EU Leaders Endorse Controversial Migration Policy Outsourcing

The 27 leaders of the European Union gave their most explicit endorsement yet on Thursday to the contentious initiative of outsourcing migration policy. Despite this significant political backing, the leaders provided minimal details on how the proposed strategies would be implemented and how authorities could ensure the protection of human rights while transferring migrants outside the bloc’s borders. In the conclusions of a one-day summit, they stated, “New ways to prevent and counter irregular migration should be considered, in line with EU and international law.”

This vague yet pivotal statement essentially grants a political green light to explore innovative methods that may challenge established legal norms. The aim is to reduce the number of asylum applications, which surged to 1,129,000 last year—the highest level since 2016. Leading up to the summit, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, the Netherlands’ Dick Schoof, and Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen convened a coalition of nations supportive of outsourcing migration policies to unify their stance and shape the agenda of the hours-long negotiations.

The final agreement, however, did not incorporate one of the coalition’s key proposals: the establishment of “return hubs” in non-EU countries to accommodate individuals whose applications for international protection have been denied. Nonetheless, Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, explicitly referenced this idea during a press conference, indicating that it remains a viable option on the table. She remarked, “The return hubs have been discussed. There are open questions: For how long can people be there? What happens if a return is not feasible?” She added, “It’s not a trivial issue, but this is a topic that is being discussed.”

Von der Leyen refrained from mentioning any specific destinations for these “return hubs” and did not clarify whether her upcoming legislative proposal aimed at expediting deportations would include this crucial element. Nevertheless, she appeared to embrace the concept of outsourcing by suggesting two additional avenues for relocating asylum procedures beyond the EU:

  • A scheme to provide migrants with international protection in “safe third countries” instead of the EU itself, with a promise to reassess the definition of “safe countries.”
  • Financial assistance for the UN Refugee Agency (UNCHR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to facilitate the repatriation of “stranded” migrants to their countries of origin.

On the other hand, Spain’s Pedro Sánchez and Belgium’s Alexander De Croo expressed skepticism about the “return hubs,” arguing that they would incur excessive costs and fail to address the underlying causes of irregular migration. De Croo remarked, “History has shown that these solutions often yield minimal results.” However, the diminishing size of the opposition signals a notable shift in favor of offshoring migration policies, despite ongoing warnings from humanitarian organizations about the potential risks of undermining the asylum process and violating human rights.

European Council President Charles Michel commented on the evolving landscape, stating, “I can see that positions and plans are becoming more aligned, especially on the external aspect of migration, and there is a clear desire to take more operational action in this area.”

Addressing Instrumentalized Migration

In addition to the discussions surrounding outsourcing, leaders also focused on the pressing issue of instrumentalized migration, particularly actions taken by Belarus and Russia along the EU’s Eastern border—an ongoing challenge for countries like Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk initiated this discussion by presenting his new strategy against instrumentalization, which includes a controversial “temporary territorial suspension of the right to asylum.”

This sweeping proposal appears to contradict a fundamental principle of international law that mandates countries to accept and evaluate every asylum claim. Nevertheless, fellow leaders did not express reservations about Tusk’s plan, according to several diplomats. Tusk noted, “I fully understand Poland’s position, and I believe that we need robust measures to secure our borders against the instrumentalized migration from Russia and Belarus.”

Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo echoed Tusk’s sentiments, stating, “We experienced a similar situation on our border last year, and while we enacted national legislation, it is not a sustainable long-term solution. We require European-level legislation to combat instrumentalized immigration.” The resulting conclusions from the summit reflect this demand, asserting that “exceptional situations require appropriate measures” and emphasizing that external borders must be safeguarded “through all available means” while remaining “in line with EU and international law.”

However, the precise boundary between legal and illegal actions remains ambiguous, leaving much open to interpretation. The European Commission has yet to finalize its internal assessment of the Finnish legislation, making it unclear how much latitude Brussels is willing to allow at this sensitive juncture. “These are hybrid attacks from state actors, and therefore, Poland and other member states must be able to defend our union against these hybrid threats. This applies equally to Finland and the Baltic States,” von der Leyen stated, affirming that “they must be able to take temporary and appropriate measures. We are currently collaborating with Poland on this matter.”

Furthermore, Thursday’s conclusions urged the Commission to negotiate broader EU-funded agreements with neighboring countries to deter migration before it even begins. Von der Leyen touted her deal with Tunisia as a success, noting a 64% reduction in migrant flows through the Central Mediterranean this year. Importantly, the leaders’ text underscores “the importance of implementing adopted EU legislation and applying existing regulations,” a rhetorical victory for the Commission amidst threats from Poland and Hungary to disregard the migration reforms completed in May.

More From Author

The Death of Yahya Sinwar: Implications for the Gaza Conflict

Biden Addresses Yahya Sinwar’s Death and Prospects for Cease-Fire in Gaza

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *