Last year, more than 190,000 people risked their lives crossing the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa to Europe. About 3,500 lost the gamble, dying as they tried to traverse what has become the world’s deadliest frontier. There can be no doubt that some who undertook the perilous journey did so simply to search for better-paying jobs. However, the origins of those attempting the trip indicate that many are political refugees, not economic migrants.
The majority of those who crossed the Mediterranean last year come from Eritrea and Syria. Many have been formally recognized as refugees by the UN refugee agency in the countries to which they initially fled. About 90 percent of those who apply for asylum in Europe are granted some sort of protection — a further testament to their status as bona fide refugees.
It is time for the EU to separate the discussion of the crisis in the Mediterranean from its broader immigration debate. The policies, language and response to the events unfolding on the EU’s southern border must be different from those concerning the voluntary movement of jobseekers from one safe country to another. Indeed, the proper context of the discussion is European countries’ obligations under international refugee law.
The policies put in place by the EU and its member states are directly responsible for the plight of those who die attempting to cross the Mediterranean. Efforts to discourage refugees from arriving have not diminished the number of people who are granted asylum in Europe; they have merely made the process of being granted refugee status more random and dangerous.
Every country in Europe is party to international treaties that recognize the rights of refugees to seek asylum and not be forcibly returned to countries where they will be unsafe. However, despite calls by frontline Mediterranean states to establish systems to improve the handling of the crisis and share the burden, little is being done to make things safer for refugees or more manageable for the countries in which they arrive.
PIECEMEAL MANNER
The countries neighboring Syria and Iraq are facing the largest inflows of refugees fleeing the violence there, and the UN refugee agency has appealed for assistance in resettling a limited number of the neediest. So far, however, the response from the countries that can most easily afford to take in refugees has been pathetic. Even worse, many people who, as recently as a few years ago, would have easily obtained permission to study, work, or visit relatives in Europe are being denied visas simply because of their refugee status.
There is no reason to require people seeking an asylum hearing to run a gamut of desert crossings, abuse by smugglers, beatings, extortion, rape, and exploitation — or to have them experience the trauma of watching their friends and family die along the way. Doing so is cruel and inhumane, and it violates the spirit of all refugee, human rights and immigration laws.
In the past, resettlement programs in Africa, Asia and the Middle East screened people to establish their status as refugees; assessed their education, skills and family relations to determine where they might be integrated most easily; and worked with European, North American and Australian governments to find them new homes. In the 1980s, such programs helped thousands of Ethiopians, Vietnamese and Argentines, and a look at the communities in which the beneficiaries were resettled reveals that the vast majority have become self-reliant taxpayers.
There is no reason that something similar cannot be done for those fleeing violence and persecution today. If asylum seekers were provided with opportunities to present their claims in the countries where they currently find themselves, they would not be forced to risk their lives at sea to reach Italy or Greece. Eritreans could file applications in Khartoum for asylum in Sweden, Germany or the UK. Syrians in Cairo or Beirut could do the same. The claims could be prioritized and processed in a regular manner, and the refugees could arrive in Europe healthy and ready to work or study.
The crisis in the Mediterranean cannot be managed in a piecemeal manner. The financial costs of patrolling its waters and rescuing those adrift are exorbitant. The loss of lives is inexcusable. However, we do not have to wait until the root causes of displacement — state failure and civil war — are addressed. We need only to find the courage to create a system in which desperate people do not have to risk their lives to apply for asylum and resettlement.
Peter Sutherland is UN special representative of the secretary-general for international migration and development.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS