EU leaders clinched a hard-won migration deal during all-night talks on June 29, that Italy’s hardline new premier said meant his country was “no longer alone” in shouldering the responsibility for migrants. / AFP PHOTO / Ben STANSALL
by Katy Lee and Jacques Klopp
Agence France Presse
PARIS, France (AFP) — European leaders hailed a deal thrashed out in the small hours of Friday as a breakthrough in the acrimonious dispute over migrants — but does it really provide long-term solutions?
Analysts say the agreement has provided face-saving measures for leaders where immigration has become hugely sensitive, particularly in Italy and Germany.
But they warn key elements of the deal remain vague and that it could create new problems for a bloc badly split over how to deal with people fleeing violence and poverty in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.
Is everyone happy with the deal?
On the face of it, the deal allowed major players in the migration row — particularly German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italy’s new populist government — to claim success.
Merkel, whose coalition hangs in the balance due to a row over immigration, returned with a pledge from other countries to try to stop migrants from moving on towards Germany.
And Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, whose government says it has had enough of migrants landing from Libya, succeeded in furthering his agenda of asking for greater solidarity from other EU states after threatening to sink the summit.
“It’s a piece of political theatre that has allowed everyone to go back with a degree of political capital,” said Luigi Scazzieri, research fellow at the Centre for European Reform in London.
The rightwing “Visegrad” governments of central Europe — Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic — meanwhile hailed the deal as a huge victory, as it does not force them to accept any migrants.
Europe-watchers have highlighted the voluntary nature of the deal, saying it opens the door for fresh accusations that some countries are shouldering more of the burden than others.
But Pascale Joannin, director of the Robert Schuman Foundation, said voluntary European initiatives had succeeded in the past, such as the Schengen passport-free zone and defence cooperation.
“It’s better when you can do things with all 28 countries, but when states are stubborn you can move forward with just some of them,” she said.
Which problems haven’t been addressed?
“The text commits to nothing, no countries are named, there are no figures,” said Sebastien Maillard, head of the Jacques Delors Institute, a European think-tank based in Paris.
The deal’s proposal of “controlled centres” in volunteer EU countries, where migrants would have their asylum claims processed and be sent home if they are considered ineligible, has already run into trouble.
France and Austria swiftly counted themselves out because they are not on the main migrant route — hardly the display of solidarity Italy has been demanding.
“What really lies under the voluntary aspect is that it masks an absence of real agreement,” said Maillard.
A plan to set up “disembarkation platforms” in countries outside the EU, where migrants could be diverted, is also in flux because no country has offered to host them.
In the immediate term, the repeated dramas over migrant rescue boats stuck at sea are set to continue, after hardline interior minister Matteo Salvini swore to turn them away all summer.
Will the deal stop migrants arriving?
Migrants are crossing the Mediterranean in far lower numbers than at their peak in 2015, but the influx remains a source of bitter contention in Europe.
The deal includes several measures aimed at deterring migrants from making the trip, including the “disembarkation platforms” and a boosted African investment fund to create opportunities at home.
It also pledges stronger support for the Libyan coastguard and warns charities operating rescue ships not to obstruct them — to the fury of NGOs including Medecins Sans Frontieres.
“The only thing European states appear to have agreed on is to block people at the doorstep of Europe regardless of how vulnerable they are, or what horrors they are escaping,” MSF’s emergencies chief Karline Kleijer said.
Is the deal a victory for hardliners?
Scazzieri from the Centre for European Reform said the deal reflected a shift in attitudes across the EU.
“The undertone of the summit was a gradual move towards the harder Italian, Austrian line of controlling the border much better,” he said. “Now this is something that everyone accepts.”
Does the deal protect migrants?
Rights groups say it’s too soon to tell what will become of the deal, but they worry it will make life harder for migrants themselves.
Philippe Dam, Europe advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said it was unclear what would happen at the new asylum-processing centres either within or outside Europe.
But he feared they could detain migrants at length or fail to properly consider asylum applications in their haste to process them.
“There should be a clear commitment for not detaining asylum seekers systematically, and definitely not detaining children,” he said.