For almost a year now, the European Union has been in shock over a constantly increasing flow of migrants and asylum-seekers arriving at Europe's shores. This should have surprised no one: there has been a bloody civil war in Syria for five years now, violence in Iraq dramatically worsened with the reappearance of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (turned ISIS) in late 2013, Libya had already started the downward spiral towards a second civil war in two years by that time... And I won't go into structural reasons.
Already in October 2013, after a tragic drowning near Lampedusa, Italy had to establish its own operation in the Mediterranean to rescue migrants coming mostly from Libya. Other European countries did not only reject any involvement in the operation, but some criticized it because of its alleged "pull factor effect". So, when the Italian government asked for burden-sharing one year later, Operation Mare Nostrum was replaced by Operation Triton, an under-resourced European operation that could only patrol up to 30 nautical miles from the coast due to its focus on border protection.
What this shows is that by mischaracterizing and underplaying the situation, European leaders were unable to deal with a developing disaster up to this point, when they openly admit that the end of the free movement of people, one of the four liberties that are the bedrock of the European project, may be "6-8 weeks away".
So, it needs to be asked, how it is possible that the European Union, a project that could handle the disintegration of the Soviet Union or the reunification of Germany, can be on its knees due to a number of asylum seekers and migrants that, foreign observers admit, is not that big in relation to the EU's population of 500 million?
Therefore, in order to avoid Europe's meltdown, the first step is to recognize that the actual tactic of shock, underplay and deadlock is no strategy at all. Second, it is also necessary to recognize that few blame actually lie within European Institutions, which have indeed proposed, approved and strongly pushed for a relocation strategy. On the contrary, some national governments are the ones paralyzing the system by reluctantly agreeing to the European strategy, only to apply it very marginally.
How to move forward, thus? There is right now a controversial proposal on the floor that deserves particular attention: that of reinforcing the Greek border with Albania, Macedonia and eventually Bulgaria. The proposal was initially made covered in accusations for Greece not to be doing enough to stop the flow towards northern Europe, allegations Greece has described as "politically motivated".
However, despite the fact that the Dublin system has already been superseded by events, the proposal makes sense, with a big if. If member states were ready to apply fully the relocation system already agreed last spring, Greece would play a great role in it. Therefore, migrants and asylum-seekers, once registered upon arrival at Lesbos or any other point, would not be allowed to continue their traumatic, humiliating march through the Balkans, but rather be sheltered in refugee camps for a short (and I mean short) period of time, upon which they would be transferred to the european state of relocation. Everything is more complicated in practice that it seems in theory, but it is not an unfeasible undertaking at all for Europe.
For example, while it is true that there are important costs associated with such a program, those could be lowered it it is done in a comprehensive way, including regional and local administrations throughout Europe as key partners for providing basic services to the asylum-seekers. For instance, many local administrations control empty public housing. Also, the system would allow for flexibility. In case the number of asylum-seekers substantially increases in the following months, the reallocation quotas could be increased following the current (or an updated version of) the criteria already used.
Furthermore, an (uncertain) part of the asylum-seekers would only need to be reallocated for a limited time, until war in their places of origin draws to an end. Some would like to stay in, work in and contribute for Europe; others are looking forward to come back to reunite with their friends and families.
To conclude with, it is unthinkable to admit that the cornerstone of Europe since the Second World War, that our prosperous future, could be doomed for a perfectly solvable crisis. Indeed, it is striking that the European Union has had for months an strategy to cope with it, but it has been so far unable to apply it. It is time for the political Comission to push harder, and for member states to wake up to their fate. For example, Canada has in 3 months received 15000 out of the 25000 asylum-seekers it compromised to accept by the end of February, by the 272 out of the 160000 of the EU through the relocation scheme it proposed in May and was approved late September. Therefore, with some political will, resources and good coordination, the European Union could go from global embarrassment to global example.
No comments:
Post a Comment