The EU operates an incoherent, contradictory and, according to many, ultimately hypocritical migration policy. A rethink is urgently needed. Nevertheless, many critics make it too easy for themselves.
In mid-April, several hundred people seeking asylum protested in front of the UNHCR office in Tunis. They referred to their precarious situation and demanded immediate evacuation to safe countries. Without success; the UN refugee agency found no states willing to accept the asylum seekers. For weeks there had been protests and violent clashes with the security forces in front of the UNHCR office in the Libyan capital Tripoli.
These protests are just the tip of the iceberg. It is estimated that well over a hundred thousand migrants and refugees are living in the entire Maghreb, mostly in precarious conditions. This not only in Libya, the country with by far the largest number of transit migrants and asylum seekers, but also in all other Maghreb countries. Since these people are not registered anywhere and the authorities in these countries have no interest in publicizing the topic, there are only rough estimates of their number. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands more guest workers in Libya. They too often live under extremely difficult conditions, have no rights and are exploited.
consequences of outsourcing
It is even worse for transit migrants, war refugees and asylum seekers. They live in improvised huts, in makeshift tents, in slums, not infrequently in forests or on construction sites. They have to organize groceries themselves, medical care is almost non-existent. Only a few non-governmental organizations provide any kind of emergency aid; a drop in the bucket. The authorities do not like this. For example, a Spanish friar in Nador, Morocco, who had campaigned for refugees, was expelled from the country some time ago.
All those who are seriously trying to find new solutions in the muddled asylum and migration policy ultimately act just as ethically as sea rescuers or Frontex critics.
Compared to the living conditions of transit migrants and asylum seekers in the Maghreb, but also on the Balkan route, for example in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the refugee camps on certain Greek islands are comparatively comfortable. These different situations must by no means be played off against one another. Nevertheless, it is important to know that the often and rightly criticized pushbacks – violent refusals at the EU’s external borders – neither cause the greatest suffering nor represent the greatest violation of the right to asylum.
The consequences of outsourcing border controls to countries outside the Schengen area are much more dramatic for refugees. On the one hand, these states do not adhere to minimum human rights standards when defending against refugees and migrants. On the other hand, all these refugees are deprived of the opportunity to apply for asylum at a European border. Third, these cases affect a much larger number of people than pushbacks at European borders or at sea.
Outsourcing the “dirty work”
The biggest “eyesore” is without a doubt Libya. This cooperation has been working since Italy established close contacts with the government in Tripoli in 2017, as well as with local militias, in order to persuade them to fend off migrants and thus close the route across the central Mediterranean. The EU is now also involved in financing and training the Libyan Coast Guard.
In 2021 alone, it picked up more than 32,000 refugees in the Mediterranean and returned them to Libya; more than ever. There they are held in detention centers for weeks or even months in appalling conditions. The detainees often have to pay some kind of ransom in order to be released. There are also credible reports of violence and abuse or even torture in these centers, which are formally under the control of the Libyan state. The situation is even worse in the “private” detention centers run by people smugglers and militias.
Serious human rights violations also occur in the other Maghreb states. In Morocco, security forces regularly carry out raids around the two Spanish exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla and use force to transport African transit migrants to the south of the country. At the southern borders of the Maghreb countries, refugees are repeatedly being brutally taken out of the country. In Tunisia and Mauritania, too, there is hardly any protection for refugees and transit migrants in practice.
This defense against migrants and refugees is clearly being done on behalf of the EU and individual Schengen states. In fact, it is about outsourcing the “dirty work”, the robust border security that often involves threats of violence, which Europe burdens these states with in such a way. It concerns the protection of the few land borders between the EU and the states concerned, but above all the protection of the maritime borders in the Mediterranean.
This has a decisive advantage for Europe. Because if the coast guards of these countries prevent transit migrants as well as their own citizens willing to migrate from leaving the country or apprehend them on the high seas, it is not a question of “pushbacks” prohibited under international law. In addition, the EU is putting these “frontline states” under pressure to protect their southern external borders better, so that migrants from countries south of the Sahara cannot even reach the Mediterranean Sea.
painful dilemma
Europe therefore bears considerable responsibility for the precarious situation of most transit migrants and refugees in the Maghreb countries, in Sudan, in Niger and elsewhere. However, the EU currently has no other option than to protect its external borders as well as possible. The migratory pressure is too great in practically all countries directly bordering the Mediterranean Sea, as is the pressure from refugee movements from very poor, unstable regions and from war zones.
To this end, the EU enters into agreements with the above-mentioned states, so-called migration partnerships, in which the consideration for the protection of the EU’s external borders is recorded. In doing so, the EU usually has to cooperate with authoritarian regimes, very similar to the supply of natural gas and other energy sources. Anyone who does not want to admit this is denying reality. At the latest in the event of a major political crisis in one of these “front-line states” and a failure of the border and coast guard, there would be a huge stream of refugees within a very short time. In view of the enormous challenges posed by the war in Ukraine, Europe cannot embark on such an experiment.
In terms of migration and asylum policy, the EU finds itself in a dilemma that is difficult to bear. On the one hand, it must guarantee security, prosperity and the continued existence of the social order in Europe, while at the same time complying with its obligations under international law and asylum law. In view of the huge migration pressure in most countries south and east of the Mediterranean and the countless hot spots of war and conflict, this task can hardly be mastered. A realigned European asylum and migration policy is urgently needed.
Huge challenge
The challenge is huge. Basically, the dilemma is that with the legal norms in force today and the means available, neither the European external borders can be effectively protected nor irregular migration curbed. Because the Geneva Refugee Convention was in no way designed for poverty migration of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people every year. But in the medium term there is probably no way around a revision of the current asylum law.
Only a few basic steps can be outlined here. First, the EU should urgently change its incoherent and contradictory migration and asylum policies, communicate openly about them and seek solutions to the most controversial practices as soon as possible. Second, pushbacks should either be stopped altogether or only allowed in clearly defined situations, such as violent attacks on border guards by migrants. Thirdly, with regard to cooperation with Libya, the EU should do everything in its power to ensure that repatriated refugees are at least treated correctly. If human rights-compliant solutions are not possible, this cooperation must be discontinued. Finally, private sea rescue organizations should not be prevented from carrying out their activities as long as they are willing to coordinate with the state coastguards.
At the same time, the EU should urgently reconsider its two-circle model and allow more legal labor migration from southern countries. In the search for new solutions, it is essential that the interests of the countries of origin of migrants and refugees are given greater consideration.
What can be said is that all those who are seriously trying to find new solutions to the muddled asylum and migration policy ultimately act just as ethically as sea rescuers or Frontex critics. Although they have to make painful compromises, they are looking for feasible and sustainable solutions for refugees, for their countries of origin and for the host countries. And that’s no small amount in an area where there are no “good” solutions: in the minefield of migration policy.
Beat Stauffer is an author and journalist specializing in the Maghreb, migration, Islamist movements and Muslims in Europe. In 2019 he published “Maghreb, Migration und Mediterranean” with NZZ Libro.