(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Of: Maria Gabrielsen Jumbert
The EU's response to the increased flow of refugees across the Mediterranean is to strengthen border surveillance through the Frontex operation Triton. On the other hand, there is little that can be done in the form of effective border control at sea. Triton does not have a rescue mandate, although this is where surveillance has the greatest potential to play a positive role. In the fear of doing so a little easier For boat refugees to get to Europe, border surveillance is highlighted as an "effective" response.
It has become clear through the discussions of recent weeks that both the situation in the countries people are fleeing from, og The overall immigration and asylum policy in Europe must be addressed. Border surveillance and control carried out at sea is the tool Europe's border guards have to implement that policy and legislation – therefore its limitations should also be discussed. It is in many ways at Europe's outer borders that the very essence of the conflict lies, since it is the border that migrants want to cross at all costs, and which the border guards are tasked with "protecting".
Legally illegal. Odin Lysaker wrote last week in a column in Ny Tid about what the situation in the Mediterranean would look like from space. About how to get it all at a distance brings out the absurdity of the fact that some human lives apparently have more rights (and thus opportunities) than others. The very sorting between who is allowed to travel freely in and out of Europe, and those who are not allowed to, is based on a paradox. In short – and as has often been pointed out in recent weeks – it all boils down to the fact that those who flee, and who are entitled to protection, are directed to take illegal routes into Europe. Migrants trying to enter Europe are called illegal immigrants because they do not have papers or visas with entry permits. But no one is illegal as they board a boat in North Africa: Everyone is allowed to leave their own country, it is a universal human right. All countries can then decide for themselves who is allowed to cross their borders. On the other hand, you must be in the country you want protection from in order to apply for asylum. The Refugee Convention states that "illegal arrival" in a country should have no bearing on the asylum application, and today there is no other way to Europe than the "illegal" for most people on the run. This is where the "market" for so-called smugglers arises.
At Europe's outer border in the Mediterranean, European principles and regulations also meet a number of other key international laws – including the obligation to conduct search and rescue operations for any ship that comes over others in distress. In addition, every European country has an obligation not to return people who may be entitled to international protection, to a place where they fear for their own safety on the basis of religious, national, political or social affiliation. This is also known as "non-refoulement"Principle. This principle, combined with the duty of search and rescue, and the fact that stopping or leaving a boat with migrants today in practice means putting their lives at risk, makes border crossings at sea something very special.
The desire for more monitoring. Two stories about the situation in the Mediterranean have dominated the news scene lately. The first is that there are fewer refugees and more economic migrants this year trying to cross the Mediterranean. The second is that cynical traffickers, who earn grossly on the misfortune of others, are behind. Implicit: Had it not been for the smugglers, we would not have had the sharp increase in the number of boat refugees in the last two years.
There is an absolute need for greater understanding and knowledge of both these aspects, not least because both feed on a number of myths and misinterpretations of the current situation. Here, on the other hand, I would limit myself to looking more closely at how both of these stories help to maintain the idea that Europe's maritime border with the rest of the world can be monitored and controlled at all, and that in light of the current situation it should be monitored more.
Let's start with the "happiness hunter" argument. If you are concerned there are several economic migrants you are also concerned with finding ways to stop them before they reach the European border and prevent them from moving on. Possible persecuted refugees cannot, according to the Refugee Convention, be returned to a place where their personal safety is at risk. This also applies when border control takes place outside European borders, as refugees who are, for example, brought on board an Italian ship are thus under Italian law. The problem is that it is impossible to know whether a boat is transporting economic migrants or refugees. Essentially, there are people with vastly different backgrounds and motivations on board in each boat that crosses. The assessment of whether they are economic migrants or refugees cannot be done at sea. It must be done by competent authorities on land.
Essentially, there are people with vastly different backgrounds and motivations on board in each boat that crosses.
In this way, border surveillance in many ways falls short. Even though signals about boat migrants on their way across the Mediterranean are caught, they cannot be stopped and sent back – posing a risk of breach of «non-refoulement"Principle. This also applies when boat refugees are rescued from the sea.
So to the "smuggler" argument. The argument that human traffickers "stand behind" is – as often pointed out by my colleague Jørgen Carling – appropriate for European politicians who want to designate a scapegoat. This argument is also a key driver of the idea of the need for more border surveillance – we must "catch" the human traffickers. One of the much-debated points in the EU's two-point plan is the aim to "identify, take and destroy" the smugglers' boats. Much of the focus has been on how much power the EU or Frontex can use to meet this goal. But this will probably also be an important justification for increasing the border surveillance capacity in the Mediterranean.
The fear of saving. Border surveillance has the potential to contribute effectively to search and rescue operations, for example by faster picking up signals about emergencies and faster locating where the boat is in distress. But Frontex's Triton operation focuses on border control and not emergency relief. Spokespeople for Frontex state that if they come across a ship in the sea, they will "naturally" exercise their duty of search and rescue. But considering how little Frontex can really do to stop or screen people at sea, as well as the extent of the need for rescue these days, the unidirectional focus on border control is questionable. At the same time, probably such measures, if nothing else, help to gather information about the situation and the people on the run, which in itself is a form of control across borders.
An underlying explanation is probably in last year's discussion that started as the Italian rescue operation Mare Nostrum was ready for liquidation. A British minister then criticized the entire operation, believing that increased rescue capacity directly contributed to the increase in refugee flows – by making it easier to cross the sea. This criticism was seen as deviating from the rest of Europe's stance on Italy's rescue efforts. Still – the hesitation to increase the rescue capacity for people fighting for life shows how the fear of more refugees has settled.
Instead of trying to move the European border further through enhanced border surveillance, better infrastructure should now be used to receive and process applications for asylum seekers or other stays – thus identifying those with real protection needs. .
Gabrielsen Jumbert is a senior researcher at the Department of Peace Research (PRIO). margab@prio.no.