Connect with us

World

Migration back on top of EU agenda but same old divisions remain

Published

on

Migration back on top of EU agenda but same old divisions remain

After years immersed in a deadly pandemic, a historic restoration fund, a devastating warfare, an power disaster and dizzying inflation numbers, EU leaders are able to convey again migration to the very prime of the political agenda.

The difficulty, accountable for opening deep fissures between EU nations, by no means really pale away. However a 64% surge in irregular border crossings – round 330,000 – and a 46% rise in asylum functions – almost 924,000 – final 12 months have sparked a brand new sense of urgency amongst politicians to offer the explosive matter one other go.

Austria is asking for EU funds to finance a brand new fence alongside the Bulgaria-Turkey border. Italy is pushing for an EU-wide code of conduct for rescue ships within the Mediterranean. And Denmark, a rustic that pursues a “zero-asylum” coverage, is in search of help to arrange reception centres exterior the bloc.

Brussels seems to have learn the room: a unprecedented two-day summit has been convened this week to handle migration and the management of exterior borders head-on.

The European Fee is making an attempt to grab the second to advance its long-stalled “New Pact on Migration and Asylum,” an intricate, holistic proposal that’s meant to piece collectively all varied points of migration coverage and change the present ad-hoc disaster strategy.

Advertisement

“Migration is a European problem which should be met with a European response,” European Fee President Ursula von der Leyen wrote in a letter to leaders forward of the February summit.

Crucially, the “New Pact” relies on the precept that has for years pitted member states in opposition to one another: truthful sharing of duty and solidarity.

‘Between a rock and a tough place’

Beneath the so-called Dublin Regulation, adopted for the primary time in 2013, the applying submitted by an asylum seeker turns into the duty of the primary member state of arrival.

This method has been extensively criticised by governments and civil society organisations alike as a result of it locations a disproportionate burden on frontline nations, equivalent to these within the Mediterranean, that are confronted with the large process of processing asylum claims from migrants who, very often, don’t wish to keep in that nation and like to journey north.

Right here is the place the large query on the core of the perennial debate emerges: How can the EU, as a political union with shared exterior borders, relocate and redistribute these tons of of 1000’s of candidates in a matter that’s thought of truthful and balanced?

Advertisement

Thus far, the reply has been: it simply cannot.

“The present migration is caught between a rock and a tough place, primarily. Migration flows, migration pressures proceed, however member states are discovering it very troublesome to agree on a set of efficient and customary options to that,” Andrew Geddes, the director of the Migration Coverage Centre on the European College Institute (EUI), advised Euronews.

“Some member states simply refuse and won’t take part in schemes that contain the relocation of migrants throughout the EU.”

‘A debate disadvantaged of recent energies’

The proposed “New Pact” gives one other reply to the relocation dilemma: an “efficient solidarity” mechanism.

The mechanism would current EU nations with three choices to help a fellow member state whose migration system is underneath stress on account of a surge in new arrivals: settle for plenty of relocated asylum-seekers, pay for the return of rejected candidates to their nation of origin, or finance an array of “operational measures,” equivalent to reception centres and technique of transport.

Advertisement

The pledges can be calculated based mostly on the nation’s GDP and inhabitants. As soon as agreed, the European Fee would then undertake an act to make the pledges legally binding.

It does not take too lengthy to grasp the system presents two circumstances which might be anathema to member states on opposing sides of the controversy.

For these pushing for extra relocation, equivalent to Germany, France, Italy and Greece, the system lets reluctant nations off the hook by providing two choices – return sponsorship and operational measures – that don’t entail taking in any particular person inside their borders.

For these pushing in opposition to relocation, equivalent to Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Austria, the system introduces obligatory pledges that may pressure them to contribute whether or not they prefer it or not.

The clashing views have condemned the “New Pact” to a legislative limbo, with little to no progress since its presentation again in September 2020.

Advertisement

‘Nationwide pursuits and short-term political agendas’

“There isn’t any marvel drug or magic answer prepared at hand to the divisive challenge of responsibility-sharing,” Alberto-Horst Neidhardt, head of the migration programme on the European Coverage Centre (EPC), advised Euronews.

“For too lengthy, the migration debate has been disadvantaged of recent energies and very important oxygen, pressed right into a nook by nationwide pursuits and short-term political agendas.”

A voluntary relocation mechanism backed by 23 European nations has thus far resulted in 435 relocated asylum-seekers – out of 8,000 pledges anticipated to be fulfilled on an annual foundation.

The perpetual lack of consensus on the way to cope with migration internally “dangers translating into disproportionate consideration on return and readmission,” Neidhardt added.

“EU migration and asylum insurance policies are something however in a wholesome state.”

Advertisement

In reality, the discussions in Brussels have acquired a marked concentrate on the exterior dimension of migration, the relations between the EU and the quite a few nations of origin, reflecting a rising shift from managing to stopping arrivals.

All-time highs in asylum functions filed by nationals from nations historically thought of “protected,” like Turkey, Bangladesh, Morocco, Georgia, Egypt and Peru, have additional fuelled requires a extra forceful and persuasive worldwide engagement.

“Lots of the different nations which might be mentioned are removed from steady and they don’t seem to be ‘protected’ in any sense of the phrase,”  Catherine Woollard, director of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) stated in a essential assertion, noting the “alarmism” throughout the bloc is being manufactured for political ends.

“Coverage-making in panic mode feeds an strategy based mostly on unfounded fears moderately than on wants, pursuits, useful resource issues or authorized obligations.”

EU to make use of ‘leverage’ in opposition to nations of origin

Consideration has additionally centred on the EU’s return charge of ineligible asylum-seekers.

Advertisement

The low determine (round 21%) has outraged hard-line governments, which have raised the spectre of invoking Article 25a of the EU’s Visa Code to slap restrictive measures on uncooperative nations.

Von der Leyen’s letter acknowledges this actuality and speaks of anti-smuggling initiatives, joint operations groups and expertise partnerships to hurry up returns and curb departures.

“Leverages from totally different coverage areas, together with visas, commerce, funding (…) and authorized migration alternatives ship clear alerts to companions about the advantages of cooperation with the EU and needs to be used to the complete,” the Fee chief wrote.

However consultants warn the externalisation of asylum coverage, also called “off-shoring,” ignores the basic causes that drive migration flows, equivalent to financial hardship, discrimination and local weather change, and may result in human rights violations and illegal detentions exterior of the EU.

“Asylum in search of is a symptom moderately than the trigger,” stated Andrew Geddes. 

Advertisement

“Clamping down on boats and smugglers and issues like which will have some results, might result in extra folks dying, after all, but it surely’s not doing something to deal with a few of the a lot deeper underlying causes of this displacement.”

This text has been up to date to incorporate new figures.

World

Chrystia Freeland, Justin Trudeau’s ‘Minister of Everything,’ Enters Race to Replace Him

Published

on

Chrystia Freeland, Justin Trudeau’s ‘Minister of Everything,’ Enters Race to Replace Him

Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s former deputy prime minister, whose sudden resignation in December helped set the stage for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to step down, said on Friday that she was running to replace him.

She posted her announcement on X with a six-word sentence: “I’m running to fight for Canada.”

Ms. Freeland, 56, once a close ally of Mr. Trudeau who was often called his “minister of everything,” had served as deputy prime minister since 2019, and had long been viewed as a possible successor.

But the two had a bitter rift when Mr. Trudeau moved to demote her over a Zoom call in December, offering her a minister-without-portfolio role. Instead, she opted to resign and delivered a strong rebuke of Mr. Trudeau’s leadership as Canada prepares to deal with President-elect Donald J. Trump. Mr. Trump has threatened to apply a tariff on Canadian exports to the United States.

Her stinging departure destabilized Mr. Trudeau’s shaky grip on power. Three weeks later, on Jan. 6, he announced he would step down as Liberal Party leader and as prime minister once a new leader was in place.

Advertisement

Candidates for the leadership post will campaign ahead of a national vote among party members in March. The new Liberal Party leader will also become Prime Minister of Canada and lead the party in a general election expected to take place in the spring.

Ms. Freeland said she would officially launch her campaign in person on Sunday, which could take place in Toronto, the electoral district she represents in Parliament. She will face a stiff challenge persuading Canadians that she is the candidate best suited to take on the Conservative Party and its leader, Pierre Poilievre.

The Conservatives, who have a 25 percentage point lead over the Liberals in polls, have sought to portray Ms. Freeland as part of the problem given her once-close relationship with Mr. Trudeau and her key role in his governments since 2015, when he first became prime minister.

Mr. Trudeau’s popularity has nose dived in recent years as Canadians have become increasingly frustrated with persistently high cost-of-living on everything from housing to grocery bills.

Many Canadians have also started pushing back against the government’s immigration policy, which has resulted in 2.3 million people arriving in the country in the past two years. While the government said migrants were necessary to help fill gaps in low-skilled jobs, many Canadians say the new arrivals have contributed to rising housing costs and strains on the public health care system.

Advertisement

Ms. Freeland had accused Mr. Trudeau of engaging in political gimmickry after her ministry clashed with his office about a temporary sales-tax break during the end-of-year holidays.

The government estimated that the tax break, which covered items like restaurant bills and some toys and clothing, would cost about 1.6 billion Canadian dollars, or $1.1 billion, which Ms. Freeland said that Canada could “ill afford” at a time when Mr. Trump is raising the specter of tariffs.

“We need to take that threat extremely seriously,” Ms. Freeland said in her resignation letter. “That means keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war.”

Ms. Freeland was born and raised in Alberta and is of Ukrainian ancestry. She has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine on the global stage, denouncing Russia’s invasion.

She attended Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, and worked as a journalist and newsroom leader at a number of news organizations, including the Financial Times and Reuters, before joining the Liberal Party in 2013. She is married to a reporter on the Culture desk of The New York Times and has three children.

Advertisement

During Mr. Trump’s first term, Ms. Freeland steered Canada’s renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Mexico, portraying steely confidence during the tense talks with the odd moment of levity. (Ms. Freeland was photographed arriving in Washington in 2018 wearing a white T-shirt that read “Keep Calm and Negotiate NAFTA.”)

But she also angered Mr. Trump during the negotiations and his animosity has apparently not waned.

When Ms. Freeland resigned in December, Mr. Trump posted triumphantly: “Her behavior was totally toxic, and not at all conducive to making deals which are good for the very unhappy citizens of Canada. She will not be missed!!!”

Ms. Freeland, in an opinion piece published on Friday, hinted that Canada would retaliate in “the single largest trade blow the U.S. economy has ever endured.”

As finance minister, she spearheaded popular government programs to reduce the cost of day care for parents and to tackle childhood poverty.

Advertisement

Her announcement on Friday marks the second entry of a top contender in the Liberal Party leadership race. She will face off against Mark Carney, a former head of the central banks in Canada and England, who declared he was running on Thursday.

Mr. Carney is close friends with Ms. Freeland and is the godfather to one of her three children. He was being recruited by Mr. Trudeau’s team to take Ms. Freeland’s place in the government in December, but declined the job.

Continue Reading

World

Pakistani court sentences ex-PM Imran Khan and his wife to 14 and 7 years in prison in graft case

Published

on

Pakistani court sentences ex-PM Imran Khan and his wife to 14 and 7 years in prison in graft case

A Pakistani court on Friday sentenced the country’s already-imprisoned former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his wife to 14 and seven years in jail after finding them guilty of corruption, officials and his lawyer said.

It’s yet another blow for the former premier who has been behind the bars since 2023.

The couple are accused of accepting a gift of land from a real estate tycoon in exchange for laundered money when Khan was in power.

Prosecutors say the businessman, Malik Riaz, was then allowed by Khan to pay fines that were imposed on him in another case from the same laundered money of 190 million British pounds ($240 million) that was returned to Pakistan by British authorities in 2022 to deposit with the national exchequer.

6 DEAD AS PROTESTS ERUPT IN PAKISTAN OVER JAILED FORMER PRIME MINISTER IMRAN KHAN

Advertisement

Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan addresses the media in Lahore, Pakistan.  (AP Photo/K.M. Chaudary, File)

Khan has denied wrongdoing and insisted since his arrest in 2023 that all the charges against him are a plot by rivals to keep him from returning to office.

According to Khan’s legal team, Khan laughed and his wife, Bushra Bibi, smiled when judge Nasir Javed read the verdict.

Later, Khan and Bibi were taken into custody by prison officials after the announcement of the verdict, according to officials. She had earlier served a prison sentence in another graft case until she was freed on bail by a court in October. She recently led a rally to demand her husband’s release.

Later, a post from Khan’s account on the X platform urged his supporters not to panic over the verdict, under which the al-Qadir University built by his wife’s charity will also be taken over by authorities in the Punjab province.

Advertisement

“I will never accept this dictatorship and I will stay in the prison cell for as long as I have to in the struggle against this dictatorship, but I will not compromise on my principles and the struggle for the true freedom of the nation,” Khan wrote. Khan’s family has said such posts are shared with his consent.

Faisal Chaudhry, a defense lawyer, said the court verdict could be challenged in the superior courts.

Shortly after the announcement of the verdict, lawmakers from Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or PTI, party rallied outside the parliament in the capital, Islamabad, saying the former premier had been wrongly punished.

INDIA STEPS UP DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE TALIBAN AS RIVAL PAKISTAN LOSES INFLUENCE IN AFGHANISTAN

Security standing guard in front of a vehicle.

Guards protecting a vehicle outside of a compound in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. (AP Photo/W.K. Yousufzai)

“This is a bogus case, and we will approach an appeals court against this decision,” said Omar Ayub Khan, a senior party leader who is not related to the former premier.

Advertisement

Imran Khan was ousted in a no-confidence vote in parliament in April 2022, had previously been convicted on charges of corruption, revealing official secrets and violating marriage laws in three separate verdicts and sentenced to 10, 14 and seven years respectively. Under Pakistani law, he is to serve the terms concurrently — meaning, the length of the longest of the sentences.

Some of Khan’s supporters were also present outside the Adiala prison in the city of Rawalpindi, and they chanted slogans against the government, demanding the release of their leader.

On Thursday, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar told reporters in Islamabad that there was “irrefutable evidence” against Khan and his wife in the “mega corruption scandal.” Tarar said that Khan even did not tell his own Cabinet members about the money that was returned to Pakistan by Britain.

Tarar also claimed that Khan built a new sprawling house in the eastern city of Lahore after giving benefits to the business tycoon, and that he was unable to prove that from where he got the money from to build it.

The latest development came a day after Khan’s PTI party held a crucial round of talks with representatives of the government of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to demand the release of all political detainees, including Khan and other party leaders.

Advertisement

Sharif became prime minister following the February 2024 election, which PTI claims was rigged.

Continue Reading

World

Commission claims slashing of foreign offices still under negotiation

Published

on

Commission claims slashing of foreign offices still under negotiation

The European Commission said that ‘reflections are ongoing’ over the downsizing of the international hubs under the department for international partnerships.

ADVERTISEMENT

The European Commission said that ‘reflections are ongoing’ over the downsizing of the international hubs under the department for international partnerships.

Plans to slash EU international partnerships from more than four in five hubs worldwide  revealed today by Euronews remain under negotiation, a Commission spokesperson said today.

Euronews reported that Directorate-General for International Partnerships (DG INTPA) presence in 100 delegations worldwide is set for reduction to 18 hubs on the basis of an internal planning document seen by this news service.

“Reflections are ongoing within the Commission and no decision has been taken [on the issue],” European Commission spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Anitta Hipper said when asked for details of the savings and staff moves that the plans entailed, declining to comment further on the document.

Hipper insisted that the EU presence on the ground in foreign offices would be maintained, and said that work is ongoing to see how effectively delegations can deliver on all EU policies, taking into account “budget realities and political priorities”.

Advertisement

DG INTPA is planning slashing more than four in five of its hubs worldwide – reducing from around 100 delegations to 18 hubs – according to a document seen by Euronews. 

The DG will maintain 18 hubs in Africa, Asia and Latin American/Caribbean, according to the document, in strategic areas for the institution. You can see in this map where these hub offices will be located in detail:

“It is essential to move to portfolios that are more strategic and less fragmented and an optimised resource allocation across multiple countries,” the document said.

“The current INTPA operating model is based on the de-concentration process of 25 years ago, whereby INTPA staff are distributed across ‘cooperation sections’ within 100 Delegation worldwide,” the document said, adding: “This model no longer meets the needs for increased strategic focus and operation agility.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending