The EU willing to conclude questionable deals to keep people away
Since the migrants’ crisis has erupted, several civil society organisations and associations engaged in the protection of human rights have felt concerned by the EU migration policy. The closure of the external borders and the prevention of people from reaching the Southern countries’ coasts, led asylum seekers and migrants to borrow even more dangerous ways, sometimes at the cost of their lives. The EU launched several programmes and other action plans with the aim of keeping away these people, but also to send them back to their host country or country of origin – through the signing of readmission agreements – as illustrated by the signing of the EU-Turkey deal. The EU had entered into migration partnerships with different countries. Among them are Sudan and Eritrea[1]. In this article we will focus on the deals concluded with these countries, both being involved in the European external migration policy at different levels. Before going further, let us mention briefly the global legal framework in which falls such cooperations.
EU external migration policy
Regarding the EU external migration policy, the setting up of partnerships and agreements with third countries has recently developed and tends to be generalised through the Partnership Framework[2]. Regardless the kind of cooperation the EU fosters, the underlying idea is always the same: keeping migrants and asylum seekers away from the European coasts. This was already contained in the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility (GAMM), the overarching framework of the EU external migration policy, formulated by the European Commission in 2011[3]. This point is even more tangible since the migrants’ crisis erupted. Thus, the EU has strengthened its efforts in both security and political spheres, for instance by increasing the means of Frontex (the agency in charge with the operational management of EU external borders – recently renamed European Border and Coast Guard Agency) and launching the operation EUNAVFORMED in May 2015, but also by relying on the existing partnerships and seeking the introduction of new ones.
The newly Migration Partnership Framework (MPF), introduced in June 2016, has for now focused on Mali, Senegal, Nigeria, Niger and Ethiopia – considered as priority countries. Some of the designated aims are to increase “rates of return and readmission with a preference to voluntary return and a focus on reintegration” and to stem “the irregular flows while offering legal migration channels, including increased resettlement efforts”, which would allow “migrants and refugees to stay close to home and to avoid taking dangerous journeys[4]”… By generalizing the use of MPF, the EU wants to develop a global approach towards migration by taking action at different levels (trade, security/defense, development aid…) with the aim of reducing the flow of migrants in Europe.
In parallel with the implementation of the MPF, other provisions are made regarding the return of irregular migrants in the large EU legislative apparatus (see the Parliament directive on return of illegal immigrants[5] and the EU Action Plan on return[6]). Here also, the purpose is to incentivise partners to cooperate on readmission through foreign policy, development assistance and trade.
Through different kinds of agreements, the objective is therefore twofold: “relocating” the protection and externalising asylum policy. That means that, in exchange for development aid and other forms of cooperation, countries of origin or transit will either work on keeping people on their territory or will have to readmit migrants (or both).
Africa plays a key role in the European attempt to regulate migration and fight against illegal migration. With regard to the continent, cooperation on migration focus on three levels: bilateral, regional and continental. As mentioned before, Sudan and Eritrea are parts of this. Cooperation with Sudan is carried out on a bilateral basis but also on a regional one – as the country is included in the Khartoum process, launched in November 2014 with 9 African countries with the aim of fighting against irregular migration. Eritrea is also part of the Khartoum process but, contrary to Sudan, no formal bilateral cooperation has been led with the EU until now. In addition, regarding the EU-Africa dialogue on migration, it seems important to mention the Valletta Summit and the action plan adopted at this occasion[7]. Some provisions it contains corroborates the EU vision we described previously: besides encouraging voluntary return, it includes taking action “with regard to conflicts, human rights violations and abuses {…}” and to support “State building, rule of law and good governance” – which is quite disconcerting when we consider that some of the participating countries are everything but democracies.
The deals in question
To achieve its objectives, the EU initiated a migration partnership with Sudan – notably through the EU Emergency Trust Fund[8]. Sudan is being a significant source of refugees in Europe but also a major thoroughfare for people moving from East Africa to reach the Libyan coast. It seems important to recall that the Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir, is the subject of two arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court (ICC), the first one issued in 2009 for seven counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes and the second one in 2010 for three counts of genocide. The EU certainly does not ignore the charges, neither the credible evidence pointing out the use of chemical weapons last September, as Amnesty International disclosed[9]. The European Parliament itself even adopted a resolution on 6 October 2016 to deplore it, adding that “this is a serious violation of international norms and also a war crime” and that it “remains deeply concerned at the ongoing unlawful killings, abductions and gender-based and sexual violence in the conflict areas”[10].
The most controversial part of this agreement is contained in the EU’s Better Migration Management project, led by the German development agency GIZ – criticized by the past for having working with authoritarian regimes[11]. Indeed, beyond official speeches (the aim being the improvement of “migration management” and the curbing of “illegal people smuggling and human trafficking”, while “strengthening} the rights of migrants, protect{ing} affected people and establishing} decent standards for migration throughout the Horn of Africa[12]”), Sudan will receive €100m of the above mentioned fund over three years, plus additional €46m dedicated to border control, border police training and the establishment of holding centres[13].
Therefore, the money allocated will mainly focus on capacity building of the Sudanese security apparatus to notably “counter the production and use of forged and fraudulent documents” and “support national capabilities to control land, {…} and air borders {…} for the purpose of prevention of irregular migration, cross-border crime, terrorism as well as enhanced search and rescue[14]”. In other terms, emphasis is given to the increase of security means with the aim of having a more effective border control to prevent illegal migration. In contrast, only €10 million will be provided to open “new channels for legal migration and mobility[15]” – without knowing what this concretely means, official documents remaining vague about the means that will be employed for that purpose. What is sure is that the total of the amounts allocated through the EU Emergency Trust Fund will be strongly unfavorable to development aid.
Concerning Eritrea, emigration has been a reality for a large number of Eritreans for decades, as the struggle for independence (in 1993) led to mass displacements, but also because of the dictatorial policy of the President Issayas Afewerki since then. The critical situation led Eritreans to account for the largest group of asylum seekers in Great Britain and Switzerland in 2015. A large number of them have passed through Sudan to reach North African coasts. Eritreans are therefore among the first concerned by the deal signed with Sudan, the European idea being to try to hold them within Sudanese borders. Sudan recently launched itself into a crackdown by arresting around 900 Eritrean and deporting 400 others to their country of origin, without allowing them access to asylum procedures[16]. The EU legitimises the Khartoum process by arguing that it is important to keep “a dialogue going” with the isolated Eritrean regime, while closing their eyes to the disastrous effects this policy may have regarding the protection of these same people. Eritrea will benefit from the EU Emergency Trust Fund too, even if until now, no formal cooperation exists between the country and the EU, leaving undiscussed which measures will be conducted in the future – and how.
These two examples illustrate how schizophrenic the EU migration policy can be; by making arrangements with regimes of this kind, the EU legitimizes them while at the same time condemn mass human rights violations occurring there, knowing that these repressive governments play a key role in forced migration – the same irregular migration European countries want to keep away. Sudanese and Eritrean examples are nothing less than illustrations of the overall vision the EU has regarding the migration issue.
Why this is unacceptable
EU asylum and migration policies are more than questionable. To satisfy public opinions, EU leaders are willing to bring short-term answers that are both debatable and ineffective – as exemplified by the operation Sophia[17]. The same is true of long-term political commitments in which the EU has engaged for at least two reasons.
First, using all political means to dissuade and impede people from travelling towards Europe is a serious violation of human rights. Although international law is not openly scorned, all means are employed in order to bypass the Geneva Convention. Thus, among European States, the policy of recognition of refugee status has become more restrictive since the 1990s; as seen previously, agreements are concluded with third countries to keep and/or readmit migrants and asylum seekers, either their nationals or people who transited through their territory. In this framework, the importance of notions such as “safe country of origin”, “safe transit country” and “first country of asylum” is significant.
The Khartoum Process, among other deals, has therefore to respond to the will of the EU to keep the flow of those who are in need of international protection at distance, under the pretext of preventing them from taking unsafe crossings. This kind of initiative is immoral for the reason that development aid is conditioned to the acceptance of the EU conditions. This aid manipulation is nothing more than blackmail. It is also hypocritical: Why reiterating the call for the respect for human rights and dignity while closing external borders? Why condemning publicly Omar al-Bashir and Issayas Afeworki killing actions while indirectly giving them the means to be even more oppressive? That lets supposing that human rights are unfortunately not the same for everyone…
Second, and this point reveals how erroneous the EU vision is, thinking that making such arrangements with third countries will stem the influx of migrants and asylum seekers is a mistake. It is nonsense to deal with regimes that create a significant number of migrants and asylum claimers themselves. And it is, more generally, incomprehensible to consider migration as a blight: not only the will to “fix” people is contrary to the human reality – namely the historical propensity of human beings to migrate for many various reasons, but also – from a purely utilitarian viewpoint, migration is and will remain necessary to European economies, as the European Commission itself admitted[18].
This denial of reality is dangerous and has already resulted in the death of thousands of people. As long as the EU is willing to cooperate with authoritarian countries, people will flee by any means – regardless the whole range of barriers European leaders can establish. It seems therefore more than crucial to urge EU institutions to stop this nefarious policy and instead put in practice their duty of protection towards asylum seekers, in accordance with their international commitments.
[1] Cooperation with Africa falls within the framework of the Africa-EU Migration, Mobility and Employment (MME) Partnership, launched in 2007.
[2] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-towards-a-new-policy-on-migration/file-new-migration-partnership-framework-external-component-of-migration-policy
[3] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/pdf/1_en_act_part1_v9_com2011-743_en.pdf
[4] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/docs/20160607/communication_external_aspects_eam_towards_new_migration_ompact_en.pdf
[5] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=en&type=IM-PRESS&reference=20080616IPR31785
[6] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/proposal-implementation-package/docs/communication_from_the_ec_to_ep_and_council_-_eu_action_plan_on_return_en.pdf
[7] Taking place in November 2015, the Valletta Summit brought together European and African Heads of State to discuss migration and strengthen cooperation.
[8] http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/eu-bilateral-development-cooperation-sudan_en
[9] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/09/chemical-weapons-attacks-darfur/
[10] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-0379+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN
[11] http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/eu-to-work-with-despot-in-sudan-to-keep-refugees-out-a-1092328.html
[12] https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/40602.html
[13] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2016/oct/13/immigration-fears-make-the-eu-prepared-to-do-business-with-murderers
[14] http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/en/newsroom/all-news/2015-valletta-summit-migration
[15] http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/eu-bilateral-development-cooperation-sudan_en
[16] http://www.irinnews.org/news/2016/05/25/sudan-and-eritrea-crackdown-migrants-amid-reports-eu-incentives
[17] The EU operation in the Mediterranean sea aiming at fighting against migrant smuggling.
[18] “European countries are facing labour market shortages and vacancies that cannot be filled by the domestic workforce in specific sectors, e.g. in health, science and technology. {…} Migration is already of key importance in the EU, with net migration contributing 0.9 million people or 62% of total population growth in 2010. All indicators show that some of the additional and specific skills needed in the future could be found only outside the EU” (contained in the introduction of The Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, 18.11.2011).
