An idea to be developed without bias. A few misunderstandings have been weeded out, and efforts have been made to lessen the rhetoric and tricks to win popular support. This is all that can be said for the time being on the first European debate at ministerial level on the action to be taken by the EU to protect itself against illegal immigration, a problem which has become alarming in several regions. This debate took place last week in Scheveningen, the Netherlands, as we know: for its content, I refer you to the exhaustive summary published in our bulletin of 2 October, pages 7 and 8.
The eradicated misunderstandings refer to the reception centres for refugees and illegal immigrants to be set up outside the Union's territory, as proposed by the German and Italian ministers, Otto Schily and Giuseppe Pisanu. How many misconceptions have there been about this idea! "Concentration camps" were referred to, and measures incompatible with international rules and the European tradition; Daniel Cohn-Bendit, in high dudgeon, said that camps for refugees already existed in Libya, and that living conditions were unacceptable in them. Several humanitarian organisations spoke out against the draft before they knew exactly what was in it. More wisely, a few ministers of the interior, including Dominique de Villepin of France, expressed reservations and called for explanations and clarifications. I don't know the details of Messrs Schily and Pisanu's initial ideas; but I now know that several conditions must be met if the idea is to be put into practice. In particular, Libya, or any third country where centres may be set up, must have ratified the UN Convention on refugees' rights, and the option for asylum applications to be processed in these centres presupposes a common asylum policy, because this cannot be done on the basis of 25 different laws, with free circulation in the Schengen zone being the key. It should be borne in mind that the right to asylum refers to political refugees, but the overwhelming majority of those turning up in Europe are economic refugees.
Keeping demagogy at arm's length. I know that there are the charitable souls who feel that those fleeing famine and dreadful living conditions should have the same rights as those fleeing tyranny and persecution; but this is neither rhetoric nor popularity-seeking, because in this case those entitled would number several hundred million, far more than the European population. And then Europe would no longer be able to cope with refugees and legal immigrants. The truth is that if the EU is to be up to the task of welcoming the real refugees and practise an immigration policy which is fair and in line with its needs, it must equip itself with the means of controlling illegal immigration. It is too easy to ignore or to disguise with a few well-turned phrases the fact that the sad reality is made up of inhuman voyages, the occasional devastating shipwreck (a drama of recent days, off the coast of Tunisia), women and children exploited by ruthless pirates who have found a more shocking (and lucrative) source of profits than even gun-running or drug-dealing. It was no coincidence that the debate was requested by Germany, which is home to the highest number of illegal immigrants, and Italy, where "death ships" disembark daily. Don't let's forget that the first proposal for extra-Community reception centres was made in 2003 by the United Kingdom, the country with the most developed individual liberties in the world: no identity cards, total freedom of opinion and of expression. Terrorists exploited this cruelly. As Tony Blair's suggestions were not taken on board, the United Kingdom had to toughen up its national rules. This will be the fate of all democracies: a bit less freedom for everyone, if the EU fails to get a handle on illegal immigration and define a fair legal immigration policy (a "European" policy, if we want to keep Schengen).
Is the Schily formula a good one? I don't know. But what I do know is that Scheveningen was just the start of the debate. Reducing pressure on the EU's boundaries presupposes that the situation in Africa is improving. But I don't believe in the miracles of financial aid, the only measure which is constantly called for. This aid will keep being wasted, because the real ills in Africa are called ethnic conflicts, epidemics, corruption, State structures crumbling away, destruction of subsistence agriculture in favour of monocultures for export (which makes the multinationals rich and the farmers poor, and destroys ways of life and traditional farming). We must never forget the letter found in the pockets of two Guinean teenagers found dead one summer day in 1999, in the landing gear of an aeroplane arriving in Brussels from Conakry (our translation): "Dear leaders of Europe, we have war, disease, no food (...). We wish to study, and we entreat you to help us". It's not boatloads of desperate people that will see the dreams of these two young Guineans come true. Africa will save itself when it gets a grip on its real problems. (F.R.)