This is Yves. Perhaps I’m reflexively contrarian, so I hope readers in Europe and/or those familiar with the Middle East and North Africa will take part in verifying the sanity of this article . On the one hand, it seems entirely credible that a policy of giving money to foreign countries to keep their emigrants away from your territory is a recipe for, at best, incompetence, and at worst, cheating. If this regime were meant to be serious, one would expect wealthy investors to have some monitoring or auditing rights. And there also needs to be a way to establish baselines, for example, what might migration have been like before the intervention? For example, famines and severe floods often cause those affected to decide to move, and moving abroad may seem like the best of bad options.
On the other hand, the article conveys a tone of disgust far too great for migrants to the EU, which recalls the much criticized text by Joseph Borrell: “garden and jungle” remarks. Not only is this shocking in itself, but the belief in European superiority is made explicit by concerns about European values.
Perhaps I’m expecting too much from a short article, but you’ll quickly see it move past mention of the 2015 refugee crisis. In my opinion, a lot of this was due to magical thinking, something that has become omnipresent among Western elites. Yes, Syrians were generally very well educated and, with some assimilation efforts, particularly in language training, skills identification and job suitability, Germany and other countries could have succeed by doing good: recruit new young workers to compensate for the drop in the birth rate while reducing the birth rate. a humanitarian crisis. But the decision to let them in, in huge numbers, with few structures in place to help them settle in and become productive, was a recipe for disaster.
So, and again, I may be reading more into this article than is there, I take it that the author and many (most?) in EU policy circles reject the large or even medium-scale assimilation projects, while I have the impression that the EU has not taken any action. seriously to carefully design and implement one.
By Barah Mikaïl, Associate Professor, IE University. Originally published on The conversation
The EU’s approach to managing migration flows relies heavily on outsourcing border control to non-member countries, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Many far-right politicians enthusiastically support this policy: 19 countries recently signed a letter calling to go “beyond the EU migration pact” and further outsource migration control.
It is, in theory, a two-pronged approach: the EU sends money to governments in the MENA region to prevent departures from their own borders and to improve living conditions at home. inside them, thus discouraging people from leaving.
However, much of the money is channeled rather in violenteven deadly, anti-migration measures that take place outside EU jurisdiction. These externalized human rights violations contravene the EU values freedom, justice and dignity, and jeopardize its influence as a values-based power.
This short-sighted, costly and inadequate strategy ultimately undermines the EU’s credibility and effectiveness on the global stage, harming the bloc’s regional and international standing by highlighting its entrenched hypocrisy. It has also failed to reduce the number of irregular arrivals or address the root causes of the problem – instead, it has endangered, ruined and ended tens of thousands of lives.
The loss of life is staggering: according to 2023 research commissioned by the EU itselffive migrants died every day trying to cross the Mediterranean between January and June 2022, and 29,734 people have been reported missing since 2014.
A costly and ineffective strategy
Outsourced border control in Europe dates back to the early 2000s, but really took off during the migrant crisis of 2015. Since then, colossal sums have been sent to neighboring countries under the guise of “migration management”. This mainly includes the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fundwhich amounts to 9.9 billion euros for the period 2021 to 2027, a significant increase compared to the 3.137 billion euros allocated over the period 2014-2020.
Specific agreements and partnerships have also been concluded. These include the 2016 EU-Türkiye Agreement, a 6 billion euro deal aimed at curbing migration but effectively increasing Turkey’s influence over the EU. A A package of 210 million euros was also paid to Mauritania to encourage it to curb migration, 7.4 billion euros were paid to Egypt in financing until 2027, and 1 billion euros in financial aid was promised to Lebanon for the period 2024-2027.
Despite these financial commitments, the number of irregular entries into the EU continues to increase. As of November 2023, the International Organization for Migration had recorded a total of 264,000 irregular entriesa clear increase compared to 2022 (190,000) and 2021 (150,000).
Cruelty and suffering
Investigative reports have recently been published on “desert landfills” in Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. This practice involves driving migrants (including children and pregnant women) to isolated desert areas and leaving them to fend for themselves.
While Brussels denies any involvement, reports claim that “two senior EU sources said it was ‘impossible’ to fully account for how EU funding was ultimately used.”
By subcontracting to autocratic regimes willing to apply such cruel methods instead of addressing the root causes that motivate migration, the EU has compromise your values, has fostered internal divisions and damaged its reputation on human rights. This undermines the EU’s ability to uphold principles such as human rights, democracy and the rule of law, thereby diminishing its moral standing and strategic autonomy.
An example of how this has happened is the EU’s cooperation with Libya to stem migration across the Mediterranean. Despite well-documented human rights violations in Libyan detention centers – including torture, forced labor and sexual violence – the EU provided funding and training to the Libyan coast guard to intercept migrant boats and return them under these abusive conditions.
During the last years, reports have emerged serious abuses against migrants in Libya – including men sold at slave auctions – highlighting the extreme cruelty faced by migrants trapped there. However, the EU continued its partnershipjustifying it as a way to save lives at sea while turning a blind eye to the nightmarish reality migrants face once back in Libya.
Campaigning for migration
Entrusting key security functions to unstable or autocratic regimes also leaves the EU vulnerable to political crises and the manipulation of migration flows.
During the Arab Spring of 2011, for example, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi threatened to start a civil war. “flood”of migrants to Europe if he continued to support the demonstrators. Since then, Turkey has also adopted a similar strategy, although it received an additional 3 billion euros on top of the 2016 migration deal. 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 manipulated by governments seeking financial aid. The belief that money alone can deter people from leaving their countries ignores the fact that fundamental changes are needed within those countries. Once the money is sent, nothing stops authoritarian governments from using it to consolidate their regimes rather than implementing reforms that benefit citizens.
EU self-sabotage
By compromising its values, creating dependencies on unreliable powers and exposing itself to risks, the EU diminishes its ability to act as a strong and convincing leader on the international stage. If the EU is to maintain its credibility, uphold its principles and strengthen its global influence, it must adopt a principled and holistic approach to migration management.
The idea that tough, outsourced migration deals can appease or contain far-right sentiments may also prove illusory: rather than addressing the root causes of migration or defending its liberal values, these reactive measures risk further damaging the EU’s credibility in the eyes of its own citizens and the international community. This deflated power, combined with a blatant inability to enforce its values, is Add fuel to the fire for far-right parties and their allies.
To defend its values and strengthen its global position, the EU needs a more balanced and principled approach to migration management. There are many ways to achieve this: by supporting meaningful democratic reforms in MENA states; establishing greater accountability in migration management and, above all, opening safe routes to reduce migrants’ dependence on irregular routes and human trafficking networks.
The current strategy is failing miserably on all counts. This amounts to little more than injecting money into solving the problem, money which could, if used correctly, prevent loss of life, improve the standard of living and the economy of the countries of the MENA region and reduce incentives to leave them in the first place.
