respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and the respect for human rights.

Transcription

1 Danish Red Cross Conference, 10 March 2015: Denmark and the Global Refugee Crisis Humanitarian Gaps in the European Asylum System by Michael Diedring, ECRE Secretary General Gud moeren/good morning. It is a great pleasure for me to join you to discuss current European Asylum policy and the need to assure that refugees and asylum seekers are provided the protection, and are treated with the dignity and respect, they so deserve. In our opinion, the EU s current policy and practice with respect to asylum in Europe reveals a credibility gap, an operational gap and a humanitarian gap. The question -- What is Europe s real place in the world should be at the heart of today s debate because current practice is not in line with recognised European values and fundamental rights, nor defensible on moral grounds, particularly with respect to: (i) entry into Europe; and (ii) access to protection. As we know, the world s developing countries host 86% of all refugees. The EU +4 (the 28 EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) hosts only 6% of the world s refugees. Even though asylum requests in the EU +4 rose 30% from 2012 to 2013, and are continuing to rise, in 2013 only 113,000 persons IN TOTAL received some form of protection in an area with a combined population of almost 520 million. As is often cited because of its stark comparison, Lebanon, with a total population of 4 million people currently hosts almost 2 million registered and unregistered refugees from Syria. The entire EU, with its population of over 500 million, has never providing protection to people at such a level in proportion to its population. With respect to the Syrian conflict, where now almost 4 million people have fled, more than 97% of refugees from Syria are hosted in the region, with only 3% seeking protection in Europe.

2 This is a stark example of Europe s credibility gap, for while the EU continually and loudly calls for countries surrounding Syria to keep their borders open and most countries in the region continue to do so, to their credit, but at great cost to their own societies given a lack of infrastructure and natural resources, the EU spends more and more money and effort to close its borders, putting the protection of the external borders above the needs, and lives, of people. With significant numbers of people in need of international protection in the areas surrounding Europe s external borders, the EU Member States cannot ask other countries to take on more responsibility while it works to prevent access to Europe for those seeking international protection. Importantly, we in Europe must never lose sight of the fact that each number in this debate represents a person. For example, we should not be discussing EU distribution keys, as if people were computers. Distribution and people do not belong in the same sentence. As you well know, we are speaking of families fleeing for their lives, across borders, to an unknown future, all the while seeking security and a return to normality. There is extreme human drama behind every refugee story: the separation of families, the loss of children, of spouses, of friends. The abandonment or destruction of homes and lifestyles. The loss of livelihoods and the shattering of dreams. The physical and psychological abuse, torture, rape and death experienced along the way. In response to humanitarian crises in our neighborhood, what are the fundamental European values that should guide us? Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union reminds us that the Union is founded on the values of 2

3 respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and the respect for human rights. Moreover, what about the fundamental rights of refugees and asylum seekers in the EU? 14 years ago at the Tampere Summit, Member States set out the goal of achieving a common European asylum system, and said [QUOTE] The European Council reaffirms the importance the Union and Member States attach to absolute respect of the right to seek asylum and offers guarantees to those who seek protection in or access to the European Union. [END QUOTE] This position is fully consistent with Article 18 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantees to people the right to asylum in the EU. Today, however, there is a disconnect between what we say about European values and fundamental rights and what we actually do. Yes, the entire asylum acquis has been substantially amended, and now contains the alignment of the rights inherent in refugee and subsidiary protection status, a strengthening of procedural safeguards, including in the personal interview and the right to an effective remedy, and with regard to the stronger focus on the special needs of vulnerable asylum seekers. More still needs to be done with respect to the use of detention, the lack of free legal assistance, procedural safeguards for unaccompanied children, and the fact that the Dublin Regulation works against solidarity between Member States and does not take into account the preferences of the asylum seeker. 3

4 But how are these guarantees to those seeking protection provided in practice? Let s take the southern borders of the EU as an example. A quick glance at a map shows land routes to Europe through Turkey at the Greek and Bulgarian borders and through the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, and sea routes across the Mediterranean and Aegean seas from Turkey to Greece, and from Libya and Egypt to Italy and Malta. From July to September 2014, Frontex reported that 90% of migrants entered the EU by sea, with Syrians and Eritreans constituting almost half of all persons entering the EU irregularly. UNHCR has characterised the Mediterranean crossing as the most dangerous in the world as it is estimated that over 26,000 people, refugees and migrants, have drowned attempting to cross since 2000; in 2014 alone, according to UNHCR the estimated number was over 3,500. The scale of these figures reminds one of the results of war. Worryingly, more people this year are attempting the crossing in the dangerous winter months. Many politicians try to ignore the reasons why refugees attempt dangerous and deadly sea crossings to Europe. But we know that in this crisis, they have no other choice. With respect to refugees from Syria, the small countries immediately surrounding Syria are already overburdened with large numbers of refugees, so many are forced to move on. Iraq is dangerous, Libya is deteriorating and lawless and Egypt, with no asylum system, does not welcome refugees. 4

5 The EU policy of failing to provide legal and safe avenues of entry into the EU results in death for thousands, trauma for many more, and millions of Euros being channeled into the pockets of organized crime and unscrupulous smugglers. Furthermore, EU investment in Frontex and sophisticated border surveillance and the externalization of border controls through cooperation with the main countries of transit, and Member State investments in expensive fence building projects, exacerbates the situation, and leaves the impression that Europe s focus is on preventing entry rather than protecting people. It is disturbingly ironic that the recognition rates in the EU for a majority of the asylum seekers on unseaworthy vessels, such as Syrians, Sudanese and Eritreans, are very high. In fact, the rate of recognition for Syrians across the EU is well over 90%. Why are children and adults forced to put their lives at risk when it is almost certain they will receive recognition once they cross the EU s external borders? This EU policy directly results in the economic enrichment of smugglers, life threatening journeys or death, and the criminalisation of those seeking to exercise a fundamental right recognised across the entire EU the right to asylum instead of an EU apparatus providing people with a safe and dignified path to protection. The EU and its Member States should be ashamed of this policy. Equally troubling, there have been many credible and consistent allegations too many to ignore of states having been involved in illegal push-back operations where refugees are physically prevented from reaching EU soil. In these instances, boats are turned around on the sea in dangerous operations or 5

6 people are physically prevented from reaching EU soil to file an asylum claim, or are even expelled after having reached EU soil without being given the opportunity to file an asylum claim. Push backs are illegal under international and EU law, yet credible and consistent allegations of illegal push backs from EU borders continue to be raised. ECRE, together with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, recently expressed grave concern over proposed amendments to Spanish immigration law that would formalise the documented practice of summary expulsions to Morocco from Spain s enclaves in North Africa. According to the proposed amendment, and I ll paraphrase, Foreigners attempting an unauthorised crossing of the border shall be rejected in order to prevent their illegal entry into Spain. Such rejections would deprive asylum seekers of access to the asylum procedure in Spain and could result in refoulment. It is critical to note that the Spanish government intends to apply this procedure to migrants and asylum seekers who have already entered Spanish territory, based upon a warped interpretation of where Spanish territory begins. For while a Spanish court has affirmed that the Spanish border begins at the outside fence and that all areas between the fences are on Spanish territory, the government has gone so far as to allege that migrants should not be considered to have entered Spanish territory until they have crossed the police line. Under this interpretation, entry into Spain would only be achieved when an individual has been able to pass the security perimeter in its entirety. This is yet another example of the extent to which Member State practice is based on the prevention of entry rather than the protection of people. 6

7 The situation at the Turkish-Bulgarian land border is also deeply troubling. During a short period of a few months between , nearly 10,000 asylum seekers crossed the Turkish-Bulgarian border, the vast majority Syrians. But rather than creating a well-functioning asylum system and keeping the land border open, Bulgaria spent millions of Euros building a fence on its Turkish border and increased the sophistication of its border control with the support of Frontex. In apparent cooperation with Turkish border authorities, the flow of refugees now entering Bulgaria is less than 100 per month. The EU external border in Bulgaria has effectively been sealed. One notable and praiseworthy exception to the EU s policy of preventing access to EU territory for refugees and asylum seekers had been the Italian Navy s humanitarian effort, Mare Nostrum. Under Mare Nostrum, the Italian Navy helped to save over 170,000 lives by providing search and rescue, primarily off the coast of Libya. As a military operation, the Italian government alone paid for its cost. This seemed to be a strong case for more EU solidarity, as the EU as a whole should respond to those risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean to seek protection, rather than making it the sole responsibility of a single southern Member State. However, no EU Member State offered direct assistance to the Mare Nostrum operation. As a footnote, the current Frontex-led Triton operation, which has as its primary mission border control and surveillance (not search and rescue), is 7

8 funded at a substantially lower lever and has fewer assets at its disposal than Mare Nostrum, and operates in Italian territorial waters, not international waters off the Libyan coast, nearer to where people embark on journeys on unsafe vessels. Triton is an inadequate response, and an additional example of Europe s inflexible policy of attempting to deter movement and prevent entry into Europe rather than putting people first and providing a robust search and rescue operation to save lives in the Mediterranean. The increased arrivals in Italy over the past year reveal the delicate nature of solidarity in the field of asylum. For while each individual Member State has the responsibility to build and maintain its national asylum system at an appropriate level, and with the ability to properly respond to contingency conditions, the Common European Asylum System requires a shared vision on how situations, such as the current conditions in Italy, can be addressed in a collaborative European manner, as there are ramifications for the other EU Member States as well. Member States, for example, could stop returning asylum seekers under the Dublin Regulation as a humanitarian measure to both directly assist those particular asylum seekers, and as a show of solidarity to Member States having difficulties in their asylum systems (for example, Bulgaria, which is still struggling to improve its system, but also Italy, where individuals returned under Dublin often end up destitute and living on the street). In the case of vulnerable individuals, we argue that it is an obligation of Member States not to return asylum seekers if guarantees of adequate accommodation are not provided. 8

9 Solidarity in the EU in the context of European refugee policy is critically important because a European solution is needed to address Europe s collective responsibilities under EU and international human rights law. In 2013, 470,000 persons filed an asylum application in the EU (by the way, Frontex reports that 700 million travellers cross the EU s external borders in a regular manner each year). However, of those 470,000 applications, only five EU Member States Germany, Sweden, France, the UK and Italy received 70% of the total number of applicants. Thus, the responsibility for asylum seekers is not equally distributed across all EU Member States. So let me add a few words about the EU Commission s European Agenda on Migration, just announced on March 4 th. It is telling what is included in the Agenda, but also what is omitted: The Commission will focus on the proper implementation of the Common European Asylum System, which we support, but has not announced that it would take up systemic challenges, such as the EU Member States lack of solidarity or the Dublin Regulation; The Commission talks of legal migration, but appears to focus all of its attention on attracting the most highly skilled. Legal channels for lessskilled migrants or refugees are not featured in the Agenda; The Commission will strengthen EU border controls, again continuing to put the protection of borders over the protection of people; The Commission talks about increasing its efforts against smuggling, without recognising that the most effective deterrent to smuggling would be the opening of safe and legal channels to enter the EU; and finally 9

10 The Agenda is silent on the need for search and rescue in the Mediterranean. Thus, the EU appears to continue to turn its back on those people dying in the Mediterranean Sea trying to reach Europe s shores. How else could we better address the rights of those seeking protection in Europe? In many ways, it is very straightforward if there is the necessary political will. One option that could balance border protection with refugee protection would be the introduction of a broad resettlement programme for the most vulnerable. Germany agreed to accept 20,000 Syrians under its temporary Humanitarian Admissions Programme, however, the total number of resettlement places offered by the remaining 27 EU Member States is only around 6,000. This cannot be seen as a serious response to such a humanitarian crisis, particularly when resettlement is one of the few ways in which people can legally, safely, and in an organized manner, reach Europe and be offered security and stability. Political leadership is needed to significantly increase the number of resettlement places; all Member States should do their part to increase resettlement numbers. It would make sense to explore the feasibility of private initiatives to complement on-going Member State resettlement programmes. Under such private sponsorship programs utilized, for example, in Germany or in North America associations, organisations and groups of individuals, working with their government authorities, are able to provide financial sponsorship to help 10

11 resettle specific individuals or families. This would allow European citizens to directly show their support for resettlement, and would offer diaspora communities and others the chance to support a solution that is, as well, structured, safe and legal. Another way of facilitating legal access is through the reform of EU visa policies, including student visa programmes. Visa requirements continue to be imposed on most of the countries that produce refugees and constitute a major obstacle preventing persons fleeing persecution to enter the EU in a safe and regular way. The EU should explore the possibility of suspending visa restrictions or exempting transit visa obligations for nationals and residents of countries experiencing a significant upheaval or humanitarian crisis. The EU visa code today provides an opportunity for Member States to issue visas on humanitarian grounds. Some Member States are currently using this procedure, but in an extremely quiet manner. It has also been used before; for example, Malta used such a procedure in 2011 to evacuate people from Libya during the turmoil. Another option is the use of existing family reunification rules. More flexible family reunification could contribute to facilitating access for family members of refugees. Such a change could be put into place quickly and would confirm Europe s fundamental support for the family unit as a matter of policy. Top priority should be given to the reunification of families who have been split up by war and the traumatic journeys necessary to seek safety and protection. 11

12 It is clear that humanitarian visas, more flexible family reunification rules and increased resettlement will always have its limitations in terms of the number of persons who benefit. Refugees who are not accepted under such procedures will continue to try to find other ways to reach Europe. In addition, such channels will not solve the challenge of those who do not come to the EU for international protection but for other reasons. The options I ve mentioned, however, can be put into place if the political will to do so exists. The fact that today access to an asylum procedure is not guaranteed at the EU s external borders and that persons who have the right to be recognised as refugees are dying in the sea, being turned away or expelled from EU soil is unacceptable and not in line with fundamental European rights and values. The current situation undermines the credibility of the EU as a whole. The true measure of a country, as well as a person, is its reaction to the most vulnerable among us. Given current circumstances and Europe s response to increased asylum pressures, our children may not find this to be one of Europe s finest hours. Political leadership is needed to put into place a true European solution based upon solidarity among Member States. We need to continue raising our voices to let our politicians know that we expect them to operate a humane and decent asylum system in the EU, which is in line with Europe s values and thus treats refugees and asylum seekers with the dignity and respect they so deserve. 12

13 Unless we uphold at all times Europe s fundamental rights and fundamental values, they cannot be considered fundamental at all. Thank you. 13