Protest at Palermo port, paper boats on black cloth representing the Mediterranean. Demotix/Lucio Ganci. All rights reserved.As the EU
prepares to address the dire shortcomings in the existing governance of
migration at the Extraordinary Justice and Home Affairs Council called for
September 14, and in the run-up to the High Level Side Event on Migration
planned at the United Nations General Secretariat on September 30, it becomes
patently clear that governments are rather belatedly gathering around the table
to formulate responses to the mounting crisis of migration to Europe.

Migration
across the Mediterranean has long been a deadly matter, leading some
commentators to refer to the Mare Nostrum
as Cementerium nostrum. The
difference of late lies in the sheer numbers and in the very mixed flows of
those fleeing war, poverty and oppression.

The
responses from European governments, too, are very mixed. At present, as Italy
and Greece are overwhelmed as receiving points of migration from across the
Mediterranean, sharp divisions of hospitality distinguish one wealthy European
country from another. Whilst some open borders, other clamp them down, forcing
migrants further into illegality. The issues at stake affect many more than
those already on European soil.

The
numbers of refugees who have entered Europe form only a small proportion of
those who are already displaced and making their tortuous ways via Libya,
Turkey, Eastern Europe and other routes in search of the elusive European
promise of safety, wellbeing and dignity. The recent march by refugees from
Hungary to Germany and Austria struck a chord, perhaps because it highlighted
the will of the people over the rule of the border. In actual fact, however, that
last trek to a new ‘home’ was just one more stage in the very long road those
people have undertaken.

There are
some important facts that must be taken into account in this context: a
condition for positive dialogue amongst global leaders is the understanding
that migration is a fact as old as the history of humanity itself. To date, the
focus amongst Europe’s leaders on nation, borders and sovereignty eclipses
humanitarian concerns, relegating these to citizens rather than people. Migration
is the norm, not the anomaly. It is the dynamic that fosters cultures,
societies and thought. In this age of globalization, governments regularly govern,
support and channel the circulation of goods, capital, commerce and services. Why,
then do governments opt for xenophobic blocks to the legal movement of people? To
emigrate is a human right. In the scheme of modernity, to which we have all
signed up, human migration is an offshoot of the mobility that is inherent in the
very ideas of progress and development. For governments to predicate the border
and the nation as somehow static and carved in stone is absurd. It is to deny
the fluidity of life itself.

Even
where there is the will to offer shelter, a strange and disturbing fork emerges
in our terminology (and hence ideology), demarcating refugees from migrants.
The simple fact is that the flows coming into Europe today are mixed. Certain
world leaders (and the media) may favour the term ‘refugees,’ if only because it
resonates in our collective post-Holocaust memory and because there is undoubtedly
a certain historical and political kudos to be found in the idea of Europe as a
place of shelter.

This
logic allows the thought of offering hospitality to ‘ migrants’ to be discarded
as undeserving by contrast — or, worse, even exploitative. In reality, there
are multiple causes that displace populations and trigger migration. Refugees,
asylum seekers and economic migrants move shoulder to shoulder along networks
and routes to Europe. Moreover, the triggers cannot be reason enough for
withholding legal entry. With its ageing population, much of Europe has a sore
need for the workforce that migrants provide. Indeed, in light of the market
economy of Europe, the latter gains more than these migrants do from their
efforts.

Europe
must acknowledge the death and the suffering that result from its border
paranoia. The EU has spent vast time, effort and funds in fortifying its
borders. From the denial of visas, to the role of Frontex and European
partnerships with the southern Mediterranean countries, to the ever sharper and
ever higher razor fences that it builds, the European obsession with the border
as the limit that safeguards the privileges of free circulation within, has
fostered multiple forms of illegalities and innumerable deaths.

The vast,
and growing, underworld of smugglers and traffickers (at times it is hard, if
not impossible, to disentangle the one from the other) thrive off existing
European border policies and practices. No one would choose illegal routes. No
one would pay a smuggler. No one would choose the obscurity of no legal
protection or rights. The impossibility of existing border policies forces
migrants to take to these routes.

If the
upcoming summits are to be at all fruitful, then our global and regional
leaders must understand that for as long as vast global inequalities that
relate at once to questions of wealth, wellbeing, freedoms, rights, peace,
security and democracy exist between Europe and other parts of the world, there
will be both the absolute need and the overwhelming desire to access Europe. Instabilities,
oppression and inequalities in the Mediterranean region and, indeed, much
further afield, trigger these ongoing waves of migration.

Against
this backdrop, global leaders urgently need to respond proactively in the
short, medium and longer terms in order to safeguard lives and diminish
suffering. As a first step, European leaders would do well to agree a common
asylum policy that establishes procedures whereby residency and benefits are on
offer equally across European states. Perhaps Europe could look back at that
other image of a suffering child that once mobilized response, that of the
little girl fleeing napalm in Vietnam, and work towards a resettlement plan
that is shared and that takes into account not solely those already in Europe,
but also the many more on their way.

It also
seems imperative to open legal channels for migrants, so that they do not
surrender their safety to the hands of smugglers. A common asylum policy with
applications processed along transit routes would enable legal, safe and
managed migration into Europe. Whilst this is being implemented, governments must
urgently contribute funds to the major agencies, such as UNHCR, that are providing
for the basic needs of migrants at present.

In the
medium term, European leaders need to engage with governments in Turkey and the
Gulf. Whilst Turkey currently hosts large numbers of Syrian and other refugees,
the granting of residence and employment rights via visas would enable these
people to both contribute positively to local economies, earn a living and be
assured of their safety and dignity. The Gulf countries too could engage in
settlement programs if the political will were present.

This
requires shifting from the navel-gazing approach that it has so long adopted.
For summits to be worthwhile and for governance to be credible, what is needed
is an approach that is proactive, not responsive, and that acts always through
a prioritization of human rights and dignity.   

In the
longer term, there is much that remains to be done. The ending of conflicts,
greater, more even, development, the establishment of democratic rights are all
necessary for wellbeing, security and dignity. It is through dialogue, not
wars, that Europe can work towards alleviating the humanitarian crisis that is
apparent on its shores. 

If you enjoyed this article then please consider liking Can Europe Make it? on Facebook and following us on Twitter @oD_Europe