Europe: Divided and at a standstill
The March 2016 deal between the EU and Turkey effectively put a stop to the flow of refugees and other migrants travelling from Turkey to Greece, and from there through the Balkans, heading for northern Europe.
The deal entails that those arriving in Greece will be returned to Turkey, while the EU will receive the same number of Syrian refugees from Turkey. To dissuade more refugees from attempting crossing the Aegean Sea, those who have crossed to Greece are excluded from this quota arrangement.
The EU considers the deal a success; it has dramatically reduced irregular migration into Greece. However, Turkish president Erdogan is threatening to “open the border gates”, if Turkish citizens are not given visa-free access to the Schengen trade zone, which they were promised as part of the arrangement.
To ensure that the deal would not violate international law, Turkish laws had to be altered so people of all nationalities could have their application for asylum processed in Turkey, something that previously did not apply to all nationals. Despite the changes, the deal has been criticised for undermining the legal rights of refugees.
For domestic Greek legal reasons, it has proven much more difficult to return migrants to Turkey than predicted, and since the deal was passed, as by May 2017 barely 1,000 of the more than 30,000 arrivals have been returned.
A change in refugee politics
Up until few years ago, it seemed improbable that the EU’s eastern neighbours would be regarded as non-member countries safe enough for asylum seekers to be returned to. When Hungary started returning refugees to Serbia in 2015, this was sharply criticised by German chancellor Angela Merkel and other European leaders.
Nevertheless, later that autumn, Norway chose to follow Hungary’s example by changing the Norwegian law so that asylum seekers could be returned to Russia, without guarantees that Russia would process their application. Only a few months later, Angela Merkel was the main architect behind the deal between EU and Turkey. The deal was in large part based on the same principles she had criticised Hungary for only months earlier.
The difference was that the deal included a number of economic and political incentives. It also guaranteed that the refugees would receive a certain degree of protection, and that they would not be returned to their country of origin if that could pose a risk to life or health.
The EU obviously regards the deal with Turkey as a model for further efforts to limit migration along other important migrant routes. In February 2017, Italy and Libya entered into a similar arrangement with Libya. This deal was later stopped by the EU because guaranteeing the safety of refugees in Libya was impossible.
Refugees along unknown routes
The flow of refugees halted by the EU-Turkey deal hasn’t moved to the Libya-Italy route, like many expected. There are almost no Syrians, Iraqis or Afghans on the route across the central Mediterranean.
A study conducted by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) does, however, point to significant unregistered migration into Europe. In 2016, close to half a million people entered Europe without being registered at the borders. Many of these are seeking asylum, and many come from Syria.
The crossing to Italy is dominated by migrants from West African countries; about three fourths of applicants from this region had their applications rejected in 2016. Out of the top ten nationalities crossing into Europe along this route, Eritreans and Somalians make up the only two groups where a majority are granted asylum.
The EU’s relocation programme at a standstill
In 2015, to reduce the pressures on Italy and Greece, the EU passed a relocation programme committing to receive 160,000 of the refugees who had arrived in Italy and Greece. This was supposed to be implemented by September 2017. The process has, however, been slow, and many countries have been reluctant to contribute.
Some Eastern European countries only want to accept women and children, while others refuse to accept Muslim refugees. Poland, Slovakia and Hungary will not take anyone. The European Commission is now threatening economic sanctions for the countries refusing to receive their share.
Less than half a year before the deadline, only 10 percent of the original 160,000 have been relocated.
Many of the refugees originally eligible for relocation have, however, travelled on from Greece and Italy on their own. Therefore, the EU has reduced the total quota considerably and signalled that the final number might be as low as 33,000.
Italy and Greece taking most responsibility
Even so, the EU “frontline” states are taking most of the responsibility. Previously, a majority of the migrants travelled on to apply for asylum in other European countries, without being registered in Italy or Greece. After pressure from the EU, most are now registered and get their application reviewed in the European country they originally arrive in.
Also, asylum seekers originally from countries with an application approval rate above 75 percent, are eligible for relocation. This means that mainly asylum seekers from Syria and Eritrea are considered. Because of the EU-Turkey deal, few Syrian refugees now arrive in Europe, and Eritrean refugees only made up 11 per cent of the migrant flow to Italy in 2016. As a result almost nine out of ten asylum seekers arriving in Italy are not eligible for EU relocation.
Neighbouring countries have also strengthened border controls, and refuse to admit refugees and migrants who have travelled through Italy and Greece. This puts great pressure on the two countries, who feel that the EU has failed them.
In 2016, over 180,000 irregular migrants arrived in Italy by sea — an increase of 16 per cent from 2015. The increase in the first quarter of 2017 was almost 30 percent compared to the previous year, which could indicate that in 2017, we will see record numbers of migrants.
An asylum system under pressure
Italy is feeling the consequences of the increasing number of migrants, combined with little solidarity from their European neighbours. Even countries from which most asylum seekers are rejected, such as Guinea, Gambia, Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal and Nigeria, have large minorities of people in need of protection. An asylum system under pressure poses a risk to the legal rights of these asylum seekers. All the while, a comprehensive system of appeals is a large burden on the Italian legal system, where cases can drag on for up to eight years.
There are also considerable challenges tied to the return of asylum seekers whose applications are rejected. Verifying the identity of the travellers, and procuring valid travel documents, is difficult, and many countries refuse to receive those who have had their applications rejected. The minister for justice in Austria claims that they only manage to return between 10 and 20 percent of rejected asylum seekers.
Many European countries have increased the economic aid to those who return voluntarily. However, many migrants have placed themselves in so much debt with people smugglers that they are reluctant to return before they have managed to pay back the debt. Returning to their homeland without procuring a residence permit in Europe may also be seen as a serious defeat, especially if they spent family savings on the attempt.
Increased scepticism towards refugees
Many asylum seekers whose applications are rejected disappear into the informal labour market. Keeping control of people staying in the country becomes difficult, and the loss of control may constitute a security risk. Terrorist attacks over the past few years have increased the fear of losing control — especially when the terrorists who drove into the Christmas market in Berlin and the shopping centre in Stockholm both turned out to be rejected asylum seekers.
The increasing scepticism towards refugees and immigrants has influenced elections in several countries. The British referendum on continued EU membership was unexpected by many. Increased resistance to immigrant workers is part of the explanation for the surprising result.
Populist right-wing parties have been successful all over Europe, and have influenced elections in multiple countries. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Norbert Hofer in Austria and Marine Le Pen in France were all serious contenders for government and presidential power, respectively. In the end, all three were defeated, largely due to the mobilisation of opposition from the other end of the political spectrum.
However, an increasing number of parties and voters in the political centre have adopted viewpoints previously reserved a small minority critical towards immigration. A Chatham House poll conducted in ten EU member countries showed that a majority of residents wanted to halt all immigration from Muslim countries.
A new divide between east and west
We now see a clear divide developing between new democracies in eastern Europe, with little multiculturalism, and western European countries where a relatively large part of the population are positive towards receiving refugees. The prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbàn, has been the most vocal, and has voraciously attacked the refugee politics of Brussels.
Already in 2015, when a large number of refugees arrived in Europe, Hungary insisted that the country was obligated to guard the borders of Schengen, and that they thus could not allow people without valid visas to travel through the country when they did not wish to seek asylum in Hungary. This received harsh criticism from other European heads of state. Angela Merkel became the most ardent defender of the refugees, and demanded that Hungary open their borders. In the end, Hungary gave in to the pressure.
When Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden and Norway in 2016 introduced the same practice, Orbán was quick to comment. Paradoxically, although pressured to allow refugees to travel through the country, Hungary is now threatened with legal action upon refusal to accept the return of these same refugees.
A deadly crossing
More than 5,000 refugees and migrants lost their lives crossing from Libya to Italy in 2016. It looks like 2017 could become even deadlier. In the first four months of this year, more than 2 per cent of those attempting the crossing never made it to shore. Rescue ships from several countries, Norway among them, and multiple volunteer organisations patrol the waters north of Libya, hoping to rescue migrants in need.
In the first months of 2017, Italian attorney general Carmelo Zuccarro made harsh accusations targeting unnamed rescue organisations — accusations repeated by the Italian foreign minister. The organisations were accused of being in lead with people smugglers, who allegedly told the organisations where the migrants could be picked up.
The organisations have all denounced the accusations, and no proof to confirm the accusations has been offered. Both the Italian prime minister and the Italian coast guard have tried to calm the situation down by announcing their complete trust in the rescue organisations, whose efforts are immeasurably important to saving lives.
According to the EU border agency Frontex, people smugglers have adapted their activity to the rescue ships patrolling the area, and are sending refugees out in even more crowded and less sea worthy boats than before. Often the boats have so little fuel that they have no chance to reach Italy.
While the coast guard ships patrol international waters, the rescue boats from the volunteer organisations also operate closer to the Libyan coast to keep people from drowning before they reach open waters.
An intolerable situation
It is a serious paradox that more migrants die now than ever before, despite the unparalleled high presence of rescue ships in the area. Also worth considering, is that every country in Schengen refuses refugees to travel safely and legally to Europe to seek asylum, while the same countries are rescuing refugees and migrants on the coast of Libya and transporting them to Europe.
This has reignited the debate on whether provisions should be made for refugees to receive protection in camps in the north of Africa, where they will also be able to seek asylum in Europe. This is, however, a complicated process, and there are still legal issues to resolve before a solution like this can be considered. The countries arguing most vigorously to halt the irregular migration to Europe are often the least eager to finance dignified and sufficient protection in areas outside of Europe. They are also the most sceptical towards receiving resettlement refugees.
The EU has signalled a wish for closer cooperation with African countries, and will be using both stick and carrot to ensure that these countries limit the migration of their citizens to Europe. However, the money that migrants send home is important for the economy of many of these countries. Thus, reaching an agreement is difficult.
