Tuesday

26th Jan 2021

Opinion

EU cannot copy Australia's offshore asylum model

  • Australia's treatment of migrants has sparked regular protests on Nauru island. (Photo: © Private)

Casting about for ways to manage refugee flows, some European policymakers speak of emulating Australia’s use of offshore processing centres. But Australia’s approach to asylum seekers is fiscally irresponsible, morally bankrupt, and increasingly unsustainable politically. It’s no model for Europe.

To start with, the Australian approach is expensive: the country’s taxpayers are spending something on the order of €240,000 per person per year on offshore facilities. That figure doesn’t include the cost of the coast guard’s interdiction operations, the payouts the Australian government may have made to smugglers to turn boats back to Indonesia, and the €38 million it is known to have paid Cambodia to accept a handful of refugees it had sent to Nauru.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

  • Many migrants held in the Manus Island camp complain of mental health problems (Photo: Global Panorama)

Let’s think about those numbers for a minute. Instead of sending those migrants to its offshore facilities, Australia could send each of them to Harvard to receive a four-year undergraduate education. Or each could get a home outright in much of the United Kingdom, or a year-long stay at the Ritz London. Or Australia could buy each of them a Bentley, Ferrari, or Lamborghini.

What’s more, it’s by no means clear what the price tag would look like if the Australian model were scaled up to European proportions—or if it’s even feasible to do so. The migration flows Europe faces are about 20 times greater than those to Australia, which had peak boat arrivals of just over 20,000 people in 2013.

And it’s worth keeping in mind that Australia has made that outlay for arrangements that are only temporary. Nauru has said it expects the refugees it holds to move elsewhere at some point. Papua New Guinea’s government has conceded, in response to a ruling by that country’s supreme court, that its Manus Island facility must be closed as soon as possible.

The point is that this doesn’t look like the best way for Australia – or the EU – to spend its taxpayers’ money. The human cost isn’t as easily quantifiable, but it’s enormous. I’ve been to both Manus Island and Nauru and seen first-hand what offshore “processing” means for the people who are forcibly transferred and held indefinitely in countries where they’d never intended to go.

'Sinister exercise in cruelty'

Nearly everybody I spoke to reported that after they were transferred to these remote locations they’d developed mental health issues of some kind—high levels of anxiety, trouble sleeping, mood swings, and feelings of listlessness and despondency were most commonly mentioned.

Children as well as adults have regularly considered and even attempted suicide. A 15-year-old girl told me that she’d tried to commit suicide twice while on Nauru. “I’m tired of my life,” she said.

A leaked report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) found that post-traumatic stress disorder and depression “have reached epidemic proportions” among those held in both locations.

It should be no surprise that Australia’s pursuit of policies that cause severe and lasting harm to refugees and asylum seekers has done significant damage to its international reputation as a rights-respecting country. “The world’s refugee crisis knows no more sinister exercise in cruelty than Australia’s island prisons,” the New York Times columnist Roger Cohen wrote in December, reporting on his visit to Manus Island.

Australian officials attempt to spin sustained abuse as a life-saving measure, claiming that offshore operations are necessary to deter smuggling by boat and thus save lives at sea. Put another way, some 2,000 people are held on remote islands as an example to others. As a refugee on Manus remarked: “The cost of Australia’s border protection policies is a human sacrifice—us. They need us here as a symbol to stop the boats.”

Driving people to breaking point

It doesn’t have to be this way. Safe, legal pathways of migration from transit countries would help many refugees avoid having to take dangerous boat journeys, and wouldn’t punish people for making it to their intended destination. That would be a far better deterrent and a far better approach for EU countries to take.

The EU should end its efforts to outsource responsibility for refugees and asylum seekers to outside countries—the opportunistic, flawed deal with Turkey and problematic cooperation with Libyan authorities—and focus instead on initiatives to improve conditions for refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Libya and elsewhere.

Access to work and education for refugees in those countries would make an enormous and immediate difference. EU support, diplomatic and financial, can help that happen.

Australian policies have left lives in limbo, driving people to the breaking point. Europe should take a different path.

Michael Garcia Bochenek is Human Rights Watch’s senior counsel on children’s rights.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Austria proposes to offshore EU asylum

Austria's defence minister is proposing a radical overhaul of the EU asylum rules, including offshoring the asylum process and imposing limits on EU state intakes.

Asylum conditions on Greek islands 'untenable'

Germany is preparing to send people back to Greece with the EU's blessing, even though the EU commission has described snow-covered migrant camps on Greek islands as "untenable".

Will EU ever take action to stop Israeli settlements?

The EU-Israel Association Agreement, and Israel's systematic violation of its article 2, must be stopped until Israel implements its obligations under international law. This should not be a matter of controversy, but the least peace-loving countries must do.

A digital euro - could it happen?

"Banknotes are still to stay," European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde said at a recent conference, "but I think we will have a digital euro."

Column

BioNTech: Stop talking about their 'migration background'

I understand that the German-Turkish community - often subjected to condescension in Germany - celebrated the story. Uğur Şahin and Özlem Türecki represent scientific excellence and business success at the highest level.

Italy's return to statism spells trouble for the eurozone

There are profound questions about whether the windfall of cash from the EU coronavirus recovery fund will truly help Italy recover or whether it will cause more problems than it solves, for Rome and the rest of the eurozone.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. UNESDAEU Code of Conduct can showcase PPPs delivering healthier more sustainable society
  2. CESIKlaus Heeger and Romain Wolff re-elected Secretary General and President of independent trade unions in Europe (CESI)
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersWomen benefit in the digitalised labour market
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersReport: The prevalence of men who use internet forums characterised by misogyny
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersJoin the Nordic climate debate on 17 November!
  6. UNESDAMaking healthier diets the easy choice

Latest News

  1. Giuseppe Conte: scapegoat or Italy's most cunning politician?
  2. Borrell to meet Lavrov, while Navalny behind bars
  3. Too few central and eastern Europeans at top of EU
  4. Rift widens on 'returns' deadline in EU migration pact
  5. EU adds new 'dark red' zone to travel-restrictions map
  6. Migrants in Bosnia: a disaster foretold on EU doorstep
  7. Navalny protests sharpen EU sanctions talks
  8. Why Russia politics threaten European security

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us