Brussels, 06/10/2015 (Agence Europe) - The EU must assist refugees in their dramatic and inhuman situation, MEPs said at the plenary session in Strasbourg on Tuesday 6 October during a special debate on the humanitarian situation of refugees in the EU and neighbouring countries.
They all support the decision of the European Council on 23 September to assist refugees as a matter of priority as close as possible to their places of origin (Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan), to provide €100 million in emergency aid to help those member states most affected to respond to the needs of the new arrivals, and to increase funding of UN humanitarian organisations which are desperately short of money to €1 billion. However, the discussion and exchange with European Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans and the representative of the Presidency of the Council of the EU, Luxembourg minister Nicolas Schmit, revealed significant differences dependent on MEPs' political affiliation and geographical origin.
While the traditional parties defended the right of asylum and European values, such as solidarity and protecting human dignity, the debate provided the opportunity for extreme right-wing and non-attached MEPs to express their rejection of what they see as migrants flooding into Europe like refugees, and for Central and Eastern European MEPs to say loud and clear that relocation of migrants is not the answer. Viktor Orban's policy towards the migrants was many times reviled as being a negation of European values, while some MEPs, on the contrary, complained that Hungary was being reproached for protecting Europe's border.
To this, Timmermans replied, on the one hand, lambasting the “denial” of some and, on the other, assuring MEPs concerned at the Hungarian policy that “there will be dialogue with the Hungarian authorities” after they respond to the questions put by the Commission. Schmit drove home the message: “A father told me, 'I left because my children have not been to school for two years'. I ask you, in the same situation, would you have waited two years?” And he gave assurances that the Council would continue to work closely with the Parliament to find a solution to this crisis that is up to the challenge. He expressed his certainty that “Europe is perfectly able to get on top of this situation. But it will only do so if it stands together”.
Several MEPs said that, while the increase in humanitarian aid was essential, money alone was not the answer and the deeper causes of the conflict had to be addressed, with some highlighting the responsibility incumbent on the EU to help end the conflict and find a solution in Syria in particular, “without allowing itself to be directed by Russia”.
Schmit underlined that “the decision of the European Council of 23 September confirms the EU's deep commitment to the internal, external and humanitarian dimensions of this crisis. We are releasing resources to refinance humanitarian organisations, such as the UNHCR and the WFP, to better meet the needs of refugees close to their places of origin. Doubling the EU's contribution to an additional €1 billion for humanitarian aid is not too much”. He pointed out that the Netherlands and Belgium had pledged contributions of €48.5 million and €30 million respectively and the United Kingdom, Germany and France €100 million each.
After his discussions with Antonio Guterres of the UNHCR, Timmermans warned that, with the approach of winter, “we know how to fit reception centres but it will be difficult to protect people on the move from winter”. Monika Hohlmeier (EPP, Germany) urged that disbursements be made because “the current rate of payment to the WFP is close to criminal negligence on the parts of both the EU and the member states”. Cecilia Wikström (ALDE, Sweden) criticised the treatment of migrants and of those who helped them in Hungary. “What Hungary is doing is not observation, it's pushing them back. Is that the EU that we want?” she asked. Judith Sargentini (Greens/EFA, Netherlands) made the point that “giving food, throwing crumbs to refugees is not enough. They are human beings. Every attempt to draw the lessons of Viktor Orban's actions have come to nothing”, she regretted. Knut Fleckenstein (S&D, Germany) was unhappy that member states had not met their collective commitment to devote 0.7% of EU GDP to public development aid. Eleftherios Synadinos (non-attached, Greece) argued that “jihadis are taking advantage of the situation to enter Europe. It's not with pious wishes and money that we'll solve the problem! We have to stand with those fighting Daesh and Turkey, Syria's neighbour, has to assume its responsibilities”. Jussi Halla-aho (ECR, Finland), whose country is expecting to receive 50,000 asylum requests from sub-Saharan Africa, spoke of the approach of winter and the danger of seeing thousands of young people who had been attracted to Europe become deeply frustrated. Paul Nuttall (EFDD, UK) was of the view that “this isn't a refugee crisis but 90% an economic migrant crisis, with 85% coming from Pakistan, Algeria and Gambia, not Syria”. He said that what is in play here is the freedom of movement of the jihad. Linda McAvan (S&D, UK), who had been in Turkey three weeks ago, retorted that “they were indeed refugees, children who had lost an arm or a leg. We need more resources and to organise direct, legal routes”.
“The debate is focusing on the humanitarian situation. Let's speak about refugees eating out of feeding troughs, piled onto trains and abandoned in unknown places or sheltered in former concentration camps”, said Marisa Matias (GUE, Portugal), arguing for respect for human life and human rights. “The Treaty cannot be applied in a pick-and-choose way. Is Orban an exception?” she asked.
Barbara Kudrycka (EPP, Poland) argued that “relocation quotas are not the right solution”. She said that “the return of migrants must be ensured. The protection of refugees, their safety, must be guaranteed them. Welcoming refugees is not a threat but a demonstration of humanity”. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)