Libya & Europe Analysis: What Should EU Do About Migrants at Sea?


On Thursday, European Union leaders pledged extra ships, planes, and a tripling in funds for patrols of the Mediterranean, following the deaths at sea of more than 1,300 migrants over the past three weeks. The 28-nation bloc said they were discussing preparations for military action against traffickers.

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, whose country has faced the challenge of the migrants trying to cross from North Africa, said the measures were “a giant step forward”.

But are they enough? And are they protecting migrants or only trying to prevent them from making the crossing?

Earlier this week, Nando Sigona of the University of Birmingham outlined proposals not only for the policing of the Mediterranean, but also for stabilization of areas in North Africa and for receiving and integrating migrants, rather than turning them away at sea.

Originally published on The Conversation:

How much is a human life worth? How many more people have to die to generate enough momentum for Europe to intervene? Unfortunately these are not rhetorical questions. More than 1,500 people have drowned or gone missing in the Mediterranean on their way from North Africa since the start of 2015.

Many Europeans are wondering how much longer Europe can ignore the tragedy unfolding on its doorstep while politicians and policy makers weigh up the political and economic cost of saving lives at sea.

Italy has argued that its search and rescue Mare Nostrum operation, which saved 150,000 asylum seekers and migrants in 12 months at an estimated cost of €9m a month was economically unsustainable to run.

Mare Nostrum was duly replaced by the Frontex-led Triton operation. This scaled-back programme, which had originally been conceived to support Mare Nostrum and ended up replacing it, only stretched to 30 miles off European coastlines at a cost of roughly one third of the programme it replaced. EU officials argued Triton would deliver better value for money – but, tragically, you get what you pay for. Triton is certainly smaller in scale and has a narrower mandate – to police and monitor European sea borders rather than carry out rescue operations including in international waters. But with so many dead already this year, is the political sustainability of Triton now to be called into question?

The latest tragedy may trigger enough of an EU-wide sense of indignation to create the political support needed for a new search and rescue operation similar to Mare Nostrum. Such an operation should see a substantial involvement of the EU and of EU member states – not just Italy, Latvia, Malta, Iceland and a few others.

Where is the EU’s response?

The EU has substantial resources, but member states have so far failed to agree a common strategy to respond to Mediterranean irregular crossings that are turning the sea into a mass graveyard. The response from Italy’s prime minister, Matteo Renzi – to call for an emergency meeting of the European Council – is a start but it remains to be seen if this time he can mobilise the support of the big EU players.

In particular he must overcome the past striking silence of France, the timid support of Germany and open opposition of the UK. Several previous attempts have failed. However, this time the Italian PM can count on the support of Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy chief and former Italian foreign minister in Renzi’s cabinet. The death toll of drownings this year now stands at 30 times higher than at the same point in 2014 when Mare Nostrum was still active, so a new enhanced version would certainly help to save lives.

Some, like UK prime minister David Cameron, have argued that search and rescue operations are a “pull factor” for people to attempt to make crossings, ultimately also causing more migrants to die. However both the current level of migrant arrivals and the death toll among those who never make it prove he was wrong and that migration flows have multiple causes.

However, it is also clear also that rescue operations alone won’t offer a long-term solution to irregular crossings in the Mediterranean, as they do nothing to address the root causes of migration in the region, and a comprehensive EU strategy is needed.

Long-term strategy

As Mogherini recently reaffirmed, stabilisation of the long corridor that goes from Libya to Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq should be the priority for such a strategy. But the situation in the Horn of Africa, a decade-long war in the Democratic Republic of Congo and violent insurgencies in Nigeria and Mali also contribute to large movements of population that increase the flows across the Mediterranean.

To start with, the EU should focus on Libya where the end of Qaddafi’s regime left a power void. Sarkozy’s France and Cameron’s UK were as keen in leading the international military campaign to oust Qaddafi as they are now reluctant to deal with the consequences of their bombs. The ongoing civil war has torn apart communities and devastated the economy, leaving ample opportunities for human smugglers. This is unlikely to get better any time soon and boats will continue to depart from Libya for the foreseeable future.

From a EU perspective, it may prove more effective in the short term to look to Libya’s relatively more stable neighbours, Tunisia and Egypt, to help in patrolling the North African coast and intercepting boats – and perhaps the proposed EU-run migrant and asylum processing centres could be established in those countries.

These could then be used for screening of intercepted boat migrants, allowing those with a valid asylum case (which was more than 80% of those rescued during Mare Nostrum) to be resettled in an EU country.

Job opportunities

The processing centres could also operate as job centres where recruitment opportunities both in Europe and in EU-funded initiatives in the region for migrants would be available. Such a solution would facilitate regular mobility for some – but it is hard to imagine that this would offer a solution for many as it assumes a static understanding of the job market and the willingness of employers to subject themselves to more scrutiny – which would inevitably reduce opportunities for exploiting cheap undocumented labour.

Whatever solutions are implemented, some people are still likely to try their luck with smugglers – so a second line of interception closer to the EU shore would be needed. This should resemble Mare Nostrum but under a concerted EU leadership. Once boats are detected in EU waters or in international waters in case of need, they should be taken to shore but rather than ending up in Italian reception centers, migrants should be taken to EU-led centers in the closer EU member states with national and international personnel.

These centers would operate as a tertiary filter for migrants. This would mean saving lives but would offer no guarantee of a right to stay. But rather than envisaging mass repatriation schemes, not least because they are extremely costly and hard to implement, it may prove more economically beneficial to Europe to establish a system of temporary residence permits with right to look for work and, for sake of minimising internal political opposition, limited access or no to welfare provision.

While not free from risks of exploitation, such a system would give people a chance to demonstrate their entrepreneurship and willingness to work and contribute to Europe’s ageing societies.

Related Posts


  1. The refugee tragedy in the Mediterranean sea should be a European theme – but it isn`t.

    The british Cameron is hiding because he anxiously awaits the next elections and therefore he avoids the issue of migration.

    France is busy to find out Al Qaeda and IS cells among french citizens with Arabic descent and is licking its wounds after the tragedy of employees by Charly Hebdo.

    Germany attempts to preserve the semblance of a humanist claim – but it did nothing to obtain “Mare Nostrum”. – “Mare Nostrum” was an successful Italian invention – parts of the Italian navy rescued in 2014 over 130,000 refugees from the Mediterranean sea.

    2014 the Italian government has called for help and for EU support. But what happened? Not much.

    One has the impression that the EU does not even understand the problem.

    1…The vast number of refugees are from Eritrea and Syria. If Assad bombs syrian cities and refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq are filled up there is increasing pressure on families to reach a safe place. Not the traffickers are the problem – the problem is the genocid taking place in Syria and the inhuman conditions in the surrounding refugee camps.

    Consequently, there are many ways to respond with the means of an accommodate foreign policy – but the European foreign ministers are suffering deep sleep.

    Additional – where is the problem to build decent housing with kindergartens, schools and care at appropriate places? Does Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan get any assistance and logistical support for their refugee camps?

    It can not be that these countries – such as Italy – are left alone with the problem of the growing number of refugees.

    The political approach of parts of the German Government is totally ridiculous: If traffickers are caught it wan`t help – because the next human traders will be ready to make the job.

    The only thing what will help are adequate refugee cities – wherever.

    2… The smaller proportion of refugees comes from West Africa. In Africa the population growth is one of the greatest – this problem will not disappear by itself but it will increase. The smaller part of these people are war refugees. What is needed is a clear immigration legislation in European countries – and
    a clear european development policy in African countries, which is based on the amount of refugees.

Leave a Comment