As early as 2003, the idea of establishing “external agencies” of the European Union to manage migration issues was gaining attention. Otto Schily, then German Federal Minister of the Interior, suggested that creating such agencies in North Africa could divert refugees from the peril of dangerous crossings on unsuitable boats or from falling into the hands of unscrupulous smugglers. Instead, he proposed providing assistance in camps located near migrants’ countries of origin, emphasizing that reception in Europe should only be considered in exceptional cases.
However, this migration policy raises significant concerns regarding human rights. Critics have voiced objections to the outsourcing of migration management to third countries, which could lead to violations of the fundamental rights of people seeking protection. Furthermore, measures aimed at dissuading migrants from attempting perilous crossings can often have unintended consequences, such as increased risks to migrant safety and heightened dependence on smuggling networks. Thus, the evolution of EU migration policies since the establishment of the Schengen Area is characterized not only by a growing concern for border security and a progressive outsourcing of migration management but also by an ongoing debate on the ethical and legal implications of these policies. In response to massive influxes of asylum seekers, such as the one in 2015, the EU has intensified its cooperation with third countries, making migration management a central focus of its policy.
Outsourcing migration policies: A strategic approach by the European Union
Initially, the European Commission aimed to alleviate the burden on arrival countries such as Greece and Italy by proposing quotas and plans for distributing migrants across Europe. However, some countries, notably those in the “Visegrad Group” such as Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, vehemently opposed all forms of European solidarity and refused to participate in fair refugee relocation. Faced with challenges in establishing a unified European approach to managing migration, the EU and its member states turned to the “hotspot” strategy. This involves setting up screening and detention centers at internal and external European borders. This approach has resulted in an increased delegation of border control responsibilities to third countries.
The outsourcing of migration policies has been a key strategy for the European Union since the creation of the Schengen Area in 1995, which facilitated the free movement within Europe by eliminating internal border controls. Over time, this initiative led to a unified migration policy that focuses heavily on the securitization of borders. The EU delegates certain responsibilities to third countries, aiming to curb migration flows at their source and ease the expulsion and readmission of irregular migrants. This approach, often backed by financial aid or economic incentives, reflects a power imbalance, with third countries taking on border control duties in exchange for various benefits. Externalization, a core component of this strategy, traces back to the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999 and was reinforced by the Tampere Summit, but it has gained significant momentum in recent years, particularly after the 2015 “migration crisis”. The EU’s goal is to prevent the arrival of migrants deemed “undesirable” and enhance repatriation efforts while maintaining control over migration movements.
To implement this strategy, the European Union enters agreements with transit and origin countries of refugees, entrusting them with managing migration flows. For example, significant agreements were reached with Turkey in 2016 – as Turkey has become a significant destination for Syrian refugees since 2011 –, and support was extended for the Italy-Libya accord in 2017, which was renewed for an additional three years in February 2020. Through resulting action plans, the EU has strengthened its commitment to development aid, exemplified by establishing an Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, targeting the eradication of human trafficking and migrant smuggling. In exchange for this assistance, the EU delegates aspects of migratory governance to countries like Sudan, South Sudan, and Eritrea, despite governance challenges marked by instability, authoritarianism, and repression. In other words, the European Union outsources border control to third countries and imposes on them responsibility for managing irregular migration, in exchange for a series of aids.
However, this strategy raises concerns regarding compliance with international commitments regarding refugee protection. By delegating the responsibility for protection and asylum to third countries where fundamental rights are not always guaranteed, the European Union risks violating the fundamental principles of the 1951 Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
From strategic agreements to Human Rights: The Tunisian case
While this approach seems to have reduced the intensity of migratory flows to Europe, it faces strong criticism from many human rights organizations. They argue that the agreements neglect human rights protection in the countries involved, leaving migrants and asylum seekers vulnerable to violence, torture, and arbitrary detention. In 2018, The Transnational Institute (TNI) and Stop Wapenhandel published a report on the use of outsourcing by the EU. The report unveils concerning data regarding the EU’s cooperation on border security with its neighbors. Among the 35 prioritized countries for this externalization policy, 48% (17) are governed authoritatively, highlighting potential challenges in upholding democratic norms. Only four of these countries can be considered democratic. Additionally, all 35 countries present extreme or high risks for human rights, underscoring ethical dilemmas and inherent challenges in this cooperation. Finally, over half of these countries (18) are classified as “weak” in terms of human development indicators, emphasizing socio-economic disparities and potential hurdles to successful cooperation in this realm. Still, according to the report, these policies are proving lucrative for arms and security companies, which are increasingly investing in border surveillance and security technologies. Major players such as Thales, Airbus, and Leonardo, who also engage in arms exports in the region, along with biometric services firms. Additionally, consulting and technical cooperation firms are emerging as significant winners, securing contracts for training security forces.
Then, critics condemn Europe’s collaboration with authoritarian regimes in curbing migration, arguing that it enables the EU to shirk its responsibility to protect asylum seekers. This contradicts international obligations outlined in the 1951 Geneva Convention. European policies of outsourcing migration management are seen as worsening the situation for migrants in third countries, where they face dire conditions. By prioritizing migration control over human rights, the EU risks perpetuating harm to vulnerable populations. Human rights groups are calling on states to address these issues and improve conditions for irregular migrants. This approach has resulted in longer and riskier migration routes, with significant human and financial costs for the migrants. Additionally, efforts to deter unauthorized migration often push migrants to find new ways to bypass controls. Furthermore, these agreements may lack transparency and accountability mechanisms, making it challenging to supervise and ensure the protection of migrants’ rights. The recent pact with Tunisia exemplifies this approach. Then, how to explain the new deal agreement with Tunisia? What is it about and how is it done by the EU?
The EU and Tunisia have established a strategic partnership aimed at tackling irregular immigration and supporting Tunisia in addressing its pressing economic challenges. This partnership covers various areas, including migration, economic cooperation, and energy transition, structured around five key pillars: macroeconomic stability, trade and investment, green energy, people-to-people ties, and migration management. In terms of energy cooperation, the EU pledges to assist Tunisia in harnessing its considerable renewable energy potential. Additionally, plans are underway for infrastructure projects such as submarine fiber optic cables and electrical connections across the Mediterranean. On the immigration front, the agreement seeks to improve control over irregular migration while ensuring human treatment of migrants. However, concerns remain regarding the protection of migrants’ rights, particularly amid reports of migrants being stranded in harsh desert conditions. As Tunisia grapples with the economic fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic, inflation, and dwindling foreign investments, the EU has allocated €150 million to help stabilize the Tunisian economy and fund essential services. Furthermore, substantial funding is earmarked for infrastructure development projects like ELMED, facilitating energy exchange with Italy, and Medusa, a fiber optic submarine cable linking Mediterranean countries. Tunisia, along with Libya, remains a significant transit point for migrants seeking entry into Europe. The country’s proximity to Italy makes it a primary destination for migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean. However, the surge in migration has strained Italy’s resources, prompting the declaration of a state of emergency. In response, the partnership has allocated €105 million to combat smuggling networks, enhance border management, and facilitate the return of unsuccessful asylum seekers. By addressing the root causes of irregular migration and fostering economic development, the EU and Tunisia aim to build a more secure and prosperous future for both regions.
While the EU and Tunisia may envision a more secure and prosperous future through addressing the root causes of irregular migration and promoting economic development, the perspective is starkly different among various associations. The funding will be provided to Tunisian authorities in various forms such as search and rescue boats, vehicles, radars, drones, and patrol equipment. International organizations like the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) will also receive support. However, the funds won’t be tied to specific targets for returning migrants or reducing arrivals. While the assistance includes some human rights clauses, it falls short of addressing all concerns, like reports of mistreatment of migrants. Tunisia is only expected to accept the return of its own nationals, not asylum seekers passing through the country. Repatriation for asylum seekers will be voluntary and aided by the IOM and UNHCR. Tunisia won’t be obligated to host other nationalities denied refuge in the EU. Additionally, the EU plans to facilitate the movement of highly skilled Tunisians to member states through legal channels. However, concerns persist about Tunisia’s human rights situation, including limitations on free expression and crackdowns on dissent and migrants. During remarks made on February 21 and later made public, President Saied linked undocumented Black African migrants to crime and a “conspiracy” to alter Tunisia’s demographics. “Hordes of illegal immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa are still arriving, bringing violence, crime, and unacceptable and illegal practices,” he stated. According to HRW, following President Saied’s speech, Black African foreigners in Tunisia experienced a surge in discriminatory attacks, including violent assaults, robberies, vandalism, arbitrary evictions, and job terminations by Tunisian citizens and employers. The same month, authorities reportedly arrested approximately 850 Black African foreigners, both documented and undocumented, in what appeared to be racially motivated actions. Throughout 2023, Tunisian security forces were accused of various abuses against Black African migrants, including beatings, torture, arbitrary arrests, and collective expulsions. In July, security forces in Sfax conducted mass arrests, using excessive force and reportedly engaging in physical and sexual abuse, particularly targeting women and children. These incidents resulted in the summary expulsion of around 2,000 individuals to remote border areas, where many faced dire conditions. Tragically, at least 27 migrants died at the border, while others were evacuated to Libya under a bilateral agreement, raising concerns about the risk of further abuse in detention centers.
Expert opinion by Sami Adouani from the Tunisian Forum for Economic and Social Rights (FTDES)
Sami Adouani, representing FTDES Tunisia, underscored the growing social tensions surrounding migration, exacerbated by the increasingly repressive measures adopted by states. He highlighted the significant increase in military and security expenditures across the region, leading to heightened border militarization without addressing the root causes of migration. Adouani criticized Italy’s approach, which prioritized border security over humanitarian concerns, perpetuating the commodification and dehumanization of migrants through agreements that lack consideration for their well-being. Moreover, Sami Adouani expressed concerns about the negative impact of EU policies on the free movement of Africans, citing instances where pressure from Italy has led to the imposition of visa requirements between countries like Ivory Coast and Tunisia. He noted the absence of robust regional cooperation and dialogue on migrant rights issues, highlighting the limited political credibility and opportunities for meaningful exchange. Adouani also underscored the divisive nature of immigration and asylum policies within European countries, emphasizing tensions surrounding the return of irregular migrants and the prioritization of policy success based on public opinion rather than humanitarian principles. According to him, the African bloc’s failure has left African populations vulnerable to the effects of European policies, the opportunism of North African countries and trafficking networks. He advocated for a shift away from cooperation centered on security forces towards fair legal corridors, regularization, and assistance to address migration challenges effectively. Adouani emphasized the importance of adopting a transversal approach to migration policy development, with a focus on empowering grassroots and self-representative organizations to ensure inclusivity and responsiveness to the needs of migrants.
Although the influx of arrivals in Europe has stabilized to some extent, 2023 marked the deadliest year since 2015. According to Adouani, it is crucial to recognize that these statistics may not fully capture the true extent of the situation, as there are likely many undocumented cases of individuals dying or reaching European shores without being officially registered. This underscores the urgency of addressing the underlying factors driving migration and ensuring robust humanitarian responses to prevent further loss of life, Sami Adouani explained.
In conclusion, the outsourcing of European Union migration policies to third countries, particularly in North Africa, represents a complex and controversial strategy. While aiming to enhance border security and reduce irregular migration flows, this approach raises serious concerns regarding human rights and refugee protection. Critics highlight the risks of violations of migrants’ fundamental rights, as well as unforeseen consequences such as increased reliance on smuggling networks and precarious living conditions in transit countries. The upcoming presidential elections in Tunisia on October 6th add another layer of complexity to this issue. As Kaïs Saïed’s – the new dictator – regime faces allegations of police repression, arbitrary detention, and inhumane treatment, the situation underscores the urgency for the EU to reassess its policies. Despite these challenges, the EU continues its strategy with the goal of controlling migration flows and promoting regional stability, but it must also ensure compliance with its international human rights commitments and guarantee the protection of vulnerable individuals.