European states want to increase the pressure on countries of origin so that they no longer refuse to accept deported asylum seekers. In addition, the proposal to outsource asylum procedures to North Africa will be discussed at the EU summit. Both ideas promise little chance of success.
Harsh deportation measures are currently very popular in the EU. But the asylum debate, which is boiling up again, reveals the powerlessness of the heads of state and government. According to the European statistical authority, only every fifth rejected asylum seeker was deported in 2021. At the same time, the number of migrants applying for asylum in the member states is increasing.
At the EU summit in Brussels, which continues this Friday, the question on the agenda is how readmission agreements with the countries of origin can be designed in such a way that they no longer refuse to take in their compatriots. Another idea that the federal government also wants to examine: The problem is outsourced to North Africa, where refugees are to go through their asylum procedures. Whether these two methods lead to the goal is doubtful.
There are two means of enforcing repatriation agreements, which can be concluded at both European and bilateral levels: the carrot and the stick. The countries of origin can be persuaded to take back rejected asylum seekers either through incentives such as trade advantages, visas and development funds. Or the EU threatens them with a refusal to cancel the benefits.
There are already 18 deportation agreements
Chancellor Olaf Scholz wants to set these levers in motion in order to increase the deportation rate. In his government statement on Wednesday, Scholz said that he wanted to make the possibility of legal immigration conditional on the countries of origin being willing to take them back. “This is how we bring order to the system and set the right incentives,” he emphasized. As an example, the Chancellor cited the migration agreement with India, which is already working well.
However, such agreements are no guarantee of success. There are already 18 legally binding readmission agreements between the EU and third countries. The federal government itself conceded that its importance “must not be exaggerated”. They are only formal repetitions of the obligation to resume, which already exists in international law, wrote the Federal Ministry of the Interior in response to a small request from the FDP parliamentary group. Intergovernmental practice has shown that “mere agreements at administrative level can be more effective than formal agreements”.
The European Court of Auditors comes to the same conclusion special report wrote about why the agreements had “limited results”. He states that the EU Commission has had the most success with agreements that are flexible and not legally binding.
Bargaining power is lacking in many countries of origin
One reason for the failure of the returns is the different starting situations in the countries of origin, said Daniel Thym, Professor of European and International Law at the University of Konstanz “World”. “Returns work well in the Western Balkan countries, for example, because there is an unspoken threat that their citizens would otherwise lose their visa-free right to enter the country,” says Thym. In contrast, many countries in Africa or the Middle East did not benefit from visa-free entry anyway. In addition, there are few economic connections that could be used as leverage.
In other words, if you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. The first challenge is to offer third countries any incentives at all. This raises the question of whether the EU is able and willing to put the offers on the table that they are asking for. Germany relies on stronger cooperation with the countries of origin. At their last meeting, however, the majority of EU interior ministers spoke out in favor of taking tougher action against them.
The CSU politician Manfred Weber, party and parliamentary group leader of the European People’s Party (EPP), campaigned for a different approach interview with the Funke media group. Weber advocates opening offices in Tunisia or Egypt that carry out asylum procedures even before refugees reach Europe. The idea is a bit reminiscent of the initiative of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who wanted to bring migrants to Rwanda. There they should then apply for a residence permit in Great Britain. The British government paid the Rwandan government a total of 150 million euros for the project. Due to ongoing lawsuits, however, not a single asylum seeker has been flown out using this model.
North Africa does not want to build “disembarkation platforms”.
For years, human rights organizations have accused the European Union of engaging in similar questionable practices. The EU should help the Libyan state to intercept migrants escaping across the Mediterranean. “Human Rights Watch” accuses the EU border protection agency Frontex of using planes and drones to locate refugee boats so that the Libyan coast guard waits for them. They would then be sent to camps where there was a risk of torture and ill-treatment. Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni wants to strengthen cooperation with Tripoli. During her last visit to the Libyan capital, she demanded EU funds for Libyan speedboats.
So Weber’s idea is neither unproblematic nor new. During his time as interior minister, his party colleague Horst Seehofer was already promoting the construction of “disembarkation platforms” in North African countries. They refused to cooperate at the time. After all, these are the same governments that in many cases refuse to return rejected asylum seekers.