A new will to implement a plan of relocation and resettlement within the EU
On the eve of yet another European Council, governments are more divided and impotent than ever, and the image of the EU being held hostage by an increasingly repressive and arrogant Turkish government remains, despite some attempts to moderate it with some generic calls to the need of respecting rule of law and human rights. What risks blocking the agreement are not some of its most negative elements, but the blockage of the Cypriots in relation to Turkey.
The EU Council reveals itself, once again, as a place where common decisions cannot be taken, and when they can they represent even less than a common denominator. Crossed vetoes and exclusive attention on short term national debates give a terrible demonstration of European disarray.
Besides, the method of previous agreements and secret negotiations taken by some member states and then presented to all the others as a done deal, increases the impression of the EU as the arena of power games among states, where some are more relevant than others and where the voices of those who are in favour of a more positive policy are totally side-lined.
Our core point is that we refuse to continue conveying to our public the idea that we can’t deal with the issue of refugees in a humane and effective manner.
We maintain that the choice is between either going down the dangerous route of EU disintegration, the increase of deaths and suffering, the open possibility of long forgotten tension among its member states, an ineffective waste of public resources in inapplicable plans to stop people from trying saving their lives; or that of the acceptance that it is possible for our countries and societies to face the situation with humanity and organizing the presence of refugees. This is not an unsolvable situation. The million refugees that arrived in Europe in 2015 represent just 0.2% of the EU’s population, and since the EU is still among the most wealthy regions of the world, it has to take its share of the 60 million refugees worldwide.
Also, it is a fact that organizing the arrival of refugees could prove less costly than rejecting them: the stubborn refusal of most member states to accept to manage both internally and at an EU level a common plan for distribution, assistance and integration of refugees is proving much more costly in terms of human suffering, public resources, respect of long standing values and political credibility than having accepted the challenge in the first place, as also proven by the disarray around the new plan proposed by Turkey, in the context of increased repression of freedoms in that country.
Indeed, the Turkish government is profiting from the EU disunion and inability to organize a sensible policy, both internally and externally. Of course, Turkey hosts today more refugees than any other country in the world; we are in favour of a substantial, well controlled and dedicated financial aid to Turkey and to all countries in need of assistance to ensure a dignified welcome of refugees.
But we are not in favour of paying Turkey for a service which would translate to the creation of camps where refugees are simply parked, in facilities where their rights are supressed, in the sending back of Syrians and Iraqis to areas of war, in the continuation of networks of clandestine work and illegal exploitation of children and refugees as EUROJUST recently reported. We do not believe that the EU will find a solution to this crisis by simply out-sourcing it to Turkey, above all if the capabilities of Turkey in tackling this immense task are already strained and serious issues of respect for basic human rights of refugees and Turkish people alike are raised. In this very moment, dissent is more and more repressed, the situation in the Kurdish region is worsening and the government shows no sign of wanting to go back to the negotiating table. Turkey is becoming an unsafe country for its own citizens let alone migrants and refugees, as noted recently by Amnesty International.
Any financial support has thus to be evaluated against the efficiency of the way in which it is spent. We could start wondering whether the additional three billion euros being asked by Turkey could instead be invested in positive policies for welcoming and integrating refugees and migrants in the EU, seeing that, also thanks to the radical cut of the EU budget, current resources from the EU’s budget are over.
We also fail to understand how the currently discussed “one-for-one” refugee exchange will be implemented: I can’t help considering this proposal as a sort of exchange of objects instead of persons. A person comes with families and feelings, history and wishes. One person cannot be “exchanged”. How is it possible to make an individual account of coming and going? The possibility to send back even refugees who have the right to ask for asylum in the EU, and the lack of details about some other practical and legal issues, make the plan difficult to implement and very risky under a practical and human rights point of view. There is only one aspect that is positive, and that is the recognition of the possibility to accept in the EU, in a legal and organised way, refugees who arrive in Turkey. This element should not be lost and the opposition of some Eastern European countries and France should be addressed head-on.
Of course, I am sure some of the Council members will mention again their (light) indignation for the events around press freedom, political and civil rights and even the situation in the South-East. But what are these protests worth? And above all: what will their effect be? Almost nothing. These protests are hypocritical, if they are not followed by a new will to implement a plan of relocation and resettlement within the EU and the end of the shameful scenes at the borders of Macedonia.
At the end of the day, this will be a decisive test for the EU. Because any human and effective solution passes through accepting a share of refugees which are entitled to international protection and to reopen the borders to them.
Op-Ed per New Europe: http://neurope.eu/article/new-generation-gap/
On the eve of yet another European Council, governments are more divided and impotent than ever, and the image of the EU being held hostage by an increasingly repressive and arrogant Turkish government remains, despite some attempts to moderate it with some generic calls to the need of respecting rule of law and human rights. What risks blocking the agreement are not some of its most negative elements, but the blockage of the Cypriots in relation to Turkey.
The EU Council reveals itself, once again, as a place where common decisions cannot be taken, and when they can they represent even less than a common denominator. Crossed vetoes and exclusive attention on short term national debates give a terrible demonstration of European disarray.
Besides, the method of previous agreements and secret negotiations taken by some member states and then presented to all the others as a done deal, increases the impression of the EU as the arena of power games among states, where some are more relevant than others and where the voices of those who are in favour of a more positive policy are totally side-lined.
Our core point is that we refuse to continue conveying to our public the idea that we can’t deal with the issue of refugees in a humane and effective manner.
We maintain that the choice is between either going down the dangerous route of EU disintegration, the increase of deaths and suffering, the open possibility of long forgotten tension among its member states, an ineffective waste of public resources in inapplicable plans to stop people from trying saving their lives; or that of the acceptance that it is possible for our countries and societies to face the situation with humanity and organizing the presence of refugees. This is not an unsolvable situation. The million refugees that arrived in Europe in 2015 represent just 0.2% of the EU’s population, and since the EU is still among the most wealthy regions of the world, it has to take its share of the 60 million refugees worldwide.
Also, it is a fact that organizing the arrival of refugees could prove less costly than rejecting them: the stubborn refusal of most member states to accept to manage both internally and at an EU level a common plan for distribution, assistance and integration of refugees is proving much more costly in terms of human suffering, public resources, respect of long standing values and political credibility than having accepted the challenge in the first place, as also proven by the disarray around the new plan proposed by Turkey, in the context of increased repression of freedoms in that country.
Indeed, the Turkish government is profiting from the EU disunion and inability to organize a sensible policy, both internally and externally. Of course, Turkey hosts today more refugees than any other country in the world; we are in favour of a substantial, well controlled and dedicated financial aid to Turkey and to all countries in need of assistance to ensure a dignified welcome of refugees.
But we are not in favour of paying Turkey for a service which would translate to the creation of camps where refugees are simply parked, in facilities where their rights are supressed, in the sending back of Syrians and Iraqis to areas of war, in the continuation of networks of clandestine work and illegal exploitation of children and refugees as EUROJUST recently reported. We do not believe that the EU will find a solution to this crisis by simply out-sourcing it to Turkey, above all if the capabilities of Turkey in tackling this immense task are already strained and serious issues of respect for basic human rights of refugees and Turkish people alike are raised. In this very moment, dissent is more and more repressed, the situation in the Kurdish region is worsening and the government shows no sign of wanting to go back to the negotiating table. Turkey is becoming an unsafe country for its own citizens let alone migrants and refugees, as noted recently by Amnesty International.
Any financial support has thus to be evaluated against the efficiency of the way in which it is spent. We could start wondering whether the additional three billion euros being asked by Turkey could instead be invested in positive policies for welcoming and integrating refugees and migrants in the EU, seeing that, also thanks to the radical cut of the EU budget, current resources from the EU’s budget are over.
We also fail to understand how the currently discussed “one-for-one” refugee exchange will be implemented: I can’t help considering this proposal as a sort of exchange of objects instead of persons. A person comes with families and feelings, history and wishes. One person cannot be “exchanged”. How is it possible to make an individual account of coming and going? The possibility to send back even refugees who have the right to ask for asylum in the EU, and the lack of details about some other practical and legal issues, make the plan difficult to implement and very risky under a practical and human rights point of view. There is only one aspect that is positive, and that is the recognition of the possibility to accept in the EU, in a legal and organised way, refugees who arrive in Turkey. This element should not be lost and the opposition of some Eastern European countries and France should be addressed head-on.
Of course, I am sure some of the Council members will mention again their (light) indignation for the events around press freedom, political and civil rights and even the situation in the South-East. But what are these protests worth? And above all: what will their effect be? Almost nothing. These protests are hypocritical, if they are not followed by a new will to implement a plan of relocation and resettlement within the EU and the end of the shameful scenes at the borders of Macedonia.
At the end of the day, this will be a decisive test for the EU. Because any human and effective solution passes through accepting a share of refugees which are entitled to international protection and to reopen the borders to them.
Op-Ed per New Europe: http://neurope.eu/article/new-generation-gap/