Poland has implemented new asylum restrictions at its border with Belarus, lasting 60 days, amidst concerns from human rights organizations. The EU supports member states’ rights to defend against hybrid attacks but risks compromising the rights of asylum seekers. The situation highlights the tension between humanitarian obligations and national interests in Europe. As geopolitical threats rise, asylum policies are becoming a focal point in domestic politics, with calls for reforms and a potential shift towards stricter measures.
Poland’s New Asylum Restrictions
On Wednesday, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk enacted a decree that imposes immediate restrictions on asylum rights along the border with Belarus. This regulation, which is set to last for 60 days, may be extended if deemed necessary. Poland has been grappling with the challenge of its autocratic neighbors, Belarus and Russia, who have been using refugees as a means to undermine the stability of the nation.
Human Rights Concerns and EU Response
Human rights organizations have criticized Poland’s stringent measures, citing numerous legal violations. Surprisingly, the European Union has taken a more constructive stance. Last year, it was emphasized that member states could take “all necessary measures” to defend themselves against “hybrid attacks” from countries like Russia and Belarus.
This perspective implies that if asylum seekers are regarded as tools of aggressive states, there is substantial leeway to limit this type of migration. This is crucial to prevent Europeans from being morally compromised. However, it is evident that the true victims of such policies are the asylum seekers, who find themselves ensnared in a conflict, treated as pawns.
The 400-kilometer border between Poland and Belarus starkly illustrates the tension between humanitarian policies and national sovereignty. While the situation in Poland might be an extreme instance, primarily due to the orchestrated manipulation of refugees by Russia, the broader dilemma of reconciling humanitarian obligations with national interests is a common theme in asylum policies.
Since 2015, which marked a shift towards more generous asylum policies in Europe, many illusions have been shattered. The overwhelming burden on various European nations to receive and integrate asylum seekers has become clear, while the inadequacies of the Dublin system have also surfaced. According to this system, the responsibility for processing an asylum application lies with the first European country the seeker enters. However, given the open internal borders within Europe, the Dublin regulation has become largely ineffective. The ensuing chaos surrounding asylum policies has led to a significant rise in support for migration-critical, right-wing parties. In response, the EU is attempting to implement reforms, yet skepticism remains about the potential for meaningful change.
Currently, migration appears to be a secondary concern for Europeans, who are instead caught up in a fervor surrounding potential conflicts. After a long period of complacency, the reality of threats from Russia and the uncertainty of American support have jolted Europe into action. Plans are underway to mobilize 800 billion euros for defense by 2030, a move that is both rational and seemingly extravagant, particularly in light of remarks from potential future leaders. Friedrich Merz, for instance, has asserted that Russia is waging a daily war against Europe.
While defense policy objectives are becoming clearer, asylum policies remain nebulous. This issue is set to play a pivotal role in domestic politics in the coming years, particularly in Germany. Former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s call for a “national effort” regarding deportations in 2017, followed by current Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s insistence on the need for large-scale deportations, highlights the growing focus on this area.
Friedrich Merz has also committed to a significant shift in asylum policy, indicating that, in light of a brutal incident in Aschaffenburg earlier this year, “compromises are no longer possible” on this front. Despite having made concessions in negotiations with the Social Democrats regarding a new government, it remains to be seen whether he will soften his stance on asylum issues.
Asylum law expert Daniel Thym recently stated in “Spiegel” that a systemic change is essential to restore public confidence in asylum laws. He suggested that a more flexible approach to human rights may be required, potentially necessitating amendments to EU treaties and the European Convention on Human Rights. Following a series of terrorist attacks and rising violence, the patience of the public is wearing thin, and many are no longer willing to uphold asylum ideals at the risk of their own safety.
Europeans have become accustomed to nations such as Turkey and Libya managing the more challenging aspects of migration for them, often overlooking their ethical implications. However, they must also recognize that they cannot rely on external nations to handle deportations indefinitely. When it comes to protecting their interests, Europeans must confront these issues directly instead of hiding behind rigid rights.
If they fail to do so, there is a risk that right-wing populist parties will take charge, potentially leading to the emergence of leaders who may be more aligned with Russia and influence the future of European defense policies.