Isadora Dullaert investigates the EU’s new approach to migration control.
In response to the European refugee crisis, EU-leaders have directed their attention towards building migration deals with, as they call it, ‘third countries’ (states that are not part of the EU or EEA). The apparent success of the (in)famous 2016 EU-Turkey deal bolstered efforts to pursue similar deals with other states. In February this year, the EU and the Arab League held their first-ever summit aimed at increasing cooperation on several areas of mutual interest, with migration at the top of the EU’s wish list. At the press conference concluding the summit, European Council President Donald Tusk declared the two organisations agreed to work together on ‘border control and the fight against irregular migration: we will scale up our joint efforts to prevent people smuggling, eradicate trafficking in human beings and combat those who exploit vulnerable people.’
While European leaders still struggle to formulate a common European asylum policy, they seem to have a much easier time agreeing on migration deals with third countries. It is, however, questionable whether such agreements will be sustainable in the long run: these new policies bring a wide array of new problems – and migrants often pay the price.
What is it about?
The polarised debate around migration often makes headlines. What is usually deemed less controversial is the current trend in migration policy: externalising border and migration control. Both the EU as a whole and individual European states have concluded border deals, offering third countries benefits such as trade facilitation, financial investments and development aid in return for their cooperation. For example, in 2017, Italy struck a deal with Libyan border and military forces, endorsed by the EU in the Malta Declaration. In return for pulling back migrants sailing for Italy, Libya received financial investments as well as training and equipment for its coastguard. Behind the scenes, the EU is working on more deals: during a summit in June 2018, European leaders agreed to focus on migrant ‘processing centres’ in countries such as Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Niger, Morocco and Tunisia.
Why are European leaders so intent on pursuing this kind of agreement? The 1951 Refugee Convention grants refugees the right to apply for asylum once they enter a state’s territory. States are obliged to offer asylum and protection if a claim is legitimate, even if the refugee arrived in an illegal way. Border deals make it much harder to reach Europe in the first place, putting a stop to the asylum process before it even begins.
The (im)balance of power
Border deals have not gone uncontested. Critics have, for example, pointed to the lack of conditionality on how financial aid should be spent and are afraid that funds might end up in the hands of a small elite. Furthermore, the salience of the issue and economic disparities have led to opportunities, for both sides, to exert political and economic power. Some fear increasing dependence of African countries on the EU. The 2016 partnership cooperation between the EU and Mali was heavily contested by Malian society precisely for this reason. However, power imbalances work both ways. In the context of Europe’s migration conflict and growing pressures on policymakers to reduce migrant numbers, some argue the agreements may leave the EU more vulnerable as partners can use migration as leverage to ask for more. Egypt, for instance, has been accused of using the closure of its maritime border as a bargaining chip in migration negotiations to request more funds from the IMF in 2016.
Solution or problem?
This power play is a serious cause for concern for the migrants themselves. Migration deals have drastically reduced migrant arrivals but come at a serious human cost. The EU-Libya deal trapped thousands in a country largely controlled by local militias. It is estimated that tens of thousands of migrants are held in detention centres where they are subject to various forms of abuse ranging from sexual violence to slave trade. Consequently, migrants are looking for alternative routes to Europe. Many diverted to Morocco, where they are in danger of forced displacement. According to Amnesty International, some 5000 migrants, whose legal status had not been checked, were transported to abandoned areas last September.
As a result, border deals might actively contribute to the creation of conditions people will flee from in the future, and even if, as promised, the EU does invest in development, migrant numbers might not decline. In other words, migration deals seem to offer a quick fix to Europe’s troubles but might have the exact opposite effect in the future. Will today’s answer become tomorrow’s problem?
Written by Isadora Dullaert for the Insight Magazine, Spring 2019.
Comentarios