EP plenary session: the debate on the hypocritical deal and the never-ending migration crisis
The European Parliament is currently debating during its plenary session in Strasbourg its opinion about migration in the EU. The resolution on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration, drafted by Roberta Metsola (EPP, MT) and Kashetu Kyenge (S&D, IT), was approved yesterday by 459 votes to 206, with 52 abstentions. It proposes a centralised asylum system that would allow the EU to better manage flows of migrants and asylum seekers. Through the non-binding resolution, the MEPs acknowledge the failure of the EU asylum system to cope with the growing numbers of migrant arrivals and call for a deep reform of the Dublin Regulation. In fact, the European Commission is currently considering a revision of the Dublin III Regulation and it will potentially present a legislative proposal before the summer.
A central system for collecting and allocating asylum applications could include a quota for each EU member state and it could work on the basis of “hotspots” from which refugees would be distributed. This is the system that the EU leaders have been debating for years and on which no agreement was made, with some of the EU countries even accepting only 10 refugees to their countries.
The resolution also addresses human smuggling, asking for safe and legal ways to be found for third country nationals to enter the EU in order to reduce the risk of their lives.
The MEPs have been debating this morning (13 April) about the conclusions of the European Council of March 2016 and the outcomes of the EU-Turkey summit, expressing their opposition to the current asylum system. Particularly, the decisions made do not take proper account of the particular migratory pressures faced by Member States with EU external borders and it presents clear issues to ensure fairness and shared responsibility, solidarity and swift processing of applications.
As we have seen since the EU-Turkey summit, President Erdogan has not been clear on his intentions to fulfil its commitments. Besides receiving an outrageous amount of funding to handle the migration crisis, it is well known about the human rights violations perpetrated in Turkey at the moment. Turkey has been for many years committed with the EU to introduce reforms on its rules of law and governance in order to be eligible to membership status. However, for many years, Turkey has not honoured the agreements.
As Commissioner Avramopoulos has mentioned, the EU-Turkey relations can be improved through the asylum agreement. Turkey may learn from us or may resolve the territorial issues with Cyprus. Or it may simply not. A long-term relation with Turkey have shown that the values have not yet been transmitted and it the current Turkish government have not been sufficiently condemned by the EU on their actions but seen as a partner to solve European problems, when their own internal problems are not taken care of.
The violation of the freedom of speech and expression, the lack of rule of law and democracy - to sum up - the authoritarianism of the Turkish government are not the core values that Europe recognises itself with. So, why agreeing on a deal with such a government, when we know that the migrants do not come only from Turkey but also from other Mediterranean countries?
It is a hypocritical deal that does not give a proper solution to handle a humanitarian policy. It is not just the funding that solves the problem but better coordination and integration on a number of people that could be well diluted within the European population. Putting a bung in the Bosporus is not a solution!
The resolution approved yesterday also calls on Member States to fulfil their obligations with regard to urgent relocation measures, stressing that so far, only a minimal part of the 106,000 asylum seekers awaiting reassignment from Italy and Greece to other EU countries had actually been relocated. On resettlement, MEPs insist that the EU needs a “binding and mandatory legislative approach”. MEPs demand new EU-wide return agreements which they say should take precedence over bilateral ones between member states and third countries. They insist that migrants should be returned only if the country to which they are being returned to is safe for them.
As representatives of the European citizens, the disagreement between the MEPs on the core of the EU-Turkey agreement addresses the lack of solidarity both between the Member States to handle the number of refugees and with the refugees, in particular, regarding the distribution and the return measures which do not treat the migrants as humans, but as some say, as "merchandise".
More importantly, a distinction must be made between the migrants as it always have been in Europe and the high number of refugees that are fleeing their home countries to reach what we can consider one of the safest territories in the world, the EU. Yes, many of them are looking for better opportunities for their families on the same way as Europeans also move outside the EU to look for better lives. For which reasons should these people be treated with less respect than any of us?
Unfortunately, from the start, the EU leaders have not analysed the problem from the right angle.
Urgent and unethical measures can solve the how?.
But they are not solving the why?.
Why are these people coming to Europe? Why do they risk their lives to arrive in Europe and remain in a vulnerable situation? Why they leave their families or bring them along on a dangerous trip, many times with no way back?
The reason is that, as we very well know, there is a war in their country! Since 2011, the consequences of the Arab spring were poorly dealt and it has left the Mediterranean countries within internal crises. The intervention of the European countries and the USA has not been a solution (some may consider it even the problem) and civil wars are damaging severely these countries for many years to come. But it is not only the North of Africa suffering from crisis. Refugees flee from wars in many countries besides Syria, such as Eritrea and Yemen. Afterwards, once in Europe, or any other neighbour country, they apply for asylum or they may simply leave in an irregular and illegal situation. It leads men, women and children to live in precarious conditions in cities, leading to violence and criminal activities. Children do not go to school, men and women working on undeclared jobs given by unscrupulous employers.
The lack of legal measures and of coordination between the Member States on this matter is leaving in danger minorities groups found in the flow of migrants. Particularly, the high number of children and women left on their own and on risk to human trafficking and prostitution. Should not these people be treated on a different way by the European authorities and be protected?
As we live in a wide big circle, the issue of migration in Europe is linked to war and to economic interests both from public and private entities intervening in countries at the moment indulging severe internal problems. It leads to violence and extremist positions, either by electing far-right parties to their countries by the European citizens or by joining extremist organisation by the European young people that do not recognise themselves in a society that is lacking of respect towards the countries of their ascendants since many years.
For this reason, the EU may be in risk. Not only because of the migration in itself but because of all the other problems linked to it. Each of us must do our part and not choosing to make an illegal deal in violation with the European Charter of Human Rights.
The EU leaders should recognise their responsibility to find a human solution on how to handle migration and, if not to end this deal, to at least not repeat it again, as shameful as it is.
Comments
Post a Comment