Monday, 17 March 2014

"If you are illegal, you're just a shadow"

17 March 2014

So this has been the first day of my research. I would not say that I have been exceptionally lucky. Only some of what I hoped to accomplish got done, but at least there is hope. But I’ll come to that later. Let me first tell you about the intricacies of this day, which has indeed been rather eventful…and tiring, awfully tiring. After a short night of terrible sleep, I found a copyshop pretty much straight away, and printed lots of consent forms for just €1. A true bargain. I also had a nice conversation with a Masters-student who studied architecture in Edirne. I hopped into my rental car, and left Edirne for the Turkish-Bulgarian border. And what a border it was – a veritable fortress. I passed the frontier checkpoint without any problems, but at the Turkish customs checkpoint they realised that I didn’t have proper papers for my car, but only a car rental agreement. Unfortunately this agreement contained a clause that forbade me from leaving Turkey. The customs officer even called the rental car company, which very much made clear that their vehicles have to remain within the country. Thus I was turned back at the border. I was told to go to the border police to cancel the exit stamp in my passport. After a confusing drive across the border checkpoint, I made it to the police station. I made use of the opportunity to try and get an interview, but without success. Nobody spoke English. I drove back into Turkey, parked my car, and made up my mind to hitchhike! As an experienced backpacker, walking across border checkpoints was something that I was used to, but I have never had to show my passport as many times on a single day as I have had to do today. The checkpoint was indeed weird: there were section for border control, sections for customs, and just sections for ‘controls’. What exactly they were controlling I don’t know – usually it sufficed to wave the pretty burgundy red of an EU-passport at them.

Border TR-BG
 About half an hour later, at around 10.45, I had made it across the checkpoint. Determined not to leave from this odyssey empty-handed, I introduced myself to about everyone I met who was wearing a uniform. The problem is, that if you don’t speak the local language – Turkish – people act as though you don’t exist. They just don’t take you seriously. You can say whatever you want – most border policemen won’t even try to understand you. Nevertheless, I had one extremely interesting encounter. When I asked for interviews at the Bulgarian border police, a guy was sunbathing outside who wore a blue armband with an EU flag on it. I asked whether he speaks German (in Bulgaria, most of the older generation seem to know some German), to which he ironically replied, “A little.” I could tell immediately that he was Austrian. Upon closer inspection his armband turned out to say ‘Frontex’ in some pretty bold letters. He wasn’t ready to be interviewed, although I assured him that everything he says will remain anonymous (he claimed that he was forbidden from being interviewed). Nevertheless, he gave me some pretty useful information. He volunteered for Frontex and according to him, problems related to immigration in Bulgaria are ‘minimal’. Of course, his mere presence states the opposite… He pointed out that problems with refugees exist not in Bulgaria, but in Sicily and on Greek islands. If I wanted to speak with someone, I should go to the border protection command in Svilengrad.

Welcome to Bulgaria
Well, this is precisely where I was headed next. Hitchhiking to Svilengrad was easy. I was picked up by a Bulgarian minibus that was full of women. Only the drivers were men. In fact, one of the drivers, Mustafa, used to sell Turkish delicacies in Paunsdorf Center, a well-known shopping mall in Leipzig. Funny to meet a guy like that 2000km from home. I was served a chocolate bar, water and Fanta as we drove past a queue of hundreds of lorries that stretched on for many miles. Finally they dropped me off at a junction near Svilengrad. The contrast between Svilengrad and Edirne was shocking. The city appeared to be in severe decline. Abandoned industrial areas, rusty fences, potholed roads – those were my first impressions. The presence of vast amounts of horse carriages in many ways made me feel like a time traveller. I was wondering whether this is what refugees expected when they crossed the external border of the European Union. I had spaghetti for lunch at a pretty neat restaurant for €1.30. At the town hall I managed to arrange for my first interview. It was not with the local expert on asylum questions, but with what appeared to be the only person who spoke English.

Although the person I spoke to was not an expert, it was nevertheless a very insightful conversation. Svilengrad does indeed have a problem with ‘irregular immigration’. My interviewee, Petar, is one of the people responsible for managing projects funded with European money. Petar[1] was of the opinion that the Bulgarian government gives more to those migrants than it gives to its own people. While refugees receive beds and shelter, many Bulgarians do not possess such luxuries. Petar’s explanation of the sudden influx of thousands of Syrians into Bulgaria is that the Bulgarian government is in the mood to just give to everybody, while countries like Greece and Turkey make clear that refugees are unwanted. He confirmed that refugees are a hot problem in the public debate, although he was not politically-minded, and thus unable to speak about the issue in more detail. What Petar did tell me though, is that some families are afraid of letting their kids play in the streets out of fear of the migrants. After all, one never knows who these people are. They may be rich, having escaped a war, or they may be criminals. Petar told me about the Pastrogor open centre that was just out of town. He said that the place was overcrowded, and told me a story of a clothes collection that had been organised by some residents of Svilengrad. Everybody participated, and a whole truck full of clothes was gathered for the Syrians of Pastrogor. When the donations were delivered, the refugees refused to take them. They said that they did not need clothes, but beds and heaters. Petar interpreted this as them being ungrateful. There are stories going around of thefts, although they have not been reported in the media. Petar was unaware of there being major problems in Greece. He called Dublin a stupid rule, although he was not very well-informed about the exact nature of the regulation.
Poster I saw in the Svilengrad border police station

Before leaving for Pastrogor, I had another look around town. I found the central border police station, and made some interesting discoveries. The first thing that struck me was a poster in the police station that read, “If you’re illegal, you’re just a shadow. The legal way, is the only way.” It had an EU flag printed underneath. Clearly immigration was an issue here. I spoke to a police officer, who, although not wanting to be interviewed, told me about the process of applying for asylum in Bulgaria. The first thing that happens is that you come to Svilengrad’s border police station to be interviewed. I asked to speak to the person responsible, but she was on holiday. After Svilengrad, detention follows in Lyubimets, another town about half an hour away. Once the concerned person’s identity has been established, they may reside on Pastrogor. The border police officer advised me to visit both the open centre in Pastrogor, and the detention centre in Lyubimets. For the latter I would however need authorisation.

Pastrogor open centre
It turned out that authorisation is required for visiting Pastrogor as well, which is not that open after all. I had to take a cab to get to the place (€4), which was right in the middle of nowhere. My first impression was very good. In fact, from the outside, this looked like the best-taken care of refugee camp I had ever seen. The grass for green, the courtyard was tidy, and the walls were freshly painted, pleasantly orange. I found out later that the camp was just five months old. Yet again, English was difficult to get by with. After trying to introduce myself unsuccessfully, I was forwarded to the camp’s chief of security. He made clear that I could not just walk in and say hello, refusing also to introduce me to the camp’s residents. He referred me to an agency in Sofia, giving me their address, and asking me to leave. He had no problem if I spoke to refugees outside the camp’s boundaries, which, by the way, were secured with barbed wire.

Me being a pale guy with brighter-than-usual hair however, I got the residents’ attention pretty quickly. Not a minute passed before I spoke to a guy who asked me where I was from. I conversed with him using all the Arabic I could think of before he called a friend of his who spoke better English. He also lived in Pastrogor, and happen to just get out of a taxi with his wife and lots of groceries. Petar was right. Most people at the camp was well-dressed, probably better-dressed than most Bulgarians. At a first glance, one did get the impression that the residents of Pastrogar were well taken care of. The guy who got out of the taxi spoke very good English, and after introducing myself as a PhD student from Liverpool, he was more than happy to speak to me – tomorrow. Still, this was a start. I took his number and told him that I would call before I come.

I decided that I should get back to Edirne. I was somewhat frustrated at the staff’s refusal to help me, and it was getting late. Hitchhiking next to a refugee camp in the middle of nowhere was easier than I thought, and an elderly man brought me to the road that leads to the Turkish border. From there I was picked up by a Bulgarian customs officer who spoke some German, but not enough to tell me his opinion on immigration. I was back in Turkey pretty quickly. As I walked to my rental car, I was a whole series of German and Austrian ambulances which had ‘Project Syria’ printed on them. I am guessing that they are going to the war zone to provide some medical assistance.

Bridge across the pretty mighty Evros river
My efforts to enter Bulgaria via automobile were unsuccessful, but that did not necessarily mean that I could not enter Greece in this way. The Greek border is even closer to Edirne, being literally a couple of hundred meters away from the city centre. I drove across the Evros/Maritsa river, and I became instantly aware that this would be a nearly impenetrable obstacle for any refugee trying to get to Europe. The Evros forms the vast majority of the Greco-Turkish border. Only a small part, right next to Edirne, is an unnatural land border. The border checkpoint between Greece and Turkey was very different. Controls were minimal, but the whole area was highly militarised. The notorious fence scars the landscape. It is about two meters high and stretches on as far as the eye can see. On both sides it is secured by military bases, which are themselves surrounded by barbed wire. Upon seeing that river and that fence, it became blatantly clear why Bulgaria was suddenly experiencing an influx of refugees – it did not possess frontier fortifications of this type. Once again I was turned away at the border because of my car being rented. A chat with the Turkish border police revealed that there were no problems with immigration here, and that instances of asylum applications were rare at most. I am guessing that this situation is rather new – why else would this border be more militarised than a Cold War frontline. Maybe the guy was just making fun of me.

Abandoned Kastaniés train station
As I went for a walk into Greece I was barely asked once for my passport. I saw Turkish soldiers playing volleyball, and Greek soldiers playing basketball. Kastaniés, the Greek village on the border, appeared a lot tidier than anything else I have seen so far. I strolled through the village, which blazed with freshly mowed lawns and neatly cut hedges. I walked to the train station, hoping to get a good look at the border fence. I was disappointed though. The station lay abandoned, and as the sun set, I could only make out the fence around the military base – the fence around the fence. I made my way back to Turkey.

I have a meeting in Pastrogor tomorrow. Something to look forward to, and something to place my hopes in.





[1] Name has been changed.

Sunday, 16 March 2014

Arrival in Edirne

16 March 2014

So here I am! Edirne! My hotel room could be better, but it’s alright. You do feel like you’re in a different part of the world here. There is a massive, beautiful mosque outside my window. It’s Sunday night, yet everyone seems to be out in the streets playing backgammon. All major roads are decorated with thousands of flags, which I am guessing are meant to show support to a political party. I’ve driven for two hours from Istanbul to Edirne and scanned every radio station – I did not hear a single English-language song. It’s not that I minded. I love Turkish music. But it’s still surprising. As you approach the border Turkish songs are mixed with Greek and Bulgarian. The transition is gradual. The people across the border are probably still Muslims. I’ll see tomorrow.

View from my hotel room
First thing I’ll do when I get up will be to find a copyshop of some sort. Stupidly, I forgot to print out participant information sheets and consent forms. All interviewees will have to read and sign before they can participate in my research. Then I’m going to head over to Swilengrad accommodation centre, and start doing some interviews. I really have no idea what to expect… Will people even speak English?

Last time I wrote I was quite optimistic that everything was going to work out. This was somewhat unreasonable. Martin keeps warning me that I am underestimating the language issue. Swilengrad have changed their mind, and no longer want to be interviewed. It seems as though they have no one who speaks English. They told him that I should just drive straight to the accommodation centre. That’s what I’ll do then, but it still poses the question how they can communicate with asylum seekers. How can they inform applicants for asylum about their rights if no one can talk to them? I guess this is one of the first things that I will have to find out.


I am hoping for a response from Mr Nikas tomorrow, so I’ve got a green light for visiting Orestiada detention centre. If I don’t get a response by 2pm, I will call him again. Alright, off to bed now. Long day ahead tomorrow…

Tickets Booked!

13 March 2014

Finally, good news! Lots of good news actually. After my initial attempts to get in touch with the responsible authorities have been somewhat unsuccessful, I am now on track towards getting this field research done. I tried calling Caltanissetta and Swilengrad, but as soon as they realised I was speaking English they hung up the phone. Another strategy was called for. I contacted my friend Martin and asked if he could help me. He lives in Italy and speaks both Italian and Bulgarian. Martin replied promptly, “I must help you, comrade.” He called up the municipal authorities in Harmanli and Swilengrad. Both of them are willing to assist my research! In Harmanli, the reception centre is located in a small village nearby. They told Martin that I would just have to swing by and tell them I want to visit. In Swilengrad, it seems as though I will be able to speak with the authorities as well. Sounds really good! Lyubimets is the only place that I want to visit that we haven’t contacted yet. It is home to one of the most notorious camps in Europe.

Alex and I also undertook serious efforts to get my research in Greece going. Emails don’t seem to work. Phone calls were needed. The first thing I suggested was that we call the municipal authorities in Orestiada. Orestiada is a city of around 25,000 people right next to the Turkish border. It is one of the few parts of that border where there is no river which makes entry into Greece for undocumented migrants significantly more difficult. The city houses the only Greek detention centre, although a second one is currently being set up on the island of Lesbos. Alex called Orestiada’s authorities and spoke Greek. People were reasonably cooperative, and we were forwarded to the local police station. It turns out that the police is indeed who is responsible for organising visits to the detention centre, but that it is the Greek national public relations department who hands out the authorisation to do so. This was clearly a step forward. A visit to the detention centre was at least possible. We then called the public relations department in Athens. The person we spoke to had no idea why we would call there, but forwarded us to someone who may know something about asylum and migration issues. That person, in turn, was very helpful, and after a small wait found out the number of Panagiotis Nikas – this was the guy I needed. His secretary asked me to write a formal application letter to acquire the necessary authorisation. I did so immediately and faxed it through right away. I hope that a fax is harder to ignore than an email. They told Alex that a response could be expected very soon, which I hope means tomorrow.


Another thing I should perhaps mention: yesterday I booked tickets to fly from Leipzig to Istanbul. I am leaving on Sunday and will only stay for a couple of days. I got a cheap hotel in Edirne and a rental car set up. (Can’t wait to drive in Istanbul!) I was planning on just having a look around the area to prepare for my real research trip. But now it looks as though I could actually get the bulk of it done! I am really starting to look forward to all this. Now I have some more reading to do on applying grounded theory.

First Thoughts

10 March 2014

My field research is about to begin. This is the essence of my PhD. My field research is the reason I got funding, and it was the impetus for this whole endeavour. Without it, this project would be meaningless.

What is Europe? What is the EU? For most academics, asylum seekers would not be the first place to start. In fact, I often feel as though academics are uninterested in field research. Indiana Jones remains a fiction, real only to TV audiences. Real researchers sit in front of a screen. But that is not the world. I want to see the world through the eyes of immigrants, a group voiceless and displaced, yet a group with so much potential power. They are the proof that the EU is not a closed system. The laboratory conditions that Haas speaks of are an illusion.

First problem I am facing: recruitment. When I submitted the application for ethical approval, the procedure seemed so smooth. Now I know that what I wrote in that application was non-sense. I was hoping to simply write the Italian, Bulgarian and Greek authorities, getting a response a couple of hours later. This was a total fallacy. The problem is, that for now I cannot think of a better recruitment procedure. Of course, I have written NGOs. In fact, I have written about thirty NGOs. Given their values and ideals, one would expect them to be just as enthusiastic about my project as me, but it turns out that all I have gotten is a single response from UNHCR Italy. I was very pleased when I read their message, hoping that this would lead me somewhere, but it turns out that what I am left with is a list of email addresses that I have to go through.

Sicily houses asylum seekers in three different locations: Caltinissetto, Trapani und Ragusa. I have written the prefetturas of all three locations, without getting any responses so far. If they did respond, my research could proceed. I would acquire authorisation to enter refugee camps, could speak to the local staff, and I could interview asylum seekers. Finally I could see through the lens that makes this dissertation distinct from anything anyone has read so far.


Right now I think of my trips to Sicily and Thrace as holidays. Sure, I know that what I’ll hear will terrify me. When I went to Malta I often thought how incredibly lucky I had been to grow up in a wealthy area. (Since then I have become far more sensitive.) Nevertheless, although we are currently blessed with temperatures reaching up to the low twenties, I can’t wait to see the land of Commissario Montalbano. Probably the reality of the situation I am investigating will hit me really hard when I arrive. It really is about time for me to book my flights…

Tuesday, 18 February 2014

The two mistakes of Venizelos in front of the EP last week!


The EP is a very fascinating institution, even more so for a social scientist. There are so many things one could research on, from an anthropological study of the different casts’ social relations (MEPs, assistants, staff and stagiaires) to how national politics are being uploaded to the EP level; or perhaps a study on different fashion trends in the EP? What I am researching in my project is how the international ambitions of the MEPs translated into practice. At this moment I am working on what they call inter-parliamentary delegations and their role and how they developed in the last 30 years. But today the subject of my blog post is not related to my research. It is more related to my political activism. As a Greek living in Germany I am very sensitive to the stigmatization that both Greek and German media (to a large extend supported a part of the political elite) have created against the other. I was in Strasbourg this week for the plenary; I decided to give you an example of how national politics are being played out in the EP.

Greece happens to have the presidency of the Council of the EU for the next 5 months. Therefore, the Vice-President of the Greek government Evangelos Venizelos (President of PASOK) was in the EP to represent the Council in front of the Parliament. He also claims to be a Social Democrat – hence there was a speech before the S&D group of the EP. It is no secret that Greece has been in trouble for some years now and that the current government, a coalition between the conservatives and the “social-democrats” of PASOK, has implemented some very harsh reforms that have entirely destroyed the welfare state in Greece. This had dramatic consequences not only economically but also socially as we have witnessed the rise of Nazis in Greece. At the same time, the two traditional Greek parties (the ones in the coalition) have seen their percentages drop with the Social Democrats having the biggest loss. On the other side we have also seen the rise of the non-Communist left wing party Syriza and the appearance of another social-democratic party, the Democratic Left.

You might have heard that the Social-democrats all over Europe have a common candidate for the Head of the European Commission: Martin Schulz. This will probably come up in the election campaign; at least it is what they are trying to achieve. In Greece, the Democratic Left wants to join the S&D and will also support Schulz and has already made contact with the leadership of the S&D. With the European elections approaching and considering the very pessimistic polls for his party and the direct competition from the Democratic Left, Venizelos is under extreme pressure.  Venizelos therefore came to discuss with Martin Schulz and Hannes Swoboda (leaders of the European social democrats) how they could ‘save’ Social Democracy in Greece. That meeting was not public, but Venizelos announced their decisions in front of the S&D MEPs on Tuesday night. He said that there is going to be a common electoral list of all parties that support Martin Schulz. How is that problematic? Well the Democratic Left understandably does not want to be associated with PASOK under any circumstances (to be honest I get them; PASOK is responsible for the situation in Greece) and is more likely to refuse that deal. For the Greek public PASOK has mutated into some kind of neo-liberal party, as most of its left-wing has left the party and I suppose that more are to leave. By making that announcement he wanted to a) threaten some of his own MEPs who might want to join the Democratic Left and b) discredit the democratic Left in the eyes of the leadership of the S&D by accusing them of being uncooperative and selfish. Hopefully, Swoboda and Schulz are not stupid. And in any case, rendez-vous  after the elections.

The second mistake of Venizelos during that meeting was to tell the head of the German S&D delegation that Greeks are not corrupted and that “if we look behind every major scandal in Greece there is a German company”. I suppose he said that because there were cameras in the room and he was probably talking to a Greek audience rather than to Mr Bullmann. In any case, this move is a sign of an incompetent politician who plays on the polarization between Greeks and Germans. He is no better than the Bildzeitung or Focus magazine. Right now I am seriously trying to be pull myself together because I am so furious with that guy. You cannot tell something like that to a German Social Democrat who is part of your political family and from my personal experience with German Social Democracy there is no discourse like “Greeks are corrupted”. On the one side you polarize the situation even more because to your Greek audience you are saying, “It’s not us it’s them.” On the other side you are making yourself not very likeable to your allies in Germany. 
story is also sad because it shows a bit how politics are made in the EP. National considerations prevail, and most of the timespeechesare made toward you own national audience and not toward a European public. It makes me furious with the European political elite because the conservatives and PASOK are the parties they want to see in power; the same parties that brought on the crisis in the first place. And you end up seeing Greek politicians who hold discourses about the ‘corrupted Greek state’ when they were in power for the last 20 years! If we want a massive change in Greece, we need to remove all the political elites in power right now and replace them with young people. 
Well, I guess I went a bit further away and shifted a bit toward Greece. In any case this is the kind of blog post you can expect from me. I hope you enjoyed it and see you soon!



Sunday, 6 October 2013

Europäische Asylpolitik: Warum Dublin abgeschafft werden muss

Mehr als 300 tote Flüchlinge an Europas Mittelmeerküste sollte uns eigentlich dazu anregen, über die Grundlagen der europäischen Flüchlingspolitik ernsthaft nachzudenken, doch bei den Reaktionen europäischer Politiker stößt man vor allem auf grenzenlosen Zynismus. „Kann man mehr tun? Ja, aber das ist eine Sache der Mitgliedsstaaten,“ sagte vorgestern ein Sprecher von Innenkommissarin Cecilia Malmström. „Man darf sich da keine Illusionen machen,“ sagt der Sprecher, und weist darauf hin, dass es „nicht realistisch ist zu denken, dass man jede Tragödie oder jeden Tod im Mittelmeer vermeiden könnte.“ Zwischen 1993 und 2012 sind insgesamt 17,306 Menschen beim Versuch Europa zu erreichen ums Leben gekommen, mal ganz von den undokumentierten Toten abgesehen. Ist es etwa idealistisch zu glauben, dass ein anderen Europa alles in seiner Macht stehende hätte tun sollen, um diesen Menschen das Leben zu retten? Ein Massengrab im Mittelmeer ist der Preis, den die Europäische Union und ihre Mitgliedsstaaten gewillt sind zu zahlen, um Flüchtlinge daran zu hindern, die EU-Außengrenze zu überschreiten.

Hunderte Tote in Lampedusa
Eigentlich wollte ist diesen Eintrag ganz anders beginnen, denn das Thema, um das es mir gehen soll, ist ein Anderes, obwohl es im gleichen Zusammenhang steht. Vor ein paar Wochen sind Alex, ich und unser Hund Napo zusammen mit dem Auto nach Griechenland gefahren, und unterwegs überquerten wir die rumänischen und bulgarischen Grenzen. Obwohl beide Länder schon lange zur EU gehören, wird man an der Grenze noch immer kontrolliert, denn Rumänien und Bulgarien wurde es bisher verwehrt, dem Schengenraum beizutreten. Zuletzt war es die französische Regierung, die sich am heftigsten gegen einen Schengen-Beitritt wehrte, doch Deutschland steht seinem Nachbarland hier in keinerlei Hinsicht nach. Warum das Ganze? Ein paar kluge Journalisten scheinen da Antwort ja gefunden zu haben, und verweisen auf eine potentielle Immigrantenflut aus dem Ostbalkan, oder auf Probleme mit Sinti und Roma. In Wirklichkeit liegt der Grund für das deutsch-französische Veto ganz woanders, und es wird einem beim Blick auf die Landkarte schnell klar wo das Problem liegen könnte. Bisher hat der Schengen-Raum nur eine Grenze mit der Türkei, nämlich über Griechenland. Wenn man über Griechenland irregulär in die EU einwandert, und ohne Grenzkontrollen weiterkommen will, muss man also eine Fähre nach Italien nehmen, was für Flüchtlinge unmöglich ist, ohne aufgegriffen zu werden. Alternativ kann man eine weitere Grenze illegal überschreiten. Wären Rumänien und Bulgarien im Schengen-Raum, könnte man bequem nach Deutschland und Frankreich weiterreisen, ohne kontrolliert zu werden, und genau deshalb gibt es das deutsch-französische Veto.

Bereits 1996 schrieb Sarah Collinson über eine europäische Asylpufferzone, welche im Jahr 2013 größtenteils realisiert wurde. In diesem Fall entsteht eine Pufferzone, indem Rumänien und Bulgarien systematisch der Beitritt zum Schengener Abkommen verwehrt wird. Griechenland wird so mit Absicht von EU-Kerngebiet abgeschnitten, um Flüchtlingen die Weiterreise nach Deutschland oder Frankreich zu verwehren. Für irreguläre Migranten führt der Weg in die Legalität über einen Asylantrag, denn zur legalen Einwanderung braucht man entweder den Pass eines reichen Landes oder einen Job in der EU bei dem man mindestens €60.000 verdient. Nach dem Einreichen des Asylantrages sagt die Dublin-Verordnung, dass in vielen Fällen jenes Land zuständig ist, indem zuerst EU-Territorium betreten wurde. Um die Reiseroute nachvollziehen zu können, werden von jedem irregulären Einwanderer beim ersten Kontakt mit den Behörden eines EU-Mitgliedsstaates die Fingerabdrücke aufgenommen. Es gilt also zwischen den Mitgliedsstaaten folgendes Prinzip: wenn man einem Flüchling die Einreise ermöglicht hat, ist man auch für ihn verantwortlich. Ein Land mit EU-Außengrenze sollte deshalb besser seine Grenzen dicht machen, und Flüchtlinge gar nicht erst einreisen lassen. Ich denke mir das nicht aus, sondern habe das vor Kurzem von einem hochrangigen Mitarbeiter der Kommission bestätigt bekommen, dessen Namen ich hier nicht nennen kann. Die Kommission sagt, es liegt an den Mitgliedsstaaten ein anderes System zu entwicklen – das stimmt aber so nicht. Die im Moment gültige dritte Version der Dublin-Verordnung wurde vor Kurzem von der Kommission selbst vorgeschlagen, und eben diese Verordnung ist teilweise dafür verantwortlich, was jede Woche auf Neue an Europas Grenzen passiert. Das Dublin-System muss enden, und die Kommission hat die politische Aufgabe eine Alternative vorzuschlagen.

Nächstes Wochenende, beim Landesparteitag der SPD-Sachsen, werde ich fünf Minuten Zeit dafür haben, über eine weitreichende Reform des europäischen Asylsystems zu sprechen. Ein von mir entworfener, und von der AG Migration und Vielfalt der SPD-Sachsen eingereichter Antrag dazu liegt vor, und ist hier nachzulesen – er orientiert sich an einem Blogpost aus dem letzten Jahr. Es ist leider eine traurige Ironie, dass die aktuellen Geschehnisse uns für dieses Anliegen Rückenwind geben. Wenn der Antrag angenommen wird, muss er beim Bundesparteitag eingereicht werden, und es besteht die Chance, dass er ins SPD-Parteiprogramm aufgenommen wird. Wünscht mir also viel Glück, denn das hier könnte wirklich etwas bewirken.


Harald Köpping

Friday, 4 October 2013

The Cynics Win: European Asylum Policy 130 Deaths Later

Hundreds of dead refugees on Europe’s shores on a single day should give us cause to reflect on the basic principles of the European asylum policy, but cynics would not be disappointed if they heard the responses of our policy-makers today. “Can we do more? Sure, but that’s the member states’ responsibility,” says a spokesman of Home Affairs Commissioner Malmström. “Be under no illusion,” he continues, “it is not realistic to think that every tragedy, every death in the Mediterranean can be avoided. We are neither naïve nor too idealistic.” Between 1993 and October 2012 there have been 17,306 documented refugee deaths along the borders of Europe. This week this is already the second incident. Is it idealistic to think of a different Europe that does everything in its power to save those lives? The mass grave that the Mediterranean has become is the price that the European Union and its member states are willing to pay to prevent refugees from ever crossing our borders.

Bulgaria's border with Turkey
I have to say I did not mean to start this post like this. The issue that I want to talk about is another, even though it is closely related. Alex, me and our dog Napoleon have recently driven all the way to Greece, crossing Romania and Bulgaria on the way. Although both countries have been members of the EU for some time, we have had to show our ID-cards at the border, as they have not been permitted to enter the Schengen Area. Last week it has been France that has voiced its opposition the loudest, although Germany has been equally vocal. Ever wondered why? Well, it seems that some journalists have come to some very insightful conclusions on the matter. Reuters links it to a supposed “new influx of immigrants if Romanian and Bulgarian citizens are allowed to travel freely without passports in the Schengen zone.” France24 thinks immediately of a potential Roma-issue, ignoring that the border between Romania and Hungary poses no frontier to EU-citizens, which the Roma in question clearly are. In reality the reason for the Franco-German veto is to be found elsewhere, and it becomes quite apparent when one looks at the map of Europe. At the moment, the Schengen Area has only one border with Turkey, via which a large part of Europe’s irregular immigrations currently enter the EU, and that border is with Greece. From Greece, one has to either take a ferry to Italy, which is next to impossible for a refugee without being spotted, or one needs to attempt crossing another border illegally. If Romania and Bulgaria were to join Schengen, one could easily travel to the EU-core without the need for any further hassle. Keeping Romania and Bulgaria out of Schengen avoids such a scenario.

In 1996 Sarah Collinson wrote about the construction of a European asylum buffer zone. In 2013, this buffer zone has, for the most part, been realised. In this case, a buffer zone is created by the unfounded and systematic exclusion of Romania and Bulgaria from the Schengen Area. Greece is thus deliberately cut off from the mainland EU, preventing irregular migrants from reaching the European core. The only way for irregular migrants into legality is an asylum application, as regular immigration requires either a rich country’s passport or a job in the EU with an income of over €60,000. If an asylum application is finally submitted, the Dublin-Regulation establishes that in many cases an asylum application needs to be handled by the member state of first entry into the EU. To verify which member state that is, the fingerprints of every irregular migrant are taken upon first contact with public officials. The idea behind these rules is that if an immigrant is able to illegally enter a member state’s territory, it is that same member state’s responsibility to deal with them, and to finance and lodge them while their application is processed. If you have an external border, you thus want to do everything in your power to prevent asylum seekers from entering your territory. I have had this confirmed by an official from within the Commission during my PhD research, whose name I cannot give here. The European Commission says that it can do nothing, that it is up to the member states to create a more humane asylum system. This is a fallacy. The Dublin-Regulation, which the Commission itself has proposed, is in part responsible for the ever-increasing fortification of the EU. The Dublin-system has to end, and it is the role of the Commission to propose an alternative.

Next weekend, at the party congress of the Saxon SPD, I will have five minutes to speak on a substantial reform of the European asylum system along the lines of a previous blogpost. I had drafted a proposal on this, which has now been submitted the party in the name of the working group “Migration and Diversity” of the Saxon SPD. If the proposal is accepted, it will be forwarded to the national party congress, where it will again have to be presented. Wish me good luck that things are going to work out. If this all works out as planned, it could really make a difference.


Harald Köpping


Collinson, S. (1996). Visa Requirements, Carrier Sanctions, 'Safe Third Countries' and 'Readmission': The Development of an Asylum Buffer Zone in Europe. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 21 (1). 76-90.