Yves here. Perhaps I am reflexively contrarian, so I hope readers in Europe and\/or those who know the Middle East and North Africa will weigh in to sanity check this article. On the one hand, it seems entirely credible that a policy of handing dough to foreign countries to have them keep their emigrants well 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 the moneybags to have some supervision or audit rights. And there also needs to be a way to come up with baselines, as in what would migration have arguably been ex the intervention? For instance, famines and serious floods often lead the afflicted to decide to relocate, and abroad may look like the best of bad options.<\/p>\n
On the other, the piece carries an undertone of far too much distaste for migrants to the EU, reminiscent of Jospeh Borrell\u2019s much criticized \u201cgarden and the jungle<\/a>\u201d remarks. Not only is that jarring in and of itself, but the belief in European superiority is made explicit in the handwringing about European values. <\/p>\n Perhaps I expect too much from a short piece, but you\u2019ll see it quickly move past its mention of the 2015 refugee crisis. My understanding it that was largely due to magical thinking, something that has become pervasive in Western elites. Yes, Syrians were in general very well educated and given some effort at assimilation, particularly language training, skill identification and job matching, Germany and other countries could have done well by doing good: getting new young workers to compensate for declining birthrates while also alleviating a humanitarian crisis. But the decision to let them in, and in very large numbers, with few structures in place to help them get settled and become productive, was a recipe for disaster. <\/p>\n So, and again I may be reading more into this article than is there, I infer the author and many (most?) in EU policy circles reject large or even medium scale assimilation schemes, when my impression is that the EU has not made a serious go at carefully designing and implementing one. <\/p>\n By Barah Mika\u00efl, Associate professor, IE University. Originally published at The Conversation<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The EU\u2019s approach to managing migration flows depends heavily on outsourcing border control to non member countries, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Many far-right politicians enthusiastically back this policy: 19 nations recently signed a letter<\/a> calling to go \u201cbeyond the EU\u2019s migration pact\u201d and further externalise migration control.<\/p>\n This is, theoretically, a two pronged approach: the EU sends money to MENA governments in order to prevent the number of departures from their own borders and improve living conditions within them, thus discouraging people from leaving in the first place.<\/p>\n However, much of the money is funnelled<\/a> instead into violent<\/a>, even deadly<\/a>, anti migratory measures that take place outside the EU\u2019s jurisdiction. These outsourced humans rights violations contravene the EU values<\/a> of freedom, justice and dignity, and jeopardise its influence as a values based power.<\/p>\n This short sighted, costly and inadequate strategy ultimately undermines the EU\u2019s credibility and effectiveness on the global stage, damaging the bloc\u2019s regional and international standing by underscoring its ingrained hypocrisy. It has also failed to reduce the number of irregular arrivals or address the root causes of the problem \u2013 instead, it has endangered, ruined and ended tens of thousands of lives.<\/p>\n The loss of life is staggering: according to 2023 research commissioned by the EU itself<\/a>, five migrants died trying to cross the Mediterranean per day in the period of January to June 2022, and 29,734 people have been recorded as missing since 2014<\/a>.<\/p>\n An Expensive, Ineffective Strategy<\/b><\/p>\n Europe\u2019s externalised border control can be traced back to the early 2000s, but gained real momentum during the 2015 migrant crisis. Since then, huge sums have been sent to neighbouring countries under the guise of \u201cmigration management\u201d. Chiefly, this includes the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund<\/a>, which amounts to \u20ac9.9 billion for the period of 2021 to 2027, a significant increase from the \u20ac3.137 billion allocated over the 2014-2020 period.<\/p>\n Specific deals and partnerships have also been made. These include the 2016 EU-Turkey Deal<\/a>, a \u20ac6 billion agreement aimed at curbing migration but effectively increasing Turkey\u2019s leverage over the EU. A \u20ac210 million package<\/a> was also paid to Mauritania to encourage it to curb migration, \u20ac7.4 billion was paid to Egypt<\/a> in financing until 2027, and \u20ac1 billion in financial aid<\/a> was promised to Lebanon for the period 2024-2027.<\/p>\n 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 entries<\/a>, a clear increase from 2022 (190,000) and 2021 (150,000).<\/p>\n Cruelty and Suffering<\/b><\/p>\n Investigative reports have recently been published<\/a> on \u201cdesert dumps\u201d in Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. This practice involves driving migrants (including children and pregnant women) into remote desert areas and leaving them to fend for themselves.<\/p>\n While Brussels denies any involvement, articles state that \u201ctwo senior EU sources said it was \u2018impossible\u2019 to fully account for the way in which European funding was ultimately used\u201d.<\/p>\n By outsourcing to autocratic regimes who are prepared to carry out such cruel methods instead of addressing the root causes that drive migration, the EU has compromised its values<\/a>, fostered internal divisions, and damaged its human rights reputation. It undermines the EU\u2019s ability to advocate for principles like human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, diminishing its moral standing and strategic autonomy.<\/p>\n One example of how this has played out is the EU\u2019s cooperation with Libya to stem migration across the Mediterranean. Despite well documented human rights abuses in Libya\u2019s detention centres<\/a> \u2013 including torture, forced labour, and sexual violence \u2013 the EU has provided funding and training to Libya\u2019s Coast Guard to intercept migrant boats and return them to these abusive conditions.<\/p>\n Over the last few years, reports have emerged<\/a> of severe abuses against migrants in Libya \u2013 including men being sold at slave auctions \u2013 highlighting the extreme cruelty faced by migrants trapped there. However, the EU has continued its partnership<\/a>, justifying it as a way to save lives at sea while turning a blind eye to the nightmarish reality migrants face once returned to Libya.<\/p>\n Weaponising Migration<\/b><\/p>\n Entrusting key security functions to unstable or autocratic regimes also leaves the EU vulnerable to political crises and manipulation of migration flows.<\/p>\n During the 2011 Arab Spring, for instance, embattled Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi threatened to unleash a \u201cflood\u201d<\/a>of migrants into Europe if it kept supporting protesters. Since then, Turkey has also adopted a similar strategy, despite receiving an additional \u20ac3 billion on top of the 2016 migration deal. Outside the Mediterranean, Belarus has been accused of similar practices<\/a> on its border with Poland in retaliation for EU sanctions.<\/p>\n EU funding is therefore easily manipulated by governments seeking financial aid. The belief that money alone can dissuade people from leaving their countries overlooks the fact that fundamental changes are needed from within these countries. Once the money is sent, there is little to prevent authoritarian governments from using the funds to consolidate their regimes rather than implementing reforms that benefit citizens.<\/p>\n The EU\u2019s Self Sabotage<\/b><\/p>\n By compromising its values, creating dependencies on undependable 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 enhance its global influence, it needs to take a principled and holistic approach to migration management.<\/p>\n The idea that harsh, externalised migration deals can appease or keep a lid on far right sentiments may also prove delusional: rather than addressing the root causes of migration or upholding its liberal values, these reactive measures risk further damaging the EU\u2019s credibility in the eyes of its own citizens and the international community. This deflated power, coupled with a blatant inability to uphold its values, is fuel to the fire for far right parties and their allies<\/a>.<\/p>\n To uphold its values and enhance its global standing, the EU needs a more balanced and principled approach to migration management. There are many ways it can do this: backing meaningful democratic reforms in MENA states; establishing stronger accountability in migration management, and, crucially, opening up safe routes in order to reduce migrants\u2019 reliance on irregular routes and human smuggling networks.<\/p>\n The current strategy is failing dismally on all counts. It amounts to little more than throwing money at the problem, money that could, if applied properly, prevent loss of life, improve the living standards and economies of MENA countries, and reduce the incentives to leave them in the first place.<\/p>\n
![\"Print](\"https:\/\/cdn.printfriendly.com\/buttons\/print-button-gray.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n