There is something rotten about the EU’s debate on migration. The continent’s political leaders, paralyzed by the rise of anti-immigrant populism, are turning their backs on desperately vulnerable people fleeing war, human-rights abuses and economic collapse.
Nowhere is the human cost of European policies more visible than in the Mediterranean Sea. The waters between Europe and Africa are the world’s deadliest migration route. About 300,000 people are estimated to have made the crossing last year — more than twice as many as in 2013. About 3,000 died from drowning, hunger, exposure or asphyxiation.
Most migrants set out from Libya, which has emerged as the center of a multimillion US dollar human trafficking industry. Until recently, most migrants setting out for Italy made the crossing on small vessels. However, in a new twist, Italian authorities at the beginning of this year rescued hundreds of migrants, including pregnant women and dozens of children, aboard an aging steel-hulled freighter. The crew had jumped ship.
Given its close proximity to a deadly conflict in Syria and nations marked by extreme poverty, human rights abuses and weak or collapsed states and economies, the EU is inevitably a magnet for migrants and asylum seekers. That is why it needs a migration policy that reflects the values on which it was founded. Unfortunately, respect for human life has taken a back seat to baser political calculations.
Consider Europe’s approach to search-and-rescue operations. In November last year, Italy suspended its Mare Nostrum rescue operation (which it launched in 2013, after more than 300 migrants drowned off the coast of the Italian island of Lampedusa), because other EU member states refused to share the costs — about 9 million euros (US$10.2 million) per month. In its place, the EU border agency, Frontex, has begun conducting a limited coastal mission called Operation Triton.
Why the reluctance to share the cost of humanitarian rescue operations? Senior ministers in the UK and other northern European countries, relying on little more than armchair behavioral economics, argued that Mare Nostrum encouraged more migrants to attempt the dangerous sea crossing. In other words, allowing children to drown is a legitimate deterrent. Back in the real world, the desperation and aspiration driving people to flee outweigh the risks posed by the crossing — meaning that the closure of Mare Nostrum would do nothing to reduce the number of people attempting the journey to Europe.
However, Europe’s debate on migration is so toxic that the forces actually causing people to move are seldom discussed. According to Frontex, about a quarter of the migrants who crossed the Mediterranean last year were Syrian families escaping the civil war there. Young Eritreans — fleeing a nation that imposes indefinite military conscription on dissidents — made up another quarter. Many others came from poor, violence-prone nations: Palestine, Somalia, Sudan, Mali and Nigeria.
Faced with a humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean, the EU has responded by trying to build a fortress. It has invested heavily in a fenced border between Turkey and Greece. Amnesty International has documented the widespread practice of pushing back migrants and refugees attempting to cross into Greece and Bulgaria — a practice that contravenes international law.
However, the fortress has merely rechanneled — rather than stemmed — the flow of people, forcing migrants and refugees to attempt dangerous sea crossings, even as search-and-rescue operations are being scaled back. The only beneficiaries are the human traffickers who charge Syrian refugees about 6,000 euros for space in a dangerous boat or freighter.
The EU’s efforts to develop a coherent approach to the crisis have bordered on farce. What drives people to Europe is a complex set of forces, ranging from conflict and political persecution to poverty and economic pressures. Europe’s institutional response is to view all migration as a border management issue. The European Commission’s various departments — notably, those that focus on development — are barely consulted. Meanwhile, the patchwork of national asylum and migration policies makes a cohesive framework impossible to devise. This challenge was reflected in the EU foreign ministers’ recent declaration on migration, which was so vague that it defied practical interpretation.
Correcting these policy failures is made more difficult by the rise of populist political forces. The National Front in France, the UK Independence Party and far-right anti-immigration parties in Sweden, Denmark and Italy are picking up votes and shutting down informed public debate on a tough policy question that has no easy answers.
Europe desperately needs to have a mature, fact-based conversation about migration. Strict border controls can never be more than one part of the solution to the EU’s migration challenge. The crises in Syria, Iraq and parts of sub-Saharan Africa are likely to lead to yet more dislocation. Higher fences, more vigilant surveillance and increased policing will not be enough to address the increase in migration that is almost certain to result.
Instead, acting on the EU’s founding values, member states should jointly finance a search-and-rescue operation along the lines of Mare Nostrum; strengthen their efforts to protect the rights of refugees; and share the burden of granting asylum. Germany, France, the UK and Sweden took in 70 percent of those granted refugee status in the EU last year. Others — notably Spain — need to do more.
Wider responses are also needed. For example, more coherent and generous approaches to the provision of temporary work visas would benefit both migrants and Europeans. And EU member states could use their aid budgets to provide greater support for the Syrian refugees living in dire circumstances in neighboring countries.
The lesson of the migration crisis in the Mediterranean is clear: Fortress Europe is not working. The EU must map out a new approach. When it does, its own values will be the best guide.
Kevin Watkins is executive director of the Overseas Development Institute, a leading UK think tank on international development and humanitarian issues.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.