The European Union (or should we say, Angela Merkel?) cut a deal with Turkey to stem the flow of migrants into Greece. In exchange for money (EUR 6 billion), visa-free travelling and reopening of EU accession talks, Turkey agreed to control its borders and to swap Syrian refugees residing in Turkish refugee camps with other (economic) migrants arriving on EU shores.
The deal is a reversal of Mrs. Merkel’s brave (but also a bit naive) policy to welcome asylum seekers from war-torn Syria last summer. This led not only to a surge in Syrian migrants hoping for a safer life but also attracted economic migrants (from places like Albania and Morocco) hoping for a better life. Merkel’s idea was to spread the asylum seekers across the EU on a quota basis, but many countries resisted, fearing a political backlash from NIMBYs as well as (right-wing) populist parties. Most migrants favoured Germany (and to a lesser extent Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands) over other EU countries anyway. Instead of developing a coordinated approach to the humanitarian crisis, many EU countries acted unilaterally and closed borders, confiscated migrant savings and/or implemented tightened asylum rules. The sexual attacks on women by (apparently mostly North African) migrants in Cologne and other European cities over the year-end and other incidents did the cause of asylum-seekers no good and only further heightened anti-immigrant feelings. Since the start of the civil war in Syria five years ago many options to contain migrant flows, like creating safe havens in Syria itself, have been wasted. Although Angela Merkel’s decision to accept (Syrian) refugees was just, she underestimated the ability and willingness of the EU as well as her own country to accommodate more than 1 million migrants (even though this is only 0.2% of the EU’s population). In a desperate move, she turned to Turkey instead, eventually striking the deal mentioned above.
Apart from the fact that the legality of a swap is questionable under international law, we believe that It would have been better to pay EU countries to do the job (for Greece this could also take the form of a long overdue partial debt forgiveness). In that case, the EU would not have to deal with the government of a country that holds the EU’s values (like freedom of speech) in contempt, has a questionable human rights record (and a troublesome conflict with Kurds in the south-east of the country) and a partisan judiciary. Greece and some other countries (e.g. Italy, Spain) should set up proper camps (with healthcare and educational facilities) with EU money and support where all migrants would have to report to get their asylum request processed (wandering migrants on the way to Germany would be forcibly sent to one of these camps). A migrant can leave the camp only once the asylum request is approved. The richer countries within the EU should receive these approved migrants according to an agreed quota (e.g. pro rata to population). There is no point in asking Hungary, Poland or Portugal to do their share as migrants do not want to live there; start with Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, the Nordics and ask Switzerland, the UK, Australia, Canada and the U.S. to join. Economic migrants should be sent back to the countries where they came from as soon as possible. If this for whatever reason is not possible (the EU should use trade and aid as incentives for those countries to cooperate), they should be locked up to deter new ones to make the crossing.
This solution is more palatable than being blackmailed by the autocratic Mr. Erdogan and thereby tarnishing the EU’s democratic values, in our view. It also allows the EU to seek solutions for long-term peace in Syria without having to pander to Turkish demands (think of the Kurds).
