This week, Italy launched a controversial agreement with Albania to handle asylum procedures offshore, aiming to reduce the increasing flow of irregular migrants. The initiative, championed by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, has attracted significant attention, especially from countries like Germany, which recently implemented new border regulations following security concerns and the rise of far-right anti-immigration parties. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also expressed support for Meloni’s pragmatic approach during a recent visit to Rome.
In 2023, the European Union faced about 380,000 irregular border crossings and 1.1 million asylum applications, a 17% increase compared to the previous year. With this surge, discussions about outsourcing asylum processing to third countries have resurfaced, a concept reminiscent of Australia’s "Pacific solution" from the early 2000s, which involved sending asylum seekers to Nauru and Papua New Guinea for processing.
Under Meloni’s deal, Italy has established two asylum centers in Albania. The first, located in the port city of Shëngjin, will handle the initial screening and registration of migrants rescued by Italian vessels. The second, in Gjadër, will process asylum claims from migrants originating from "safe countries" like Egypt and Bangladesh within 28 days. Migrants whose applications are rejected will be detained pending repatriation. The first group of 16 migrants, including 10 from Bangladesh and six from Egypt, arrived earlier this week.
In preparation for the offshoring scheme, Italy expanded its list of safe countries for returning asylum seekers from 16 to 22, including countries with poor human rights records, such as Tunisia and Nigeria. Critics argue that outsourcing asylum procedures to Albania raises concerns about oversight and fairness, especially as Italy is responsible for processing claims, with Albanian authorities only providing security.
Supporters of the model argue it is a more humane alternative to the EU's current practice of funding countries like Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya to manage their borders. However, there are doubts about whether Italy can treat asylum seekers in Albania "as if" they were in Italy, as promised. For example, applicants’ cases will be reviewed remotely from Italy, and in-person legal consultations in Albania will only happen if remote options fail.
Concerns have also been raised by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which was not consulted before the Italy-Albania agreement. The UN has agreed to monitor the first three months of the scheme, but questions remain about how vulnerabilities among asylum seekers will be identified and if their rights will be adequately protected.
The Italy-Albania deal is estimated to cost up to €985 million over five years, diverting resources from domestic priorities such as healthcare and education. The two Albanian centers can accommodate around 1,000 migrants a month, with potential expansion to 3,000. Critics argue that this is a costly and insufficient solution, especially given that 157,000 migrants arrived in Italy in 2023 alone.
Furthermore, the feasibility of replicating this model across the EU is uncertain. Under EU law, asylum claims must be processed within EU territories, meaning offshoring can only occur in specific circumstances, such as when migrants are intercepted at sea. In countries like Germany, where irregular migration doesn’t occur at external borders, such offshoring policies would likely be impractical.
While Meloni’s offshoring strategy seeks to address populist concerns over border controls, experts suggest there are more humane alternatives. Effective asylum access, dignified reception, and integration within the EU could be better solutions. The EU’s successful handling of the Ukrainian refugee crisis, where over 4 million refugees were welcomed, shows that migration challenges are manageable when there is strong political will.
No comments:
Post a Comment