The debate on migration in Europe is reaching scandalous levels of moral turpitude. The European Union and its Member States have for years used dirty deals to outsource their border responsibilities to third countries and detain migrants and refugees there. More and more money is going to projects and actors that are clearly involved in human rights violations or are suspected of profiting from human smuggling and trafficking. In Libya, migrants are subjected to kidnapping, torture and slavery when the Libyan coast guard picks them up at sea and takes them back to the country they fled. And they do it with the explicit support of the EU.
Community officials are fully aware of this. The European Court of Auditors has recently confirmed what we have known for some time: the EU has a disastrous record when it comes to the use of taxpayers’ money. But instead of facing the consequences, it seeks to intensify cooperation with cross-border countries, because this strategy is part of a deterrence policy. That is, using force as a deterrent and keeping people fleeing from one place to another, looking for new routes of entry that put their lives at greater and greater risk. This strategy not only favors these questionable actors, but can also fuel long-term conflict dynamics, which can again trigger the flight of more people from their country of origin. And most importantly, it results in the loss of human life every day.
Despite this, some politicians remain convinced that current deterrence strategies are not effective enough. That is why they go further and intend to outsource asylum procedures to third countries. Thus, those who arrive in Europe after fleeing their countries of origin – sometimes for a long time – and seek protection at our borders are taken to a country outside the EU; as far away as possible. There they will have to undergo an asylum procedure and, if they are lucky and successful, they will be allowed to return to the EU.
Both international and community legislation do not contemplate measures of this type. However, this has not stopped supporters of this model from trying that formula. The group of EU countries promoting this approach made it clear in a letter to the European Commission that EU asylum rules could be amended if necessary. And this despite the fact that, after eight years of tough negotiations, the reform of the Common European Asylum System has just been approved, which introduces serious restrictions on access to the protection system in Europe.
The outsourcing of asylum procedures is not an innovative idea. This model has already been applied in the past in Australia, the United Kingdom or Türkiye, but it has not been proven to have the deterrent effect that is often claimed. This is partly because the model violates national and international legislation, but also because almost no third country is willing to sign such an agreement. And even if they do, it will only be on the basis of significant financial and political trade-offs, inevitably leading to greater dependence.
The costs of this system are also enormous. The failed deal with Rwanda has already cost the British taxpayer more than €830 million. If it had been carried out, more than one billion euros would have been spent. Italy’s current agreement with Albania will cost almost €670 million over five years, with additional costs for judges, security personnel and doctors.
But the greatest damage caused by outsourcing models is human. A good example of this is the case of Australia. In 2001, the country made the decision to send asylum seekers arriving in the country by sea to the islands of Papua New Guinea and Nauru. Thousands of people were locked up indefinitely in inhumane conditions, and the psychological consequences were massive. Our teams were in Nauru providing psychological support: 60% of patients had suicidal thoughts and 30% had attempted suicide, according to the report we published in 2018.
Many refugees who have fled brutal violence did not imagine that they would end up locked up in prison-like conditions, with no prospects, without knowing how, when or if they will be able to continue with their lives. And this is unacceptable.
Outsource responsibility
If European states press ahead with relocation plans, they will damage the credibility of the EU and the international refugee regime. Let’s be clear: three-quarters of the world’s refugees live in low- and middle-income countries. If Western countries are outsourcing their responsibility, they should not expect countries that are much worse off economically to continue hosting and caring for refugees.
Let’s take the example of Chad. In this country, one of the poorest in the world with 18 million inhabitants, more than 600,000 people have found refuge after fleeing neighboring Sudan, mired in a bloody civil war for a year and a half. The international community has failed to mobilize sufficient aid for refugees.
Back in 2021, Filippo Grandi, UN Commissioner for Refugees, warned of a downward spiral in international refugee protection and stated that he would continue to ask “countries like Lebanon, Uganda or Bangladesh, which have already hosted millions of refugees , that comply with their international obligations. “Europe must accept its responsibility and stop shirking it with new border fences, rejections and relocation agreements.”
At MSF we want to make it clear that outsourcing asylum procedures is not a solution. It’s just more of the same. At European level, increasingly brutal measures are being promoted and people seeking protection are being dehumanized. This endangers their health, violates their dignity and rights and also has an inevitable impact on European populations.
We must stop this nonsense. To do this, we need a rethink and a shift towards policies that do not constantly present those seeking protection as a threat. The obsession with reducing irregular migration prevents us from addressing the real causes of flight, such as wars and conflicts. That’s where we should focus.
Furthermore, cooperation on migration policy with third countries must be subject to rigorous scrutiny and, if necessary, suspended if there are no guarantees of compliance with human rights. The European Commission must play a decisive role here, ensuring consistent compliance with Community law and putting an end to practices that violate human rights at the external borders. Furthermore, she must restore her credibility as a human rights defender and pave the way for a humane and sustainable migration policy.
Source: www.eldiario.es
