Petr Ježek

The refugee and migration crisis has brought severe challenges for the EU whose response has been dangerously inept. Today, the situation is unpredictable for everyone - Europeans and refugees alike - and threatens to destroy the Schengen area and disrupt the entire EU. Yet right from the start, the EU has chosen to ignore a tool that could help refugees to obtain protection and the Union itself to get a grip on the crisis.

In the wake of the refugee crisis stirred by conflicts in the Balkans of the 1990s, the EU adopted in 2001 a Directive on providing temporary protection “in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons”. The legislation was intended to apply precisely at times when large numbers of refugees are fleeing armed conflicts and seeking a safe haven in Europe.

It provides temporary protection rather than permanent residency. It is flexible, and based on voluntary contributions by member states of reception capacities. It does not require complicated and lengthy processing. There is naturally no magic solution to the complex situation we are facing but many experts and academics argued that the existing mechanism should have been used from the outset.

The “temporary protection” scenario would be activated by a proposal from the European Commission that would have to be approved by a qualified majority vote of the Council, specifying those eligible for protection. Once launched, the directive would require all member states to provide temporary protection for the displaced persons to which it refers.

Would you think this could help hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees? Well, the European Commission did not even bring up the possibility of using the temporary protection directive with the member states and proposed instead a mandatory mechanism to relocate asylum seekers among member states upon their arrival in Europe (regardless of where they come from and where they want to go to). This option was pursued despite the failure of an earlier relocation pilot project, Eurema. Member states became locked in discussions on relocation quotas and failed to widen their approach when looking for solutions.

In several EU countries, the possibility of an endless flow of migrants and refugees has caused alarm. Yet a survey suggests that only 8 percent of Syrian refugees who have arrived in Germany would like to stay there indefinitely, while most of them would return home once the violence ends.

At the same time, for example in the Czech Republic, the number of people willing to accept refugees for a limited period of time is ten times higher than the number who would  agree with them permanently settling in the country, according to a January survey by the CVVM polling agency. And, ironically, EU countries tend to mostly provide so-called 'additional protection', which is time-limited. However, this takes place on the basis of national legislation, and requires lengthy and burdensome asylum procedures.

Immediate securing of the EU’s external borders, proper processing of asylum seekers, negotiations with the countries migrants come from and transit, and launching the temporary protection directive could help bring the refugee and migrant crisis largely under control and assist those who need most help. Instead, however, we are witnessing thousands of refugees risking their lives and experiencing all sorts of hardships on their way to and even within Europe, as well as a growing unease of many in the EU.

A possible deal between the EU and Turkey may include a resettlement scheme for Syrian refugees from outside the EU. Is it still possible, even now, to launch the temporary protection directive? The European Commission did not have faith in it and it was the only directive not submitted for review as part of the second phase of building a joint European asylum system.

It would seem the Commission is instead chasing something different and “bigger”: A centralized European asylum system. With the controversy this would provoke, it may push EU coherence to its limits at a time where we are facing the migration crisis and the looming Brexit referendum.

The EU as a whole is on the defensive. Proposals for the 28 member states have come from the Turkish prime minister, and EU leaders have been caught by surprise. The EU’s structures cope well with routine tasks. But they do not appear to be very efficient when it comes to divisive new challenges such as the migration crisis.

I can only repeat myself by saying that the EU should have long ago formed a task force for the crisis composed of security experts, lawyers, diplomats and others from EU institutions and member states that would work 24/7 on draft solutions, their approval, external negotiations and implementations. The future of Europe is at stake.

News archive