Both Eastern and Western European countries are using desperate refugees as instruments of political warfare, argues Hamza Chaudhry of the Ayaan Institute.

Though global attention is currently diverted towards a possible Russian military incursion in Ukraine, the Belarus – EU migrant crisis remains ongoing. An estimated 3000 to 4000 migrants remain in limbo, trapped at the border between the EU and Belarus. The crisis began in July 2021 when migrants from Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon were encouraged to fly to Minsk for passage into the EU; travel agents allegedly made it clear that migrants would be provided easy access to the border. The EU has since accused Belarus of weaponising migrants and orchestrating the crisis, while Poland refused aid organisations access to the border zone, which has exacerbated the humanitarian catastrophe. Both the EU and Belarus have disregarded the humanitarian aspect of the dispute and resorted to political posturing, since any meaningful support for migrants may be perceived as a concession to the opposing side.

Migrant “Diplomacy”

History is full of instances where migrants were used as a geopolitical instrument or as a means of gaining leverage upon another state. An example of this was the Cuban Balseros crisis of 1994, whereby Fidel Castro orchestrated a brief migration crisis during which 35,000 Cubans fled to the United States. Not only did this influence US domestic politics and migration policy; it also boosted the domestic approval of the Cuban regime. Similar actions were also undertaken by Libya, who from 2002 to 2004 enabled uncontrolled migration to Italy to effectively pressure the EU to end its arms embargo. However, the actions of Turkey in 2020 offer a more recent example: the Turkish president accused the EU of not honouring the 2016 agreement to host refugees in exchange for six billion euros and subsequently opened the border with Greece, while the Greek border remained fortified, resulting in migrants being injured attempting to cross. Therefore, the current instrumentalisation of migrants along the EU-Belarus border is not a novel practice, but another instance of migrant diplomacy, whereby refugees are used as diplomatic tools without regard for their well-being.

The Eastern Migrant Crisis

Following the allegedly unfair 2020 Belarusian elections and the human rights violations against political opponents, the EU implemented further sanctions against the Lukashenko regime. Though these were not the first round of sanctions, they prompted a response, whereby the Belarusian authorities attempted to use migrants as a diplomatic instrument to reprimand the EU. Belarus is not a transit state akin to Turkey, migrants were thus allegedly offered cheap tickets to Minsk on a tourist visa, with the intention of facilitating crossings into the EU via Poland and the Baltic states.

The majority of migrants attempted to cross at the Polish border but were met with water cannons and violent pushbacks. Polish law enforcement was also documented picking up migrants who made the crossing and forcibly returning them to Belarus, despite people voicing their intentions to claim asylum in the EU. However, similar accusations have been made of the Belarusian security services, who allegedly prevented migrants from leaving the border zone and engaged in theft, in addition to beatings.

From a legal and human rights perspective, both sides have violated the principle of non-refoulement in the 1951 Geneva Convention. This demonstrated a disregard for humanitarian responsibility whereby migrant lives are devalued and political actors are seeking to blame each other for the crisis, as opposed to finding a solution that can aid those trapped at the border. Not only does the refusal to abide by EU and international law reflect a moral deficit, but it also sets a new precedent for EU states who seek to undermine the laws they helped create.

The European Commission has since proposed the adoption of emergency measures to accelerate the border process, which entails further limitations on access to rights and asylum. Migrants would only claim asylum at official border crossings which remain closed; those who made it to EU territory without being returned will be held in detention during the 16-week accelerated processing period. The maximum processing period of 16 weeks increases the chances of an individual’s circumstances being inadequately assessed, resulting in more rejected claims and expulsions. Although these measures are temporary, they risk normalising institutional forms of deterrence in the future and have thus raised concern among human rights NGOs.

The EU Response

The media has focused on portraying Belarus as the villain and while being somewhat accurate, this emphasis on Belarus has distracted from the failures of Europe, as well as its role in the creation of the crisis. This can be traced back to Sykes-Picot and the colonial legacies of Middle Eastern states, in addition to the European propensity for military intervention, either independently or at the behest of the United States. Not only do such instances include the destabilisation of Libya and the Iraq war, but also the over 50 lesser-known military interventions in former African colonies carried out by France. Such actions can be classed as the contemporary continuation of colonial exploitation under the guise of liberation, be it for oil in Iraq or Uranium in Mali. As a result, inhibiting the development of the Global South increases global inequality and incentivises migration to the Global North.

While European states are not exclusively responsible for instability in refugee sending countries, their role in perpetuating the crisis must be acknowledged, as opposed to blaming the transit states to whom European refugee management is outsourced. The same applies to the periphery countries within the EU borders who act as a buffer zone, aiming to shield central states from migration. This status quo is maintained by the unequal political and economic power between central and peripheral EU states. The Dublin convention has institutionalised this unequal sharing of responsibility by stipulating that asylum seekers must be processed in the first EU state they arrive while authorising the deportation of refugees apprehended in north-western Europe to these states.

Concentrating asylum claims in periphery states allows these states to be responsible for the rejected asylum applications, enabling the wealthier states to also relocate their moral responsibilities to maintain a liberal façade, while dismissing marginal states as xenophobic.  Therefore, confining refugees to low-income peripheral EU countries and turning states that border the EU into refugee camps is not a sustainable solution and will inevitably incentivise the instrumentalisation of refugees as leverage or a diplomatic tool.

The effectiveness of using refugees to gain leverage over the EU is amplified as migrants have become increasingly securitised over the years. The securitisation of refugees throughout the media and political discourse has served to legitimise a more militarised approach to border security, exemplified by the 12 000 Polish troops deployed to prevent crossings from Belarus. This form of border management entrenches securitisation and validates the threat narrative in the public consciousness, as refugees are seen behind barbed wire fences or engaged in chaotic border crossings. Therefore, securitisation enabled the EU to appear as the victim which diverts attention away from the migrants who were made false promises and used as political pawns.

The Humanitarian Situation 

The humanitarian situation at the Eastern and Baltic EU borders remains bleak, as repeated attempts to cross have been thwarted and the unforgiving winter conditions have claimed at least twenty-one lives, two of which were children. Despite this, migrants have travelled on foot across rivers and forests without sufficient supplies, in addition to enduring beatings and hypothermia at the border. Furthermore, access to food, water and medical care remains extremely limited, with some volunteers being forced to work illegally in the border regions. Working in the border regions was restricted on both the Polish and Belarusian sides, with Médecins Sans Frontières being denied access to the security zones. Access to medical attention is paramount because aside from hypothermia, doctors in Poland have reported cases of dehydration, hunger, and trauma, whereas other migrants were wounded by barbed wire in the forest.

Preventing aid organisations from carrying out vital work has worsened the humanitarian crisis and is perhaps a strategic decision to indirectly push back migrants. The number of migrants in Belarus appears to be decreasing as 4000 people have been repatriated to Iraq and Syria, however, the population remains between 3000 and 4000. The migrants in Belarus have few options, either go back to where many have nothing to return to, risk their lives to reach EU territory, or remain in Belarus who may also forcibly return them. Despite some migrants receiving shelter in an overcrowded Belarusian warehouse, the number of people still trapped at the border remains unknown since journalists and aid organisations are prohibited, rending the migrants voiceless.

Taking Responsibility for Destabilisation

Europe must accept some responsibility for the crisis, as it contributed to the destabilisation of the Middle East and enacted restrictive migration policies, while not sharing responsibility for refugees equally among member states. Furthermore, the EU cannot continue to allow member states to undermine the rule of law, as this opens the door for further violations. Despite the EU allowing its concerns over migration to be exploited, neighbouring states such as Belarus who engage in this activity must seek other diplomatic tools which do not utilise human lives as political instruments. Although a political solution is necessary, this cannot distract from the humanitarian nature of the crisis; both sides must allow for the free movement of aid organisations along the border to monitor the situation and prevent further fatalities.

Hamza Chaudhry is a Research Intern at the Ayaan Institute working on refugee communities.