AA15CR31ADD2

AS (2015) CR 31
Addendum 2

2015 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-first sitting

Tuesday, 29 September 2015 at 3.30 p.m.

Joint debate

After Dublin – the urgent need for a real European asylum system
Countries of transit: meeting new migration and asylum challenges

The following texts were submitted for inclusion in the official report by members who were present in the Chamber but were prevented by lack of time from delivering them.

Ms De SUTTER (Belgium) – This debate is very timely now that thousands of refugees are arriving in Europe every week. Mr Nicoletti's report correctly states that the Dublin regulation needs to be revised, but let us first summarise what is wrong with it.

First of all, it is costly in human terms: the European Court of Human Rights and the European court of Justice have found that transfers under Dublin have led to violations of fundamental human rights. Dublin transfers to Greece have been suspended for years for this very reason, following the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece case in 2008.

Secondly, it is costly financially and transfers are completely illogical. In 2013 Germany made 281 transfers to Sweden, while Sweden transferred 289 asylum seekers to Germany – that is 570 asylum seekers transferred against their will, away from the country where they were likely to have their family or community.

Thirdly, it assumes harmonised standards of protection and reception across all member States – which may be the case on paper, but is not in practice. In 2013, 97% of Somalis were granted protection in Italy on their first request and just 17% in France. The list of flaws goes on, but member States tolerate this inhumane, costly and inefficient system in order to signal to the public their control over asylum seekers and the asylum system. Dublin is a political theatre which needs replacing.

The European Commission is willing to reconsider Dublin and has proposed to add a permanent “crisis relocation mechanism” alongside the existing “early warning, preparedness and crisis management”’ system, allowing better monitoring. In the meantime, all countries party to Dublin should make full use of the discretionary clauses in Article 17 of the existing Regulation, which allows them to take responsibility for an application rather than transfer. This could alleviate some of the human suffering and strain on member States under pressure.

But this is not enough. We also need to think about lasting solutions. The Dublin regulation needs to be replaced by a new distribution system which must be fair to member States and refugees alike. Refugees are people and not just numbers that you can shift around in Europe without asking them anything. Refugees need to be able to voice their preference of host country, based on family or community relations, qualifications such as language skills or cultural ties. It will then be much easier for them to integrate into the host member State. Refugees will be able to take care of their own income quicker, and contribute more to society.

We urgently need a European Union asylum service to centralise asylum claims. The new system should offer equal standards for reception and procedures to refugees everywhere in Europe, receive sufficient financial support and be binding to all member States. All political and other instruments should be used to reinforce it.

The current refugee crisis can make Europe fall apart or make it stronger and united. Let us choose to go for the latter.

Ms GUZENINA (Finland) – What Europe is dealing with is something we have not seen before and, we can probably agree, something we were not properly prepared for.

The expanding refugee crisis is testing in an never before experienced way how we, as a continent, honour human rights in practice, and how our immigration, health and social services cope under the pressure of hundreds of thousands of new arrivals.

Some of the Council of Europe member countries have used an extremely questionable approach towards refugee seekers, ignoring the fact that all arriving, no matter what their background or status, have got the same right to protection, and that this protection is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

The refugee crisis cannot be solved by building walls around countries. As much as we all hope for peace in Syria and other areas that people are fleeing from, we must face the fact that peace is not just around the corner and therefore each European country will need to take part in burden sharing. This burden-sharing can be done in many ways. One way is to increase help to Turkey and other countries that have taken their fair share by building and running refugee camps. The refugee camps need money to run properly. But even with new financing for refugee camps, we cannot blame those who want to move on in search of a place where their children can have proper education and where there is the possibility of working and having normal housing and a normal life.

The situation is of course financially challenging for many European countries, at least to begin with. Our continent has had its fair share of economic challenges in recent years; in saying that, I want to point out that we are also an ageing continent. Our demographic dependence ratio has tilted into an unfavourable angle. And in this fact lies a point.

Why not look at the issue from a different perspective? Why not take into consideration, for example, the latest research relating to immigration and how it can improve the demographic situation? After all, there is not much we can do to end the war, but we do have a choice as to how we deal with the refugee movement.

Ms HUOVINEN (Finland) – I would like to thank both rapporteurs for their excellent work and constructive proposals. It has been two years since I last worked in the Assembly. Looking back, I clearly remember that we could already see the migration crisis developing, perhaps even earlier than at the national level. Maybe earlier, the message of the Syrian refugees’ serious distress was not taken seriously enough. That allows us to ask whether the refugee crisis and the movement of refugees really was as big a surprise as many countries, including the European Union, are now suggesting.

I welcome Secretary General Jagland’s appeal to our governments to help international organisations ensure proper conditions in refugee camps around Syria. As winter approaches, simply wishing for a solution will definitely not help any person’s situation. I find it odd that some governments have decided to cut development aid to such organisations while their members demand that refugees in the first instance should be taken care of locally.

Whilst solving the underlying reasons for the refugee crisis and providing safety for those in need, we must also assure the humane treatment of refugees. Although many of our citizens have their own concerns in the middle of the crisis, I believe that the majority of them understand the refugees’ distress. Many countries have quickly gathered large groups of volunteers to help the refugees in many, often very concrete ways. However, unfortunately, too many countries have seen different experiences. Refugees have been met with prejudice, coldness and intolerance. We have also witnessed violence, and reception centres have even been attacked.

It is our responsibility to collectively condemn all such acts. This crisis will not be resolved by hatred or fear. Our nations must not blame each other and create dividing lines between people. The situation will take many years of work which we can only manage with humanity, tolerance and co-operation. Otherwise Europe will not have learned anything from its own history.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – I welcome both interesting reports on the contemporary significance of the Dublin Convention and countries of transit, particularly because Poland is an example, not being a country of destination for the last few decades. “Navigare necesse est”: this famous saying was coined two thousand years ago. Today we should modify it to: “Migrare necesse est”. According to the International Organization for Migration we now have around 250 million migrants on a global scale, of whom about 10% are refugees. The present enormous refugee crisis is the biggest in Europe since World War Two and the human cost of it is appalling. Yesterday, we practically agreed that the civil war in Syria and Daesh/ISIS activity are the main sources of this massive influx of refugees into Europe.

Peter Sutherland, the United Nations Special Representative for migration issues, is right: Europe alone is not responsible for the well-being of every person fleeing persecution in Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan and elsewhere. These desperate souls are the collective responsibility of the entire world community, as the 1951 Geneva Convention in its 26 articles makes abundantly clear. At the same time, we should not be oblivious to the great political errors committed by the Western powers, not only in Libya and Syria during the so-called Arab Spring that contributed to the gradual disintegration of the existing order in the Middle East.

We are facing three main challenges: first, to agree on a fair allocation of refugees within Europe in order to provide them with shelter, food and support; secondly, to start the process of integrating refugees into European society and economies, hence the importance of providing humanitarian visas; and last but not least – perhaps this is the greatest challenge – to overcome the fear of migrants, because populists are having a field day. Additionally, adequate support must be given, and not only from the World Food Programme, to frontline States like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.

Regrettably, Europe’s reputation has been battered, despite bold leadership from Germany, the Scandinavian countries and, to a certain extent, the European Commission. For instance, in the small country of Iceland, which has only 330,000 inhabitants, 11,000 families have offered to host refugees. On the other hand, bitter divisions among European Union member States have jeopardized the Schengen area.

At the end of the day, I very much regret that the idea of our Migration and Refugees Committee, presented a dozen years ago and supported by the Greek government, to establish the European Migration Observatory in Napflion was not accepted.

Mr KHADER (Palestine, Partner for Democracy) – The suggestions made in the draft resolutions and recommendation are important, but they deal with the immediate symptoms of the crisis, while it seems that more focus should be centred on addressing its roots.

A thorough review of European polices in the Middle East and Africa, the main source of the present waves of migrants, seems to have become necessary. In a sense, Europe, and especially Western European powers, are reaping what they have sown in the region. For example, in three of the key countries of the region – Iraq, Libya and Syria – the option of military intervention, either directly or through support to local militaries, resulted in fragmentation and perpetual civil war amongst endlessly fighting militias and entities. The policy of exporting democracy by military intervention is not more successful, nor more ethically justified, than the Iranian policy of exporting revolution.

Let me warn against another mistake that may also have catastrophic consequences. Never forget that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a main source of instability in the region. Never underestimate the central importance of the Palestinian cause and the priority of finding a just solution for it. Europe should put every possible effort into not only encouraging negotiations between the parties, but to guaranteeing an end to Israeli occupation and to finding a just solution to the refugee problem.

You are facing waves of refugees seeking asylum in Europe. But there are millions of other refugees who seek only to return to their homes from which they were forcefully evicted. Help them to regain their right to do so and end their plight.

Ms LOUHELAINEN (Finland) – You are absolutely right in saying that the Dublin system is not working. Migrants arriving in the European Union are not registered in their countries of arrival. They are allowed to continue their journeys onwards.

We need to seek common European solutions to the unprecedented influx of migrants. Even a well-functioning Dublin system would not be enough to efficiently respond to this common Europe-wide crisis. We urgently need tougher measures at our shared borders. We must strengthen border control at our external borders and allocate collective resources to the frontline member States in order to establish efficient immigration processing centres – the so-called hotspots.

Effective immigration integration requires a job, housing and of course language skills. Due to the difficult economic situation in Finland, we do not have enough jobs or housing even for those in need today. The importance of socially integrating people with refugee status cannot be over-emphasised. There is a risk that refugee women who are taking care of children at home will not necessarily get involved in the sphere of social integration practices.

Accordingly, the Finnish Labour Minister has proposed an idea: to determine the skills and education of asylum seekers at the time of interviews and registration. Would this help to speed up and facilitate integration procedures?

Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – The situation in Macedonia is even more specific, since the pressure we face from illegal migrants on our southern border is on what is practically an external border of the European Union. It means that Macedonia is faced with a crisis situation that spills over from a member State of the Union, which is also a member of the Schengen agreement. More precisely, our neighbouring country, Greece, in an organised manner, daily transports thousands of migrants to our border. In 2015 alone, over 300,000 migrants transited through the territory of the Republic of Macedonia. Their number is constantly increasing, and predictions are that this trend will continue in the future. To illustrate this point, I will just mention that on 11 September, in only one day, 10,400 migrants entered our country.

To address these issues, the Macedonian Parliament amended the law on asylum and temporary protection, allowing migrants that have entered the country to declare intention for seeking asylum. This intent to seek asylum gives them the opportunity to legally remain in or transit through Macedonia within a 72-hour time frame, and also provides them with the opportunity to use public transportation such as trains and buses.

These flows require increased co-operation between European Union countries; we need shared European responsibility and a shared number of incoming migrants in all European Union countries. Not only Germany, but all European Union countries should show solidarity, and Macedonia needs direct financial support for the state budget and the state institutions, as we are spending enormous resources. We need a preventive and peaceful policy and a strategy for the Middle East that will bring peace to this region.

We ask for a joint and responsible European approach to this issue. Do not leave us alone in this crisis. Macedonia is not and should not be a victim of the failures of the European Union, and particularly of Greece, to protect the outside borders of the European Union and to deal with migration issues. Do not forget that we are the only non-European Union country that receives migrants from a European Union country.

Ms OHLSSON (Sweden) – First of all, I would like to say thank you to the rapporteurs for their important reports. We are currently living through the worst humanitarian refugee crises the world has seen since the world wars. At least 60 million refugees have left their homes.

In 2015, the European Union member States might receive a million asylum applications. It might sound like many to some, but if all were to stay, it would represent a population increase of 0.2 %; 1 in 500, a too heavy responsibility? And about 50% of them are children. I visited Turkey some weeks ago, and there it was about 2 million refugees from Syria alone.

It must be clear that the European countries have a common responsibility to receive refugees, and that such responsibility needs to be shared in solidarity with the refugees, and between the European states, in accordance with their capabilities. The current exceptional circumstances require every European country to step up to the mark.

Human rights are individual and universal, including the right of every individual to seek and enjoy international protection, as well as the effective access to a fair and legally secure asylum process. An overarching object of the common European migration policy must be the upholding and safeguarding of the effective enjoyment of the right to asylum, in accordance with the principles established by international law.

Today, we have a situation in Europe whereby nearly all those who would be legally entitled to international protection are denied the legal and practical possibility to even apply. As a consequence, refugees, including those with undisputable asylum claims, are left with overcrowded truck compartments and unseaworthy vessels as their only options. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants, but legal migrants forced to cross our borders by irregular means. European border control mechanisms need to be adapted in order to effectively save lives and to make sure that the right to seek asylum in Europe is not practically impeded; to examine how Europe’s visa regimes can be handled in times of crisis; and to enable safe and legal entry of refugees with legitimate asylum claims. The Dublin regulation needs to be reformed with a view to safeguarding the access of each individual to humane conditions and to a legally secure asylum process, regardless of which European country is responsible.

Faced with a horrific humanitarian disaster, we are now witnessing a strong popular movement all over Europe in defense of the rights of refugees. We must act in order to regain the initiative on this, one of the biggest questions of our time.

Europe needs active foreign and development cooperation policies in order to better address the root causes of involuntary migration, such as armed conflicts and systematic human rights abuses.

We need to clarify that immigration, both within Europe and from outside Europe, is a source of human, cultural and financial wealth, to the benefit of European societies.

Mr ŠEPIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – Over the past two decades, we have all too often had an opportunity to hear or read about Bosnia and Herzegovina being a transit country for migration, human smuggling, narcotics and even weapons. It is of no relevance whether it was said or written by colleague politicians, academics or experts; they all insisted that the road through Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of the easiest to use for illegal transfers from Asia to Western Europe. Over the last two decades, Bosnia and Herzegovina, together with international donors, has invested a lot in its border control, training for customs services, modernisation and equipment.

But it took the most recent refugee crisis to recognise that this is not true, or at least not completely true. So far this year, around half a million refugees came to Europe through the Western Balkan route. Almost none of them used Bosnia-Herzegovina as a country of transit. This is nothing to be proud of, as our infrastructure is poor and it does not offer the quickest and easiest route for refugees. This does not mean, however, that Bosnia and Herzegovina will not become a part of the route, particularly in light of the worrying developments at the Hungarian border and the difficulties at the Serbian-Croatian border. I want to underline this: Bosnia and Herzegovina and other European countries that are left out of the current refugee crisis cannot behave as if this crisis had nothing to do with them. It does.

That is first of all the case because a lot of Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens left for the Western European countries, in particular Germany, to seek asylum. As a potential candidate country for European Union membership and a developing country that is a member of the Council of Europe, it is reasonable that the vast majority of our citizens cannot fulfil the criteria for asylum. This is why, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we need to work on accepting back our citizens who unsuccessfully seek asylum and help to create an environment for them to want to stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This should be done as quickly as possible.

As we look at the images of refugees in our neighbouring countries, from Greece to Croatia and Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a country still not affected, should consider providing some support to those affected countries – because Europe is about solidarity. We in Bosnia and Herzegovina saw it generously extended to us in the 1990s. Although we have very limited resources, we should show that, 20 years after the end of the war, we are ready to do the same. In this sense, I hope that on 8 October the European Union-Western Balkans-Turkey meeting on the refugee crisis will show our readiness to be part of the solution.

As Croatia and Serbia, but also Hungary and Serbia, showed, building walls inside Europe is not the way to address the challenges that Europe is faced with. The way forward is to build bridges between us, to know our capacities and limits to accommodate refugees and to be honest about that. It is in working with those countries that currently have most refugees – to help them ease their burden. I hope we will do that.

Mr WALLINHEIMO (Finland) – Immigration and migration have traditionally been the greatest forces shaping the history of mankind. These two things have raised and destroyed States and empires, and shaped the very way we think about our existence. In fact, immigration and migration have made us, our nations and continents, what they are today. 

Today, Europe is facing the biggest migration movement since the Second World War. Over the past months we have seen an unparalleled number of both refugees and other migrants arriving in Europe. This has definitely surprised us. According to the latest studies, the total number of refugees arriving in Europe this year will rise to almost 1.2 million persons. Europe, as a whole, is facing a huge challenge – a challenge to which we must find a common answer. The coming weeks and months will show whether our societies are strong enough, and tolerant enough, to tackle this task. 

It is clear that the situation cannot be solved only through national means by individual countries. The situation cannot be solved by making political excuses or spreading guilt. Neither can it be solved by building fences of any kind. This is our common challenge and it will only be resolved through joint, sustainable European efforts. Finland is involved in this work and is bearing its burden to help those in need. 

What, then, are the concrete actions that we can and should take at the European level? In my opinion, there are at least the following four: First, we need more decisive action against human trafficking. In addition to ongoing surveillance operations in the Mediterranean, we need closer co-operation with transit countries. Secondly, we must renew the credibility of the Dublin and Schengen agreements. The surveillance of the European Union’s external borders must be strengthened and the capability to register asylum seekers must be enhanced. Thirdly, we must ease the burden of those countries most affected by this crisis. The decision taken by the European Union Interior Ministers last week to reallocate 120 000 asylum-seekers is a vital step forward. Furthermore, it is crucial that the so-called hotspots are up and running as soon as possible.

And finally, Europe has to play an active role to solve the problems that are forcing people to flee their homes. If we want to prevent this humanitarian crisis, we cannot turn our backs on the situation in the Middle East or Afghanistan. From now on, we need to be a very active part of a solution.