There is no lack of local debate on the Mediterranean migration problem, but some North European comments might also be worth noting. The Economist this week devoted a feature about it, highlighting Europe’s confused migration and asylum policies and suggesting that improving Frontex’s search and rescue capabilities would make sea crossing safer and might lure more people.
The article finds Italy’s alarm and demand for prompt Europ-ean action rather odd, considering that it isn’t tiny Malta, is one of the big four EU members, has exported lots of its own people, and should have some duty to its former colonies – Somalia, Eritrea and Libya.
Furthermore, although migrants braving the Mediterranean may be the most heart-wrenching, the biggest numbers are those entering the EU legally and who overstay their visas. Last year, Germany, France, Sweden, Britain and Belgium received more asylum requests than Italy. As a share of the population, Scandinavia, Switzerland and Ireland bear a greater refugee burden than Italy.
The Economist finds Italy right in one respect. The EU should be better placed than individual member countries to manage global migration, if only it could bring itself to open legal ways to do it in the face of rising anti-immigration parties. The EU has negotiated a ‘mobility partnership’ with Morocco. It could process refugees closer to their countries of origin to spare them perilous journeys at the hands of people smugglers, and it should demand greater burden-sharing among rich countries. Last year Malta admitted more refugees than Japan.
Moreover, the article suggests the EU can provide economic assistance to spur deve-lopment in poorer countries, but makes little use of its greatest asset – it is still reluctant to open its huge internal market to its neighbour’s agricultural goods for fear of unwelcome competition for Southern Europ-ean farmers.
The Economist concludes that if countries like Italy refuse to take more tomatoes from North Africa, they may simply be condemned to take more people.