Shifting Borders – Externalising migrant vulnerabilities and rights?

Title: The externalisation of migration controls, Introduction<
By: Claire Rodier, Vice-President, Migreurop Published
Published:IFRC, EU Office, 2013

The “externalisation” of border controls – i.e. the process which uses various methods to transfer migration management beyond national borders – is a recent dimension of high-income countries’ migration policies. Practiced in other parts of the world such as Australia (which developed reception centres for asylum seekers in micro-States within its sphere of influence), externalisation was formalised by the European Union (EU) in 2004 and was confirmed by the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum of 2008. By increasing their vulnerability, externalisation has serious consequences for migrants and those seeking international protection.

Externalisation in the EU involves transferring responsibility and, in effect outsourcing its immigration and asylum policy by subcontracting controls. A work programme adopted in 2004 at The Hague European Council, devoted an important part of the agenda to “the external dimension of asylum and immigration.” This programme stressed the need for the EU to support specific third countries, through targeted partnerships (Neighbourhood Policy, Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, the Balkans Stability Pact, relations between the EU and Africa), in order to improve these countries’ ability to manage migration, protect refugees and prevent and combat illegal immigration. Coupled with the tightening of border controls and a highly selective immigration policy, these partnerships are developing into an instrument of deterrence at source with respect to those who, in one capacity or the other, need to migrate.

Using a flexible approach, the EU forces or persuades its partners – migrants’ countries of origin or transit - to collaborate in its migration policy to the detriment of respect for human rights. In line with these collaborative agreements for “migration flow management”, usually concluded under pressure from the EU, officials from these countries in effect play the role of EU border guards to prevent potential migrants from leaving, or those in transit, from travelling to Europe. This was the case in 2005, when more than a dozen sub-Saharans died, some of them killed by Moroccan army bullets, during attempts to cross the “fences” of Ceuta and Melilla, the Spanish enclaves in North Africa. This form of subcontracting often enables the EU to discharge its responsibilities towards refugees, based on unfair “burden sharing”. In early 2012, when it was announced that a wall would be constructed in eastern Greece to prevent border crossings from Turkey, that country actively cooperated with EU policy by locking its eastern border with Iran and organising a thorough search for refugees in the region.

Another consequence is that externalisation diminishes the role of civil society organisations advocating on behalf of asylum seekers and migrants. This reduces democratic accountability and commitments to fundamental rights which EU Member States have ratified. It may also encourage migrants to take even more dangerous routes. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Gutierrez, pointed out in 2008 that “there are more and more barriers to entry to the European territory, the consequence being that many people seeking protection have no other choice but to resort to smugglers and traffickers in order to cross borders.”

The increasing power of these measures and the resulting fragility of the right to asylum is illustrated by a dramatic drop in asylum claims over the past decade. For all high-income counties including the EU, UNHCR recorded a decrease of approximately 42 per cent in the decade to 2011.

Ironically, while the Arab Spring was welcomed by European governments, their first reaction in February 2011 was to deploy FRONTEX off Tunisia and Libya in order to prevent populations freed from dictatorship from approaching their coasts. UNHCR estimates that 1,500 people died or were missing at sea during the first six months of 2011.

In March 2011, a boat carrying 72 people (Eritreans, Ethiopians, Ghanaians, Nigerians and Sudanese) drifted for more than two weeks between Libya, which they were fleeing, and Italy, which they sought to enter. Despite their distress and the large presence of NATO ships and helicopters in the area, no one came to help; 63 passengers died. An investigation led by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly clearly points the finger at European states and their border-control measures to discourage fishermen and merchant ships from fulfilling their obligations of rescue at sea

The balance of power may appear unequal between an increasingly aggressive “Fortress Europe” and the thousands of migrants on the move due to conflict and poverty. But an encouraging sign came in early 2012, when the European Court of Human Rights condemned Italy for deporting migrants to Libya in 2009 without previously assessing the scope and provisions for international protection which these individuals could claim. A first step towards rolling back the policy of externalisation.

To read the rest of report click on the PDF below.

Shifting Borders Externalizing migrant vulnerabilities rights Red Cross EU Office.pdf (2.7 MB)