In mid-August, I took my son to Calais to catch the cross-channel ferry to England. Having seen British media reports suggesting that Calais port was under virtual siege from migrants from beyond Europe’s borders, desperate to get into the UK, we were somewhat surprised by the picture of calm and orderliness we found. Solid fences topped with barbed wire, patrolled by French gendarmes, appeared to have kept the hordes at bay. Yet again, it seemed, that the British media had been exaggerating and, worse, playing to Britain’s subliminal image of itself as a beleaguered island nation.
The reality is that whilst there are some 3,000 migrants camped in Calais, since January Greece has seen a similar number land on its shores every week. Italy has received in the order of 2,000 a week over the same period. Other European Union (EU) countries have also seen significant numbers. Looked at from their perspective, British fears over Calais are risible. In fact, looked at from a European perspective, the migrants in Calais are a very minor part of a much larger phenomenon. Some 350,000 migrants have come to the EU since the start of this year and the number continues to grow on a daily basis.
They come mainly from North Africa, the Middle East, many from Syria, and Afghanistan. They have been driven out by war, civil strife and grinding poverty. Many are probably genuine refugees seeking asylum. Others are simply in search of a decent standard of living. Amongst them are single men and women, couples and families, often with small children. There are even some children alone. They have often paid large sums to smugglers and undergone perilous journeys to reach Europe’s borders. Numbers have died trying.
Most recently, heart-rending pictures of a drowned Syrian toddler have been published in European newspapers: grim evidence of the migrants’ desperation and determination, and the human tragedy it can lead to. But the pictures have also brutally illustrated the difficult challenge for Europe. The challenge is both practical and moral. So far Europe has struggled to find a coherent response.
The practical challenge is to the existence of a continental Europe free of internal border checks and controls, known as the Schengen agreement. It is also a challenge to the agreement — the Dublin regulation — that asylum seekers should apply for asylum in the member state where they first entered the EU; and returned to that member state if they travel elsewhere.
There was an easy acceptance of these arrangements when those travelling between European countries were European citizens and others who had lawfully entered Europe and when the number of asylum seekers was relatively small. But the arrival of large numbers of distressed migrants has put the easy acceptance of these arrangements under strain. Those member states — in southern and central Europe — whose borders comprise the EU’s external borders, to which most migrants make their way, must bear a disproportionate burden. It is they who should first house and process the migrants. The burden is made heavier by the fact that, coincidentally, those member states also happen to be the poorer ones. Yet, the richer northern countries are also complaining. They are the ultimate destination for many of the migrants, who can travel largely unimpeded through the Schengen area.
Beyond a decision to take coordinated action against the people smugglers and traffickers, which has yet to make much impact, the response has been varied and disjointed. At one end of the spectrum is Hungary. It has erected a razor-wire fence along its border with Serbia to deter migrants. In response to widespread condemnation for its lack of humanitarian feeling, Viktor Orban — Hungary’s pugnacious and populist Prime Minister — pronounced that the migrants, who are mostly Muslim, posed a threat to Europe’s Christian identity. More recently the Hungarian authorities prevented many thousands of mig-rants from boarding trains to Germany. The likely rationale was to demonstrate that Hungary should not be seen as an entry point for convenient travel to other countries in the EU.
Whether the demonstration has been effective remains to be seen, but the immediate consequences quickly became evident. The migrants camped in Budapest’s main railway station. The authorities then allowed them to board trains. Believing the trains to be bound for Germany, migrants frantically cram-med in. Television footage showed babies and young children being handed up over the heads of the crowds into the carriages.
The trains were then diverted to immigration reception centres. Fighting then broke out between migrants and the riot police. The official response was that Hungary was only doing what is required under European law. Now, thousands of migrants are walking across Hungary to the Austrian border. These are scenes not witnessed since the end of the Second World War, when masses of displaced persons roamed the continent.
The Austrian response has been more nuanced. A few days ago officials have started to check those crossing its borders. They discovered the bodies of 71 suffocated migrants, who had been locked in the back of a smuggler’s lorry: a gruesome reminder of the extent of the challenge. A criminal prosecution has been begun against the smugglers, but such action can only be spitting in the wind.
The Mediterranean countries have increased sea patrols and others have heightened vigilance on their borders. As for the moral challenge, this is to member states’ image of themselves as civilised nations. Germany, which has taken a disproportionately large number of migrants, has been calling for the migrants to be shared between member states on an equitable basis. France has echoed the call. The reception from those countries which have so far not taken large numbers of migrants has ranged from the evasive to the hostile.
Prime Minister David Cameron has pointed out that the UK is the largest European aid donor to Syria. Slovakia’s Premier, Robert Fico, has claimed 95 per cent of the migrants are economic migrants. In short, those member states which have not hosted large numbers of migrants do not wish to be seen has hard-hearted but none is really prepared to bear a fair share of the burden borne by those member states which have. Conversely, those member states which have hosted a large number of migrants do not see why they should pay the cost of salving Europe’s conscience alone.
Where Europe goes from here is unclear. But what is clear is that if Europe fails to agree on a coherent and humane response soon, it will have failed to live up to its own principles and ideals.
The writer is a lawyer and a keen observer of European affairs, and works in the UK and France
