For refugees and asylum seekers in Europe, 2002 has been a more turbulent year than most. In the political aftermath of September 11th, asylum policy has been thrown into the balance with 'immigration management'. As controlling borders and reducing illegal immigration creeps up government agendas, so the will to attain an asylum policy which truly guarantees protection to those in need seems to be fading. It is in this light that the outlook for asylum and refugee policy in 2003 has to be understood.
The Conclusions of the Council meeting in Seville last June noted the need to 'develop a common policy on the separate, but closely related, issues of asylum and immigration', as part of the area of freedom, security and justice. This looks set to be high on the priority list of 2003's Presidencies. However, it is already clear that emphasis will be placed on the 'immigration' side - mainly combating illegal immigration through measures such as better border controls, police cooperation and repatriation agreements with third countries. We must push for the 'fair balance between, on the one hand, action to combat illegal immigration coupled with effective control of external borders, and, on the other hand, an asylum policy complying with international conventions' as the Seville Council put it, to indeed be struck.
Tellingly, lists of adopted and pending agreements in Council show that 'restrictive' measures in these areas are already being negotiated with relative speed. On the other hand the political momentum which laid out the asylum agenda at Tampere has evaporated since 1999, and some asylum proposals have been stalled for a long time. As of mid-December, only the 'Dublin II' agreement on determining which member state is responsible for dealing with which asylum application has been finalised.
However, we should finally see in the new year agreement in the Council on the various parts of the Common Asylum Policy. Parliament has adopted its reports on all the proposals in this area (the last was my own report on the qualification and status of third country nationals as refugees or those needing other international protection). Hopefully our governments will take Parliament's view into account in their decisions, respecting the spirit of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees, and safeguarding Europe's traditional commitment to human rights.
Other positive areas of asylum-related legislation in which progress should be made next year are the opening of legal channels for immigration, and integration policies for legal immigrants and refugees. It is now widely recognised that the asylum system is being clogged up partly due to a lack of other legal forms of migration, and Parliament will have adopted by the end of 2002 our opinion on entry and residence for employment purposes, which will then pass to Council. However, there is still no clear answer as to how asylum seekers are supposed to enter the EU legally, as border controls get tighter.
Discussions in the Convention could have important implications for asylum and immigration policy in the next few years. The Parliament could finally have real legislative power in this area, as the Convention JHA working group has proposed qualified majority voting and codecision for legislation on asylum, refugees and displaced persons. However, not all member states are likely to greet these proposals with enthusiasm. So, power to Parliament might increase but power to the people, in terms of equal treatment for third country nationals or the extension of EU citizenship is making less progress.
The EU must act on the acknowledgement that it is not Europe that has to deal with most of the world's refugees, but southern countries which have far fewer resources to deal with them. The EU must thus channel greater financial resources to bodies like the UNHCR who assist most refugees countries in their own regions. Furthermore, efforts also need to be focused on preventing refugee-producing situations. A recent Commission communication has highlighted this point and I hope that this will be developed further. At last I might get an answer to my repeated question "Is the EU prepared to examine its own policies and change these (like the CAP and trade policies) which act as 'push' factors for migration and asylum?"