Preven­tion is better than the cure

Provi­ding sustainable alter­na­tives for asylum seekers is one of the EU’s main criteria in finding a solu­tion to the so-called migra­tion crisis. Poli­ti­ko­range author Nuno explores whether this is the best approach.

Almost eighty million people are curr­ently displaced from their homes, accor­ding to UNHCR’s latest Global Trends report. This isn’t just moti­vated by armed conflict. Hunger, perse­cu­tions, and nume­rous viola­tions of the human rights also lead to forced migra­tion, the main bene­fi­ci­a­ries of which are groups that explore factions of illegal traf­fi­cking. Provi­ding sustainable alter­na­tives to those who search for asylum is one of the EU’s main criteria in finding a solu­tion to the so-called migra­tion crisis. But is this the best approach? Accor­ding to the High Commis­sioner of the UN for Refu­gees, in 2018 alone, 13 million people were displaced, half of which were, to date, underage. Most refu­gees came from five count­ries: Syria, Afgha­ni­stan, South Sudan, Myanmar and Somalia. As stated in UNHCR’s 2018 Global Trends report, most of these migrants were granted asylum in Turkey, Paki­stan, Uganda, Sudan and Germany. Of these, Turkey is a candi­date for the EU and Germany is one of its foun­ding members. The topic of migra­tion became espe­ci­ally urgent to the Euro­pean public in April 2015, when more than 700 people drowned in just one week. This moti­vated the EU to adopt the measures outlined in the Euro­pean Agenda on Migra­tion: the regis­tra­tion and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of migrants, the preven­tion of lives lost at sea, the fight against human traf­fi­cking by means of mili­tary inter­ven­tion and the relo­ca­tion of refu­gees to EU member states. Regard­less of these efforts, people continued to attempt to flee to Europe. Accor­ding to UNHCR data, in 2018 almost 140,000 people tried to reach Europe by sea.

An obstacle

The national policy of each state has impeded a joint EU response from taking place – in 2017, Germany gave asylum to 186,644 refu­gees, while Hungary, Poland and the Czech Repu­blic were sanc­tioned by the Euro­pean Commis­sion for not giving asylum to anyone. Accor­ding to a study carried out by the Migra­tion Policy Insti­tute in 2018, even if the EU is in a better posi­tion to respond to mass migra­tion, the present situa­tion is fragile, due to the possible non-sustaina­bi­lity of the imple­mented mecha­nisms. This shows that the measures intro­duced to date are insuf­fi­cient.

The lack of a consensus between EU-count­ries is obvious. Accor­ding to Johannes Hahn, Euro­pean Commis­sioner for Budget and Admi­nis­tra­tion, indi­vi­dual decis­ions cannot be taken, requi­ring a coor­di­nated, coll­ec­tive and coherent response:

Each coun­try’s attempts to close borders will only trans­form other count­ries into ​‚parking lots‘ for detained migrants.

Hungary’s cons­truc­tion of a barrier in 2015 pushed migrants towards Croatia and Slovenia. The current approach focuses on the appli­ca­tion of human rights and provi­ding minimum subsis­tence to migrants. However, the preven­tion of the circum­s­tances that force people to flee in the first place would, ulti­m­ately, be the correct, long-term approach.

The proposal

„Preven­tion is better than the cure“ – as stated in this famous phrase deli­vered by Desi­de­rius Erasmus Rotero­damus, the solu­tion for this problem must be to prevent the events that moti­vate forced migra­tion. This would consti­tute a complex long-term stra­tegy. Conflicts, hunger, perse­cu­tion, and viola­tions of human rights are the main boos­ters of migra­tion. The most basic solu­tions are also the hardest to imple­ment: diplo­macy and educa­tion.

Educa­tion is reco­gnized as a human right, and the main source of the main­ten­ance, trans­for­ma­tion, and evolu­tion of society. Provi­ding educa­tion is normally the state’s respon­si­bi­lity. In the absence of state support, certain external enti­ties should invest in the finan­cing of NGOs and in soli­da­rity acts, which would result in a gradual decrease of illi­teracy and an increase in instruc­tion. Accor­ding to Paul Collier and Nicholas Sambanis, authors of ​„Under­stan­ding Civil War: Europe, Central Asia, and other regions“, a secon­dary enroll­ment rate 10% higher than average reduces the risk of war by 3%. In 2019 there were still around 750 million illi­te­rates and 260 million people without access to school educa­tion. Enti­ties with power should provide educa­tion in order to soften the nega­tive indexes and boost the posi­tive ones, until misin­for­ma­tion is no longer the root of problems that moti­vate migra­tion.

Diplo­macy is a natural conse­quence of educa­tion, and one of the primor­dial dimen­sions of foreign poli­tics. It is also a core feature in the fight against forced migra­tion. Diplo­macy deter­mines the processes through which states estab­lish in-depth cont­acts, encom­pas­sing matters related to conflicts, commerce, cultural promo­tion, and coor­di­na­tion between orga­niza­tions. More and better inter­state rela­tions, would not only elimi­nate the most noto­rious cause of emigra­tion – conflicts – but it would also faci­li­tate the allo­ca­tion of resources to those in need. Case in point, when, in 1999, several count­ries joined the United Nations Mission in East Timor, which culmi­nated in the end of the clashes between Timor and Indo­nesia and the inde­pen­dence of the former.

Compared to educa­tion, diplo­macy is not easy to apply. The majo­rity of diplo­matic rela­ti­onships are fragile. Diffe­rences in agenda and count­ries’ refusal to grant asylum or compro­mise stop the culti­va­tion of healthy rela­tions between them. Diplo­macy, and the lack thereof, are natu­rally asso­ciated to peace and war, respec­tively. In 2018, the United States’ with­drawal from the Joint Compre­hen­sive Plan of Action with Iran trig­gered several mili­tary actions on both sides of the conflict.

As part of this preven­ta­tive approach, there are other, more imme­diate measures to be taken. Trade in unre­gu­lated weapons favors conflicts and perse­cu­tion, and is a cata­lyst for human rights viola­tions, as can be seen curr­ently in Syria, Afgha­ni­stan, or Yemen. A poor distri­bu­tion of resources delays progress in comba­ting each of the afore­men­tioned evils. Data from Amnesty Inter­na­tional proves that arms trade supplies conflicts and repres­sions, victi­mi­zing civi­lians around the world. In order to extin­guish this commerce, states have to ratify the Treaty about the Commerce of Conven­tional Weapons, crea­ting or reforming certain laws that reflect the regu­la­tions from the agree­ment.

In resource distri­bu­tion, bad prac­tice leads to an abrupt increase in inequa­lity. Accor­ding to Oxfam, in 2018 the 26 most wealthy indi­vi­duals in the world poss­essed as many resources as 3.8 thou­sands of millions of the poorest indi­vi­duals, essen­ti­ally from count­ries in sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and the Middle East – regions from which the largest number of forced migrants come. This dispa­rity caused a dete­rio­ra­tion in the demo­cratic insti­tu­tions, inten­si­fying, conse­quently, popular disbe­lief in the possi­bi­lity of equa­lity. This has created a vicious cycle, in which citi­zens neither support, believe, nor reco­gnize the legi­ti­macy of the state. States must guarantee the subsis­tence of the poorest, prio­ri­tizing poli­cies of family support for those most in need and refor­mu­la­ting certain laws and programs to support this frac­tion of the popu­la­tion. This set of proce­dures would provoke, gradu­ally, a decrease in inequa­lity.

The appli­ca­tion of all these solu­tions in the current context would reduce forced migra­tion in the future, and alle­viate the impact of current migra­tion. Given the gradual character of the preven­ta­tive proposal, as well as the current state of emer­gency, the wisest reso­lu­tion should be correc­ting the current problems, while simul­ta­neously preven­ting future setbacks. The neces­sity to create condi­tions that ensure the preven­tion of future migra­tion overs­ha­dows the need to alle­viate the impact of current migra­tion. Appeals go to those who have the capa­city, the good faith, and the bene­vo­lence to act – because it’s more important to guarantee that no one leaves their home, than to find a house for someone.