In April this year, European leaders, floundering yet again on the issue of what to do about migrants and refugees flooding into Europe, decided to hold an international summit in Malta to discuss migration issues with African and other key countries concerned. The Valletta Summit, as it is called, will take place in a week’s time.
Like so much about the European Union’s policy-making and action on immigration, the agenda for the Valletta Summit, drawn up seven months ago, has been largely overtaken by events. The surge of migrants across borders of the last two months has changed politics all over Europe, eroding the centre ground, dividing neighbours and feeding populists.
Poland has just elected a right-wing, anti-immigrant, Eurosceptic party to government. Swiss voters chose two weeks ago to strengthen the hand of the far right, giving a record victory to the anti-immigration and Eurosceptic People’s Party. Switzerland, though not a member of the EU, is infected by fear of their borders being overwhelmed by migrants seeking asylum through neighbouring Italy and arrivals from the Balkans.
These results will alarm their neighbours. In France, the National Front leader, Marine le Pen, is positioning herself as a strong rival to Francois Hollande in the 2017 presidential election. The once invulnerable Angela Merkel’s grand coalition of centre right and centre left is struggling meanwhile to handle the tidal wave of refugees entering Germany.
The very heart of the EU is under pressure as thousands from Syria, the disintegrating Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan cram into makeshift accommodation. Local communities, police, schools and medical services cannot keep up with the pace of absorption.
It is against this unsettled and unsettling background that what happens at the Valletta Summit next week should be viewed. Given that the main thrust of Europe’s migration problems stems from the Middle East, it is not yet clear how many Middle Eastern or North African leaders will be present, or whether Turkey will attend. Will any good be served by bringing together leaders of the EU and Africa without these key players?
The agenda of the Summit will address five specific areas. First, examining “the root causes [of migration] by helping to create peace, stability and economic development”. Second, “promoting and organising legal migration channels”. Third, “enhancing the protection of migrants and asylum seekers”. Fourth, “tackling more effectively the exploitation and trafficking of migrants”. And, fifth, “working more closely to improve cooperation on return and readmission”.
The Summit will effectively be returning to a subject which was first raised over nine years ago when Malta proposed that a coordinated and unified international approach should be adopted to immigration. This would focus, Malta proposed, on the countries of origin (mainly then in Africa) from which migrants departed, the countries of transit through which they passed (mainly in North Africa) and the destination countries in Europe.
Malta considered that a holistic approach embracing five separate elements of the problem was the key to finding long-term solutions. These remain relevant to this day and, indeed, are even more central now to finding long-term solutions to Europe’s current problems.
They may be broadly defined as, first, the need for improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of border management in countries of origin, transit and destination. Second, the elimination of human smuggling and trafficking. Third, the need for radical improvements to the humanitarian management and control of migrants and refugees in transit countries. Fourth, the return, readmission and reintegration of migrants and refugees to their countries of origin. And fifth, the better integration of migrants and refugees in destination countries.
How does the EU currently cooperate with Africa on migration and how relevant is this to the current crisis in Europe? The EU conducts a broad dialogue with countries on the African continent on twolevels. At the continental level directly with the African Union. And at the regional level through policy discussions with countries along the western migratory route (the so-called ‘Rabat process’) and the eastern migratory route (the so-called “Khartoum process”).
Malta’s main interest lies in the Khartoum process led by a steering committee consisting of Malta, Italy, France, Germany and the UK, with five partner countries: Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Sudan.
If the summit is not to go down as yet another example of European gesture politics, there must be agreement to tangible action
The Rabat process, thanks to effective leadership by Spain, has been a relative success. It could hold useful lessons for other parts of Europe. Spain’s success in controlling immigration has been to draw up cooperation agreements with transit countries, such as Senegal, Morocco and Mauretania that helped block them as a migrant departure point for the Canary Islands, Gibraltar or Spain. These included joint maritime patrols to intercept traffickers’ boats, which were then forced back to shore.
The situation on the Khartoum route is markedly different. But it is also immediately apparent that in the current European turmoil, the eastern migratory route is the crux of the problem.
The geo-political situation has altered so radically since the Khartoum group was formed in 2014 that its current relevance must be called into question. To be effective, key players today must surely involve Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq, Greece, Jordan, Lebanon and the Balkan countries, while among EU countries there must be a place for Austria and Sweden, as well as Germany, Italy and France.
If the Valletta Summit is not to go down as yet another example of European gesture politics on immigration, there must be agreement to tangible action on a range of issues. There should be a greater focus on curbing migration at source. Safe zones, reception centres and transit camps in transit countries, where asylum seekers can be processed in an orderly manner, and where health-checks can be conducted and health care provided should be established. The processing of asylum applications should be administered either in the refugee camps closer to the war zones, or in specially designed and manned reception centres in transit countries.
Comprehensive return programmes and speedy extradition procedures for failed asylum seekers should be formally drawn up between countries of destination and countries of origin. Generous use of financial and development aid should be encouraged, as Britain is doing in Lebanon and Jordan. Generous cooperation agreements between EU destination countries and transit countries should be drawn up to strengthen borders and to discourage migration. Closer cooperation between police forces to crack down on human smugglers and traffickers should be enhanced.
Even in the unlikely event that such an Action Plan is agreed, the spectre at the feast hovering balefully over the discussions in Valletta will be the overriding need for a solution to the conflict in Syria. Europe is paying a high price for its inaction over Syria.
Syria’s four years of multiple over-lapping conflicts have displaced over 8,000,000 people. More than four million have left the country, two million in Turkey alone and hundreds of thousands in Jordan and Lebanon. Those making the hazardous journey to Europe dwarf the number coming from Africa.
These upheavals present Europe with an unprecedented challenge to its identity, its administrative competence and its ability to combine compassion with hard-headed problem-solving. No solution will be simple or cost-free.
Regrettably, I shall be very surprised if the Valletta Summit produces any game-changing answers.