What the EU must do now to halt this tragedy on its shores

There are answers to the Mediterranean migrant-deaths crisis. They just require the European Union, whose foreign ministers met yesterday, to grasp the political nettle.

Nando Sigona
21 April 2015

How much is a human life worth? How many more people have to die to generate enough momentum for Europe to intervene? Unfortunately these are not rhetorical questions. More than 1,500 people have drowned or gone missing in the Mediterranean on their way from north Africa since the start of 2015. Many Europeans are wondering how much longer Europe can ignore the tragedy unfolding on its doorstep while politicians and policy-makers weigh up the political and economic cost of saving lives at sea.

Italy argued that its search-and-rescue Mare Nostrum operation, which saved 150,000 asylum seekers and migrants in 12 months at an estimated cost of €9m a month, was economically unsustainable to run. Mare Nostrum was duly replaced by the Frontex-led Triton operation.

This scaled-back programme, which had originally been conceived to support Mare Nostrum and ended up replacing it, only stretched to 30 miles off European coastlines at a cost of roughly one third of the programme it replaced. EU officials argued Triton would deliver better value for money—but, tragically, you get what you pay for. Triton is certainly smaller in scale and has a narrower mandate—to police and monitor European sea borders rather than carry out rescue operations, including in international waters. But with so many dead already this year, is the political sustainability of Triton now to be called into question?

The latest tragedy may trigger enough of an EU-wide sense of indignation to create the political support needed for a new search-and-rescue operation similar to Mare Nostrum. Such an operation should see a substantial involvement of the EU and of EU member states—not just Italy, Latvia, Malta, Iceland and a few others.

Where is the EU’s response?

The EU has substantial resources, but member states have so far failed to agree a common strategy to respond to gthe irregular Mediterranean crossings which are turning the sea into a mass graveyard. The response from Italy’s prime minister, Matteo Renzi—to call for an emergency meeting of the European Council, which will take place on Thursday—is a start. But it remains to be seen if this time he can mobilise the support of the big EU players.

In particular he must overcome the past striking silence of France, the timid support of Germany and the open opposition of the UK. Several previous attempts have failed. But this time Renzi can count on the support of Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy chief and former foreign minister in his cabinet. The death toll of drownings this year now stands 30 times higher than at the same point in 2014, when Mare Nostrum was still active, so a new enhanced version would certainly help to save lives.


Federica Mogherini. Valda Kalnina/EPA.

Some, like the UK prime minister, David Cameron, have argued that search-and-rescue operations are a 'pull factor' for people to attempt to make crossings, ultimately also causing more migrants to die. But both the current level of migrant arrivals and the death toll among those who never make it prove he was wrong and that migration flows have multiple causes.

It is also clear, however, that rescue operations alone won’t offer a long-term solution to irregular crossings in the Mediterranean, as they do nothing to address the root causes of migration in the region. A comprehensive EU strategy is needed.

Long-term strategy

As Mogherini recently reaffirmed, stabilisation of the long corridor that goes from Libya to Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq should be the priority for such a strategy. But the situation in the Horn of Africa, a decade-long war in the Democratic Republic of Congo and violent insurgencies in Nigeria and Mali also contribute to large movements of population which increase the flows across the Mediterranean.

To start with the EU should focus on Libya, where the end of the regime of Muammar Qaddafi left a power void. France (under Niclas Sarkozy) and Cameron’s UK were as keen in leading the international military campaign to oust Qaddafi as they are now reluctant to deal with the consequences of their bombs. Civil war has torn communities apart and devastated the economy, leaving ample opportunities for human smugglers. This is unlikely to get better any time soon and boats will continue to depart from Libya for the foreseeable future.

From an EU perspective, it may prove more effective in the short term to look to Libya’s relatively more stable neighbours, Tunisia and Egypt, to help in patrolling the north African coast and intercepting boats—and perhaps the proposed EU-run migrant-and-asylum processing centres could be established in those countries. These could then be used to screen intercepted boat migrants, allowing those with a valid asylum case (more than 80% of those rescued during Mare Nostrum) to be resettled in an EU country.

Job opportunities

The processing centres could also operate as job centres, where recruitment opportunities for migrants in Europe and through EU-funded initiatives in the region would be made available. Such a solution would facilitate regular mobility for some but it is hard to imagine that this would offer a solution for many, as it assumes a static understanding of the job market and employer willingness to be subjected to more scrutiny—which would inevitably reduce opportunities for exploiting cheap undocumented labour.

Whatever solutions are implemented, some people are still likely to try their luck with smugglers. So a second line of interception, closer to the EU shore, would be needed. This should resemble Mare Nostrum but under a concerted EU leadership. Once boats are detected in EU waters or in international waters in case of need, they should be taken to shore. But rather than ending up in Italian reception centres, migrants should be taken to EU-led centres in the closer EU member states with national and international personnel.

These centres would operate as a tertiary filter for migrants. This would mean saving lives, although offering no guarantee of a right to stay. But rather than envisaging mass repatriation schemes—not least because they are extremely costly and hard to implement—it may prove more economically beneficial to Europe to establish a system of temporary residence permits with the right to look for work and, for the sake of minimising internal political opposition, limited or no access to welfare provision.

While not free from risks of exploitation, such a system would give people a chance to demonstrate their entrepreneurship and willingness to work and contribute to Europe’s ageing societies.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Had enough of ‘alternative facts’? openDemocracy is different Join the conversation: get our weekly email


We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData