No news is bad news
Europe is going through sad times. Speaking to the leaders of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President Donald Tusk declared on 25 June war on illegal migration, Hungary announced plans for building a four-meter-high fence along its 175-kilometre border with Serbia to keep migrants from crossing into its territory and the Schengen area. Also, in response to attempts made by desperate migrants who took advantage of a strike among French ferry workers to cross into the UK at Calais on 23 June, the French promised to build stronger fences and station additional border officials there.
These events take us back to 2005, when thousands of migrants died trying to reach the Spanish Canary Islands. The EU realized at the time that a concerted policy was needed and thus adopted the so-called “Global Approach to Migration” (GAM) under the then UK Presidency. This new strategy was intended to combat irregular flows, while “harnessing the benefits of legal migration” through partnerships with third countries, mainly in the EU neighborhood. It rested on three pillars: promoting labour migration, addressing irregular migration, and enhancing the links between migration and development. Although the strategy clearly went beyond the traditional focus, it remained tied to a “law and order” view of migration, since it conditioned cooperation on the signing of readmission agreements and border controls.
To soften this stance, the EU added in 2011 the word “mobility” to the approach, changing the acronym to GAMM. This revised policy was supposed to be migrant-centered and therefore not about “routes” or “flows” but about people, whose rights need protection and are, in EU parlance, a “cross cutting issue.” Moreover, international protection (asylum) was included as a fourth pillar. In short, GAMM was intended this time to have global reach and be much more political, with migration packages becoming part of the broader relationship with countries through regional and bilateral dialogues. Several dialogues on migration, mobility and security led to mobility partnerships with Moldova and Morocco, among others.
But, like GAM before it, GAMM was also criticized for promoting an unbalanced partnership. Countries were required to sign readmission agreements (some of them covering third country nationals) and reinforce internal security measures to contain irregular flows in exchange for rather loose, non-binding commitments from the EU included in political declarations. Promises of visa facilitation, as well as other incentives, were left to the discretion of each EU member state.
Still, despite being rather security-oriented, EU policies had until then kept up appearances. This is not the case with the new European Agenda on Migration published in May of this year and presented to all 28 European countries for approval in Brussels on 25 and 26 June.
Europe’s ducks stay put
The new Agenda on Migration comes after the European elections of May 2014, when extreme parties made substantial gains in votes and European Parliament seats on a massive wave of discontent caused by the financial crisis and the perceived opaqueness of “Brussels” decision-making. As conflicts in the EU neighbourhood worsened, pundits started talking about a southern “ring of fire” that extends from Libya in the west to Iraq in the east. Terrorist attacks in Paris first, then in Copenhagen and Tunis, sent shockwaves through the continent, while TV channels broadcast the execution of Western hostages by the Islamic State, or ISIS. EU leaders increasingly emphasized the need to further secure Europe. At the same time, two large boats carrying hundreds of migrants sank in the Mediterranean in February 2015. The tragedy prompted the EU to adopt, within weeks, a ten-point action plan aimed at reinforcing surveillance operations. The Agenda on Migration that followed established a series of priorities to fight against smugglers and contain the irregular flow of migrants.
In fact, the new European strategy focuses on securing borders and making sure people do not die at sea by preventing them from leaving their countries in the first place. Little is said about migration, development, mobility or visa facilitation. The document does not even mention GAMM, which was supposed to be the overarching policy framework for migration policies. Even worse, EU officials have said that they are “at war with smugglers” and have approved the deployment of a Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) mission in the Mediterranean with this in mind. The mission, called “EU NAVFOR Med” and modeled after the ongoing operation in the Horn of Africa to fight piracy, was officially launched on 22 June (see “EU NAVFOR Med gets the green light”). Its goal is to dismantle the business network of smugglers by capturing and eventually disposing of illegal vessels. As surprising as it may sound, the practicalities of this—seizing a boat in the high seas and then destroying it once the migrants are safely onboard a European frigate? — have not been fully worked out.
Groundbreaking research published recently states that most migrants who embark on the perilous journey to Europe are in search of a better life. “We left the country because we cannot live a good life there,” one of the migrants explained to the research team who conducted the study. The same study shows that many migrants are not set on Europe and would be ready to settle in any of the transit countries provided that they have a job and/or educational opportunities.
In Brussels, however, little attention is paid to what migrants want. European policy makers are torn between pleasing member states’ new aversion towards non-EU citizens and actually viewing migration as a process with potentially significant benefits to national economies.
Some regret the fact that the Commission—the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME), in particular—has managed to have the upper hand in the drafting of the migration agenda, marginalizing the External Action Service, among others. They believe the approach is utterly counterproductive and does much more damage than good. Others are glad that the EU reacted swiftly to this crisis and are proud to see that CSDP tools have been mobilized in such record time, thus showing unity of purpose and determination. Meanwhile, reactions from partner countries are rather negative. The Libyan government (at least the one the EU recognizes officially) has criticized the mission and refused to cooperate. Other governments in the region, such as Morocco and Tunisia, believe it is short-sighted, reckless and impossible to implement.
Be as it may, the whole philosophy behind the new policy undermines EU core principles and values. Instead of a complex phenomenon to be managed, migration has become “a problematic issue.” An aging population and virtually zero growth, together with the deaths at sea of hundreds of migrants, most of them of young age, should have convinced European leaders of the need to improve legal and well-established ways of migrating to the EU, ideally welcoming the newcomers. Instead, the EU has not only decided to reinforce its own fences but has gone on the offensive to build others overseas.
As the European Council meeting in Brussels comes to an end, EU President Donald Tusk reveals the result of “a very long discussion on migration” with the 28 leaders: for now, Europe will increase deportations of those who cross the borders illegally, awaiting consensus among member states as to how many migrants each country should accept.
The author has chosen to withold his or her name from publication.
The editorial team of Katoikos
