Migration Tsunami from the South: EU Communitarian Policy and National Egoism
Migrants' shadows are seen on a wall at the
train station in Gevgelija, Macedonia,
August 23, 2015
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
PhD in History, Sector Head at RAS Institute of World Economy and International Relations
In 2014, over 180,000 Libyan refugees are known to have attempted to cross the Mediterranean, with about 2,000 either having drowned or died because of dangerous sailing conditions. Although they are only approximate, these figures testify to at least two indisputable facts, i.e. the route has become much more attractive than ever before and unquestionably is more popular than two other popular routes – by sea from Morocco to Spain and over land from Turkey to Greece.
In 2014, over 180,000 Libyan refugees are known to have attempted to cross the Mediterranean, with about 2,000 either having drowned or died because of dangerous sailing conditions. Although they are only approximate, these figures testify to at least two indisputable facts, i.e. the route has become much more attractive than ever before and unquestionably is more popular than two other popular routes – by sea from Morocco to Spain and over land from Turkey to Greece. Today, Libya has grown into a major transit zone that with time will only rise in importance both as a continental and maritime conduit. Since the weather at sea is mostly good, we should expect another surge of refugees in the next few months.
A Response to A Strategic Challenge
Faced with an aggravating humanitarian disaster, last April 23 in Brussels, EU leaders held an emergency summit on immigration. On May 11, EU High Representative on Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini requested that the UN Security Council intervene and check the refugee flows from Libya to Sicily, while at a May 18 press conference in Brussels, Mrs. Mogherini reported that an agreement had been signed between the EU foreign and defense ministers on a naval operation to counter criminal groups engaged in the delivery of illegal migrants across the Mediterranean. In other words, the humanitarian mission has developed into a full-scale military operation. The EU also plans on tripling financing of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders or Frontex that in 2015-2016 will carry out its own patrol and rescue missions called Triton and Poseidon. The 2015 budget has been amended to allocate the appropriate funds, i.e. 89 million euro including 57 million euro for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and five million euro for the External Borders Fund.
The humanitarian mission has developed into a full-scale military operation.
The outburst of migration from the South is burdening the EU with a host of problems pertaining to the quota-based redistribution of refugees among member states. In fact, the wave of immigration has already ignited anger among native Europeans towards all sorts of aliens, worsening ethnic, national, confessional and related tensions and consequently helping to strengthen extreme right parties across the continent.
The proposed quotas are fiercely resisted both by oppositions and governments, primarily in Great Britain, France, Denmark, Hungary and the Baltic. Budapest has already launched the construction of a 175-km-long wall along its Serbian border. Greece has erected a similar barrier on its border with Turkey, while Bulgaria seems to be next in the line. London is going to unilaterally use high-tech resources to strengthen its portion of the high-speed tunnel under the English Channel, among other things to prevent a repeat of the Calais turmoil. Spain has its own protective strip against Moroccan refugees in its African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. This July, Austria and Denmark announced their temporary withdrawal from the Schengen Agreement in order to toughen entry control at their borders with Italy and Germany. Paris has come out against quotas in principle. London believes that the EU initiatives should not affect Britain, the largest former colonial power which boasts a high level of multiculturalism. At the same time, Germany, Italy and Sweden have been the key refugee recipients for many years. In 2014, 80-million-population Germany accommodated 202,000 and 10-million Sweden – 32,000 refugees, while 65-million Britain put up a mere 31,000 and 50-million Spain – 1,585 migrants.
As a result, the European Union is suffering from a profound conflict of interests. On the one hand, the EU border states are demanding stronger borders and sharing of the burdens, while the much safer Central and Northern European countries will not pick up the tabs of the southern co-members until the latter put in order the refugee intake and security systems. This controversy emerged at least 20 years ago, but now Brussels has obliged all 28 member states to offer homes to a certain number of migrants. Located far away from Africa, Poland will have to shelter 1,200 Arabs and Africans from Somalia, Yemen, South Sudan and other countries, whereas the ethno-centric Baltic countries must receive 753 aliens (Latvia – 220, Estonia – 326, and Lithuania – 207). As a result, only 32,000 out of planned 40,000 refugees have been distributed, but the legitimization of even such a small fraction has encountered stubborn resistance [1].
The Failure of the EU Common Policy
According to the Dublin Convention of 1990, which regulates the EU communitarian policy toward refugees, the responsibility for considering asylum issues lies on the EU country of the refugee's initial entry. In other words, any émigré may apply for asylum in the first EU country that he/she has arrived into. Ninety percent of refugees do so in Italy, Spain and Greece, although most of them will not stay there but would rather travel to more affluent Northern Europe. In fact, the European Union has neither streamlined its communitarian immigration policy nor its refugee accommodation system. While Germany and Sweden can boast of properly organized migration schemes [2], some other EU members have nothing worth this title. Although the European Union structures have adopted myriads of rules and regulations intended to even out the reception of refugees, most countries ignore them and Brussels is short of levers to make them harmonize national laws and follow the EU prescriptions.
The only effective mechanism appears to lie in preventive economic measures in the refugee-generating countries. For example, Holland has pledged to invest 50 million euro in African economies. According to Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Lilianne Ploumen, this amount has been earmarked to create jobs in Ghana, Senegal and Tunisia. However, the efficiency of this approach is still to be seen because it is an isolated action beyond EU dedicated programming.
Ejection and Attraction
The outburst of migration from the South is burdening the EU with a host of problems pertaining to the quota-based redistribution of refugees among member states.
Arabs and Africans are on the run for a number of economic, political, religious and other reasons. Some leave their homes because of bloody domestic conflicts, for example in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia, although it appears difficult to single out their share in the overall refugee flows crossing the Mediterranean. Others leave behind all of their belongings and escape from totalitarian regimes, as is the case of Eritrea. Many fugitives are trying to find their luck in Europe, seeing no value of their lives at home. All of these are the exit factors that incessantly feed the increasing stream of migrants bound to Europe across the Mediterranean.
In fact, the European Union has neither streamlined its communitarian immigration policy nor its refugee accommodation system.
One significant factor in view of the expanding humanitarian disasters is demography, i.e. exogenous demodynamics and harsh climate. Since MENA states are absolutely indifferent to the outflow of their populations and the EU offers them both moral and financial support, the potent attraction factor emerges since Europe is seen by millions of impoverished people in the poorest regions of the world as the Promised Land. The exit-attraction combination drives many inhabitants of the desolate Sahel and North Africa toward the Libyan coast because they do not see the passage across the Mediterranean as something unacceptably dangerous. In turn, Europeans are willingly helping people in need for humanitarian reasons, disregarding such consequences as spawning illegal human transfers, safer crime-based emigration, increased poverty and stronger criminal networks engaged in arranging transportation for refugees.
Dead Ends of Realpolitik
Migrants stand near a city sign along a road near
the makeshift camp called "The New Jungle" in
Calais, France, August 19, 2015
Most European elites and societies agree that the globalizing world does not present a magic wand for harmonious blending political and ethical aspects in handling the politico-humanitarian problems. The controversial alternative to EU current immigration policy –tougher borders, the expulsion of illegal migrants, the prosecution of human traffickers, the punishment of employers for slave labor, the prevention of mock marriages, data sharing, stiff visa policies, the protection of women and children rights, etc. – is regarded by the majority as a series of forced decisions that are neither balanced nor the best available. Fortunately unimaginable in Europe because of political considerations, the efficient way out might be found in the destruction of the myriads of boats used by criminal groups for transporting refugees across the Mediterranean. In order to get aboard, defenseless refugees have to pay their carriers five to ten thousand dollars. Some European hotheads, i.e. the proponents of Fortress Europe, are calling for the elimination of the first link in the transportation chain by sinking the trafficking vessels [3].
The European Union still has differing opinions on a military solution that would provide for patrolling the southeastern Libyan border to block and reverse refugee flows. Still up in the air are the ideas to use drones for attacking criminal vessels, send commandos to sabotage the boats' locations and Libyan harbors, etc. Practicability of such doubtful methods is still indistinct because they imply violation of the law of the sea, free shipping principles, borders and sovereignty of border states. Many politicians and experts believe that the complicated complex of international law problems could be handled only if mandated by the UN Security Council. Similar measures may cut down the influx of economic refugees but will hardly tarnish the image of prosperous and affluent Europe for millions of other migrants from the Middle and Near East and Africa.
The controversial alternative to EU current immigration policy is regarded by the majority as a series of forced decisions that are neither balanced nor the best available.
Another possibility on the European agenda suggests a relentless war on criminal groups involved in the maritime traffic of refugees. Seemingly reasonable, this approach is barely feasible or effective. First, there is no single organization controlling the human trafficking – the groups are numerous, mobile, flexible and decentralized. Second, Europol (the EU-wide agency coordinating the police organizations of all 28 member countries since January 1, 2010) cannot execute this most complicated task in the absence of cooperation with North African law enforcement agencies. Besides, states like Libya lack central authorities, effective control over their national territories (a key feature of statehood), adequate institutions, etc. Hence, to begin with, the European Union would have to re-establish the centralized Libyan state that it destroyed in 2011. On the whole, no matter how many criminal networks and groups are destroyed in the points of departure, this feat will be overshadowed by the remaining environment for a repeat situation in future.
To convert chaos into a manageable system.
One more possible way out widely discussed in the EU suggests the creation of camps on the other coast of the Mediterranean in order to protect refugees from the warring parties, for example in Libya, providing appropriate numbers of the police, etc. It is essential that the European Union not only puts up the refugees but also does it in some other way, for example by taking them directly from camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, by expanding the quota system, etc., in order to convert chaos into a manageable system.
Grim Prospects
The situation does not offer any fast or effective solutions, which means that both the EU and Russia should be ready for a lack of changes in the years to come. Brussels will face major hurdles in the development and realization of its long-term policies both toward the refugee exporters and overall border and immigration issues. The European epistemologically existent concepts for the construction of a multicultural society can be considered as models for a socio-cultural westernized paradigm of globalization. By adopting this model, the Old World will face the logical and inevitable collapse of the national state since it implies the gradual dilution of indigenous ethnoses, the erosion of key statehood populations and socio-political entropy. On the one hand, these processes result from political decisions made by European elites willing to attract cheap labor for the development of national economies when local populations are aging. On the other hand, this is the byproduct of social experiments on the artificial construction of a multicultural community of European nations with a prominent supranational ideological dominant [4]. Remember that back in 2011 both Angela Merkel and David Cameron officially recognized the failure of multiculturalism which was excessively weakened by the loss of resistance to the manmade stimulation of the immigration flows.
* * *
No matter how many criminal networks and groups are destroyed in the points of departure, this feat will be overshadowed by the remaining environment for a repeat situation in future.
The EU extraordinary summit on migration in April 2015 seems to have taken only the initial steps for adjusting intentions to real life, with more measures to come, because solutions are nonexistent on the institutional, organizational and political levels. As seen from the migration debate, the European Union is split into proponents of the status quo and seekers of drastic changes. Although the immigration challenge is an emergency, both Brussels and member states continue to handle the problem in a business-as-usual manner with the help of conventional instruments, while practical and political differences between them are still enormous.
The key powers of the EU are fiercely debating the nature and scale of the future changes in the immigration policy, as it in fact relates to the fate and prospects of Europe as a unique civilization. The common stance should account for interests of the countries that generate and receive migrants, while international documents and national legislations should reflect harmonized legal norms, as well as rules for migrants' settlement, adaptation and integration into the European environment. In order to withstand the Mediterranean emigration tsunami, Europe requires extraordinary efforts, displaying in practice its commitment to the ideals of liberty, cooperation, equality and unity, as well as its utmost qualities of a potent, democratic and genuine center of power. Standing at the crossroads of migratory flows between the West and the East and becoming a site for a massive influx of migrants, Russia should turn a watchful eye upon the host of divisive issues and launch a political dialogue with the concerned parties in Europe.
1. According to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, the EU should expect a moment of truth in handling the migration crisis in 2016, when the European Commission and European Parliament will prepare bills regulating quotas for migrant settlement.
2. More than half of refugees, i.e. 57 percent or 6,000, who arrived in Sweden in 2014 and were to be sent to the first host country as per the Dublin Convention, chose to go underground. If they manage to hide as long as 18 months, the deportation threat vanishes as they become eligible to apply for asylum in Sweden.
3. The Guardian reported that EU military bodies, apparently with NATO assistance, have allegedly drawn up a plan of a military operation for the destruction of the illegal infrastructure for trafficking North African migrants to the European Union.
4. Voronov K. The Breivik Phenomenon and European Anti-Jihad // World Economy and International Relations. 2013. № 6, Pp. 90–101 (in Russian).
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
