The Eu Reply To Migrant Deaths: Protection Together With Prevention – Or Policy Laundering?

Steve Peers

On Monday, European Union unusual too interior ministers adopted a ten-point plan inwards answer to the recent huge decease toll of migrants crossing the Mediterranean. There volition locomote a summit on Th to examine the number further, too and then an European Union Commission strategy proposed on May 13^th. But for now, I desire to examine the initial plan.

Overall, this is a rattling disappointing document. It’s non only vague on crucial details but to a greater extent than importantly focusses less on the province of affairs of the migrants (addressing the root causes which movement them to move, too protection from drowning too persecution) too to a greater extent than on edge command too repression. One quest inwards the invention constitutes a rather crass representative of ‘policy laundering’ – attempting to exercise a crisis to shove through an essentially unrelated policy objective.

Let’s aspect at the x points of the European Union invention inwards turn, too then examine the ‘Australian solution’ too the ‘Christians only’ approach which some have got suggested. For alternative solutions to the problem, regard the proposals of the United Nations myself.

Reinforce the Joint Operations inwards the Mediterranean, namely Triton too Poseidon, yesteryear increasing the fiscal resources too the number of assets. We volition also extend their operational area, allowing us to intervene further, inside the mandate of Frontex;

This is the only i of the x measures related straight to search too rescue, although it’s non clear if this is genuinely intended to locomote a search too rescue mission. The mandate of ‘Frontex’ (the EU’s edge command agency) concerns edge control, non search too rescue equally such. Indeed at that topographic point is no bring upwards of search too rescue here, or inwards the residual of the plan. Nor is at that topographic point whatever limited bring upwards inwards the invention of the recent loss of life. There are no details of the extent of the increment inwards fiscal resources too assets, or the extent to which the operational surface area volition increase.

A systematic sweat to capture too destroy vessels used yesteryear the smugglers. The positive results obtained amongst the Atalanta functioning should inspire us to similar operations against smugglers inwards the Mediterranean;

The ‘Atalanta’ functioning concerns an European Union military machine functioning against pirates inwards the Indian Ocean. It’s clear from press briefings that the intention is to have got some other military machine functioning regarding the smugglers. This volition patently entail meaning costs too raises legal questions virtually the jurisdiction which the European Union Member States have got to destroy boats inwards the waters of 3rd States or the high seas.

EUROPOL, FRONTEX, EASO too EUROJUST volition run into regularly too locomote closely to assemble data on smugglers modus operandi, to draw their funds too to assist inwards their investigation;

These bodies are respectively the European Union law cooperation agency, the European Union edge command agency, the European Union asylum back upwards agency too the European Union prosecutors’ agency. The asylum back upwards agency has traditionally had lilliputian or zero to exercise amongst this issue, too at that topographic point is a opportunity that some of its funding is diverted. There is no limited commitment to give it extra funds.

EASO to deploy teams inwards Italy too Hellenic Republic for articulation processing of asylum applications;

This volition defray the toll of processing for those Member States too speed upwards processing times for overburdened administrations. It’s non clear whether this volition simply locomote an application of existing rules which allow EASO to simply back upwards national administrations, or whether at that topographic point volition locomote a shift to genuine ‘joint processing’ yesteryear a grouping of Member States or the agency equally such. That would require fresh legislation.  

Member States to ensure fingerprinting of all migrants;

EU legislation already requires fingerprinting of all short-term visa applicants (once the EU’s Visa Information System is fully applied, inwards the adjacent twelvemonth or so), residence permit holders, asylum applicants too persons crossing borders without authorisation. All holders of European Union passports (ie European Union citizens) must also locomote fingerprinted. The only gaps hither are non-visa nationals coming for short-term visits (ie citizens of countries similar the USA too Canada) too irregular migrants who have got ‘overstayed’ subsequently a legal entry. However, subsequently the EU’s Visa Information System is fully applied, the minute grouping (overstayers) volition simply locomote a sub-category of the get-go grouping (non-visa nationals), since everyone needing a visa volition already have got been fingerprinted. And proposed legislation establishing an entry-exit organisation volition require the non-visa nationals to locomote fingerprinted too, although it volition accept a number of years for that legislation to locomote agreed too made operational. These diverse categories of people are bailiwick to unlike rules equally regards how the fingerprint data is stored too used; it’s non clear if the intention is to modify those rules.

The rattling strange matter hither is what fingerprinting of ‘all migrants’ has to exercise amongst the number of migrants drowning at body of body of water inwards an endeavor to accomplish the EU. It would perchance brand feel to reiterate the requirement to fingerprint all those who apply for asylum or endeavor to cross the edge without potency (as all those migrants who endeavor to cross the Mediterranean are doing), but the invention clearly refers to ‘all migrants’. So nosotros tin forcefulness out only conclude that this is a blatant endeavor at policy laundering.

Consider options for an emergency relocation mechanism;

The concept of ‘relocation’ entails moving asylum-seekers and/or recognised refugees from the Member States which have got an obligation to consider their claim, or which have got recognised their refugee status, to other Member States. It would patently cut the pull per unit of measurement area on the Member States which have a meaning number of refugee claims from migrants crossing the Mediterranean – most notably Malta, Italy (the isle of Lampedusa) too Greece. However, it would entail either suspending the EU’s Dublin rules on asylum responsibleness inwards business office (requiring a legislative amendment) or encouraging voluntary offers from Member States which are non responsible nether the rules. Both options have got been discussed many times over the years amongst no success (Dublin amendments) or rattling lilliputian success (voluntary offers). The wording used hither (‘consider options’) is so underwhelming that lilliputian tin forcefulness out locomote expected.

A European Union broad voluntary airplane pilot projection on resettlement, offering a number of places to persons inwards require of protection;

‘Resettlement’ is the procedure of taking some of the people inwards other (non-EU) countries who require international protection too moving them to the EU. This is the only i of the x points which offers ‘safe passage’, ie a way for would-be asylum-seekers to locomote inwards the European Union without running the opportunity of drowning when crossing the Mediterranean. The ‘number of places’ is non specified, too it should locomote noted that nether European Union fiscal law, a ‘pilot project’ is a short-term programme using only a pocket-sized amount of money. Furthermore, the projection is expressly ‘voluntary’. Overall, it seems that this i cast of ‘safe passage’ beingness offered yesteryear the European Union is rattling narrow indeed.

Establish a novel furnish programme for rapid furnish of irregular migrants coordinated yesteryear Frontex from frontline Member States;

EU law specifies that asylum-seekers cannot usually locomote removed until a terminal negative determination has been taken upon their application. So this refers to people whose asylum application has definitively failed, or who never made such an application too have got no other Blue Planet to stay. There are procedural rights inwards the EU’s Returns Directive for irregular migrants, but at that topographic point is no bring upwards of them (or the asylum laws) here. Frontex already has a purpose coordinating articulation furnish flights; the intention is to devote to a greater extent than sweat (and presumably resources) to removing people from the EU’s Mediterranean Member States.

Engagement amongst countries surrounding Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya through a joined sweat betwixt the Commission too the EEAS; initiatives inwards Niger have got to locomote stepped up.

This is the only business office of the 10-point invention that hints that the EU’s relations amongst 3rd countries have got a purpose to play. It isn’t clear what this ‘engagement’ volition concern. Will it focus on the weather condition inwards the countries of rootage too transit, thereby ensuring that fewer people desire to caput to the European Union inwards the get-go place? Or is the European Union only concerned amongst the repressive aspects, such equally tracking downward smugglers too traffickers?

Deploy Immigration Liaison Officers (ILO) inwards primal 3rd countries, to assemble intelligence on migratory flows too strengthen the purpose of the European Union Delegations.

The intention hither is to obtain to a greater extent than intelligence on migration flows, although it’s non clear what volition locomote done amongst that intelligence i time it’s obtained. There volition locomote a toll for the European Union and/or Member State budgets here.

The Australian solution?

Some have got suggested that the European Union adopt the supposed ‘Australian solution’, of sending boats to halt the migrants reaching the territory of the EU. In fact this is a highly simplistic agreement of Australian asylum policy. The Australians exercise non intercept most migrants just exterior their dry ground of rootage or otherwise furnish them at that topographic point directly. Rather the policy is to post asylum-seekers to diverse Pacific islands for processing too to alive permanently if a claim is successful. Commonwealth of Australia gives the countries concerned meaning cash inwards return. Moreover, Commonwealth of Australia has a rattling active resettlement policy, lately increasing the numbers of permits granted from virtually 13,000 to virtually 20,000.  So the asylum policy is justified yesteryear Commonwealth of Australia equally a agency to halt people ‘jumping the queue’. Also, the policy is underpinned yesteryear indefinite detention of anyone who does larn inwards to Australian shores without authorisation.

Could this policy locomote applied to the EU? There are some large legal problems. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that migrants cannot simply locomote intercepted too returned to 3rd States unless those States are prophylactic (see the Hirsi judgment); it should locomote noted that weather condition inwards some of U.S. participating inwards the Australian policy have got been strongly criticized yesteryear human rights groups. Also, the EU’s Returns Directive bans indefinite detention of irregular migrants. That Directive does non apply to asylum-seekers, but European Union asylum legislation applicable from July this twelvemonth sets many novel weather condition regulating such detention. It’s highly arguable that detention of asylum-seekers cannot locomote justified (at the latest) i time the terminal determination on the application has been made, or subsequently the novel European Union deadlines to determine on asylum claims have got passed. After that quest the fourth dimension limits for detention inwards the Returns Directive volition apply.

Even if these legal problems could locomote overcome, could the Australian solution locomote replicated yesteryear the EU? The European Union would have got to discovery 3rd countries willing to line of piece of occupation solid large numbers of refugees too asylum-seekers, too pay them to exercise it. The numbers of migrants involved inwards Mediterranean crossings (about 200,000 inwards 2014) is far higher than those covered yesteryear the Australian solution (25,000 in 2012-13). So, although accommodating asylum-seekers inwards transit States is probable to play an of import business office inwards whatever long-term solution, this is easier said than done; too it’s of import to regime annotation that the EU’s 10-point invention makes no bring upwards of this issue.

Furthermore, the advocates for the Australian solution simply ignore Australia’s resettlement policy, which is i of the most generous inwards the world. Its 20,000 permits a year, for a population of 23 million, scale upwards to virtually 50,000 resettlement permits for the UK, too 450,000 across the EU. When the advocates of the Australian solution start to utter virtually that scale of resettlement, nosotros should accept them seriously – but non before.

Christians

Some have got suggested that the U.K. and/or European Union should focus entirely on admission of Christian asylum-seekers, on the ground that they have got ‘no other house to go’. Does that policy brand sense? It’s undoubtedly truthful that some Christians confront persecution, but so exercise many non-Christians – too Article iii of the United Nations (Geneva) Convention on Refugees bans discrimination on grounds of ‘race, organized faith or dry ground of origin’. It isn’t right to suggest that Christians can’t alive safely anywhere inwards whatever Arab or Muslim state: many of those States hold the centuries-old tradition of letting Christians alive without persecution, too indeed at that topographic point are a large number of Christians living inwards Lebanese Republic inwards particular. And it’s difficult to regard how this policy volition work. Will Christians lone locomote rescued from boats inwards the Mediterranean, leaving the Muslims on board to sink? And how would asylum-seekers’ claims to locomote Christians locomote examined: yesteryear making applicants sit down a Religious Education A-level on the boat? Or simply checking (for men too boys) to regard if they are circumcised (and thence probable to locomote Muslim) or not?

Comments

The get-go striking matter virtually the European Union policy is that it pays lilliputian attending to the human emergency that triggered it: the deaths of hundreds of people, which resulted from a collective European Union determination to halt search too rescue inwards the Mediterranean. There’s no limited bring upwards of the deaths themselves inwards the plan, too the Commission President’s statement on Lord's Day but expressed his ‘deep chagrin’ at the deaths – equally if someone had guzzled his in conclusion bottle of cognac.

Furthermore, the intention to expand the existing missions fails to bring upwards whatever search too rescue aspects, too at that topographic point is a rattling limited reference to expanding i cast of prophylactic passage.  No business office of the invention mentions dealing amongst the province of affairs inwards countries of origin, or helping countries of transit care the number of migrants on their territory. Instead, at that topographic point is a rigid emphasis on expulsion of migrants from the EU. Overall, this leaves the impression that the ministers aren’t shocked that migrants have got died – but rather irritated that some of them didn’t.

Arguments virtually the costs of rescue, or of asylum-seekers reaching the EU, are undercut yesteryear the implicit plans to pass considerable sums of coin on a military machine mission, fingerprinting of migrants, expulsion, too intelligence gathering. So the declaration isn’t genuinely virtually economical toll – but the social too political comport on of migration.

As for the intention to cleft downward on trafficking too smuggling, few volition have got sympathy for the vultures that net turn a profit from others’ suffering too often jeopardise the lives of hundreds of people. But it seems strange to focus on them inwards this invention without also trying to address the broader province of affairs of the migrants themselves – equally if the agency yesteryear which people brand unsafe journeys to the European Union are to a greater extent than of import than the reasons why they exercise this. On this point, the invention resembles the decades-long U.S.A. policy of military machine missions inwards Latin America, trying to destroy drug crops. Admittedly, it’s harder to create novel boats than to grow to a greater extent than drugs – but then, the migrants aren’t just coming on cruise ships. The policy may good have got the upshot of lowering the (already low) character of vessels used to cross the Mediterranean, too increasing the toll of migrants' journey. Unless it forms business office of a broader policy which aims to bargain amongst the root causes of migration too the seat of migrants inwards transit countries, it could brand them less (not more) safe.

 Art credit: Alex Falco Chang

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

Share this post