Towards a Better Approach to Asylum
By Johannes de Jong, Director of Sallux.
Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all (Colossians 3:11).
The gospel is a truly revolutionary message, especially in light of the world in which it first was seen and heard. We now take a certain sense of universal equality almost for granted, it certainly was not in the time of the New Testament and after.
The whole notion of universal and equal human dignity is a direct consequence of the coming of Jesus in this world. The very notion that God came to rescue all humankind is the key to this (John 3:16). If we are all equally in need of salvation, then there is no fundamental distinction between any of us with regard to nationality and need for the gospel. This is reflected in both the Pentecost (Acts 2:5-11) and the further growth of the Church throughout the Roman empire and beyond (Colossians 3:11).
It is also the necessary foundation for any policy proposal regarding asylum and migration. We all share the same human dignity, being made in the image of God, regardless of any background.
The wrong conclusion however would be that this then inevitably means that anyone who wants to come to Europe should automatically be welcomed.
The reason is that this would mean that the existing citizens of the European countries would no longer have any possibility to object to the costs and pressures this brings to them. Basically, they would lose their democratic rights as citizens. That however would also go against human dignity.
The debate therefore has to be based on the capacity to absorb and the reasons that people are coming. As Europe has not unlimited capacity, there is need to find a way in which we can reduce the number of people coming without giving up human dignity.
We therefore need to change the debate and understand the precise factors and actors behind the immediate reasons that people feel themselves forced to attempt the journey to Europe, regardless the risks.
It should be obvious that as long as people do come to Europe, there is a duty to ensure decent shelter for those arriving as refugees and migrants.
A nonsensical debate and asking the core questions
As I am writing, the local authorities of both Germany and The Netherlands have indicated that they can no longer handle the influx of asylum seekers as it is beyond their capacities1,2. Moreover, this situation is becoming more urgent as we enter the third year with a significant increase in the number of asylum seekers.
The problem in the debate over asylum and irregular immigration into Europe is that it only includes the European continent itself and countries bordering it. Listening to the debate, it is as if people pop up out of thin air in the North African countries or in Turkey or Belarus and then try to get into the EU and, from there, also into the UK.
We then end up in a nonsensical debate over ‘closing the borders’ versus ‘welcoming people’ and a policy that has no other solution than somehow to find the middle ground between these two. It is not possible to close the borders and it is not possible to welcome all those who want to come.
The better approach is to ask a number of connected questions.
The first question is ‘who exactly are the people coming here, which countries of origin are disproportionately overrepresented?’
That question allows us to ask the next question: ‘why are these people coming here, what caused them to flee, or seek to migrate, to Europe?’
This opens the door for the following question: ‘who are the ultimate responsible actors causing the reasons that people flee?’
The answer to that question will force us to ask: ‘what is the role of our foreign policy in this regard?’
The final question then is of course ‘how can things be done better?’.
‘Who exactly are the people coming here, which countries of origin are disproportionately overrepresented?’
The numbers are pretty clear and have been consistent since 2014. The largest groups have been and continue to be people who originate from Syria and Afghanistan. In the last three years we have also seen a rapid increase in asylum applications by people who have Turkish citizenship3.
Only after that we see an overrepresentation of people coming from Venezuela and Colombia.
But especially if we take a long-term view and if we consider where the highest pressure is in Europe (in terms of capacity issues), it is clear that the situation in the Middle East and Afghanistan has been the most important background of people fleeing to Europe since 2014.
‘Why are these people coming here, what caused them to flee or migrate to Europe?’
The main reason is that in Syria, Afghanistan and adjacent countries there are prolonged, ongoing wars that allow extremists to control ever more territory and which create miserable situations from which people seek to flee.
The war in Syria has frozen to a stalemate that has allowed the Assad regime to control the largest part of the country, and Turkish-backed extremists a significant part of the north-west of the country. Only the North-East managed to escape from either fate and is now governed by the Autonomous Administration of North-East Syria, protected by the Syrian Democratic Forces. They defeated ISIS and implemented freedom of religion, equal rights and empowerment of women and equal treatment and cooperation between ethnic groups4,5. However even now they are being threatened by both Iran and the Turkish Erdogan regime, a situation unconducive to building a future there (which would otherwise now be possible).
In Afghanistan, the Taliban have waged a 20-year war against Western forces in that country as well as the Afghan army loyal to the government. After the US pullout in 2021, the Taliban conquered the whole of Afghanistan, prompting a massive increase in the number of Afghan refugees.
‘Who are the ultimate responsible actors causing the reasons that people flee?’
In Syria, the Iranian regime, and its massive militias, is a major cause for the fact that the Assad regime cannot control most of the country. This has meant that the civil war has dragged on and that Syrians cannot safely return home.
In the wider Middle East (Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon), the Iranian regime is perpetuating conflicts and oppression through its militias that are directed through the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps).
Turkey supported ISIS in the past and is supporting terrorists and extremists in North-West Syria (in Idlib, for example) and bombs North-East Syria regularly. As a consequence Turkey is also a major cause of the massive number of Syrian refugees6. It is also clear that the oppressive and radical Erdogan regime is responsible for the fast growing number of Turkish citizens applying for asylum in Europe.
It was an established fact that Pakistan supported the Taliban in the years of Western presence7. It can hardly be underestimated how much that has cost the people of Afghanistan and UK as well as EU taxpayers. Pakistan continues to make life difficult for undocumented Afghans by forcibly ejecting up to two million of those who fled to Pakistan from the country.
In 2023, almost half of the 1.14 million asylum seekers reaching the EU was caused by Iran, Turkey and Pakistan. The disproportional number of asylum seekers in Europe caused by these three regimes is a crucial fact that must inform a serious change in foreign policy.
Migration from Africa is a complex whole and we need to add here that much of that migration remains within Africa itself8. The incredible reality is that the exploitation of African countries continues under the guise of EU trade agreements. While some unfair terms have been reduced recently (for example in dairy exports), other forms of exploitation persist, thereby creating the driver for migration to Europe9.
Both the exploitation of Africa as well as the fact that Iran, Turkey and Pakistan are the main causers of influx of refugees are reasons to question our foreign policy.
‘What is the role of our foreign policy in this regard?’
It may surprise many people but the most important way to stem the numbers of asylum seekers and irregular migrants coming to Europe is to change our own economic and foreign policy. So the change needs to begin here in Europe.
There is a consistent and continuing pattern of appeasement and even support of totalitarian regimes in the Middle East and Africa over the last decades. The UK and EU Member State governments have continued to prioritise ‘good relations’ and economic gain above human rights in their dealings with Iran, Turkey and Pakistan.
Regarding Iran; the ‘de-escalation’ policy led to a money stream from Europe (and the US) to Iran that is used by Iran to pay its proxy forces in Syria and elsewhere.
Regarding Turkey; there is an ongoing refusal to take the Turkish aggression against its neighbours, as well as its persistent apartheid policy towards the Kurds, seriously. Instead there is continuation of attempts ‘to work with Turkey’ regardless of the consequences in terms of increased numbers of asylum applicants into Europe and misery in the region.
Regarding Pakistan; there is an almost incomprehensible policy of appeasement (for example by extending the preferential status in trade and EU funding) regardless of the enormous costs that the Pakistani system has caused to the people of Afghanistan and subsequently the European taxpayers.
Moreover, our foreign policy continues to actively support and facilitate the exploitation of Africa.
The main reasons for these destructive policies are a blind support for maintaining the status quo (for the sake of wider geopolitical objectives) as well as a very misguided and short-sighted definition of ‘economic interests’.
All in all the EU’s foreign policy actively supports the causes, and those who cause, the influx of asylum seekers into Europe.
‘How can things be done better?’
We need a new foreign policy based on these six changes based on a relational and universal understanding of human dignity.
The first change that is essential is that we ensure that both EU and UK politicians and civil servants consider the ultimate outcomes of their interventionist policies in the long-term.
The second change (implied in the first) is that the principle of ‘do no harm’ needs to be more important than ‘(short-term) economic opportunity’. It simply means that we don’t make things worse simply to increase profits of companies.
The third change is that we instead of supporting those who harm other people and our planet we need to support those who have proven to act in line with our values in a consistent way10.
The fourth change is that we start a diplomacy of transparency and pressure where governments outside the EU act in such a manner that they violate human dignity and harms Europe, in contrast to the current policy of appeasement and support for these regimes.
The fifth change is that we enforce a consistent foreign policy. If we (rightly) support the people of Ukraine from being occupied, so should we support freedom elsewhere.
The sixth change is that foreign policymakers should use the following definition of economic interest: ‘the avoidance of (ultimate) costs for taxpayers and the increase of wellbeing in line with the human development index’11. This is an internationally accepted definition of an inclusive and relational approach to the economy that avoids a situation that we extract resources at the cost of people here and elsewhere.
Conclusion
Instead of focusing on the people who come here we should focus on why they are coming and alter our foreign policy accordingly.
The Jubilee Centre, in partnership with Sallux, is planning to host a webinar with Johannes de Jong on the topic of ‘Towards Better Approach to Asylum’ on Monday, May 13th 2024 at 7:00pm, UK time. If you would like to participate, please email r.alarcon@jubilee-centre.org for log-in details.
The views and opinions expressed above are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Jubilee Centre or its trustees.
_________________________________________
3 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240325-1#
4 https://www.frc.org/university/will-religious-freedom-survive-in-northeast-syria
5 https://npasyria.com/en/97398/
6 https://sallux.eu/free/european-security-turkish-agression-and-article-5-of-the-nato-treaty.html
7 The Ides of August (sarahchayes.org)
8 A Holistic overview of migration from Africa to the EU - sallux
10 See: "Relational Thinking as Renewal of Christian Democracy" (p.38-41)
11 Human Development Index | Human Development Reports (undp.org)
