Migrant Crisis Threatens European Union's Cohesion

This is exactly what I blogged about the other day, "Migrant Crisis Raises Existential Questions for Europe."

And now at the Wall Street Journal, "The Migrant Threat to EU Cohesion":

Just as the European Union appears to have resolved one crisis, it risks being overwhelmed by another.

Last week eurozone finance ministers approved Greece’s new bailout, a major step toward ending a crisis that had threatened to tear apart Europe’s single currency. Meanwhile, the European Commission was outlining its latest efforts to address what it called the greatest migration crisis Europe has faced since the end of World War II.

Few believe the measures announced match the scale of the challenge. The EU border agency Frontex estimates that more than 100,000 migrants crossed into the EU in July alone, compared with 270,000 in the whole of 2014.

More than 50,000 turned up in Greece in July, more than in the whole of 2014. Many of them have been washing up in small inflatable boats on four small Greek islands. Similar numbers have been making their way to Italy from Libya, while 35,000 have arrived in July alone at the Hungarian border with Serbia.

Many are fleeing violence in Syria, Afghanistan and Libya; others are traveling from Iraq, Pakistan and the Horn of Africa in search of a better life. Most have paid large sums to traffickers who brazenly advertise their services via social media.

Once in Europe, many are intent on making their way to Northern Europe, where jobs are more plentiful. Germany reckons up to 600,000 migrants have arrived this year. Meanwhile, large numbers have congregated around the French port of Calais, where they have besieged the Channel Tunnel, hoping to smuggle themselves into the U.K.

The migration crisis may yet prove a bigger test of European cohesion than the euro crisis. Both pose fundamental questions about where the balance lies between national responsibility and intra-government solidarity. But whereas the Greek crisis was ultimately a dispute over money, the migration crisis concerns visceral questions of culture and identity.

It also has revealed serious deficiencies in the EU’s institutional and legal setup and exposed rifts between Northern and Southern Europe.

The problem is that national governments have responsibility for controlling their borders and deciding on whom to grant citizenship and asylum. But most countries have abolished border controls within the EU, allowing those inside to move freely between the member states.

That makes each country’s border and migration policies a common EU concern. In response, Brussels has put in place harmonized rules on treatment of asylum seekers. But many doubt how rigorously these rules are being applied, particularly in those countries receiving the bulk of the migrants, some of which have been overwhelmed by the scale of the challenge.

Under EU law, those claiming refugee status—as most migrants do—are entitled to be fed and housed while their cases are investigated, an expensive process. For a country such as Greece, in the midst of a deep financial crisis, the drain on resources has been too much, leading to angry scenes at reception centers on the island of Kos.

There, 12,000 migrants have arrived this summer, equivalent to more than a third of its population. Meanwhile, EU rules also say that refugees must be registered and fingerprinted in the country in which they first arrive, which then becomes responsible for housing them until their status is decided.

This system is now in disarray. Richer Northern European countries accuse Southern European countries of failing to keep track of illegal migrants, passing the problem on to them. This summer, France briefly reopened its border post with Italy. Meanwhile, Southern countries say they are unfairly being forced to take responsibility for migrants whose real objective is to head to the richer north.

This makes forging a common response to the crisis extraordinarily difficult.

Faced with harrowing reports of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean earlier this summer, the member states agreed to provide military assistance for search-and-rescue missions and efforts to disrupt smuggler networks off the coast of Italy and in the Aegean Sea. The EU has also handed out €2.4 billion ($2.66 billion) in emergency assistance to member states to help with the cost of managing the crisis. It also says it will use its diplomatic muscle to tackle the problem at source at a summit with leaders of African countries in November.

But when the commission proposed in June that all 28 members of the EU commit to a plan to resettle 20,000 refugees from outside the EU and relocate 40,000 migrants already inside, several countries—including Eastern European countries with no tradition of accepting refugees and richer countries such as the U.K. and Austria where anti-immigrant sentiment is strong—refused to participate. Some EU officials describe this as the darkest moment in EU history...

That's NIMBY politics at the international level. Not-in-my-backyard. You take care of the problem. It's ugly, but it's the way international politics works, and it's interesting that it's the EU system as a whole that's coming up short in response. That's not how institutional theories of cooperation conceptualize problems. Greater integration of states is supposed to facilitate collective action to mutual problems, but the migration crisis shows how self-interest causes collective action failures, and how institutional cohesion breaks down.

It's pretty fascinating.

Still more at the link.