Erna and Jonas must be together – VG

Since the Moria refugee camp caught fire, Støre has been under enormous pressure. Both from Labor veterans on social media and many of the party’s mayors. And the pressure has led. Støre originally said that it is not the Labor Party’s job to pick asylum seekers from special camps. Now he gives in to those who say that 50 asylum seekers from Moria camp to Norway is not enough.

But Norway probably won’t pick up asylum seekers from the Moria camp. Many asylum seekers have already moved from the Moria camp, including to the mainland. For a time, there were 25,000 people gathered in Moria. Before the fire, the number had dropped to less than 13,000. The Greek authorities do not want the 50 asylum seekers that the Norwegian government has agreed to accept to come from the Moria camp.

Those who need it most

Therefore, asylum seekers already on the Greek mainland will most likely come to Norway. Preferably Syrian families with young children who meet the requirements for permanent residence here.

The television images of the Moria camp move us. Many Norwegians want to help affected people. It is very good that this is the case. But we must ask ourselves what is the best way to help. How the assistance we can provide reaches the majority of people, and not least: if we reach those who need it most.

The mainstay of Norwegian refugee policy is the UN quota system. Norway is among the countries in the world that receive the most refugees with quotas. In a particularly unjust world, with tens of millions of people on the run, the UN quota system is the closest we get to a kind of justice. The refugee quota has been selected after careful assessment of protection needs and living situation. The UN finds the most vulnerable, often in even worse camps, far from Europe.

Provides assistance to neighboring areas

Among the quota of refugees that Norway will receive this year, there are 800 Libyan refugees quota from a camp in Rwanda. This is important for many reasons. It shows, among other things, that it is possible for people in need of protection to stay in a European country, even without paying smugglers to cross the Mediterranean. It is important to the 800 people involved and important to the signals it sends to other refugees.

Because it is not a fact that it is those who come to Europe who have the greatest need for protection. Støre put it well to VG in April this year: “It is not the poorest in resources who embark on these trips. The way to stay in Europe cannot be to go into a crowded camp.

Norway is one of the countries in the world that provides the most aid to the areas where people who flee remain. Everyone understands that Norway and Europe will never be able to receive anything like this from all those who want to come here. So this is the best we can do.

Sharp since 2015

With changing governments, Norway has always contributed in this way. With equipment, schooling and health care in overcrowded refugee camps. A country like Lebanon, which has received close to one and a half million Syrian refugees, has received billions from Norway. The same is true of parts of Syria and other areas close to the war-torn country. But it’s not enough. Of course we can give even more.

Norway has also done a lot for Greece. Over NOK 600 million in EEA funds assist the Greek authorities in their asylum administration. Norway has contributed with several shelters in Greece, especially for minors, families with children, singles and vulnerable women. Following the Moria camp fire, Norway sent emergency kits such as blankets, tents and clothing, and a large health kit.

None of this solves the situation Greece finds itself in now. The chaos has been acute since the 2015 refugee crisis. Even then, the EU tried to come up with a distribution system so that asylum seekers crossing the sea could be distributed among various countries. Norway provided accommodation to more than 1,500 people as part of this scheme. It was a fair and important contribution.

New migratory pact

But very few of the other countries participated in the scheme, despite having promised to help. This is why the Norwegian government said this time that it would see that other countries had accepted what they had promised, before Norway took our part. That is understandable. There must be a balance within the EU if trust in leaders and support for asylum policy are to be maintained, both between countries and within each country.

Next week, the European Commission will present its proposal for a new migration pact. So far, work on a common policy in this area has not advanced. The Commission is now announcing stronger measures for all Member States to contribute. Much will likely be about achieving better routines for processing asylum claims from those who come, and better systems for returning those who do not have the right to stay.

If this is not successful, the entire asylum system in Europe will fall to its knees. And then, at least, we will not be able to provide protection to those who need it. It is also about taking care of the asylum institute itself, which is precisely to give shelter to people who have been persecuted in their countries of origin. The right to seek asylum is undermined if so many immigrants arrive in Europe that the entire system is overwhelmed. So it is now.

Conservatives and Labor – together

The question is whether the EU is capable of solving the most difficult thing: distributing the asylum seekers who have arrived in Europe equally among the different member states, and at the same time limiting the number of people taking the sea route through from the Mediterranean. To be successful, the union must receive tougher measures against the countries that today block possible solutions. This applies in particular to several of the former Eastern European countries.

Of course, Norway should join common European schemes as far as possible. Next, we need the Conservatives and the Labor Party to unite in this area, as they have traditionally done, for a predictable, strict and fair asylum policy.

Or the debate on these issues becomes even more polarized and the solutions short-term and fragile. It will provide neither predictability nor fairness. It doesn’t even help those who need it most. It can often be the opposite.