Print
Region: Europe
Type: Articles
Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article
Alexander Tevdoy-Burmuli

Candidate of Political Sciences, European Integration Faculty, MGIMO-University, RIAC expert

The EU’s immigration policy has again found itself at the centre of attention following the tragic events of April 2015, when two shipwrecks in the Mediterranean Sea took the lives of more than a thousand North African refugees making an illegal attempt to reach the European shore. About 1,700 illegal migrants have already drowned in the Mediterranean since the beginning of 2015. The EU finds itself in an extremely difficult situation.

The EU’s immigration policy has again found itself at the centre of attention following the tragic events of April 2015, when two shipwrecks in the Mediterranean Sea took the lives of more than a thousand North African refugees making an illegal attempt to reach the European shore. About 1,700 illegal migrants have already drowned in the Mediterranean since the beginning of 2015.

The EU finds itself in an extremely difficult situation. On the one hand, the international and European public (at least the left-wing liberal section of it) are criticising Brussels for the harsh measures that prevent illegal migrants from getting into EU territory. Indeed, more than 22,000 refugees have perished in the Mediterranean since 2000, and the EU’s immigration policy took on its well-known systematic approach in the first decade of the twenty-first century. From the point of view of NGO activists, part of the blame for this clearly lies with the patrols operated by FRONTEX, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union. European border guards patrol the routes for illegal trafficking into the EU that are the shortest and therefore most popular with refugees (in particular, Operation Hermes and Operation Triton), and force them to try to evade the patrols and risk their lives by sailing longer distances.

On the other hand, the EU public and European governments reproach Brussels for its inability to close all the channels by which refugees get through to Europe’s shores. In the first few months of 2015 alone 36,000 illegal migrants have reached the European Promised Land by sea. Last year, according to figures from the International Organization for Migration, 170,000 illegals managed to sail to Italy alone.

The question of illegal immigration – an inseparable part of the issue of multiculturalism, which is extremely vexed for modern Europe – is becoming an important factor in domestic politics and cannot be ignored by the European establishment.

The recent success of radical right-wing parties in European elections at various levels bears eloquent testimony to the fact that alarmist attitudes to immigrants have shifted to a qualitatively new level. The question of illegal immigration – an inseparable part of the issue of multiculturalism, which is extremely vexed for modern Europe – is becoming an important factor in domestic politics and cannot be ignored by the European establishment.

The events of April 2015 forced the European Union to move farther down the road in terms of creating a common immigration policy. On 23 April 2015 Brussels hosted an extraordinary EU summit specially convened to discuss immigration issues. The meeting adopted a package of decisions which, taken together, give a more or less complete picture of where the EU immigration policy is heading.

So what did the emergency summit manage to agree in the end?

euranetplus-inside.eu
On 23 April 2015 Brussels hosted an
extraordinary EU summit specially convened
to discuss immigration issues

Firstly, there are plans to provide assistance to the EU countries where illegals from the South arrive. Additional groups of border guards and immigration officials will be sent to these places. This will speed up the process of the registration of migrants so that they can subsequently be deported or given temporary asylum.

Secondly, the majority (more than 90%) of the illegal migrants who have arrived in the EU over the past year will be deported.

Thirdly, the EU plans to intensify the cordon operations already being run under the auspices of FRONTEX. To this end the number of patrols and of warships taking part will be increased. This will provide an opportunity to expand the zone of control. The patrols will include ships from Northern European countries, including a British battle-cruiser. There should consequently be a threefold increase in financing for FRONTEX’s Operation Triton. Three million euros from the EU budget are currently being spent on Triton.

It’s easy to assume that the latter point was agreed by the member countries without any great enthusiasm – and will be put into effect with the same lack of enthusiasm.

The EU is banking on cooperation with the immigrants’ native countries, and also with the transit countries.

The meeting also discussed the possibility of using the impressive EU naval forces concentrated in the Mediterranean to deliberately destroy the vessels used for the illegal trafficking of migrants. To put this measure into effect, however, would require extending the European forces’ operations into the territorial waters of North African countries – and consequently would require additional legal backing. Meanwhile a number of countries – including Russia – have already stated that they will block any attempts by EU countries to get the UN to agree to this plan.

As in earlier versions of its immigration policy, the EU is banking on cooperation with the immigrants’ native countries, and also with the transit countries. The extraordinary summit focused in particular on the question of stepping up controls on the land borders of North African countries, and also on how to create conditions in these countries that would boost the will of potential immigrants to stay in their own country.

We should note that the EU has not previously achieved a lot in this area. When the Arab Spring brought down the majority of regimes in the region, the EU’s small achievements in the field of cooperation with the countries on the southern side of the Mediterranean were all lost. Is it realistic to pin any hopes on this instrument now, in the context of the permanent political turbulence in the region? This is a rhetorical question. It seems the Europeans understand this too – otherwise the summit discussion would hardly have included the Italian proposal to discuss the possibility of “pinpoint interventions” in Libya, since no responsible authority exists in that country. But given that this decision would put the EU on the brink of a direct and large-scale military intervention in the region, this scenario now seems almost inconceivable, not just because of legal considerations but also for more pragmatic reasons. Firstly, the European countries have already had an experience of ineffective military intervention in the region during the operations against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. Secondly, the EU can scarcely allow itself to expend resources on such a scale.

The EU cannot influence the external factors that are determining the inflow of illegal migrants – but it can try to shut itself off from them and be more decisive about deporting those people who have already managed to get into Europe.

To sum up this part of the summit’s decisions and proposals, one might conclude that the main plank of the EU’s immigration policy is to reinforce its borders. The EU cannot influence the external factors that are determining the inflow of illegal migrants – but it can try to shut itself off from them and be more decisive about deporting those people who have already managed to get into Europe. To achieve success in this area, Brussels will have to take steps that are quite risky in legal and political terms. Whether they are prepared to do this today is an open question. In any case the intense stream of immigrants will not be reduced – and consequently the European maritime patrols will have to fulfil an insoluble objective: to increase security on the EU’s borders without jeopardising the lives of the illegals, and at the same time without intruding into the waters of North African countries.

Brussels is also proposing more consistent application of the principle of solidarity – one of the cornerstones of the EU immigration policy. In this case solidarity means all the EU member countries being prepared to share the burden of responsibility for receiving the immigrants. If this proposal is implemented, each EU member country will be obliged to receive a certain number of immigrants in line with a country quota devised in Brussels.

The European maritime patrols will have to fulfil an insoluble objective: to increase security on the EU’s borders without jeopardising the lives of the illegals, and at the same time without intruding into the waters of North African countries.

The idea of distributing the refugees on the basis of solidarity has previously met with caution on the part of the European states’ authorities. We might recall the scandalous events of 2011, when Italy, which was experiencing mass migration of refugees from the Maghreb, asked the EU for help, and when it did not meet with understanding it started to issue temporary Schengen visas to the refugees. France responded by closing its border with Italy, and Denmark temporarily withdrew from the Schengen zone and restored control of its national borders. In effect until recently the principle of solidarity has not been applied.

It’s not yet clear how the current attempts to revive this principle will end. Britain, however, has already stated that London does not agree with the principle of quotas. In view of the threat of a referendum on Britain leaving the EU, which has become clearer following the recent Conservative victory in the parliamentary elections, it hardly makes sense for Brussels to force implementation of this principle.

As a result the impression is forming that the EU’s immigration policy in the Mediterranean Sea is currently stuck firmly on the reefs. Where Brussels can expect to find the waves and tailwind to get it moving again, only time will tell.

Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. In your opinion, what are the US long-term goals for Russia?
    U.S. wants to establish partnership relations with Russia on condition that it meets the U.S. requirements  
     33 (31%)
    U.S. wants to deter Russia’s military and political activity  
     30 (28%)
    U.S. wants to dissolve Russia  
     24 (22%)
    U.S. wants to establish alliance relations with Russia under the US conditions to rival China  
     21 (19%)
For business
For researchers
For students