The European Union has been discussing the Pact on Migration and Asylum for four years. The migration pressures from North Africa since January 2023 have meant that nearly 130,000 irregular migrants have arrived in Italy by sea this year, twice as many as last year. Escalating migratory pressures are bringing enduring political and socio-economic challenges to the EU.
Despite its good intentions to reform migration and asylum rules, the EU is distracted by more seemingly pressing problems like the war in Ukraine and the surge of populist parties in the run-up to the June 2024 European Parliament elections. The war in Gaza is another challenge to the geopolitical situation which requires urgent attention by the EU and which, if not contained, could make any migrant crisis much worse.
In an interview with Times of Malta, Charles Michel, the European Council’s president, identified some problems preventing the Union from finding a lasting solution to the irregular immigration challenge. Michel argues: “We must address all the questions, including the difficult ones. And, to be honest with you, I feel there is a growing debate about the role played by some NGOs.”
The draft Crisis Regulation document, the final part of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, was agreed by a qualified majority of EU member states’ ambassadors before the recent Granada EU summit.
The Crisis Resolution’s central piece is a “mandatory solidarity” system that offers countries different options to manage migration flows in extraordinary situations that pose a risk to the EU’s asylum system. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen celebrated the pre-summit deal as a “real game changer”.
However, the joint final statement of the leaders of member states meeting in Granada omitted reference to the Crisis Regulation as Poland and Hungary vetoed its inclusion in the final text.
The recent victory of a pro-EU coalition in Poland, however, is encouraging and could signal a change in policy on migration and asylum when the new government takes office in Warsaw. On the other hand, the recent electoral victory of the populist Robert Fico in Slovakia could complicate matters further.
EU migration reform remains elusive. Charities like Oxfam and Amnesty International say that the EU’s latest proposals to control irregular migration are an attempt by the bloc to barricade Europe from asylum seekers.
Michel refutes this interpretation. He argues that the EU’s track record on development aid, fighting poverty and climate change proves the Union’s positive attitude to helping distressed countries. He shifted part of the blame for the migration crisis on developed countries’ unwillingness to deal with irregular immigration.
Little success has resulted from attempts by the EU to reduce the flow of migration from North Africa by entering into cooperation and aid agreements with political leaders in Libya and Tunisia.
The recent agreement signed between the EU and Tunisia is failing, with the government of the North African country asking for more financial concessions to honour its part of the deal. Charities like Amnesty International have often argued that the EU is just pouring money down the drain when it signs agreements with countries with a poor record on human rights.
National interests are again obstructing the Union’s quest for the common good at a critical time when the EU faces daunting geopolitical challenges.
The worrying reality is that EU member states are still divided on managing the migration crisis. The next European Parliament and Commission will inherit the tangled web of dysfunctional migration policies.