“This asylum reform will ultimately achieve nothing”

Migration researcher on the EU dispute
“This asylum reform will ultimately achieve nothing”

A word of power from the Chancellor, tough negotiations in Brussels, and Italy is still hesitant: Will the EU asylum reform succeed in the end? Migration researcher Knaus believes in a compromise. However, in his words, the new rules are unsuitable for effectively addressing the problems.

ntv: Will there actually be a compromise in the EU asylum dispute in the next few days and what will it be like? look?

Gerald Knaus: I think we can assume that the states will come to an agreement. For some time now, this entire reform has no longer been under the question of what it can achieve, but only under the pressure: We need some solution because we have been negotiating for so long. And in the end this will lead to the governments agreeing on a compromise that, to date, no interior minister has been able to explain to them what it improves in practice. The European Parliament can and must get involved, but in the end everything looks like there will be a compromise. The disappointment of all those who now believe that this will be a breakthrough will be very great.

So a compromise that won't achieve anything: In your opinion, what would have to happen for it to achieve something?

Let's look at the core of this compromise: The core idea is that more asylum procedures should take place at the borders. The practical question is – and I don't understand why this hasn't been central to the discussions for years: What would that look like with what we've been experiencing for years? An example: Last year, 21,000 Egyptians came to Italy by ship. The vast majority receive no protection, but Italy was only able to send back 300 Egyptians in the entire last year. What use are procedures at the borders if everyone stays anyway because there are no agreements on returns? The examples of Ivory Coast and Guinea, the largest group of people coming to Lampedusa, are even more drastic: last year, Italy was able to deport exactly three people from them.

So the basic question of how this reform leads to fewer people getting on boats and fewer people dying remains unresolved?

Exactly. We need agreements with countries that are safe. These states must have an interest in wanting to be safe in order to be able to say: We will save everyone and no one will be treated inhumanely. But we discourage people from getting on boats because they know that after a deadline they have no chance of asylum and basically no guarantee of coming to Europe. Doing this in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights is possible, but difficult. This requires the effort and focus of politicians. And we're missing that because we're talking about this reform, which in the end won't achieve anything.

So there should be more deportations?

Not quite. It's about us thinking realistically about deportations. Italy, as I said, is unable to deport many people to Africa. But France and Spain can't do that either. This also applies to Germany. So we have to think about it strategically. The aim must therefore be to reduce irregular migration with as few deportations as possible and always in accordance with the human rights convention.

So what is the solution?

This can only work if it is credible. It makes sense to be able to say, for example in the example of Lampedusa, that from a certain date the infrastructure will be ready to register people, save everyone and no longer bring anyone back to Libya. But we have a partner, a safe third country in Africa that is ready to accept us. And in this state, procedures can take place through the UNHCR from this date onwards. This would immediately lead to fewer people getting on the boats.

Can that succeed?

We saw this between the USA and Cuba in the 90s. We've seen it in Australia several times over the last few decades. And yes, in this case we would have a policy that results in fewer people getting on boats, fewer people dying. We are in control. Of course, this is only possible if we open up legal channels and accept more people legally, including refugees, as Canada does. This is the paradigm shift that the traffic light government also promised. But the current discussions are distracting not only the German government, but the entire European Union from what really needs to be done. And in the end we are faced with a set of laws that are not applied in practice and that do not lead to fewer people dying or arriving irregularly.

Raimund Brichta spoke to Gerald Knaus