OXFORD,
England — There are no easy solutions to Europe’s refugee crisis. In a
world of fragile states and increasing mobility people will continue to
come, irrespective of whether they neatly fit the legal definition of a
“refugee.” Europe needs a clear strategy on who it wants to protect, and
where and how to assess people’s asylum claims.
The
European Union’s agreement earlier this week centered on a quota system
to relocate 120,000 Syrian, Iraqi and Eritrean refugees across member
states — most likely from transit centers in Greece and Italy. The plan
has several flaws: It was passed without political consensus, it has no
mechanism to ensure that people remain in the countries assigned to take
them, and it does not say how those denied asylum will be treated.
The
biggest problem, though, is that the plan does nothing to stop people
from embarking on perilous journeys to Europe. In order to claim asylum
under this plan, refugees would still have to arrive in Europe through
clandestine means. This has been the direct cause of tragedy and chaos,
with people dying on Europe’s roads and drowning at sea. The greatest
strain has been at key border areas from Hungary to the Greek islands.
The
way to avoid this would be to provide an alternative, legal means for
asylum seekers to travel to Europe through “humanitarian visas.” Small
consular outposts could be created outside the European Union, in places
like Bodrum in Turkey or Zuwara in Libya. As migratory routes change
over time these posts could be relocated. At these transit points people
could be quickly screened and those with a plausible asylum claim would
be allowed access to Europe. They could then simply fly to Europe or
take a scheduled ferry at their own expense.
At
the moment, Syrians are paying over 1,000 euros for a short but
dangerous crossing from the Turkish coast to Greek islands like Lesbos
or Kos, some being rescued by the Greek coast guard. The cost in lives
and in resources for the already-stretched Greek state is high. In
contrast, a nonstop flight from Bodrum to Frankfurt costs 200 euros.
Humanitarian
visas would also undercut the smuggling markets. Since the start of the
crisis, Europe has declared a “war on smugglers,” even proposing to use
military force against them. However, like the “war on drugs,” such
policies are doomed if they only offer supply-side solutions but do
nothing to remove the underlying demand of vulnerable people. Enabling
refugees to access legal travel routes would immediately reduce the
smuggling problem.
There
are several ways this policy could be implemented. It could be adopted
throughout the European Union, and connected to the Europe-wide quota
system. The union could establish outposts at which plausible asylum
seekers are identified, in some cases purely on the basis of
nationality. They could then quickly receive a travel document, perhaps
linked to a “temporary protection status” in a designated member state.
The right to remain could last until they are able to return home or
regularize their immigration status in the new host country.
Even
if an E.U. agreement could not be reached, there are other options.
Visas could be offered unilaterally by countries that have agreed to
accept refugees. Indeed, Brazil has already done this by announcing its
willingness to provide humanitarian visas, so far taking over 2,000
Syrian refugees through the scheme, all of whom were recognized as
refugees upon arrival. Germany and Sweden, which have pledged to take an
even greater number, could do the same, and provide screening and visas
at strategically located consular outposts.
The
idea of refugee travel documents has an historical precedent: the
Nansen Passports used by the League of Nations. Following World War I,
the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the consequences of the Russian
Revolution made hundreds of thousands of people stateless and brought
refugees to Europe’s borders.
In
1922 the first High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations,
Fridjtof Nansen, convened a conference in Geneva at which a group of
countries agreed to recognize Nansen passports as legitimate refugee
travel documents. Between 1922 and 1942, the scheme was recognized by
over 50 countries and enabled 450,000 people, including Assyrian,
Armenian and Turkish refugees, safe passage to Europe. In recognition of
its work the Nansen International Refugee Office received the Nobel
Peace Prize.
There
are challenges to issuing refugee travel documents today, but they are
surmountable. Governments will understandably worry that allowing legal
entry is likely to lead to a “pull factor” and increase the demand to
move to Europe. This risk can be addressed in several ways.
First,
establishing consular points near Europe’s external border would cater
mainly to people who are already almost in the European Union and about
to risk a dangerous boat journey. Second, visas would only be given to
likely refugees, to whom we already have an internationally recognized
legal obligation. Third, while it is possible that more Syrian refugees
would choose to seek admission to Europe rather than remain in
neighboring countries, a slight increase in numbers is a worthwhile
price to pay if it saves lives, cuts costs, alleviates pressure at
Europe’s borders and drastically curtails the human-smuggling market.
Humanitarian
visas would not be a panacea and they would not completely remove
irregular immigration to Europe. However, even if they were only granted
to Syrians, that would address the immediate challenge for more than 70
percent of the people arriving on the Greek islands.
Powerful
images of people walking long distances across train lines and
motorways have created a widespread sense of crisis in Europe. But much
of this tragedy and chaos is avoidable. Simple policy decisions by
countries that have agreed to accept large numbers of refugees could
halt the mass exodus. In the age of the budget airline and modern
consular screening capabilities, such perilous journeys are not
necessary.
Alexander Betts, the
director of the Refugee Studies Center at Oxford University, is the
author of “Survival Migration: Failed Governance and the Crisis of
Displacement.”
source....nytimes
source....nytimes
No comments:
Post a Comment