Humane aspects of border security

Anyone who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion should be protected by the Geneva Refugee Convention which celebrates its 70th anniversary on 28th July 2021. Any person meeting these universal criteria is a refugee and should never be pushed back into a situation where they risk persecution and serious harm.
This radical new idea of protecting refugees was born of the experiences of the second world war and, over the years, it has become a uni-versal value. The non-refoulement principle – no-pushbacks-rule – is the core of this convention and also applies to people who face torture and inhumane treatment, the death penalty and indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict.
The implementation of this global system to protect refugees has always been patchy and its rules have been violated continuously since it entered into force in 1951. However, in spite of its deficiencies, the non-refoulement principle has saved millions of lives across the world and will continue to do so.
We know only too well, however, that pushbacks are still being carried out everywhere, even by Member States of the European Union. Har-rowing scenes showing the Spanish border police roughly pushing back thousands of people at the border between Spain and the enclave of Ceuta were broadcast around the world after the Moroccan government opened the border in order to put pressure on Spain because of its policy towards the Polisario movement. Pressuring Spain in this way is tantamount to pressuring the European Union, in the same way that Turkey’s President Erdogan is blackmailing Europe. Is this twin strategy about to destabilise the European Union?
Nations need borders and it is for them to determine the kind of borders they want. Societies in general want secure borders, but they also have a feeling of empathy, the basis for responsible and humane border control. Throughout the world, nations have problems with their border regime. The reasons are manifold but there is one common issue: how to strike an appropriate balance between humanity at their borders and the legitimate desire to protect their security?
Member States of the European Union have shared competence on immigration and must abide by its principles. There are precise rules concerning, for instance, the free movement of people (blue card). Member States do not have much leeway in applying these rules, but they have much more leeway on irregular immigration. And there lies the problem.
The proposal for a New Pact on Migration and Asylum was launched last September by the Commission. Its aim is to forge consensus among Member States and put an end to their current divergences on migration policies.
The Commission’s proposal is very ambitious with, firstly, the challenge imposed by the Council to achieve consensus, and secondly, the call on nations to agree to a package approach on the main issues of the pact, like the compulsory border procedures, which are refused by most of the States in the South, and the solidarity mechanism with its concept of return sponsorship, vigorously rejected by the Visegrad States in the East.
The continuing divergences of Member States on migration and asylum is not only a question of humanity and solidarity, it touches on the very credibility of our Union.
It seems to me that the Union is not yet ripe for this great leap forward, and there will inevitably be further intense discussions, including moratoria. However, what each Member State might at least do in the meantime is verify if people in danger are being treated with humani-ty at its borders.