on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees may as well be deleted for all they’re worth, which in Calais is absolutely nothing.