For the past years Malta has been a key player in EU migration policy. It has consistently pushed for a common European approach to the migration crisis that Europe currently faces. Only through unified solidarity as the backbone of our migration policies can we address the challenges we face. However, solidarity is a principle that should not come at a price and the EU-Turkey case is no different.
It seems to me that the deal discussed during the EU-Turkey summit results from a sudden change of heart by Germany. Last autumn, Angela Merkel opened Germany’s doors to thousands of refugees, claiming that she would impose no limits on the number of arrivals. However, it is now clearly evident that things have changed.
Though Germany is not openly mentioning any limits to the number of refugees it wants to host, reality is showing that some form of limit does in actual fact exist. This change of heart is translating into a pushback of migrants to the EU’s external borders. In turn such action shifts the burden back to border member states.
Joining the German Chancellor’s ‘new perspective’ on the current crisis is French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, when until a few months ago France was stating that the Dublin rules were obsolete and no longer worked. One therefore must truly question whether or not Europe is really ready to tackle the migration crisis as a common issue that requires a united front.
Border member states recently thought the EU to have a better understanding of the situation on the ground. Unfortunately, we seem to be heading back to square one. In this proverbial square, the country in which a migrant first enters the EU will end up being responsible for him.
It is an inescapable fact that the flow of migrants passing from Turkey to Greece shows no sign of abating. Moreover, if the numbers remain unmanageable there is little hope that the EU will be able to deal with the situation in a pragmatic and systematic manner.
Currently, the proposal is for the introduction of a resettlement scheme, which would see one Syrian refugee based in Turkey accommodated in the EU for every returned failed asylum seeker being sent from the Greek islands to Turkey. This may work, although some heads of state have already openly opposed the idea.
Eyebrows were raised, with people appropriately asking whether the price Turkey is asking is far too high
Such a system would need to be complemented by a unified travel document for failed asylum seekers in order to ensure that they would have the necessary documentation that can help facilitate their safe return. Without such a document, failed asylum seekers would continue to live in a state of legal limbo with restricted possibilities for movement out of the EU.
In my opinion, the EU-Turkey deal should not take the form of a trade-off. However, as things stand today and put quite simply, the agreement seems to be exactly that: an exchange between the EU and Turkey.
In return for assisting the EU in addressing the migration problem, Turkey has asked for an extra allocation of funds, visa exemptions for its nationals and the possibility of opening up more chapters in its application for EU membership. Eyebrows were raised, with people appropriately asking whether the price Turkey is asking is far too high. With human rights values and principles enshrined within the essence of what the EU stands for, it must be emphasised that human rights safeguards be part of any common solution.
The EU must be vigilant for any human rights violations and not turn a blind eye to what happens in the Turkish socio-political scene. Human rights safeguards should be ensured when Turkey deals with migrants.
One proposal to ensure such safeguards is to make sure that Turkey follows the same reception standards as those laid down in the recast directive. Another more ambitious proposal is to introduce a permanent humanitarian mission in Turkey, in the form of an EU hotspot. Such a mission would be able to monitor detention conditions. This humanitarian mission would also act as a facilitator for the readmission-resettlement swap that was referred to and set out in the council conclusions following the EU-Turkey Summit.
Such efforts must be matched with adequate financial resources and filters be put in place to ensure funds arrive and are used where they are actually needed. If such funds are intended to help the situation of refugees in Turkey, then the Turkish government must be accountable to the proposed EU mission. Furthermore, the latter will be able to scrutinise and audit fund expenditure in Turkey to ensure that monies are well spent.
However, this deal must not be considered an end in itself but a means to a much larger and more complex end. The EU must continue to expand its efforts in the field of migration and asylum.
This means that the agreement reached by member states with regards to relocation must be fully implemented. Resettling refugees into Europe and ensuring return and readmission agreements are upheld will be a superfluous act if relocation within the EU never materialises. This, I believe is the first defining act that the EU must accomplish and implement.
What was discussed and agreed upon during the EU-Turkey summit cannot be seen as an ultimate solution. There are many things that need to be clarified, safeguards that need to be guaranteed and issues that must be agreed upon. The road is long, rough and not always very well defined, but to truly start addressing the migration issue, the EU needs to understand that this is a global humanitarian crisis that requires global, unified solutions.
Miriam Dalli is a Labour Party member of the European Parliament.