[ad_1]
Although there are several options to address the increase in illegal migratory flows, they can be summarized as two opposing options. These options are based on the logic of national security and human rights and offer alternative approaches, either to close borders as much as possible and prevent migrants from entering Lithuanian territory, or to take maximum care of refugees, guarantee their human rights and implement all international obligations (this can be done in conjunction with border protection).
The logic of exclusion and human rights in the approach to migrants
The first option, the so-called “backtracking” policy, means giving priority to measures that force migrants, including asylum seekers, to be forcibly detained at the border, without protection or access to asylum procedures, without having to assess the situation. of each individual immigrant, which could potentially violate the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in international law (French term “non-refoulement”). The principle of non-refoulement says that a refugee cannot be returned to a country where his life or freedom is in danger and requires EU member states to refrain from expelling asylum seekers while the asylum process is in progress. course. The logic of the refusal option is based on putting national security before human rights principles. State security interests are guaranteed by denying admission to people with unclear intentions. But human rights issues and commitments are overlooked.
The second option, let’s call it human rights, means giving priority to guaranteeing the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every person, whether refugee or migrant, and complying with international obligations in this area. European Commission 2020 The new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, proposed in September 2006, summarizes this approach, which concludes that the protection of the EU’s external borders should be based primarily on human rights considerations and interests.
According to the UN special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, the policy of exclusion inevitably ends with a violation of the human rights of the latter under international law. At the same time, however, it is emphasized that rejection is a fairly common practice in the world and its use goes almost unpunished. The strength of the human rights approach is the arguments in favor of the protection of authority and moral values. It is with them that Lithuania has been guiding its foreign policy in the Eastern Neighborhood for some time. It is they who are emphasizing them by running for the UN Human Rights Council or by inviting the international community to contribute to Lithuania’s efforts to establish democracy in Belarus. However, a human rights approach prioritizes the individual over the state and therefore can have negative consequences for the security of a country. Until it becomes clear whether the immigrant is really fleeing the war or is simply a retrained agent of the Belarusian services, anything can happen.
The refusal policy is not a completely new phenomenon among EU countries or only in Hungary. Hungary (Slovakia, Bulgaria, Greece, Greece, Romania, Poland, Spain) has physical borders (fenced with barbed wire and intensively protected) only with third countries of the European Union. Most of these states at one time or another physically turned away immigrants trying to cross the border. An analysis of EU law shows that there is a lack of clarity at the operational level as to what is allowed and what is not allowed when protecting a state border. This means that the freedom to choose how to protect one’s borders remains in the hands of the Member States and the possibilities for imperative influence by the EU are not clearly defined. Furthermore, the Schengen Borders Code clearly states that “the main objective of border control is to prevent illegal border crossings, <...> and border surveillance will be carried out in a way that prevents and discourages people from circumventing controls at border crossings. ”All of this is a serious argument for supporters of refusal policies.
Although there are several options to deal with the increase in illegal migratory flows, they can be summarized as two opposing options.
On the other hand, it is the value and the policy of protecting human rights that has long been the calling card of Lithuania’s foreign policy. The current Government’s program clearly states that the survival of the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and international law at the center of Western world politics is a necessary condition for the security and prosperity of Lithuania, which must become one of the main constitutional principles of Lithuania’s foreign policy.
Lithuania relied on human rights values and arguments to open a humanitarian corridor for the persecuted people of Belarus. Considering that human rights are a universal public good, it would be strange to say that the human rights of Iraqis and Belarusians have a different value for Lithuania. In addition, the international obligations of Lithuania, of which the same Government speaks, also stipulate that the principles of human rights must be included in the processes of guaranteeing the protection of the borders of the countries. Until recently, Lithuania’s Deputy Foreign Minister loudly called for states to be held accountable for serious violations of Council of Europe obligations. Finally, the European Court of Human Rights has issued a series of judgments recognizing countries that follow a policy of exclusion in violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and ordering them to pay compensation to victims. These are serious arguments for a human rights-based approach to the migration crisis.
Migrants as hybrid warriors
The government’s actions so far indicate a move in the direction of rejection. Barbed wire and fences, reinforced border patrols, special protection areas for immigrants, expedited processing of asylum applications – such actions are promised by the Government. The rhetoric is even stricter: we must, in principle, discourage migrants from choosing Lithuania as a transit country. The leitmotif of such a policy is that the immigrant problem is a consequence of the hybrid war waged by Lithuania against Lithuania. And because it is a war, human rights issues are secondary.
It is difficult to deny that Lukashenko’s environment contributes to the escalation of the migration problem. Lukashenko’s own threats, the fact that the number of Baghdad-Minsk flights has increased, the traces of migrants crossing the border with the Belarusian border guards, the lies about the migrants as students of the University of Grodno about the rates of tuition due to increased tuition fees. increase. Is it possible to say that the refugees are deliberately participating in the attack of the Belarusian regime against Lithuania?
Probably not. It is hard to believe that ordinary people in the Middle East or Sub-Saharan Africa are aware of the geopolitical problems of Eastern Europe and want to participate in them. They are much more likely to be manipulated figures really looking for a better and safer life. Thus, while the case for an ongoing hybrid war persists, migrants themselves are not the cause or the driving force behind that war, but simply a means. The effectiveness of this measure must be reduced, but actions to address it will not eliminate the causes of hybrid warfare. The smuggling of migrants (carried out mainly by the Belarusian side) is a criminal activity under the International Protocol on the Smuggling of Migrants (which, incidentally, has also been ratified by Belarus). Although the mechanisms to enable this agreement are weak enough, initiatives to strengthen them may be an additional step that Lithuania could take in the international arena, thus increasing the visibility of the problem and helping to directly pressure the initiators of the hybrid war instead. from to instruments. .
An analysis of EU law shows that there is a lack of clarity at the operational level as to what is allowed and what is not when protecting a state border.
A quick fix to the causes of the problem is unlikely.
Both behaviors, in their ideal form, almost inevitably negate each other. Refusal policies increase national security, but there is a risk that human rights will be violated. A human rights approach provides the maximum protection for human rights, but opens the door to national security concerns.
This means that choosing the net version of one of the options is likely to cause internal tensions. We are already seeing a wave of outrage over Lithuania’s democracy support policy in the neighborhood. Similarly, there is a growing debate about whether Lithuania is worth following Hungary’s path and thus increasing opposition with the EU institutions and some large states. These are very disturbing trends that also need to be managed.
In turn, this means that a compromise solution that satisfies supporters of both options is likely to be sought. In this case, however, a compromise, while guaranteeing the principles of democratic functioning, is unlikely to make it possible to manage the crisis quickly and effectively and, even more, to eradicate its roots. For the simple reason that compromise means concessions to the original position on both sides, that is, a reduction in efficiency.
It is well known that Plan B (the second best option) is generally not only slightly less effective than Plan A, but it causes many additional unforeseen problems.
Laurynas Jonavičius is a professor at VU TSPMI
[ad_2]
