Every drowned person in the Mediterranean is one too many. The number of smuggling boat crossings to Europe’s shores has fallen since the 2015-16 refugee crisis, thanks in part to the controversial EU-Turkey deal. Asked in 2015 1.2 million people seeking asylum in the EU. In 2018 this was less than half. The number of victims at sea decreased accordingly.
Unfortunately, this leeway has not been sufficiently used to make the EU asylum system more humane and robust. We are waiting for a new shock. These days we are seeing the signs in Lampedusa. Until this summer, about 75,000 people arrived in Italy from Tunisia this year. It led to the familiar scenes of chaos, overflowing detention centers, emergency measures, helping hands and political opportunism.
On Sunday, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visited the island together with Prime Minister Meloni. She announced a package of patchwork measures. Giorgia Meloni asked for solidarity: “These are the borders of Italy, yes, but also those of Europe.” This shared responsibility for Europe’s external borders is a lesson from 2015-16. The Hague now also recognizes this. But what consequences do we attach to it?
Contradictions in the EU proved too great for an agreement on asylum – between arrival countries in Southern Europe, destination countries in the North and asylum refusers in the East. Views also clash within societies. Take the Netherlands. Of course, the nitrogen crisis could also have led to the fall of Rutte IV. Yet it is no coincidence that The Hague’s ability to compromise failed precisely on the issue of asylum.
In contrast to the wish for universal mercy with desperate suffering elsewhere (expressed in the coalition by D66 and CU, plus the left-wing opposition), the call for manageable borders, safety and personal concerns first is being heard throughout Europe (expressed here by VVD and CDA and all parties to their right). Between both poles, the democratic conversation about what is possible, what works and what does not – about unintended consequences, apparent solutions and tragic dilemmas – is difficult to get started. This way we do not look beyond the horizon of the acute crisis.
You see this short-sightedness in dealing with Tunisia. In June and July, Prime Minister Rutte, together with Meloni and Von der Leyen, negotiated a deal with Tunisia on cooperation on education, trade and migration. The hope was that President Kais Saied would do what Turkey’s strongman Erdogan has done since 2016: stop the smuggling boats. But apparently he sees no reason to do so.
Like Francesco Mascini from the Clingendael Institute last week NRC wrote, many Tunisians indeed have strong reasons to risk the journey through hell to the EU, but the main increase in asylum applications is not there. Among the 75,000 migrants arriving in Italy, there are more than 10,000 Tunisians – many, but not an exodus. In contrast, some 60,000 come from West Africa, many of whom find themselves in heartbreaking circumstances but often take the gamble north with illusory expectations. However, the EU deal with Tunisia ignored this group. Out of sight.
Doing something about this requires a different approach. Combating irregular migration from West African countries, for example by encouraging Tunisia to adopt a different visa policy. And at the same time offer perspective to the millions of young people in Nigeria, Niger or Guinea-Bissau, with forms of legal migration, so that they do not risk their lives at sea or in the desert. Efforts against drought in the Sahel, so credible climate policy, are part of it.
Very quickly the debate about Tunisia, where the president is acting brutally, turns to racism or Islam. For a geostrategic perspective, we can also compare the country with Mexico in terms of its position on a major migration route. Mexico is still partly a departure country for its own citizens to its rich northern neighbor (there: the US), thanks to smartphones, charter flights and increased prosperity. transit and destination country for migrants from South and Central America. Just like Tunisia, with its eyes on West Africa and the Sahel, Mexico does not want to end up as a hub for human smuggling and the northern terminus of this migrant flow.
For its part, the United States under Joe Biden recognizes that a border wall is not the solution (although Trump’s wall continues to be built). Since the beginning of 2023 the US and Mexico are working more closely together in and with Central America, with shared goals: less irregular migration, improvement of local economic prospects and new paths for legal migration. Regional asylum registration centers were also set up in Colombia and Guatemala to discourage deadly jungle hikes. Let policymakers in The Hague, Rome and Brussels quickly learn from these experiences.
Luuk van Middelaar is a political philosopher and historian.
A version of this article also appeared in the September 20, 2023 newspaper.