Europe is not shirking its responsibility on migration, but she cannot pull off this one on her own
With the UN High-Level Plenary Meeting on Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants on the September 19 fast approaching, we can ascertain the summit's anticipated outcome document. Prepared with the European Union's contribution, the document correctly maps the challenges and aspires to outline ways to respond to them, thereby opening new vistas in the long overdue debate on global migration governance. Structuring this response continent by continent, and with the political imperative of dealing with it long-term perspective in mind, the Slovak EU Presidency would suggest the following concrete approaches--for the European Union acting in unison with her institutional, state and non-state partners:
In Europe, we ought to follow untiringly a priority worthy of the European project, one rooted both in the EU's adherence to international, European and national bodies of law, as well as in the values of European civilization--solidarity and caring for the less fortunate. Our primary task should therefore be to give refuge to all those reaching our shores in authentic need of international protection. If we should meet this--by no means small ambition--Europe cannot cope with all those who wish to improve their prospects through migration. Europe has the unique political, social, security and logistical experience from the influx of well over a million people in the last 18 months. With the benefit of hindsight, we see it as a critical prerequisite to put in place a robust mechanism able to discern, in a fair, but swift way, between those fleeing for their bare lives and in need of international protection, and those simply induced by the flight of the former. At the end of the day, alas, the latter limits us in our capacity to deliver on our unwavering obligation to protect the former. A new common EU asylum system--proposed by the European Commission and to be adopted as soon as possible--should provide us with this ability to focus. As part of the same--those that are not in need of international protection should be returned to either their countries of origin or to safe third countries. As an important positive side effect: restoring a sense of control, proportionality and adequacy of Europe's stance should also reinstate the cohesion, unity of purpose and sense of duty among Europeans. This would pave the way to sharing responsibility to redistribute refugees already in Europe more fairly.
Of course, this seemingly introspective look does not mean Europe is shirking her many external responsibilities lying at times further afield. More on that later.
In Asia, we encounter an arc of migration instability spanning between the Middle East and Central Asia. Here, Europe would, first expect more nations emulating the generous approach by the neighbours to the Syrian conflict, namely Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Second, Europe would expect that more regional organisations approach the migration phenomenon in a collective manner. Countries in the region should have a natural interest to shelter refugees, to ensure the best brains and the best hands (i.e. typically the most agile, entrepreneurial and mobile) stay in the region, and return to rebuild their homelands in the wake of post-conflict reconstruction, and reconciliation. By unwillingly robbing post-conflict nations of their most talented people, we in Europe are improving the odds these states fail, and feed the vicious circle of future conflicts. Does the EU have a part to play? Certainly--in future conflicts we should more quickly and resolutely help the nations and local communities withstanding the worst of the refugee waves. We should also throw all our diplomatic weight and craft behind the search for solutions to the hot conflicts and those same capacities complemented by our power of anticipation in resolving the lingering issues waiting to boil over. Finally, dealing with economic migration, the EU should develop compacts--like those currently being put in place in Africa--to assist in creating the areas of growth and give young generation a reason to stay.
In Africa, the good governance is the key concept for creating new opportunities. Better governance helps realize the full potential of the many young Africans who are currently giving their families' savings to criminal networks and risking their lives in the vast expanses of the Sahara or Mediterranean, instead of starting their own businesses and using their lives to benefit their families and communities. Better governance means also more internal security and fewer conflicts between the states, as well as less corruption and a level playing field and improved prospects for a dignified life. In short, good governance negates many of push factors now at hand.
While good governance is subject to the political will of African leaders the EU can help. One area where the EU can help is security sector reform, including reforming the judiciary, fighting human smugglers, and improving border management. Helping to lay out the groundwork for economic growth is even more important. The EU is already a major investor in the continent and is launching an investment program worth billions of euros, motivating the European industry and service sectors to rediscover Africa, and reintegrating returned migrants. As part of this drive, the developed world must finally indulge in a serious and result-oriented discussion on the new, more proper redistribution of wealth within the global value chains. Based on the best practices of several EU member states limited resettlement and circular migration (and remittances that accompany them) could make it easier for many fragile African economies to start anew. Again, it makes no sense to deprive those nations of the most valuable segment of their human and social capital.
The EU should pay more attention to the plight of African nations hosting large numbers of refugees themselves--at times for decades. Mitigating the effects of climate change, notably in agriculture, is another area where there is potential for EU assistance. In return, the EU should expect the cooperation of African nations in stemming the flow of economic migrants, and complying with their obligation to receive those deemed ineligible for international protection.
In North America, Europe--speaking generally--seeks a long-term commitment to the transatlantic bond of mutual solidarity that has served both sides of Atlantic so well since the end of World War II. The last thing the international community needs now is an isolationist United States, one that has resigned on its role as a global leader. On migration, the North Americans are indispensable allies in combatting the root causes of irregular mass movements of people (be it regional conflicts or regional disparities) and managing their consequences. On the latter, is the beginning of 2017 the time to forge a genuine Europe-North America, transatlantic "migration compact" dealing with crisis management, but more importantly taking a strategic outlook, and committing to walking the walk together? Or are the tens of thousands received by the US and Canada "as good as it gets"?
We strongly believe that it is no one's interest to once again stress-test Europe's (and Europe's only) capacity to absorb migrants in 2016, only to find a dramatically changed political landscape in 2017 that would banish any constructive role Europe may--and no doubt must--play. The national electorates in Europe have sent us a reminder--we are well advised to carefully listen and humbly communicate with those that feel left behind, lest we risk Europe imploding and exiting the world stage. Is that unimaginable? Well, looking back to 2011, an armed conflict close to the Eastern border of the EU or a leading member state leaving the Union, were equally unimaginable...