Harmony and Discord on Immigration and Asylum: A Report on the European Summit

November 10, 1999

Panelists: Steve Edminster, Policy Analyst at the US Committee for Refugees; Annie Wilson, Vice-President of Programs at the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; and Carol Wolchok, Director of the Center for Immigration Law and Representation of the American Bar Association.

Moderator: Kathleen Newland, Senior Associate with the International Migration Policy Program.

On November 10, the International Migration Policy Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace convened a breakfast briefing entitled "Harmony and Discord on Immigration and Asylum: A Report on the European Summit." This briefing examined the Special Meeting of the European Council on the Establishment of an area of Freedom, Security and Justice that was held in Tampere, Finland on October 15-16. The meeting was of special concern to migration policy because one of the major challenges it addressed was the achievement of a consistent European approach to immigration and asylum issues.

Kathleen Newland opened the panel by welcoming the participants to an unusual discussion of a topic that does not customarily receive a great deal of attention in the United States. Too often refugee advocates and policy makers in the United States underestimate the impact that developments in Europe will have domestically. The panel members offered a unique insiders view of the European Council meeting at Tampere as all three had attended a parallel meeting of NGO groups sponsored by the European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). Heads of state of the European Union gathered for the summit to clarify and expand upon the Amsterdam Treaty's provisions to move asylum and immigration issues up to the level of EU governing bodies. The Tampere meeting was critical because it set the course that would guide the EU as it harmonized states' practices concerning asylum and immigration.

Steve Edminster was the first to speak. Examining the recent history of the EU, Edminster argued that the Tampere meeting was remarkable. Up until Tampere, efforts to harmonize migration regulations led to the adoption of the most restrictive options currently practiced. As recently as 1998, Edminster found evidence that the very foundations of refugee protection were being threatened in Europe; "the Austrian presidency of the European Union proposed essentially doing away with the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and setting up an asylum system based on political discretion."

Edminster presented the Tampere summit as a critical juncture which would determine whether the European Council would initiate a more liberal approach or continue along a restrictionist course. Allaying his initial concern, Edminster reported that he was encouraged by the conclusions adopted by the heads of state, while at the same time cautioning that the devil is always in the details and implementation would be crucial.

Taking a step back, Edminster identified a continuing trend of transferring the authority to deal with asylum and migration issues from individual member states to EU institutions. "States are realizing that this is something that they can't deal with individually and they really need to come together despite sovereignty concerns." The focus of such measures has up until now been on restricting refugee and migrant flows rather than on the human rights issues. Edminster listed a number of the formal signs of cooperation, including the Maastricht Treaty which was signed in 1993. Maastricht began the process of rendering policy-making power concerning migration to EU institutions. Added pressure from the crisis in Yugoslavia encouraged the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 that clearly stated the need for EU-wide policies on asylum issues. The process seemed positive to Edminster since, "European NGOs tend to think that the transfer of power to European institutions will increase their ability to affect the process and to come up with more generous approaches."

Turning to address the Tampere Summit, Edminster saw both positives and negatives in the conclusions. "There remains a tension between control measures to prevent unauthorized migration and honoring human rights commitments." Edminster then highlighted for the audience key points from the Tampere conclusions.

• Reaffirmed European Union's commitment to observing the UN Refugee Convention, and supported an absolute right to seek asylum
• Supported the creation of a common asylum system based on a "full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention."
• Addressed measures to enforce the Dublin Convention and identify countries of first arrival
• Considered subsidiary forms of protection for people who don't meet the Convention's standard of a refugee
• Addresses the root causes of refugee flows and focuses on the countries of origin for refugees, as well as strengthening the ability of transit countries to offer asylum

A number of the Tampere conclusions disturbed Edminster. "Focusing on root causes and dealing with transit migration will become an excuse for denying access to Europe. You might have a system that is very good in Europe but people may never be able to get there." The distinction between burden sharing and burden shifting became convoluted in a number of the Tampere conclusions. Emphasis on the Dublin Convention troubled Edminster since he feared resources would be wasted attempting to identify the country of first arrival rather than on processing the asylum claim. Overall the tone of the Tampere summit gave Edminster hope that Europe was embracing the standards of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention but he remained cautious about implementation.

Kathleen Newland thanked Edminster for his clarification of the complex European system and reminded the audience that Demetri Papademetriou, Senior Associate with the International Migration Policy Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace had written a monograph entitled Coming Together or Pulling Apart: The European Union's Struggle with Immigration and Asylum that outlined the background of these developments.

Carol Wolchok spoke next and presented her impressions of the ECRE meetings that she attended parallel to the European Council Special Meeting. The purpose of the ECRE meeting was to bring together more than 60 European NGOs and have them create a joint statement concerning "their hopes and expectations from the EC Summit." Wolchok was struck by the cooperation between the NGOs and noted that the draft statement was embraced quickly by all of the groups, except for a few limited disagreements about the international response to the Kosovo crisis. "Overall the statement urged the European ministers to embrace the 1951 UN Convention and to strive for best practices."

The ECRE meeting displayed a great variety of opinions ranging from fiery political speeches to formal policy presentations. Wolchok emphasized how impressed she was by the professional nature of the European NGO people she met at the meeting. "I saw a lot of parallels between them and colleagues in this country, but in many cases they were working under very adverse conditions." Wolchok then related the story of an extraordinary woman she met from Bulgaria, who along with one partner runs an agency to recruit attorneys for asylum cases, trains them, places cases with them, does advocacy, puts out a newsletter and provides liaison with other European countries.

Wolchok was most influenced by a meeting that she attended post-Tampere concerning access to Europe. "The meeting brought together representatives from twenty different countries talking about what their governments were doing to restrict access to their countries. There is a zero tolerance approach to illegal immigration in Europe right now." For Wolchok, the similarities between the policies in Europe and the United States were striking. European countries have imposed visa restrictions on people from outside the EU, imposed liabilities on air carriers and truckers, placed immigration officers abroad in the country of departure to make sure travelers are eligible before they board planes, pressured countries of departure to impose requirements on people departing the country, increased border patrols and security zones and created public relations programs to encourage people not to seek asylum. "Sitting in these meetings, I became aware that Europe is creating a great asylum system that no one will ever be able to reach," concluded Wolchok.

Annie Wilson began her presentation by remarking that her impressions of the ECRE and EC meetings would be somewhat distinctive as she is not a frequent international traveler and had focused her professional interests on the United States. Going into the conference, Wilson was seeking to learn more about her European counterparts in the NGO community. Once in Tampere, Wilson learned of the truly momentous changes taking place within the EU. "Here is the entire European Union making fundamental decisions about how to approach these issues. My sense was that this was an incredibly important moment."

The atmosphere in Tampere reminded Wilson of a "back to basics" movement. The EC Summit paid particular attention to the foundation of refugee law, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Wilson remarked that she wished the United States would be encouraged by the soul-searching taking place in Europe and commit itself to a similar process.

Like Edminster and Wolchok, Wilson picked access as the issue she would most like to follow in Europe after attending the summit. "It is interesting because of the parallels with what happens here in the United States. Migration controls are an inter-locking system." Wilson also highlighted the resource difficulties and legal challenges that a lot of the NGOs from Eastern and Central European countries faced. ECRE, Wilson noted, was committed to reaching out to these groups and supporting their progress. Wilson saw similar potential for US involvement in support of Mexican NGOs.

As a member of a US non-governmental organization, Wilson said that she valued her participation in the European meetings. Possibilities for linking monitoring efforts by NGOs in Europe and North America struck Wilson as worthwhile. Intrigued by the international focus of the European NGOs, Wilson admitted that there were lessons that US non-governmental organizations could learn.

Question and Answers

Kathleen Newland thanked all of the speakers and opened the discussion with her own impressions on the topic. The Tampere agreement added up to "an extraordinary surrender of sovereignty on an issue area that is very contentious politically." Newland was encouraged by the reaffirmation of the 1951 UN Convention, but found that the concept of "communitarization" of asylum and immigration regulations before 2004 gave her pause. Newland acknowledged that given the political situation in certain European states, cooperation at the European level might offer the best prospects for making the asylum issue less of a political football in European countries.

Bill Frelick, with the US Committee for Refugees, was surprised at the suggestion by the panelists that there was good dialogue between NGOs and European governments. Frelick recounted that in his experience European NGOs are often left out of important decision making. Frelick wondered if along with the substantive change marked by the summit, there was also increased collaboration .

Annie Wilson responded that this was her first experience working with the European system so she couldn't bring to the table the historical perspective that Frelick had. She did note that the governments on paper were committing themselves to transparency and inclusion of NGOs.

Steve Edminster thought that Finland, as the current holder of the EU presidency, was the key to the changes that Frelick had noted. Edminster said unlike the governments of Germany and Austria, Finland has a good working relationship with its NGOs and set the tone for the summit.

David Rosenberg, with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, raised the issue of the looming national elections in numerous European countries. Rosenberg wanted to know how immigration and refugee issues in Europe would be affected by the potential election of more restrictive-minded ministers.

Kathleen Newland responded that she suspected that most of the concerned government officials who were moving these issues up to the European institution level were influenced by electoral considerations. "I think the national governments know that they have a problem and it is a problem that they can only deal with on an international level." Even with draconian restriction measures being adopted and tremendous expenditures, Newland noted that in the first nine months of 1999 asylum applications in 22 European countries were up 31% over the same period of the previous year.

Steve Edminster noted that he could see the national interest for some of these countries in getting rid of some of these contentious issues and handing them over to European institutions. Politicians are creating a buffer for themselves as they can not be held directly accountable for European-wide policies.

John Fredriksson, with the US Committee for Refugees, cited an article he had seen in the Economist which detailed the weakening of the European Council due to recent scandals. Fredriksson noted that it was an odd time for European states to be handing over the critical issues of asylum and immigration. Continuing on, Fredriksson asked for more information about the export value of the discussions taking place in Europe, and what their impact could be on the United States.

Carol Wolchok responded that one of the commonalties between Europe and the United States was that many of the individuals who seek asylum in both places come from the same countries. This should concern the United States, because if Europe were to become so restrictive that people can not find asylum they might turn to the United States as an option. Europe has been a primary destination for asylum seekers since it is closer to many of the countries of origin for refugees. The case law coming out of Europe concerned Wolchok because of its ability to serve as a model in the United States. Europe is also experimenting with voluntary repatriation and Wolchok thought it would serve US interests to pay attention to their findings.

Steve Edminster noted that "you can look back over the last ten years and see a lot of connections between what happened in Europe and resulting changes in the United States." Concepts like safe third country and expedited removal have their roots in Europe. Edminster found ample evidence to support keeping an eye on events across the Atlantic.

Nacy Iris, from the Bureau of Population, Refugee and Migration, offered the Bureau as a resource for understanding developments in Europe. Iris noted that the Bureau closely follows the EU and there is cooperation between the US and Europe on asylum issues. The European Union has a representative in D.C., Iris noted, who could also be helpful to anyone struggling to understand the European system. Iris cautioned that the US does not want to get too Euro-focused and needs to look to other regions for cooperation and insight on asylum and immigration.

Ralston Deffenbaugh, with Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, began his comment by thanking the US Dept of State for funding participation in the conference by NGOs from the US. Deffenbaugh cheered US participation in European measures of inclusion. Concluding the discussion with a question for consideration, Deffenbaugh wondered if "we are seeing a retreat from the brink? Is there a sense on both sides of the Atlantic that we have gone too far with restrictionist measures?"