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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS