Yves here. Perhaps I’m being a bit biased, so I hope that readers from Europe and/or those familiar with the Middle East and North Africa will weigh in to explore this topic. On the other hand, it seems entirely believable that a policy of handing dough to foreign countries to keep immigrants away from your place is a recipe for inefficiency at worst, and cheating at worst. If this regime were to be serious, one would expect wallets to have some supervisory or auditing rights. And there must be a way to come up with the foundations, since migration would be an intervention? For example, famine and bad floods often lead the poor to decide to move to another place, and abroad may seem like the best of the worst choices.
On the other hand, the piece carries an undertone of extreme resentment towards EU migrants, reminiscent of Jospeh Borrell’s much-criticized words in “the garden and the forest”. Not only is that ironic in itself, but the belief in European superiority is made clear in handwriting about European heritage.
Maybe I’m expecting too much from a short episode, but you’ll see it pass quickly when it talks about the 2015 refugee crisis. My understanding of that was largely due to magical thinking, something that has become prevalent in the Western elite. Yes, the Syrians were very well educated and made some effort to balance, especially language training, skills identification and job matching, Germany and other countries could do well by doing good: finding new workers to compensate for the decline in the birth rate while also reducing it. humanitarian crisis. But the decision to let them in, and in very large numbers, with few structures to help them settle down and produce, was a recipe for disaster.
Therefore, and I may read more from this article than there is, I look at the author and many (most?) in the EU policy circles reject large or medium matching schemes, where my opinion is that the EU has not focused on carefully designing and implementing one.
By Barah Mikaïl, Associate Professor, IE University. Originally published on The Conversation
The EU’s approach to managing migration relies heavily on outsourcing border controls to non-member countries, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Many far-right politicians are enthusiastically supporting this policy: 19 countries have recently signed a letter “bypassing the EU’s migration agreement” and outlawing immigration.
This is, in theory, a two-way street: the EU sends money to MENA governments to prevent the exodus from their borders and improve living conditions within them, thereby discouraging people from leaving in the first place.
However, a lot of money is invested in violent, deadly, anti-immigration measures that take place outside the EU. These extrapolated human rights violations violate the EU’s principles of freedom, justice and dignity, and threaten its influence as a values-based power.
This short-sighted, costly and ineffective strategy ultimately undermines the EU’s credibility and effectiveness at the global level, damaging the bloc’s regional and international standing by underscoring its entrenched hypocrisy. It has also failed to reduce the number of illegal immigrants or address the root causes of the problem – instead, it has endangered, damaged and destroyed tens of thousands of lives.
The loss of life is staggering: according to a 2023 study commissioned by the EU itself, five migrants died trying to cross the Mediterranean per day between January and June 2022, and 29,734 people have been recorded as missing since 2014.
An Expensive, Ineffective Strategy
Border controls outside of Europe can be traced back to the early 2000s, but gained real momentum during the 2015 migrant crisis. Since then, large amounts of money have been sent to neighboring countries under the name of “migration management”. In particular, this includes the Asylum, Migration and Cooperation Fund, which amounts to €9.9 billion in the period 2021 to 2027, which is a significant increase from the €3.137 billion allocated in the period 2014-2020.
Some deals and collaborations have been made. These include the EU-Turkey Agreement of 2016, a €6 billion agreement aimed at curbing migration but effectively increasing Turkey’s influence over the EU. A package of 210 million euros was also paid to Mauritania to encourage it to curb migration, 7.4 billion euros was paid to Egypt in funds until 2027, and €1 billion in financial aid was promised to Lebanon during 2024- 2027.
Despite these financial commitments, the number of irregular entries into the EU continues to rise. As of November 2023, the International Organization for Migration had recorded a total of 264,000 irregular arrivals, which is a clear increase from 2022 (190,000) and 2021 (150,000).
Cruelty and Suffering
Investigation reports have recently been published on “desert dumps” in Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. The practice involves driving migrants (including children and pregnant women) to remote desert areas and leaving them to fend for themselves.
Although Brussels denies any involvement, the headlines say “two senior EU sources said it was ‘impossible’ to fully account for how the European funding was ultimately used”.
By sending democracies willing to carry out these brutal measures instead of addressing the root causes of migration, the EU has compromised its values, fostered internal divisions, and damaged its human rights reputation. It undermines the EU’s ability to uphold principles such as human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, undermining its moral and strategic independence.
One example of how this has worked is the EU’s cooperation with Libya to stop migration across the Mediterranean. Despite the well-documented human rights violations in Libya’s detention centers – including torture, forced labor, and sexual violence – the EU has provided funding and training to the Libyan National Guard to intercept migrant boats and return them to these abusive conditions.
In the past few years, reports of widespread abuse of migrants in Libya – including men being sold in slave auctions – have emerged, highlighting the past brutality faced by migrants trapped there. However, the EU has continued its relationship, justifying it as a means of saving lives at sea while ignoring the harsh reality that migrants face once they return to Libya.
Migration of Weapons
Entrusting important security tasks to unstable or democratic regimes also leaves the EU vulnerable to political crises and manipulation of migration flows.
In the 2011 Arab Spring, for example, embattled Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi threatened to unleash a “flood” of immigrants into Europe if he continued to support the protesters. Since then, Turkey has adopted a similar strategy, despite receiving an additional €3 billion over the 2016 migration agreement. Outside the Mediterranean, Belarus has been accused of similar practices on its border with Poland in retaliation for EU sanctions.
EU funding is therefore easily used by governments seeking financial assistance. The belief that money alone can stop people from leaving their countries ignores the fact that important changes are needed within these countries. Once the money is sent, there is little to stop authoritarian governments from using the money to consolidate their governments rather than make changes that benefit citizens.
The EU’s Self Sabotage
By lowering its standards, creating dependence on unreliable forces and exposing itself to risks, the EU is reducing its ability to act as a strong and persuasive leader on the international stage. If the EU is to maintain its credibility, uphold its principles, and enhance its global influence, it needs to take a systematic and comprehensive approach to migration management.
The idea that harsh, extraneous migration agreements can alleviate or maintain positive sentiments may prove illusory: rather than addressing the causes of migration or supporting its liberal values, these proactive measures risk damaging the credibility of the EU in the eyes of its citizens and the international community. This reduced power, coupled with an apparent inability to stick to its principles, fueled the fire of right-wing parties and their supporters.
In order to uphold its values and improve its global standing, the EU needs a balanced and principled approach to managing migration. There are many ways I can do this: supporting meaningful democratic reforms in MENA states; establishing strong accountability in migration management, and, most importantly, opening safe routes to reduce migrants’ reliance on irregular routes and human trafficking networks.
The current strategy fails miserably on all fronts. It amounts to little more than throwing money at the problem, money that could, if used well, prevent loss of life, improve living standards and the economies of MENA countries, and reduce incentives to leave in the first place.
Source link