THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES’ ROLE IN REFUGEE CAMP POLICY

“The Circular Refugee Problem”, and we ought to begin with the most culpable actor in this circular problem. Well, the United Nations, through its specialised agency the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (or UNHCR), plays a central role in shaping refugee camp policy worldwide. To be clear, UNHCR does not unilaterally “create” binding international law on refugee camps, BUT it has been instrumental in developing guidelines, standards, and operational policies that influence how camps are established, managed, and governed.

Additionally, UNHCR was established by the UN General Assembly in 1950, initially to address post-World War II displacement in Europe. Its mandate, which is outlined in the UNHCR Statute (UNGA Resolution 428(V)), is said to focus on providing international protection to refugees and seeking permanent solutions. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol also form the foundational legal framework for refugee rights, though they are said not to directly prescribe camp policies, and rather emphasize state obligations to protect refugees, But, in practise, the UNHCR nevertheless serves as a “guardian” actor, that actually supervises implementation – thus maintaining an influential role in directing refugee camp policy.

But, what the masses are typically led to believe as far as refugee policy is concerned is that refugee camps emerge primarily when host governments, facing mass influxes, designate sites for temporary shelter. And even that primary responsibility for camp establishment and governance lies with host countries, which retain sovereignty over their territory, as they decide on camp locations, policies, and access to rights like work or movement. HOWEVER, the UNHCR often steps in as the lead agency for refugee camp coordination, and management, especially in what they deem emergencies. And so, alongside the International Organization for Migration (IOM), UNHCR leads refugee camp coordination and management under the UN’s Inter-Agency Standing Committee “cluster approach.”

Then, moreover, the UNHCR has developed extensive policies and standards for refugee camps. Primarily, these include settlement planning principles discouraging long-term, isolated camps in favour of alternatives that promote refugee self-reliance and integration. And while this sounds good on paper, it is in part how the UN has influenced concerning trajectories in immigration policy around the world, and further worsened refugee and asylum policies in the status quo. 

Perhaps one of the worst examples of this is how the United Nations, through its subsidiary the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (or UNRWA) which (contrary to UN refugee camp policy) actual maintain in perpetuity so-called “Refugee camps” which really look like any other city, with shopping malls and rooftop satellite dishes, to the education and incitement of Palestinian children to murder and die for unjust causes, and even to UNRWA’s praise for the atrocities of 7 October. All funded by our tax dollars.

THE UN & ITS STAKEHOLDERS FORMULATE DESTRUCTIVE POLICIES THAT CREATE REFUGEES

But, the most significant concern here is not even that the UN is the custodian of the policy structure behind refugees. The significant concern is that the UN and its collaborators are behind much of the destruction in various parts of the world, because these bodies are led by some of the most atrocious globalists in the world, like the EU and NATO, who love wars and even sponsor them.

NATO IS NOT A MILITARY ALLIANCE, BUT A CURATOR OF INSTABILITY

In fact, let’s look at NATO as a primary subject, seeing as they are the primary reason for Ukrainian refugees in camps in various nations. And here, I’d like to present the argument that NATO (in the modern, post Cold-War context) is not a military alliance; and is instead a curator of instability – with countless documented incidents in history and the status quo that testify to this fact. Let’s begin with the Yugoslavian bombings in 1999. Now, the conflict in the Balkans worsened as Serbia increased its embargos on Kosovan separatists and Albanian civilians. NATO established the Kosovo Force (KFOR) in 1999 as a part of UNSC Resolution 1244 which mandated international presence in the region to mitigate the conflict. As the Yugoslavians resisted, NATO carried out a 78-day air bombing, formalising the KFOR’s entry into the region. And although the consensus among others is that NATO achieved its larger goal of stopping Milosevic and separating Kosovo (de facto) – which is also a problem considering why they opposed Milosevic and who they supported instead – the biggest debate remains whether NATO’s actions were humane in doing so. This is especially considering that the air bombing during this operation caused more than 500 civilian deaths. There was an exodus of refugees and the fundamental pillars of the Responsibility to Protect were broken because the people did not receive complete protection. And so, the apparent answer here is that NATO’s actions were not humane, in addition, their actions were ignorant of both the political climate in Yugoslavia and also the intellectual nuances of the conflict itself.

Of course. Some might say that determining whether NATO’s actions in Kosovo were truly a success or failure depends on what an individual considers more important: be it the ends or the means. However, in the 21st century, when international organisations are seen as bodies that represent major interests at a global level, concerns must be solved through dialogue, with force only being used as a last resort. And in light of this, NATO’s mistakes in Kosovo thus overshadow its successes. Just have a look at the impact of that bombing in this following clip. The context here is that two people were killed and four were wounded when NATO bombed a residential area in the southern Serbian town of Alek-sinac early on Friday morning. The attack left a number of houses in ruin. And meanwhile, Belgrade was still struggling with electricity cuts as NATO continued to target power stations in the Yugoslavian capital. Well, Russian President Vladimir Putin actually highlighted this portion of NATO’s notorious past in contrasting it to developments with Ukraine.

But you know benefited from the devastation serbia, a number of Western countries. In Serbia  today, Italians took over the entire automotive manufacturing industry, while Austrian and Italian banks dominate. In addition, US Steel took metals, and Germans took the machine and tools sector. The Dutch and Swiss bought the majority of the product brands, while Austrians hold major mobile market share, and Norwegians are about to take the electric grid, while the Germans take the local telecom. And in all of this, Serbian victims of NATO’s deadly “mistakes” feel forgotten – and this is obviously despite apologetic speeches from some NATO members that have not come with substantive efforts to remedy the harms suffered.

THE CONSEQUENCE OF NATO’S DESTRUCTIVE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

Now, many of us have already read about the plight of Afghani refugees, but it would appear that the circumstances causing people to flee are also not organic at all. Now  for some context, you’d recall that on September 11, 2001 al Qaeda hijacked several planes, which were successfully used as weapons against US civilians and infrastructure. Consequently, for the first time in history, NATO’s Article V was invoked to respond to the new menace – terrorism. Afghanistan was recognized as the first potential target because it had hosted insurgent terrorist groups. Consequently NATO was ready to act for the first time outside the European continent. By the end of the year 2014, NATO’s troops were set to withdraw from Afghanistan‘s territory. The question of the victory against endless terrorism is

dubious. According to Stephen M. Walt, a professor from Harvard university, NATO’s legacy in Afghanistan was just one failed endeavour after another. Some argue that, until 2005, NATO successfully restored order in Kabul and its surroundings, and discredited the Taliban’s leadership. However, later on, the Alliance entered political and strategic gridlock, and the consequent lack of future vision raised a rhetorical question on what to do next?

So what then happened? Simply, the outcome of the current condition of Afghanistan is the consequence of NATO’s strategy of the years it was operating. NATO and the US failed in terms of strategic thinking and planning. Afghanistan’s development according to the western model then failed. The United States also waged a controversial war in Iraq and redeployed the majority of intelligence and military capacities from Afghanistan. And then eventually, annual casualties of NATO dramatically increased and the Alliance lost public support due to the extended military operation, waste of resources and money, and uncertainty of final victory, all while a refugee crisis ensued.

Now, as an added point, in light of the Afghanistan context, some make the argument that the only reason that the Afghan government was able to sustain itself was because of the support of NATO forces; and that things then took a turn for the worse when president Donald Trump signed an agreement in 2020 to withdraw troops by 2021. I disagree – the failures were evident by 2014, NATO’s presence at that point was merely symbolic and to the expense of US citizens who were funding that. It was a means of trying to promote the optics that the US and NATO were doing something of value in Afghanistan when they were not. And so, president Trump did what NATO planned and failed to do by 2014 – to exit Afghanistan. But, shortly after the US left under Trump, the NATO president has the audacity to blame the Afghan government for the Taliban take over – not the fact that NATo trained the Taliban of their strategic political and military failures.

NATO’S INTERVENTION IN LIBYA IN 2011, AND THE SUBSEQUENT DEVASTATION

This then brings us to Libya. While there is much debate on whether the NATO intervention in Libya was a success, it is important not just to look at the conflict itself, but its aftermath as well. How it started is that the west promulgated the narrative that Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya was an epicentre of tyranny and human rights violations; and that, therefore, as a part of the Responsibility to Protect, the international community had to act. Of course, information from even CIA operatives has since come out to expose that this was not the real reason to target Gaddafi – instead, the west saw an African leader threatening their hegemony and the US’s unipolar order through his innovative ideas and policies for not only his country, but especially the African continent. These were policies like free education in Libya, and a gold-back African currency that would likely rival the US’s propaganda-backed dollar’s status as the reserve currency – especially in Africa; not to mention how less susceptible Africa would be to the dollar’s weaponisation. And so, they launched an operation that ended with the murder of Gaddafi. 

But, while the US-led NATO which was supposed to be a ‘beacon’ of democratic values, was not entirely true to its purpose of protecting the civilian population of Libya; and while NATO’s main target was the Gaddafi regime, it did not emphasise enough combating rebel groups which were incredibly dangerous. Libyan rebel groups were responsible for many civilian murders, robberies, and war crimes. The rebels even killed civilians who supported the Gaddafi regime but did no crime. And yet, as per the first pillar of the R2P, protection applies to the ‘population’ of a nation, which includes every individual residing in the nation. Therefore, the UN and NATO forces failed to do just this – along with ensuring stability after the intervention – which was obviously never the aim.

NATO IS PROVOKING NUCLEAR WAR WITH RUSSIA

In all that we have discussed, NATO is also provoking nuclear war with Russia. You’d recall that the possibility of adding Ukraine to NATO has not been fulfilled, but it has resulted in a massive, unfortunate, and avoidable conflict between Russia and Ukraine – which REALLY is a proxy war between NATO and Russia. This is especially evidenced by how NATO has openly and dangerously provided intelligence and reconnaissance support to the Ukrainians, in addition to massive financial and military aid. But, Russia has so far avoided targeting American Global Hawk drones and RC-135 aircraft patrolling its borders—both of which are undoubtedly providing information Ukraine uses to attack and kill Russian forces. 

And yet, if the roles were between Russia and NATO members, we would see more hostility. We know this because of the public reaction to fake intelligence that said Russia put out bounties to encourage the killing of American troops in Afghanistan. Some members of the intelligence community leaked this falsehood as a political attack on Trump during the final days of the 2020 election, and it made a lot of people understandably angry. It was, like so many of these stories, later disavowed. It is still important, though, because it reveals the incompetence and politicisation of American intelligence services. They have cultivated a pervasive, unthinking, and mostly fact-free anti-Russian ideology ever since Russia became more capable and assertive following Putin’s rise to power in 2000. In any case, Putin has issued a warning to NATO considering their involvement in Ukraine. 

All of these incidents paint NATO as the curator of instability, as opposed to a solution to military threats. And so, seeing that it no longer has a place in the world in the absence of a Warsaw Pact, there should rather be a discussion about its dissolution over its increasing finances. And seeing that the Warsaw Pact was formed in response to the NATO alliance, this organisation has clearly been a problem since its inception. But, the point in light of today’s discussion is that where NATO went, there was resultant devastation that crippled the standard of living of those involved, and thus created conditions for a refugee crisis, all while the UN conveniently had a model to dictate what refugee camp and refugee policy (as a whole) would look like. And that is just NATO alone, and not all UN satellite organisations and partners. In any case, it is in the workings of this cabal wherein lies the circular refugee problem: which is that the refugee crisis is created by the same collective that claims to hold the panasea to it.

HOW THE CIRCULAR REFUGEE PROBLEM FEEDS INTO BAD IMMIGRATION POLICY

But now, the consequences of this circular refugee problem is not only that it exists; the consequence is the extent to which those who curate it go to sustain it. Which brings us to the intersection between the circular refugee problem and bad immigration policy, which is perhaps best seen in the United Ntion’s replacement migration report. 

To begin with, the United Nations Population Division’s 2001 report, titled: “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”, it is said to investigate whether international migration can counteract population decline and ageing in regions with below-replacement fertility rates. Focusing on eight low-fertility countries—namely: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and also two regional aggregates (being Europe and the European Union), the study uses demographic projections from the 1998 Revision of the World Population Prospects. It employs a cohort-component method to forecast trends from 1995 to 2050, assuming medium-variant fertility (stabilizing below 2.1 children per woman), and also assumes improving mortality, and varying migration levels. 

Additionally, the report defines “replacement migration” as the net international inflows needed to offset natural population decrease (which is measured looking at births minus deaths) and also to maintain specific demographic targets, such as total population size, working-age population (defined as ages 15 – 64), or the potential support ratio (which is the ratio of those who are deemed to be working-age to elderly, and consists of ages 65+).

Now, in this study, immigrants are modeled with an age-sex distribution averaged from major receiving countries like Australia, Canada, and the U.S., assuming they adopt host-country fertility and mortality rates upon arrival (meaning they live and start families in a similar fashion to the people in the receiving countries). But, ultimately, the report underscores the inevitability of population decline and ageing without intervention, in countries of focus like Italy, the US, the UK, and the others mentioned earlier.

But, what is curious about this study is that it hinges upon the concerns that conservatives have highlighted while the left dismisses it as conspiracy or an immaterial change to demographics. Clearly, even the people at the UN were aware that there were population decreases in a significant number of migrant receiving countries, hence they created a report that explored using migration to replace those aging populations. And so, the first thing that the existence of this report categorically addresses is that: the replacement of indigenous or naturalised citizens CANNOT be some abstract conspiracy if an international organisation like the UN, has engaged plans to use replacement migration to modify the demographics of nations. Literally, with the Replacement Migration report title, all the UN’s population division did was change the wording from “great replacement” to the more euphemistic “replacement migration”.

Then, the second thing that is exposed by the existence of this migration report is that Trump was absolutely right when he expressed the culpability of the UN in the state of migration policy in many recipient nations (local governments not excluded). The UN has essentially funded massive migration efforts that are changing the cultures and destabilising host countries in Europe and the US. AND how this intersects with the circular refugee problem is that crises are being deliberately manufactured to increase the number of refugees who will inadvertently serve as the unwitting labour in the UN’s great replacement agenda, especially since UN refugee camp policy dictates that refugees be eventually absorbed into broader society. But, of course, this is seldom highlighted in mainstream discussions and the reason is because anytime the great replacement is brought up, it is dismissed as a dog whistle for those with bigoted views, while leftist media even question whether the great replacement is even a bad idea.

REFUGEES ARE ALSO BEING USED BY THOSE BEHIND THE CIRCULAR REFUGEE PROBLEM

But, perhaps the worst part in all of this is that refugees, who truly are fleeing dangerous and horrific circumstances are not being treated as people deserving a dignified life, and rather as unwitting labour for the UN’s sinister plans to manipulate world populations. And this is seen in the portrayal of refugees as unwitting labor in broader demographic or economic strategies. International bodies, including elements associated with the United Nations refugee framework, facilitate or enable systems that channel displaced people into low-wage, precarious roles in host countries or third-party states. This perspective sees refugees not as people deserving protection and opportunity, but as a convenient source of cheap labour, often under exploitative conditions with limited rights or mobility. Meanwhile, such approaches also subtly manipulate population flows to address labor shortages or economic needs in recipient nations.

Compounding this is the growing practice of outsourcing refugee management and asylum processing. Basically, for all their talk about the responsibility to take in refugees, a number of liberal governments increasingly strike deals with less developed nations to intercept, detain, or relocate refugees. These arrangements expose people to grave risks: including arbitrary detention, forced labor, torture, or perilous journeys, all while absolving originating states of direct accountability. In this system, refugees become commodified, where they are intercepted at sea, warehoused in camps, or redirected to  third countries that lack genuine protection capacity. 

But, even this does not justify the influx of migrants or refugees beyond a recipient country’s capacity. The solution lies with eradicating the UN and its elements that fuel conflicts and disasters that cause refugees and push immigration factors to begin with.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

THE PROTRUDING TREND OF EUROSCEPTICISM ACROSS EUROPE

Ursula Von Der Leyen and accelerated Euroscepticism, and we ought to begin with contextualising the protruding trend of Euroscepticism. So, Euroscepticism is a term used to describe the opposition and criticism of the European Union (also known as the EU). The EU is generally an economic, political, and social union of 27 member countries that chose to collaborate towards what was supposed to be the promotion of peace, security, democracy, equality, justice, and solidarity among its members.

Now, many have attributed the recent rise of Euroscepticism to three primary factors: (1) The first is the increasing power wielded by the European Union in relation to national governments — This particular factor has led many citizens to feel that their national government is no longer in control of major policy decisions and that power has shifted largely to the EU. (2) The second factor relates to economic concerns related to various austerity measures — The factor has caused citizens to be concerned that future and current austerity measures adopted by the EU will cause extreme economic hardship resulting in potential job losses, service cuts, and shrinking economies. (3) Then the third factor is a rapid increase in immigration into EU countries — This third factor has sparked debate among Eurosceptic groups who believe that immigration leads to a dilution of national identity and a threat to their culture (this is also largely tied to the genuine concerns that are expressed through those who criticise the great replacement agenda). Furthermore, some eurosceptics are also concerned that high levels of immigration will lead to an influx of foreign workers competing for limited local jobs (which is a claim that is also echoed in many immigration discussions, including in places such as the US, and South Africa and more). Ultimately, Euroscepticism has long been on the rise.

EUROSCEPTICISM IS BEING COMPOUNDED BY THE LEADERSHIP CRISIS IN EUROPE

So, having this understanding of Euroscepticism, it is critical to further note that in the contemporary landscape of the European Union, Euroscepticism has intensified dramatically, exacerbated by a profound leadership crisis at the heart of the bloc’s institutions. This crisis is not merely a fleeting political hiccup but a structural malaise embedded in the status quo, where unelected bureaucrats wield disproportionate power over the lives of millions. And perhaps nowhere is this more starkly illustrated than in the leadership of the European Commission, which is the EU’s primary executive arm. As you’d be aware, the Commission serves as the guardian of the EU’s foundational treaties, proposing new legislation, enforcing compliance among member states, and overseeing the implementation of policies that span everything from trade to environmental standards. 

Additionally, the Commission manages the vast EU budget, allocates funds for regional development and crises, and represents the bloc in international negotiations, from trade deals to diplomatic accords. [PAUSE] Now, at its helm stands Ursula von der Leyen, whose tenure has become a lightning rod for discontent, symbolizing the disconnect between Brussels’ so-called elite and the everyday citizens they purport to serve. Now quite notable is that public sentiment across Europe has coalesced into a damning verdict: which states that Ursula von der Leyen is systematically undermining the continent’s foundations. This verdict is rooted in a series of policy decisions that many view as detrimental to Europe’s cultural, economic, and social fabric. Chief among these is Ursula VDL’s alleged complicity in the “great replacement” agenda, facilitated through unchecked mass migration. Under von der Leyen’s watch, the EU has pursued policies that prioritize open borders and asylum frameworks, often at the expense of national sovereignty and security.

For instance, the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, championed by the Commission, has been accused of redistributing migrants across member states without adequate consultation or border controls, which has led to overwhelmed social services in countries like Germany, France, and Italy. 

Then, compounding this is the economic fallout attributed to von der Leyen’s aggressive climate agenda. The European Green Deal, which is her flagship initiative, aims for carbon neutrality by 2050 through stringent regulations on emissions, energy transitions, and industrial practices. Well, what has been notable about this is its resultant economic ruin. Farmers across the Netherlands, Poland, and France have protested en masse against policies that impose burdensome costs on agriculture, such as nitrogen reduction mandates that threaten livelihoods. 

Additionally, energy prices have skyrocketed due to the hasty phase-out of fossil fuels and reliance on intermittent renewables, leaving households vulnerable to blackouts and inflation. Germany’s Energiewende, amplified under EU directives, has seen manufacturing corporations like BASF relocate operations abroad to escape high energy costs. And the irony here is that: while von der Leyen touts sustainability, the EU’s dependence on imported gas from volatile suppliers has exposed vulnerabilities, especially amid geopolitical tensions. This green scam” is thus essentially prioritising ideological pursuits over pragmatic economic stability, thus hollowing out industries and exacerbating unemployment in already struggling regions.

But, it’s not just the economy: von der Leyen’s foreign policy expenditures have drawn ire for squandering billions in taxpayer euros on distant conflicts and regimes perceived as hostile or irrelevant to European interests. The Commission’s support for Ukraine in the war with Russia, including massive aid packages exceeding €100 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian assistance, is a prime example. While framed as a defense of European values, many citizens question why their hard-earned money funds endless proxy wars rather than domestic priorities like healthcare or infrastructure.

And so, ultimately, at the core of this leadership crisis in the EU lies a fundamental democratic deficit: European citizens never directly elected von der Leyen, rendering her unaccountable to the very people her decisions affect. Appointed through an opaque process involving backroom deals among EU leaders and the European Parliament, she embodies the elitist nature of Brussels’ governance. Unlike national leaders who face electoral reckoning, von der Leyen cannot be ousted by popular vote, even as polls show plummeting approval ratings—dipping below 40% in several member states. This weird protection from democratic oversight is what is fueling Eurosceptic parties like France’s National Rally or Germany’s AfD, which challenge the remote, unrepresentative bureaucracy of the European Commission. 

URSULA VON DER LEYEN IS CENTRAL TO THE EUROPEAN LEADERSHIP CRISIS

As alluded to in the excerpt we just saw, Von der Leyen is embroiled in a number of scandals concerning corruption and diabolical policy consideration – and this has fueled the leadership crisis that has been central to the growth in Euroscepticism. First, after she was appointed president of the European Commission, VDL again became embroiled in controversy, this time involving the procurement of the Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer. The scandal, which the media dubbed Pfizergate, related to the purchase of 1.8 billion doses of the Pfizer vaccine for use across the EU. It transpired that: a) the number of doses was far greater than was required, resulting in a significant number having to be either destroyed or donated; b) the excess doses cost the EU €4 billion; c) the total value of the contract, which was reported as being approximately €20 billion, was inflated; and d) the most damaging charge, the contract for the vaccines was negotiated directly between VDL and Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer. The negotiations were conducted using sms messages, which VDL later claimed to have deleted.

The New York Times, which initially carried out the investigation into Pfizergate, brought a lawsuit against the European Commission for failing to provide access to the sms conversations between VDL and Bourla. In Belgium, a lobbyist, Frederic Baldan, filed a criminal complaint citing corruption and the destruction of documents. The Belgian lawsuit was eventually taken over by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which opened a criminal investigation. The outcome of these legal proceedings/investigations is still pending! Kindly have a listen as German MEP Christine Anderson had her microphone cut off in the EU Parliament for calling out the corruption surrounding Ursula von der Leyen’s multi billion euro Pfizer vaccine contract.

But ultimately, the apparent impunity surrounding Ursula von der Leyen in the “Pfizergate” scandal raises profound questions not only about her personal conduct but also about systemic issues within the European Commission itself. Even opposition MEPs from both the left and right, argue this reflects deeper institutional flaws: including a culture of opacity, limited judicial accountability for top officials, and weak enforcement of ethics rules that allow high-level decisions to evade scrutiny. And as such, it is this double standard—where the EU lectures member states on rule of law while its own leadership appears shielded—that further erodes public trust in Brussels – thus further pushing EU citizens towards Euroscepticism.

And such institutional distrust has even contributed to voter disillusionment across Europe, manifesting in the sustained rise of right-wing parties. In recent years, the right or conservatives have gained ground in countries like France, Italy, Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands, often campaigning on anti-EU policies, such as strict immigration, and the need to address economic grievances. And evidently (seeing as right wing parties are on the rise) the narrative of a corrupt Brussels – exemplified by scandals like Pfizergate and Qatargate – provides potent ammunition for these parties, as they expose the Commission for the out-of-touch and unaccountable establishment that it is.

What is also notable is that Ursula VDL is trying to export these detrimental green ideas, and doing so at a cost to Europeans. For instance, at the concluded 8th South Africa-EU Summit, in Cape Town on the 13th of March, Ursula von der Leyen announced a £4.7 billion pounds investment package, allegedly aiming to deepen trade ties.

Let’s directly respond to this. First, the reason many European companies are interested in South Africa and many African countries is because Europe is spent, they do not have many natural resources to offer – that is why colonisation was a big financial strategy for most European countries to begin with. Secondly, the so-called green policies are not about providing incentives for European companies (those companies already use foreign direct investment as a tool for eroding the sovereign policies of nations and disenfranchising their citizens). Rather, these so-called green policies are a neo-colonial tactic that coddles a dependent relationship – they are literally an extension of the problems with foreign direct investment. And the South African government needs to cease from prioritising such relations with all nations, because it hinges the development of the nation on the dictates of other nations and their multinational corporations. 

Thirdly, this is further exemplified by the cooperation that Ursula VDL refers to, with respect to science and research, and the work opportunities that come with this. A significant benefit she highlights is that over 1000 South Africans study and teach in European universities. [PAUSE] Now, while I will not discourage people from making choices to work in Europe; I think it is telling that what South Africa offers Europe is the primary benefit that was highlighted. And of course, this is intrinsic to all investors, but, the cost that comes with such a relationship with Europe is among the incommensurably great ones. The importation of the green agenda is neither a commensurate cost for economic ties with Europe, nor is it a significant benefit or gain. The same can be said with the loss of more South African labour to European economies. And so, there is a categorical imperative to pray against foolish and detrimental global associations and alliances, especially with respect to the G20 and the leaders’ summit in November.

IS EUROSCEPTICISM A THREAT TO THE EUROPEAN UNION?

Now, that was a minor (and I hope necessary) digression, although tied to the discussion on euroscepticism, as we just highlighted that VDL is certainly trying to export the same policies that have been detrimental to Europe.

Well, let’s then proceed to address whether Euroscepticism is a threat to the EU, and whether that is a bad thing. The straightforward answer is yes, Euroscepticism poses a genuine threat to the EU’s current structure and integration ambitions, but no, this is not inherently a bad development. In fact, Euroscepticism has emerged as one of the primary mechanisms through which European citizens can hold the EU accountable, particularly given the Union’s persistent democratic deficit. As you’d recall, citizens do not directly elect the President of the European Commission; instead, the European Council proposes a candidate, and the European Parliament approves them, often in a process influenced by backroom deals among national leaders rather than a clear public mandate.

Well, this indirect system limits direct voter influence over the EU’s executive branch, making Eurosceptic movements and parties vital channels for expressing dissatisfaction.I would even argue that events like Brexit exemplify this dynamic. The 2016 referendum, driven by widespread frustration with EU policies on immigration, sovereignty, and economic regulation, represented a rare instance where citizens could directly challenge Brussels’ direction. Such actions force the EU to confront public discontent that might otherwise fester unaddressed. Therefore, euroscepticism compels EU institutions to justify their decisions, adapt policies, or risk further fragmentation – which is what is happening now.

Additionally, this accountability function is vividly illustrated in Germany by the surge in support for the Alternative for Germany (or AfD). As of late 2025, following the February snap federal election where the AfD secured a record 20.8% of the vote and finished second nationally, the party has maintained strong polling momentum. Recent surveys have shown the AfD leading or tying with Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s CDU/CSU bloc, with figures reaching 25-27% in some polls, making it the most popular party in several instances. Particularly dominant in eastern states, the AfD’s Eurosceptic platform—criticizing EU migration policies, fiscal transfers, and perceived overreach—resonates with a significant portion of Germans who feel the Union no longer prioritizes their national interests. The AfD’s views thus reflect a broader consensus among many voters that Germany’s deep integration into the EU has come at a cost, whether through economic burdens like contributions to EU budgets and bailouts, or cultural shifts tied to free movement and asylum rules. 

As such, while mainstream parties or mainstream media often dismiss the AfD as extremist, its electoral success underscores legitimate grievances: which primarily touch on stagnation in parts of the economy, concerns over energy policy influenced by EU green deals, and frustration with Brussels’ handling of crises like Ukraine aid. By channeling these sentiments, the AfD and similar parties across Europe provide a corrective force, pushing for reforms such as re-negotiating treaties, repatriating powers, or even contemplating exit from the EU in extreme cases. But, ultimately, euroscepticism is an essential tool of enforcing checks and balances on the EU. It places before the EU the option of taking heed to the demands of the people, or risk fragmentation and eventual collapse – which I believe are pretty fair options.

Secondly, as far as the substantive reasons for euroscepticism in Germany or from the AfD is concerned, the obligation of a government is to its people first, or – in this case – the obligation of a multi-state entity should be to its member states first. However, the EU has a constant challenge where it undermines unilateral government decisions and preferences because of its modus operandi of blanket policies. Again you would recall that among the arguments from the ‘leave’ campaign in the Brexit debate was that EU immigration laws undermined Britain’s sovereignty to regulate immigration to an intolerable extent, and the EU refused to budge on issues such as immigration, citing its commitment to freedom of movement. Therefore, the EU is the reason for euroscepticism, and entities like the AfD party are merely bodies that echo remarks that already exist, and have existed for a long time.

In fact, in addition to Britain and Germany, we also saw this recently because on December 18th, Brussels became the epicenter of European agricultural discontent as an estimated 10,000 farmers from all 27 EU member states descended on the city in one of the largest protests the capital has seen this century. Organised by the pan-European farm lobby Copa-Cogeca, the demonstration coincided with a high-stakes EU leaders’ summit. Hundreds of tractors—reports vary from 150 to over 1,000—clogged the streets of the European Quarter. Farmers waved flags from their nations, chanted slogans, and displayed banners decrying “unfair competition” and “smoke and mirrors” policies from Brussels. 

Now, the primary target was the proposed EU-Mercosur free-trade agreement with South American nations (namely, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, and Uruguay). Farmers argue that the deal, negotiated for over 25 years, would flood the European market with cheaper beef, poultry, sugar, and other products produced under lower environmental and labor standards, devastating local livelihoods.

Additional grievances included proposed reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2027, which farmers fear will slash subsidies by over 20%, excessive bureaucracy, rising costs for fertilizers and energy, and stringent green regulations amid climate pressures. Not to mention, the timing amplified the pressure: EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had planned to sign the Mercosur deal soon, but opposition from France, Italy, and others forced a postponement to January 2026. Von der Leyen met a farmer delegation, pledging support, but protesters dismissed it as insufficient. But, ultimately, this mobilization underscored a united front across Europe’s diverse farming communities—from Irish beef producers to Lithuanian unions—demanding fair trade, sustained funding, and recognition of agriculture’s strategic role. 

Furthermore, we also witnessed the same in 2023, in how the Black Sea Grain Deal was causing growing Euroscepticism. The concern, especially from European farmers, was that grain coming from Ukraine was being sold below market price. This was a result of tariffs being removed on all Ukraine grain across Europe. And this was a valid concern because these conditions gave Ukraine grain a significant decrease in price that makes it comparatively preferable to locally grown grain for consumers.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso