AA16CR15ADD1

AS (2016) CR 15
Addendum 1

2016 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Fifteenth sitting

Wednesday 20 April 2016 at 3.30 p.m.

Joint debate:

A stronger European response to the Syrian refugee crisis

Human rights of refugees and migrants – the situation in the Western Balkans

The situation of refugees and migrants under the EU-Turkey Agreement of 18 March 2016

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 ANTTILA (Finland) – First of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent report on a stronger European response to the Syrian crises and the human rights of refugees.

There are now more than 4.8 million Syrians registered as refugees in neighbouring countries. The refugee crisis is a consequence of the ongoing war in Syria which started in 2011.

The conflict has its origins in the popular demonstrations of March 2011 against the government of

Bashar al-Assad. The government’s violent response and the financial and military aid of external actors to opposition groups caused a rapid escalation into an armed conflict. In addition, various Islamic forces have been fighting against the Assad government, including IS and other regional actors such as the Al-Nusra Front and Hezbollah.

International powers such as the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Russia are also involved in varying ways. By the end of 2015, more than 500 000 people had been killed, and 1.2 million injured. Every person killed and injured is one too many.

Europe is facing a migration crisis and is receiving large numbers of refugees. What more should Europe do in order to provide a stronger response to the Syrian crisis and the human rights of refugees? 

In the reports, the rapporteurs have described very well the different principles for the European response to the Syrian refugees. People affected by the civil war in Syria are entitled to international protection; this protection is most often best provided as close to home as possible. The aim should be that after the war, the refugees will be able to safely return to their home countries. 

This kind of protection is not possible without extensive external support tailored to their particular circumstances. I think that the main responsibility for resolving these problems lies with international powers such as the United States and Russia, as well as with the European Union countries.

To conclude, I have a question:  Why are the international powers not more capable of promoting world peace and stability to avoid these kinds of wars? In today’s world we desperately need more peacemakers and peace-making processes than we currently have. I want us all to emphasise the importance of peace, because without peace there is no future and no life.

Mr ČERNOCH (Czech Republic) – Europe continues to collapse under the onslaught of a migration crisis. We are facing the uncontrolled arrival of illegal migrants, and people with connections to the Islamic State and other radical groups are coming to Europe every day.

Let us take a look at the current situation in Belgium, Germany, France and some other European Union countries: no-go zones, sexual attacks, terrorism, the collapse of the welfare system and other issues. Here we can see a clear result of multicultural Europe. And what awaits us in the near future? In Libya, there are around 1 million people waiting for transport to Europe; in African countries, thousands of people are en route; and another wave of people is heading our way from Afghanistan and Syria. Yet the borders remain still open.

What is the European Union doing today? The European Union is trying to destroy the sovereignty of member States and force them to accept migrants, regardless of the fact that there might be terrorists among them, instead of finally taking measures to make it clear that the doors are closed.

Current efforts leading to ever greater centralisation in Brussels are directly fatal; conversely, it is necessary to enforce national sovereignty and the independence of national parliaments!

I also consider the agreement between the European Union and Turkey to be a very dangerous step. Turkey requests €3 billion, visa-free travel, one-for-one quotas and accession to negotiations on joining the European Union. Can you even imagine the consequences of such actions? Turkey is based on a culture with a community of 80 million Muslims, a completely different culture from ours – including several militant units hidden in that community – and it has still not been clearly refuted that Turkey does trade with the Islamic State. Turkey sets conditions that are absolutely unacceptable for Europe. Just stop constantly retreating! Europe can co-operate and trade with Turkey, but Turkey is not, and cannot be, an equal part of the European Union. Ladies and gentleman, fearing to call a spade a spade and political correctness have brought us to the edge of the abyss.

I am not afraid to tell it as it is, even if it displeases others. I am not answerable to the European Union leaders; I am answerable to my own citizens, and I will not let their safety be threatened by illegal immigrants. I plead with you - Europe is based on values, but they are not free anymore and we have to fight for them. Let us just help the ones who really need it, and in the places where they come from. But most importantly, let us be jointly responsible for our citizens and our children’s future.

      Ms CHRISTODOULOPOULOU (Greece) – The agreement between the European Union and Turkey poses particular problems, over and above the reasons already stated by the two rapporteurs, because it is the product of a panicked reaction on the part of the European Union and had to be concluded in great haste and without proper preparation.

What was chosen was a legal form that produces no binding legal commitments. It is an agreement of the European Union State and government leaders with the Turkish government, outside the European Union institutional framework, and thus has no legal effects as such. It is the first time that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union have not ratified a legally informal arrangement which, despite that fact, regulates issues of human rights and liberties.

Indeed, this raises serious questions and doubts about its compatibility not only with the United Nations Convention on refugees but with the European Convention on Human Rights. This alone would be reason enough for our Assembly to condemn this agreement, or at the very least express serious reservations about the manner of its conclusion, its content and its implementation.

By signing this agreement, the unilateral closure of European borders was made official, in breach of European Union and international law, which prohibits both the blocking of access by refugees to sanctuary in Europe and, of course, massive expulsion and refoulement. Furthermore, the detention of refugees and vulnerable persons in unacceptable conditions was sanctioned.

The same can be said of the sanctioning of fast-track examination of asylum claims and, ultimately, the return of Syrians to Turkey, which has not signed the 1967 Protocol and retains a geographical limitation to its application of the United Nations convention on refugees.

The refugee crisis will not be resolved by such agreements or by the violation of international and European law. It needs open hearts and open horizons, as well as a humanitarian spirit coupled with a sense of realism in managing one of the most important problems of our age.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Not surprisingly, this part-session is dominated by the refugee crisis. We have before us, in this joint debate, three reports, all raising crucial issues and concerns on how Europe is coping with the refugee crisis. Are we living up to our own European standards? Are we able to answer these questions? Are we willing to do what we have to do, or are we still just raising questions to which we have no binding answers?

We cannot claim that we were taken by surprise. Over the last six or seven years, this Assembly has voted in favour of several reports, many of them by Ms Tineke Strik, warning about the situation and urging action, but the follow-up never seems to come. The majority of our countries have been more focused on border control than on a fair sharing of responsibility for refugees and asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East.

As I have mentioned in earlier debates, in 2010 the Norwegian Parliament unanimously authorised our government to renegotiate the Dublin Agreements, but at the time all such attempts were blocked by dominant European Union countries. As I have also mentioned, in 2011 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees visited our parliament. His message was crystal clear: Europe is not prepared. Europe is lacking a system of temporary residence permits for sudden increases in arrivals, and lacks the willingness to share the burden. Unfortunately, he was right. And still the system is merely ad hoc, in my country as well as in most other countries. A few countries still bear most of the burden.

At the European Union summit a year ago, the President of the European Parliament said: “Lack of a truly European asylum and migration policy is now turning the Mediterranean into a graveyard.” In March of this year, Mr Juncker called for legal asylum seeker routes into Europe in order to fight cynical human traffickers. The answer so far is the European Union-Turkey agreement, which gives us serious cause for concern. Our Secretary General is worried, Mr Muižnieks is worried, this Assembly is worried. Macedonia is worried, Turkey is worried about the European Union’s fulfilment, the International Organisation for Migration is worried, the European Union and the United Nations are worried.

And we all heard our Human Rights Commissioner on Monday: the refugee crisis is not due to pull factors; it is caused by push factors like war and terror. This is not a temporary crisis. Everybody fears new routes across the Mediterranean. We are in urgent need of a permanent system of fair burden-sharing.

Mr GHAMBOU (Morocco) – It is sometimes useful to go back in history to reassure those who are overwhelmed by the current refugee crisis that our dedication to human solidarity is capable of surmounting all types of modern challenges. Morocco was historically lucky to have received Muslim and Jewish refugees expelled from Spanish Andalusia as early as the beginning of the 16th century. It turned out that the Moors not only enriched our civilization but became fundamental components of our national identity. This example may reassure today's public opinion that refugees and migrants do not pose a threat to our stability, but provide our modern societies with unique opportunities for economic and cultural development.

           The question of refugees is not a European problem, but a global one that requires a global solution. Although most of the refugees seem to flood Europe, they are mainly looking to benefit from the rights to which they are entitled under the 1951 Geneva Convention. Therefore, we need to call upon the African and Asian countries to ratify the Geneva Convention and to protect the refugees by giving them access to education, healthcare and employment.

      I am happy to add here that my country is not only party to the Geneva Convention, but that Morocco is currently drafting bills recognising the status of refugees and protecting their rights – bills that will be adopted by our government over the next couple of months.

Ms GODSKESEN (Norway) – I would like to congratulate Ms Strik on her report on the European Union-Turkey Agreement, and also for her outstanding work on refugee issues with the Migration Committee.

The Parliamentary Assembly has underlined on many occasions the essential role played by Turkey in the accommodation and support of refugees. This is, however, a common issue for all European countries, and yes, indeed, “Europe must provide financial support to Syrian refugees in Turkey”, as stated in the report, and show solidarity with Turkey, which is currently hosting 2.7 million refugees.

The Monitoring Committee has always paid particular attention to the fate of the refugees in Turkey. In the framework of the post-monitoring dialogue engaged in since 2004, the Assembly requested Turkey to withdraw its geographical limitation to the 1951 Refugee Convention. This would allow non-Europeans to “request refugee status” in Turkey under the 1951 Refugee Convention. This is one of the 12 points of the post-monitoring dialogue with Turkey.

Turkey has recently upgraded its legal framework with the adoption of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection. However, we believe that the Geneva Convention would provide better, safer legal protection. As co-rapporteur for the post-monitoring dialogue, together with my colleague Ms Vučković we will continue our discussions with the Turkish authorities on this issue. To conclude, I would like to express my support for Ms Strik’s report.

Mr HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia) – Migrational movements across Europe have shown how unprepared the whole of Europe was – and, in my opinion, still is – to cope with this phenomenon.  The Western Balkans is no exception to this rule and is, in fact, an example of how several different approaches have been taken by neighbouring countries affected by migrant movements in an attempt to cope with this phenomenon.

Before the western Balkans route was effectively closed, we witnessed some very unfortunate sights: barbed wire fences erected on borders and the army at border crossings were not scenery I expected to see in Europe in the 21st century. I therefore wish to draw your attention to how Croatia handled the crisis. On 8 March, 658 068 migrants had already entered Croatia; a large majority of them continued on their way north and westwards. There were, and still are, no fences and no troops at the border, disturbance to the local populace was negligible, and migrants were treated in a dignified and compassionate way.

Therefore, it is possible to treat migrants differently and I call upon all countries to take special care not to deny the migrants their human dignity and human rights. This declaration is a small step towards that goal.

Mr OHLSSON (Sweden) – Only an end to the conflict in Syria can ultimately restore safety and dignity to the Syrian people. While waiting for peace and the reconstruction of Syria, we must provide support and protection to those fleeing the conflict in a comprehensive way.

The number of people in need of protection over the past decade is a global responsibility that requires a more co-ordinated and cohesive approach. Sharing responsibility is indeed at the heart of the matter. We have to show solidarity with the millions of people who have been forced to flee their homes and their countries; the need for solidarity and the sharing of responsibility with Syrian refugees is today greater than ever before.

We also know that refugee women and girls are particularly vulnerable when they find themselves in situations where their security cannot be ensured and where they may be subject to sexual violence or exploitation. A gender-sensitive approach in the asylum and migration policy is therefore urgently needed.

No one country alone can solve or take responsibility for the Syrian refugee crisis. While dealing with the immediate needs of the desperate people that we see in the images from Greece, Turkey, inside Syria and elsewhere, we must be able to go beyond short-term crisis management and look more broadly at how to improve human mobility and offer more legal pathways for migration in order to meet today's realities and needs.

In addition to the financial support we give to people in need in Syria and its neighboring countries, Sweden has continued to provide a safe haven for people fleeing the war and persecution in Syria, as well as other parts of the world. Last year, over 163 000 people – 51 000 from Syria – applied for asylum in our country; this represented the highest number per capita in the whole of Europe. Since 2011, 108 000 Syrians have applied for asylum in Sweden, of whom 57 000 have so far been granted it, resulting in 20 000 family reunifications. Many are still awaiting a decision.

Today, when I talked to my mother, she told me that she had met a dentist from Syria who was a trainee working with her dentist. He had been in Sweden for a year and he already spoke Swedish. It is necessary for everyone to be included in society.

Mr PACKALÉN (Finland) – The bottom line of the European migrant crisis is that Europe will not be able to cope with the number of migrants who want to come to Europe. As long as Europe is economically more developed than Africa and the Middle East, the flow of migrants who want to come to Europe will not stop.

Europe is now faced with a situation in which there are no good solutions for either Europe or for the migrants. Since the reception capacity of European countries has already reached boiling point in terms of state budgets, infrastructure and so on, I appeal to my colleagues: other solutions that focus on the root causes of this mass exodus to Europe need to be found. The European Union should focus on bringing peace to Syria and direct and create policies to help the migrants fleeing war and persecution in the safe zones of their countries of origin and in the surrounding areas of their home countries.

Even if the European Union countries are able to distinguish between those migrants who are in real danger and those who are economic refugees, there is an inevitable consequence of European countries reaching the absolute limit of their reception capacity of migrants. This will happen in the near future. If Europe merely waits for this limit to be reached, Europe will not be a good place to live anymore and we will find ourselves not just trying to repair past errors in a futile social order. This crisis must be solved right now. Europe needs to protect its own values and our societies. If we continue to accept millions of migrants a year, Europe will soon be bankrupt and will not even be able to take care of its own citizens. This situation is unbearable, and everything must be done in order to dramatically reduce the unprecedented levels of migrants coming to Europe.

Mr PARVIAINEN (Finland) – The aims of a strategic partnership between Turkey and the European Union are understandable: to stabilise the situation and to reduce refugee smuggling. Depending on how this is implemented, it may improve the stability of the entire region.

As long as violence in the Middle East continues, we need to acknowledge that people will need shelter from impossible conditions. Their basic needs and human rights must be respected, whatever deals we strike at our summits.

The European Union-Turkey Agreement has been strongly criticised and condemned by human rights organisations. Turkey has already received several million displaced people – more than any European Union country. In any country that suddenly had to deal with the needs of so many refugees, there would be valid human rights concerns. Turkey needs help in this situation. The legality of the arrangements from the standpoint of international law has been called into question. These concerns should be considered in the European Court of Justice.

Despite its name, the agreement is practically a statement. It is not a legally binding document, in spite of its endorsement by the summit. This emphasises the requirement for international organisations to monitor the agreement closely, especially its safeguards for human rights. It is vital to respect each individual’s right to seek asylum; for example, the collective expulsions of refugees threaten the fulfilment of human rights obligations. I understand that countries wish to accelerate the asylum procedures, but processes should not be streamlined if it means treating asylum seekers in an uncivilised manner. There are also issues with the hotspots: they should not become detention centres. Finally, forced return should not be prioritised over access to protection.

Blanket forced returns offer only temporary relief to the European Union; they do not deal with the root problems of this crisis. The European Union needs a system based on a fair and binding allocation of asylum seekers across the European Union, based on objective criteria.

On the whole, the agreement cannot offer a permanent solution. People are already seeking other routes to Europe. The only effective way to deal with the root issue is to offer refugees a reasonable, safe and legal possibility to seek asylum. This would require humanitarian assistance, large-scale resettlement programmes, the issuing of humanitarian visas and the creation of other avenues, including family reunification. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe has reminded us that even though the situation is challenging, we cannot abandon our core values of humanity. This is the message we should remember.

Ms Groth wisely calls for a stronger European response to the Syrian refugee crisis. The strain on the countries that have borne the greatest burden – Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey – has been enormous. The humanitarian situation for the millions of refugees in this region is critical, and the neighbouring countries cannot singlehandedly provide the necessary protection for the refugees; they need extensive external support.

I am therefore proud to say that the recent international donor conference in London, which was originally proposed by Norway, gave a huge boost to the humanitarian effort for Syria. The international community has never before pledged so much funding in a single day. Norway announced, at the same conference, that it would provide about NOK 10 billion – more than €1 billion – in humanitarian aid to Syria and its neighbouring countries over the next four years.

The migration challenge is here to stay. As long as we are faced with war and conflicts, migration will be a substantial part of our long-term policy planning, both nationally and internationally. It is vital that we succeed in finding common and binding European solutions. Countries of origin, transit and destination must co-operate to achieve robust and long-term solutions. We need to share the burden more equally. Together we have the resources, the knowledge and the tools. The only sustainable way forward is to work together.

Ms ŠEPIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – Up to now, countries on the Balkans route were just transit countries for refugees on their way to their final destination: Germany, Sweden or Austria. Previously, the migration flow was orientated only towards Europe, but now the countries on the Balkan routes fear that they may become the final destination for refugees.

      Recently, there has been a lot of discussion about measures to prevent chaos on the Balkan route; rarely have the Balkans countries been so united, and rarely have their political elite and their peoples been so in agreement as on refugees. In Greece, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia there is a consensus when it comes to the refugee crisis, considering that the Western Balkans countries were, up to now, just a transit territory.

      Now fear reigns: in the meantime, the situation has changed. Since early February, when Austria announced that it would deal with only 80 asylum applications daily and receive only 37 500 refugees per year, the alert was sounded in the transit countries. None of these countries wants to be the last stop for refugees. Even in the countries through which there were no refugee flows, tension is now growing because of the possible emergence of alternative routes. Now fear reigns in the countries on the Balkan route. Sooner or later the Western Balkans countries will have to be viewed as the destination and not only places of transit for refugees, especially Slovenia and Croatia, as members of the European Union. Croatia and Slovenia were expected to welcome refugees with more readiness, since they are part of the European club.

The situation on the ground has shown that the countries of our region are not ready to deal with migration flows, nor with asylum seekers. A clearer answer from the European Union and the international community on these issues, as well as on the issue of the Western Balkans countries’ integration into the European Union, is needed.

Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – The challenges of the European refugee crisis are not unfamiliar to us Ukrainians. Ukraine is a State situated on the European border that, mainly through its own efforts and those of volunteers, is taking care of the refugees coming from Donbas, a territory under Russian occupation. This represents nearly 1.7 million people. Ukraine is a State that is currently in the grip of a major military conflict and it has rather low indicators of economic growth, but in spite of that it is looking for the local resources to manage the challenge, and it does manage it. 

Of course, the refugee crisis in Ukraine is different, owing to the fact that the refugees are native Ukrainians, our people, and thus it is much easier for them to integrate into our society. In the case of the European migration crisis, the situation is more complex owing to multicultural and religious differences, which reduce the possibility of an organic and natural integration into society.

We have been intensely discussing possible measures to resolve the refugee crisis. Among those are: a reduction in the number of asylum seekers entering Europe; a fair sharing of responsibility to accept and take care of the asylum seekers; and combating illegal migration. We have seen that the problem lies in the implementation of these measures.

This aspect is axiomatic. While blindly setting the implementation of these measures as a goal, we run the risk of losing a very important balance: our security versus compassion towards the foreigner looking for shelter. Where are the limits for the European community’s safety? And, more importantly, who are we trying to protect ourselves from? Certainly, we must understand that it is not a refugee who poses a danger to us, but the aggressor who is after him. After looking at the heart of the problem, I have started doubting whether the term “migrant crisis” is the proper one after all. Migration itself is just the side-effect of a much bigger problem – life-threatening danger that people are running away from. They are the victims looking for protection. 

The world order is constantly changing, so the reconsideration of some principles and values is inevitable. This also applies to the revaluation of previously accepted approaches, such as the war doctrines, as well as criteria that serve to distinguish aggression from a real war. It is up to us to decide which role we will have in this global process: active participants or ordinary bystanders. It largely depends on us whether these hundreds of thousands of people will have any chance to return to their homes and everyday lives in their native land.

Mr WIECHEL (Sweden) – First of all, I would like to congratulate the Rapporteur, Madam Groth, and the Migration Committee on a balanced and thoroughly researched report, one that highlights the enormous efforts made by nearby countries in receiving refugees from war-torn Syria. Of course I am talking about countries such as Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. These neighbouring countries deserve and need our financial support for what they do to help Syrian refugees.

The draft resolution rightly points out that "protection (of refugees) is usually .... best provided in countries close to home". I would like to add that this 'neighbourly' assistance is also about 10 times more cost-effective than receiving migrants in distant countries and the resulting lengthy asylum seeking with possibly an eventuality of their adapting to different societies.

For example, my own country spends more annually on receiving and integrating migrants than the whole budget of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - a vital organisation that currently receives only 50% of the funding it says it needs, and which reaches most of the 60 million refugees worldwide. At the same time, donor countries have cut down on funding for it in order to finance immigration.

Major cuts are also made in development aid to poor countries for the same purpose. We are left with starved United Nations agencies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF and the World Food Programme, and increasingly unmanageable immigration problems in distant European Union countries.

Meanwhile, the Dublin Regulation is no longer operative. It needs to be restored. Asylum seekers should be able to seek asylum in the first secure country that they come to, and not be encouraged to engage in “asylum-shopping”, often in faraway countries where they are likely to face major difficulties in adapting, culturally and otherwise. Socially exposed areas arise in these distant countries, creating racism, conflicts and exclusion. In the longer term, economic collapse threatens, in which vulnerable social groups, including many immigrants, are particularly at risk. And at the same time, the ones that profit from this would be brutal human-trafficking maffias.

What I have just said does not exclude the well-managed welcoming of refugees in real need of resettlement, such as those fleeing political persecution. This would be in the true spirit of the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention. Time is scarce. Let us reorient our policies to where they help the most: where help is most needed.

Mr WOOD (United Kingdom) - Nobody who has seen images of bodies – men, women and children – washed up on the coasts of Europe could fail to be moved, to be sickened, and to be desperate for a solution. All of us fortunate enough to enjoy the prosperity, comfort and relative security that we take for granted in Europe must ask what we can do to alleviate the incredible suffering of those fleeing the civil war. It is clear that something must be done.

But it does not follow that the most obvious response is the best response. While the motives of those who have called for all refugees to be welcomed in Europe should be applauded, we must recognise the tragic and fatal consequences of encouraging more people to make the perilous crossing to the European continent. Surely the most compassionate action we can take is to minimise the number of people making those crossings.

There are at least 12 million Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons. With a challenge of this scale, we must make sure that we target asylum at the most vulnerable. We need to do everything that we can to keep refugees as close to Syria as can be done safely and humanely, so that they may return home once it is safe to do so and lead the rebuilding of Syria.

While recognising the concerns highlighted by the rapporteurs, neighbouring countries - particularly Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan - deserve our gratitude for everything that they are doing. But more than that, they deserve and need our practical support in those countries, and in the United Kingdom processing centres in and around Syria. Practical support will help to build functioning asylum systems, and to develop the resilience and capacity to absorb the enormous numbers of people turning to them for safety. And the resources needed to allow communities and camps to care, to educate and to protect those refugees.

The rapporteurs are correct in saying that we cannot sell our duty to care, but we also have a responsibility to direct our action and resources to where it will make the biggest difference – not necessarily to where it will make us feel better about ourselves.