Europe cannot allow itself to
be blackmailed forever
Last
week, European leaders decided to extend the EU-Turkey refugee deal. But the
agreement has been a complete disaster. Europe needs a new strategy
Reuters Refugee
youths gesture from behind a fence as officals arrive at Nizip refugee camp
near Gaziantep
At
their European Council meeting at the end of last week, EU leaders announced
their intention to continue cooperating with Turkey on refugee policy. Now, the
European Commission is supposed to draw up a more detailed proposal by the next
meeting in June. The wording of the resolutions, however, suggests that any new
agreement could end up being just a remake of the old agreement. But as the
last five years have clearly shown, the so-called ‘EU-Turkey deal’ has been an
absolute failure.
In
late 2015, the EU started setting up so-called hotspots on the islands in the
Aegean Sea, where newly arriving refugees are either held, sent to various
European countries or quickly deported again. The plan was for EU states to
take in a Syrian refugee from Turkey for every Syrian refugee returned to
Turkey. However, this plan quickly collapsed – not just because it was a
violation of European fundamental rights, which protect asylum seekers from
being deported without examining their asylum applications, but also because of
Turkey’s refusal to take people back.
The
agreement ultimately amounted to horse trading: the Turkish government
prevented refugees from travelling to the EU, while the EU pledged €6bn to
Turkey for taking care of its refugees. European leaders also promised to
resume EU accession negotiations with Turkey and to facilitate visas and trade.
However, these promises were never kept. The agreement even included a
humanitarian admission programme that would have enabled a larger number of
refugees to find protection in European countries in a safe and orderly manner.
However, it was never implemented.
Did the deal actually
do anything?
After
the ‘deal’ was concluded in March 2016, the number of refugees arriving in
Europe plummeted. Many – notably within the European Council and the EU
Commission – therefore consider it a great success. Most governments also want
it to go on. They accept the desolate state of the camps on the Greek islands,
where asylum seekers, including small children, sometimes wait for years to be
deported or sent on further. Humanity falls by the wayside.
Ironically,
Turkey did not get what it wanted either. That’s why, for a continuation of the
agreement, the Turkish government is explicitly demanding visa-free travel for
its citizens to Europe and a clear path to a customs union with the EU – in
addition to more billions in payments for taking care of refugees. Turkey now
wants to use these funds to accommodate Syrian refugees in military ‘protection
zones’ it controls in northern Syria – an arrangement that is illegal under
international law.
Today more than ever, the situation is completely
different than it was five years ago: most of the refugees who are now living
in Turkey have neither a specific intention to move to Europe, nor the means to
do so.
But
as early as 2018, when Turkish troops marched into the Kurdish areas in
northern Syria and occupied them, Europe hesitated to protest. The fear that
Turkey might back out of the refugee deal outweighed security interests and
human rights concerns. Consequently, the EU was also unable to respond
adequately to the increasingly authoritarian elimination of the democratic
opposition in Turkey.
In
short, the EU has manoeuvred itself into a dead end. While European governments
have thrown important achievements in refugee protection overboard, they placed
themselves at the mercy of the Turkish government, which uses its control over
refugee movements to put Europe under pressure. President Erdogan has
repeatedly threatened to ‘send’ refugees to Europe. It’s what political
scientist Kelly Greenhill has called ‘weapons of mass migration’.
Today is not five
years ago
If
the EU continues the agreement in its current form, it will become permanently
dependent on Turkey. And it has no strategy for extricating itself from this
dependency. The March 2016 agreement was based on false assumptions. After all,
the number of people arriving in Greece had dropped drastically before that –
since November 2015. The closure of the Balkan route had made it virtually
impossible to reach north-western Europe. Surveys also showed that the majority
of those who wanted to continue their migration further into Europe had already
set off by that point.
Today
more than ever, the situation is completely different than it was five years
ago: most of the refugees who are now living in Turkey have neither a specific
intention to move to Europe, nor the means to do so. With the construction of a
wall, Turkey has also largely closed itself off to newly arriving refugees.
Therefore
a change of course is necessary. The EU should continue to provide financial
support to refugees in Turkey. European governments seem to be willing to do
so. But it should also finally set up an orderly admission programme to take in
those refugees from the region who are seeking protection. A resettlement programme
through which refugees from Turkey can be relocated to European countries
already exists. However, since 2016 only around 28,000 people have benefited
from it.
When the Turkish government brought several thousand
refugees to its border with Greece in February 2020, Europe reacted harshly.
Since then, the protection of refugees has increasingly been receding into the
political background.
In
contrast, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR), almost 400,000 particularly vulnerable refugees are in need for
resettlement. Therefore, at least 100,000 refugees from Turkey should be
admitted annually over the next five years. Moreover, the resettlement quotas
for other countries in the region and beyond should also be increased. Family
reunifications need to be more generous again and access to visas for study and
work should be improved.
The end of
blackmailing
These
measures would send a clear signal to refugees that there is a safe and
realistic way to get to Europe. They won’t have to put themselves in the hands
of smugglers. It would be possible for European countries to plan the arrival
and admission of these refugees, including security checks and health tests
prior to entry. Many local municipalities in Germany have already indicated
that they would be willing to take in refugees.
This
approach would significantly curb irregular migration to Europe. Of course, some
will still try to get to the EU on their own on risky routes. Europeans need
not be overly concerned though: the number of irregular arrivals in Greece is
not high and could even be much lower, given the prospect of safe access to the
EU.
Of
course, not all EU countries would go along with such a change of course. Many
European governments and political parties stir up a fear of refugees for their
own political benefit. Nevertheless, some states could lead the way, and pursue
the goal of a human rights-based refugee policy. It would also significantly
strengthen the EU’s clout in foreign policy. Europe can no longer allow itself
to be blackmailed.
When
the Turkish government brought several thousand refugees to its border with
Greece in February 2020, Europe reacted harshly. Since then, the protection of
refugees has increasingly been receding into the political background. But to
be able to credibly represent democratic and constitutional principles to its
own citizens and to the outside world, Europeans must defend their ideal of
human and refugee rights. A stable international refugee regime based on human
rights is in Europe’s self-interest after all.
·
·
·
·
No comments:
Post a Comment