The overthrow of Bashar al-Assad has emboldened voices within the European Union calling for Syria – still a deeply unstable country – to be classified as “safe for return.” At the same time, the spectre of externalisation looms large not only in Italy, where officials insist their court-blocked Albania scheme remains alive, but across Europe. Governments are looking to offload refugees on overseas partners, discarding their moral and legal duties in the process.
From the UK’s aborted Rwanda plan to Denmark’s pursuit of a similar arrangement, the idea of outsourcing asylum obligations to poorer countries is gaining traction. This disturbing trend extends beyond individual offshoring deals to an expanding web of migration control partnerships with states along migratory routes. These agreements often lack transparency, oversight and adequate human rights safeguards.
Caught in the middle of this are some of the world’s most vulnerable people, people who have endured unimaginable hardships to reach European shores, only to face the prospect of deportation before their protection pleas are even considered.
The human cost
Externalisation takes two main forms. The first, exemplified by Italy’s Albania deal, is exporting the assessment of asylum claims to third states. The starkest warning of the human cost of this approach is Australia’s notorious detention regime on Nauru, a tiny Pacific island that has served as a squalid purgatory for asylum seekers for over a decade.
According to new research, people held on Nauru are at a far higher risk of physical and mental health troubles. Elsewhere, the threat of deportation alone can cause acute psychological damage. Reports from the UK describe asylum-seekers committing self-harm when they face the prospect of being deported to Rwanda.
The second broad category of externalisation is typified by the EU’s Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Tunisia, which pledges financial and technical support in exchange for heightened deterrence of Europe-bound refugees.
Behind this partnership lurk disturbing accounts of human rights abuses. UN experts have expressed alarm at dangerous maritime interception tactics, physical violence, and the abandonment of refugees – including children and pregnant women – in desert regions without food or water. Civil society organisations providing humanitarian aid to migrants, often with EU funding, have faced increased hostility and restrictions, with little to no support from Brussels.
A treacherous precedent
The Global Compact on Refugees, adopted in 2018, is premised on the principle of equitable responsibility-sharing – the notion that the duty to protect the displaced should not fall disproportionately on a handful of states by mere accident of geography. Offshoring flagrantly undermines this.
If the EU, which has long stood for human rights and democratic values, normalises this approach, it sets a treacherous precedent. Refugee-hosting countries, already bearing an outsized share of the global displacement challenge, may feel emboldened to close their own doors, assured that even the wealthiest countries aren’t willing to honour their obligations.
Still, Brussels is pushing ahead with externalisation. In June, the Commission agreed to pay the first €1 billion tranche of a larger €7.4 billion economic support package to Egypt – including funds specifically earmarked for curbing migration – without consulting the European Parliament. Similar agreements are reportedly in the works with Jordan, Morocco and Senegal.
Another way forward
The Ukraine response demonstrated the capacity for compassion and integration when the political will exists. This is the standard to which we must hold ourselves in our treatment of all people seeking refuge, regardless of origin.
By investing in expanded safe and legal pathways, including resettlement programmes and family reunification, we can reduce the need for dangerous journeys and undercut the market for human smuggling. Where cooperation with transit states is deemed necessary, it must be grounded in transparent, human rights-compliant agreements that prioritise protection and eschew responsibility-shifting.
Right-wing populists will argue that this more compassionate asylum approach is a financial drain on society, but Australia’s experience tells a different story. Offshore processing on Nauru is estimated to cost $573,000 per person annually – a figure that dwarfs the $10,221 price tag of supporting asylum seekers in the community.
The EU faces a defining choice. It can succumb to the dangerous and hypocritical allure of externalisation, or it can chart a more humane and pragmatic course — leading by example in its commitment to human dignity, shared responsibility and the inalienable right to seek sanctuary from persecution.
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=677aa323d3c14169acc0a53967f284bb&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theparliamentmagazine.eu%2Fnews%2Farticle%2Foped-asylum-exported-the-dangerous-precedent-of-externalisation&c=16470597419605758266&mkt=de-de
Author :
Publish date : 2025-01-03 06:22:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.
