如何評價德國接受敘利亞難民？這些難民會帶來很大的隱患和麻煩，默克爾為啥堅持要將他們引入歐洲？

01-01

自敘利亞爆發內戰以來，成千上萬的中東難民，冒著生命危險穿越地中海，湧入歐洲。作為歐洲最大的經濟體，德國從上世紀九十年代中期以來對難民的審查在歐洲國家中相對比較嚴格，2014年，德國難民申請接受率只有41.6%。但是，就在2015年9月，德國政府決定開放邊境，無限制接受難民。德國總理默克爾也表現出了罕見的領導力，她沒有下令勒緊邊境管控，也沒有拿「空間緊張」的理由開脫，反而張開懷抱，擁抱難民潮。

為什麼默克爾突然間同情心大發，願意接受這麼多難民？

網上有不少人在分析這一事件時，簡單地把原因歸結於人道主義救援，甚至認為是默克爾「聖母癌」發作。畢竟在難民問題上，默克爾幾次罕見地流露真情，確實賺足了不少人的眼淚。

不過像雲石君這種沒心沒肺的傢伙，從來不認為一架正常的國家機器，在面對這麼大麻煩的時候，會簡單的從人道主義角度出發。作為一個靠地緣政治起家的號，雲石君還是更願意從國家利益的角度，來分析德國對敘利亞難民大開接納之門的戰略考量。

為什麼默克爾對難民的態度會立場大變？在雲石君看來，主要是因為難民的數量過於龐大，已經對歐洲政治經濟結構造成嚴重衝擊，並對德國主導的歐洲一體化構成嚴重威脅。

大量難民的湧入，不僅會增加德國的經濟負擔，還會對德國的社會結構造成巨大的衝擊。鑒於當時歐洲已經深陷歐債危機，加上之前的穆斯林移民已經對歐洲社會穩定形成巨大威脅，所以從維護歐洲利益的角度出發，德國不可能願意接受難民。

但雖則不願，德國卻又無法拒絕。

首先是技術上難以阻擋，德國與中東地緣關係十分緊密，無論是陸路還是海路，敘利亞難民均有足夠的渠道進入德國，想阻止這些難民朝德國方向逃難，技術上難度太大。

當然，如果能想辦法穩定敘利亞局勢，也可以斬斷難民之禍。

但這是德國做不到的。

1956年蘇伊士戰爭失敗後，英法對中東的控制土崩瓦解，德國也由此喪失了對伊斯蘭世界的影響。雖然在之後的歲月中，德國仍可繼續享用中東的石油和運河等資源，也仍時常介入中東局勢，但這種獲利和介入，都是依附於美國的影響力之上，是作為一種附庸存在。換句話說，如果沒有美國的參與，德國對伊斯蘭世界很難產生實質性影響。

敘利亞戰爭說白了背後就是美俄兩大勢力角力。既然美國已下定決心要在敘利亞取得突破，而俄羅斯又絕不退讓，那就單憑德國之力，想調停止戰，實在超出了他們的能力範圍。

既不能堵住末梢，又無法截斷源頭。這種情況下，德國只有在如何處置難民方面下功夫。

在這個層面，最符合德國利益的方式，就是將他們強行遣返回國。

但這是不可能的。鑒於敘利亞已經戰火連天，這些難民早已家破人亡，無路可退。所以強行遣返，無異於把他們往死路上逼。這不僅會引發人道主義災難，還會招致伊斯蘭世界的強烈反彈。

如果德國膽敢強硬對待敘利亞難民，那必然招致伊斯蘭世界的強烈不滿。一旦歐伊矛盾激化，蘇伊士運河、中東的石油等等對德國至關重要的資源，都將成為伊斯蘭反擊歐洲的手段，這對德國而言是無法接受的。

而內部矛盾也會因此激化。過去幾十年里，德國吸納了不少穆斯林移民，這些移民以及他們的後代，因為各種因素，並未融入德國，而依然保持了強烈的伊斯蘭認同，成為德國社會最大的不穩定因素。如果德國膽敢強行驅逐敘利亞難民，這些穆斯林移民必然會在內部製造騷亂。

而普世價值也成為驅逐敘利亞難民的阻礙。經過幾十年的推廣，普世價值已成為德國主流核心價值。

但普世價值帶來的也不儘是福音。在德國處於繁榮期，希望樹立文明中心地位，對外拓展自身影響力，增進世界對自己的認同和尊重時，普世價值當然是個極好的工具；在早些年德國勞動力不足時，普世價值也是吸引伊斯蘭廉價勞動力的最好借口。但現在，德國面臨嚴重難民衝擊，自身的失業率也居高不下，這種情況下，業已紮根的普世價值，反倒成了德國阻擋敘利亞難民的絆腳石。

任何一個掌權的德國政客，要是膽敢強硬對待敘利亞難民，無疑會引發普世價值擁護者的激烈反對，這等於宣告了這位政客在政治上的死刑。正是這種政治正確的桎梏，使德國投鼠忌器。

伊斯蘭世界的反擊，德國乃至歐洲的穆斯林群體和普世價值擁護者的抗議，使德國不能對這些可憐的敘利亞難免太過強硬。

當然，德國還有一種解決辦法，就是將這些敘利亞難民遣送至其他安全的伊斯蘭國家，讓這些穆斯林同胞來收容他們。

只不過，雖然伊斯蘭世界一致期望德國善待敘利亞難民，但要真把這幫人拉到自家地盤，讓自己來負擔他們的吃喝拉撒，那甭管是阿拉伯系的沙特還是突厥系的土耳其，肯定都會想盡辦法推託。

難民們都嚮往德國，德國又不能對他們用強，在這種情況下，只要這些伊斯蘭國家不鬆口，德國也無計可施。

綜上所述，對敘利亞難民，德國是擋也擋不住，攆也攆不走。既然如此，那就只好捏著鼻子收了。

當然，既然橫豎都得收，那至少面子上得光鮮亮麗些。所以德國政客和媒體藉此機會大肆宣揚普世，引得世界一篇煽情，這樣至少在形象上給自己加了點分，也算是所受內傷的挽回。

當然，既然要收，那麼怎麼個收法，就成為德國下一步需要考慮的問題。

根據歐盟的都柏林條約，難民首先進入哪個歐盟國家，這個國家就有義務安置和處理這些難民。而由於地緣的關係，敘利亞難民進入歐盟的首戰通常是陸路抵達匈牙利，或者海陸抵達希臘。

很顯然，面對如此洶湧的難民潮，這些南歐小國肯定是吞不下的。何況現在歐洲深陷次債危機，這些南歐小國尤其受災嚴重，希臘更是賴賬賴的臭名遠揚，所以只能向歐盟求援，要求大家分攤。這就輪到歐盟的帶頭大哥——德國頭疼了。

其實就其本意，德國也不願意逼歐盟各國收這幫難民。畢竟歷史已經證明，穆斯林移民與歐洲文化差異太大，很難融入歐洲的基督教社會，反而會引發嚴重社會問題；加上現在歐洲本來失業率就高漲，自家都一大堆人沒飯吃，把這幫人招進來，根本無法給他們哪怕是最基本的工作——換句話說，歐洲在自家都餘糧緊張的情況下，還得花錢養這幫累贅。

但德國又必須要逼大家分攤。畢竟德國是歐洲一體化的最積極推動者——同時也是最大受益者。既然是一體化，當然是有福同享有難同當，如果不能妥善解決這個問題，東南歐對歐盟的認同感將大幅削減，這對德國來說是無法承受之重。

既然逼大夥分攤，那怎麼個分攤法，就是接下來最主要的問題。

最理想的辦法，就是儘可能的把這些難民扔到其他國家，盡量減少自己國家的難民接收數量。

但這是不可能的。因為德國與美國不同。在美歐同盟框架下，美國的領袖地位建立在它絕對的政治經濟實力之上，整個歐洲，都作為美國附庸存在。也就是說，美歐同盟的維繫，相當程度上是依靠美國的強權。

既然美國是強權領袖，那自然就有耍橫的底氣。作為敘利亞內亂的主要策動者，美國完全有能力讓敘利亞恢復穩定，從而從源頭上避免出現難民——雖然這會讓自己的戰略受挫，但卻免了歐洲盟友的難民之災。

但美國卻並沒有這麼做。即便敘利亞戰爭明顯侵害了歐洲盟友的利益，但作為一個強勢領袖，美國依然有足夠的手段，來保證對歐洲的控制。而歐洲雖然滿腹牢騷，卻也對美國無可奈何，更不敢因此跟美國翻臉。

但美國可以這麼做，德國不行。雖然在歐盟框架下，德國是眾所周知領袖，但這個領袖地位，卻遠沒有美國那麼強大的根基——無論是在政治上還是軍事上，德國相對於英法均大有不如，德國領袖地位的維繫，依靠的僅僅是自己相對強大的經濟實力，以及順應了歐洲需要一體化的大勢而已。這也就是說，德國是一個弱勢領袖。

對德國來說，它必須依靠歐盟這個平台，來提升自己在歐洲和世界範圍內的影響力和話語權；但其本身又沒有像美歐同盟框架下美國那樣的絕對強權，所以，它必須要非常在意歐洲小夥伴的情緒，並儘可能的維護他們的利益。

同是領袖，美老大是以力服眾，德老大卻只能以利服眾。不同的政治地位，反映在敘利亞問題上，就是德國不能像美國那樣，為了自己達成目標，不管歐洲盟友死活。

在具體操作上，德國想讓東、西、北歐國家與南歐有難同當，共同分擔南歐的壓力，就只有自己先挑起這個大頭，主動接收最多份額的難民。在佔據道義制高點後，德國才有資格繼續以領袖的身份，來主持這場難民分攤。如果德國敢像美國那樣只管自己不顧同伴，那他用不了就會被盟友們拋棄——對這幫歐洲小國來說，跟德國翻臉，絕對比跟美國翻臉要容易的多。

這就能解釋德國的態度了。無論是積極歡迎難民的姿態，還是主動承擔最大份額的擔當，其實並不是因為德國有什麼狗屁高尚情懷。而是在難民勢不可擋的情況下，為了維護歐洲一體化，為了維護德國在歐盟的領袖地位，而不得不為之舉。這番表面上的「聖母」義舉，其背後卻是歐洲，尤其是德國被迫當「包子」無奈。

儘管德國在接納難民方面擁有相對完善的機制和相對積極的意願，但難民潮持續不減，也讓德國的難民政策迎來了「轉折點」。針對難民營地的襲擊和騷亂仍時有發生，排外情緒成為德國國內面臨的重要挑戰。

在此情況下，德國又將如何應對？關注微信公眾號：雲石，雲石君將持續為您解讀。

本文為雲石地緣政治系列第171章——德國之第17部分。解讀大國博弈內幕，剖析政治深度邏輯，請用微信搜索公眾號：雲石，持續收看全部雲石君原創文章。

I am a citizen of Germany, born to 2 German parents in Hamburg (partner city of Shanghai), spend most of my high school in Dortmund, studied in RWTH Aachen (master in mechanical engineering and MBA), later worked 6 years for Siemens in Munich.

So I am personally concerned.

I have been asked several times in China what I thought of the migrants and refugees coming to Germany, and if this was a planned move by our government.

The economic migrants and political refugees are coming to Western Europe on their own. It is very understandable. Some had to fear for their lives, others came in search of a better life.

Our politicians where totally unprepared, although this migration was only a question of time. In fact, in many many-governmental organizations and other people had warned for that that one day, the impoverished people from Northern Africa and / or the Middle East would simply migrate to Europe. The German liberal party (Liberal Democrats, called FDP) had wanted to make an immigration law for years, while being part of the government and while being in the opposition. Such laws exist in other immigrant countries like eg Canada, and in them, the country decides how many immigrants they want, from where and what are preconditions. This off course is not to be confused with the law of asylum for those who are prosecuted and who"s lives are threatened by prosecution for religious, ethnic or political reasons.

But the conservative parties CDU (chancellor Merkel"s party) and CSU had refused to make an immigration law. They felt that an "immigration law" would already make it very clear that Germany is an immigration country, which they did not want it to appear like with the exception of immigrants of German origin from former Soviet Union countries, which had been displaced during the war - that stream of immigrants has dried up, they are all here now, or true Russians etc. by now).

When the immigrants were at the doorsteps, the politicians did not know to to. Germany did its history of a divided country, with border posts killing people who want to get to the other side: Nobody wanted such images. In the least Angela Merkel, who was born in East Germany herself.

In my opinion, allowing the immigrants into Germany was not so much an act of planned humanitarianism, as rather the inevitable outcome of a mass movement. Our chancellor Merkel sold it so well to the people that on the one hand side, she seemed a clear nominee for the world peace prize, and on the other hand, opponents believe that this was a long term plan to rejuvenate Germany.

Neither ist true I think. The refugees wanted to go the economically strongest countries, mainly to Germany, some to Sweden.

Some gestures like the selfie-images of refugees with Chancellor Merkel (see obove) spread like wildfire. They were well intended, but may completely underestimated in their viral effect through smart-phones which many immigrants carried despite their poorness.

Now of course, the immigrants are here, and the average level of education is lower, even though there are also highly skilled people like doctors etc. among them.

Germany can not leave them all on welfare, which they are doing way too much in my mind: It will peoples dignity away. If they are not allowed to work, it is what will rise rise to other, sinister ideas in some. , maybe even above learning the German language, means to work and fend for yourself in the new society. German is off course a key qualification to get to that status.

In 2016, only 34.000 refugees found a job. Https: // www. Thelocal.de/20161219/so -far-only-34000-refugees-have-found-jobs.

Yet the refugee influx is believed to have created between 50,000 and 60,000 jobs for Germans, with extra jobs in professions such as teacher and social worker.

In my eyes, somebody who was willing to give up his old life, pay all the personal fortune for a boat trip which ends with drowning for many, only to arrive in a country where he is not wanted, must be very desperate or very brave , probably both. Was not it exactly this kind of people who built the United States of America to become a world superpower? Most came with little to nothing. But they had the guts to try to build something. So I would give these immigrants a chance

In Germany, we have minimum wages, currently 8,84 € / h (about 66 RMB). If immigrants are allowed to work, they also benefit from this level, or otherwise said, the pay for existing jobs can not be reduced if there is However, the offer of more cheap labor can put pressure on keeping employment at all.

On the other hand, our companies and retirement systems are drained through the demographic change of the German people themselves. Given the fact that we have a birth rate lower than China even under the one child policy (we have about 1.5 now, up from 1.2 in the mid "90s, and always at the level of Japan), we actually need immigration. This level is lower than Chinas"s before the end of the one child policy (1.57 at the same time).

Yet the debate in Germany is not if not un-planned immigration could also be a blessing. It is rather between economic ones, who want to help regardless of economic arguments, out of social responsibility alone, and those who are convinced that any immigration, especially of poor people, is a problem.

They hide their economic fear behind a mask of religious values: Christians (Germans) vs. Muslims (most immigrants). It is the same people who did not seem to know about their cultural and religious roots, before the immigrants arrived.

It is true that we have a rise in extreme right wing voters, and for the first time such a party in our parliament since WW II. It is remarkable that they have their strongholds in parts of Germany where there are the least foreigners and immigrants and vice versa. The eastern provinces (former communist East Germany, with an atheist government) are now marching against the "Muslim invasion." The fear seems more artificial than real. Germany with&> 82 million people can easily integrate 1.2 million refugees.

In terms of the danger that there are terrorists under the immigrants: Yes, possibly so. But the point is that the vast majority of terrorist acts in Europe has been committed by people already living in our societies since a long time, including a French, Belgian, UK passport and so on. What has failed is not the border controls. What failed is the integration.

What is lacking so very much are people who openly ask the question: What drives others to hate us so much, they are willing to sacrifice their lives to hurt us? If this question is asked at all, the answer given usually is "They are fanatic Islamists - end of story". That is too simple I think.

To sum it up:

Germany did not want the refugees to come, let alone attracted them on purpose. When they came, nobody knew how to deal with the situation. Parts of our population showed their best side, being generous and humane. Another part showed their dark side of xenophobia.

I am not afraid of the refugees or that integration can not be done. I am most afraid that the society is not willing to make the needed effort, as today"s Germans are afraid of any changes, want to keep their status quo. The new party spectrum makes finding a stable government coalition very difficult, as the past weeks and months have shown. A relatively small number of refugees splits our society. Our fault, not theirs.

不是說德國有一個資本力量是某教會下屬的，大到能影響德國政府的政策，政策里有救助難民可以賺錢，所以說根源還是錢鬧的。

不巧，前幾天上德語課時候討論過這個。

Frau.Ge 說，

原因和二戰掛鉤吧，你們自己腦補

大概是德國想改頭換面，正視歷史的同時，也想留下正面一筆。

東亞某島國，你們還是要學習一個。

請先證明他們會帶來很大的麻煩這句話正確（隱患是廢話，不管做什麼事情都是有風險的，風險=隱患）

然後你在證明這個論述的途中，你就會發現，一切被用來證明這個論述的論據都是基於『我不喜歡引入難民這個想法』這個出發點的。你需要的是一個中立的觀點，這樣你才看得到全局

是我也會盡最大可能去接受。

人才是最有價值的。

這是人，是人性。我為她鼓掌。

總比有些人打了崇高的理想，滅人家的私慾來得強。