Agora - content

The open forum for foreign policy

Migration

Four ways to transform migration

Agora’s Migration Programme partnered with the wider Open Think Tank Network and Kenyan-based youth empowerment organisation, The Youth Café, to create a participatory workshop series culminating in a policy paper to reflect on potential transformations of migration as we know it. Initially inspired by the unforeseen halt to migration due to Covid-19, the group reflected on the unpredictable nature of future policy making, and developed a methodology to democratise strategic foresight.

Across a three part series of collaborative online workshops, the project engaged over one hundred participants from around the world on our own innovation platform Policy Kitchen. Participants imagined diverse futures of migration, and the team crowd-sourced various potential migration policy actions. Refined with each workshop, the policy ideas for 2050 were grouped in four key areas:

  1. Fair remuneration and inclusive working conditions for all occupations and contributions to society in order to end exploitative working conditions for migrants, increase employment prospects and access to education in host communities by:
    • expanding inclusive occupations and remuneration schemes
    • increasingly subsidising continuous vocational development and retraining
    • financially acknowledging efforts such as language studies and care work as valuable contributions to society.
  2. Addressing the positive impact on the social and economic challenges of an ageing society by taking into account the different experiences and skills that migrants bring to the labour market by:
    • establishing a job opportunities database
    • developing a meaningful and comparable skills assessment tool
  3. Increase the decision-making power of cities and local level actors in migration policy management by:
    • recognising the significant roles and responsibilities of cities in managing human mobility and giving them more competencies to create sustainable urban development
    • taking into account the views of all actors involved in human mobility and using them to build inclusive, bottom-up governance structures
    • allocating resources to cities and granting them more sovereignty over the establishment of local level residency schemes, visa regimes, and resettlement decisions
  4. Strengthen urban-rural linkages in the context of climate resilience and adaptation by:
    • Breaking down the rural-urban dichotomy and introducing a regional turn in policy action aimed towards climate resilience
    • establishing a network of model regions, which act as innovation incubators and develop urban-rural resilience strategies
    • adapting these learnings into capacity building guidelines for other regions to apply to their needs.

The participatory strategic foresight workshops resulted in the report Quo vadis? Envisioning human mobility for 2050, which you can read here, and an accompanying podcast series to explore an imagined human element of these policy areas, which you can listen to here.

Hannah Kuehn is co-Head of Agora’s Migration Programme.

Ukraine’s suffering is a humanitarian crisis. The UK must respond accordingly

The UK government needs to plan for incoming Ukrainian migrants immediately, including creating expedited processes for asylum seekers and developing national integration strategies.

Agora defence security blog Russia map

A humanitarian crisis is rapidly unfolding on the Ukrainian border. At the time of writing, the UNHCR has estimated that over a million Ukrainians have fled the country to nearby countries, including Poland and Romania. This will surely increase in the coming weeks and months. Indeed, UNHCR predicts over 4m Ukrainians will leave the country over the course of the conflict.

This will have substantially more impact in Europe than the previous Syrian refugee crisis. While that conflict saw around 6m refugees flee Syria, most of them fled to bordering states, and only a small proportion reached Europe in subsequent waves of migration. This time round, nearly all the anticipated 4m refugees will flee to Europe and over a more acute time frame. It will be much harder for European nations to control this immigration, given there are comparatively few natural barriers and borders blocking the way of Ukrainians.

Thankfully, European countries have been quick to grasp the humanitarian dimension of this conflict. Poland has welcomed Ukrainians – and even their pets – without any paperwork and the EU has agreed to take in Ukrainian refugees for up to three years without asylum. This 180 degree turn from the policies dominating the Syrian crisis was spurred on by the demographic make-up of Ukrainians. As a predominantly white, Christian nation that is part of a European identity, it is easier for governments to gain public and political support for taking in refugees in a way they did not during the Syrian crisis.

Yet, the UK government has been slower to act than their European counterparts. Boris Johnson and his cabinet have continued to address the conflict primarily through economic procedures and military rhetoric. The humanitarian dimension is, to all intents and purposes, an after-thought in the eyes of the Prime Minister. In his first speech addressing the conflict, he announced “a massive package of economic sanctions” to end Vladimir Putin’s military aims. Only in the final moments of his speech did he mention the Ukrainian people directly, without concrete policy, but instead that our “thoughts and prayers” were with them.

This has not been followed up with a significantly expedited visa processes for Ukrainian refugees. Though the Home Office announced they would increase the number of staff working in UK visa application centres to help address the needs of Ukrainian refugees, many were quick to point out that they had not introduced new emergency application processes and Ukrainians would generally have to apply under existing routes. These are often complicated processes which require substantial paperwork and have long turnaround times. In a tone-deaf move, there has also been no re-consideration of the Nationality and Borders Bill, a piece of legislation that will allow the Government to return asylum seekers and refugees arriving illegally in the UK to their country of origin. It is currently in its latter stages of being drafted into law, although specifics of the Bill could still be amended.

It is disheartening that Johnson’s post-EU Britain is acting less decisive on this matter than the EU is. His inability to act on the humanitarian dimensions of the Ukrainian conflict are out of line with the globally relevant Britain he platforms.

There are three things the UK government must do to turn this around. First, they need to set-up an expedited process for asylum applicants immediately, ideally removing visa requirements for Ukrainian refugees. Failure to do so may lead to more illegal crossings of the English Channel than has been seen in previous years. Second, they need to develop a national integration strategy at pace, bolstering support to community organisations and the third sector. This will need to address both needs of Ukrainian refugees, such as food and shelter in the short-term, then employment and language courses in the long-term. Finally, the government needs to reconsider the Borders Bill, a piece of legislation that will prevent countless refugees from reaching the UK safely.

Somewhat reassuringly, there are hints that the public would approve of these measures. Thousands of protestors filled Trafalgar Square this weekend, showing their support for the Ukrainian people. A recent poll by YouGov showed that six-in-ten Britons would support a scheme to resettle Ukrainians. There is also support from a range of politicians, including Labour MPs and Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, to provide safe and efficient routes to refugees for UK sanctuary.

Rarely are politicians given such easy opportunities to win favour with the public and on the world stage. Unfortunately, Boris Johnson can’t see past his own myopic framing of the situation to take this opportunity. In the end, it is the Ukrainian people who bear the consequences of his inadequacies unless he changes course.

Spencer Rutherford is a researcher in the field of global health, with expertise in refugee health and post-conflict reconstruction, and experience working in Lebanon and India. He is currently based in London and works as a Research Manager with Ipsos in their Public Affairs department. All views are his own.

Six things we learnt about the situation in Lebanon from Dr Filippo Dionigi

The multi-layered turmoil currently unfolding in Lebanon has sparked much global concern. As well as its impact on the population at large, the country’s 1.5m refugees are at particular risk. Comprising over a fifth of Lebanon’s 6.8m people, their plight has been dubbed a “crisis within a crisis”. Speaking to us for an Agora Radio podcast, Dr Filippo Dionigi of University of Bristol argued that Lebanon’s situation stems from a convergence of three ‘mega-crises’ and three long-term issues. Combined, these six factors have had an overwhelming impact on Lebanese people and refugees alike.

The Economic crisis

Due to years of political and economic governance mismanagement, Lebanon’s economy collapsed in 2020. The resulting devaluation of the Lebanese Lira has had far-reaching impacts, from reduced foreign currency reserves causing a shortage of basic goods to the rationing of medical supplies for surgeries and lack of medicine in pharmacies. Unemployment rates are high, and it is estimated that more than 50% of the population struggles to access essential supplies such as food.

COVID-19

The pandemic hit Lebanon just as it hit the rest of the world, bringing both social and economic consequences. It exacerbated pre-existing issues like the country’s unequal, largely privatised, healthcare system, and lockdowns had an especially harmful impact on the refugee population, deepening these inequalities. Refugees are only allowed to work in three sectors: agriculture, construction, and waste management. These jobs are often seasonal and fall under irregular employment, resulting in the UNHCR recently reporting that almost 90% of Syrians displaced in Lebanon now live in poverty.

2020 Beirut explosion

The 4 August blast in the Lebanese capital was a demonstration of negligent management that resulted in hundreds of people losing their lives and thousands losing their homes. Speaking about the accident, Dr Dionigi said that “never before has the recklessness of the Lebanese governmental system been so clearly displayed”. This disaster, which occurred only a little over a year ago, traumatised many in Lebanon and showed the irresponsibility of the state more clearly than ever before.

Political system

The current Lebanese power-sharing model of government originated through colonial domination by France, and is based on sectarian and confessional rules. This system is so fractionalised that it is not able to implement meaningful reform. Despite country-wide protests against the system, this is the current institutional context of Lebanon.

Corruption

Just as many Lebanese people have been protesting against the political system, there have also been widespread protests against corruption. New anti-corruption laws have been adopted to some extent, in particular following the 2019 protests. The lack of trust in the government has led to doubts as to whether this will bring consequential changes, however.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is a political and military actor that is unique to Lebanon in that it holds a military force that is significantly stronger than the Lebanese army itself. The organisation undermines the legitimacy of the state by holding power over some government institutions without being held accountable or responsible to the Lebanese people.

Together, these six factors present huge challenges for Lebanon and its people. While the future remains very uncertain, Dr Dionigi finished by affirming that “the future of Lebanon is in the hands of the Lebanese” and that “the greatest hope for Lebanon is its society and civil society”.

If you would like to learn more, listen to our full conversation with Dr Dionigi here.

Hannah Kuehn and Shona Warren are co-Heads of Agora’s Migration Programme.

The Brexit campaign’s rhetoric against migration needs rewriting

There are 26m refugees around the world. In 2019, 133,094 of them were being hosted by the UK. Some British newspapers assert that they had ‘flooded in’ and deprived Britons of jobs and services. The Government should take the lead on creating a more empathetic discourse around migration.

The normalisation of nationalism

COVID paused the UK’s resettlement scheme and the Government is now rolling out a new points-based immigration system to demonstrate just how much control of the borders it has ‘taken back’.

Xenophobia in Europe is nothing new, dating back to fears of medieval Middle Eastern Muslims invading Christian Europe. But Brexit normalised and facilitated anti-immigrant discourse, culminating in the UK’s toughest immigration policies in living memory.

Recent migration to the UK

Following the addition of new countries to the EU in 2004, British policy-makers forwent the transition periods that most member states used and instead immediately granted freedom of movement to those from the newly joined states. Headlines spoke of “hordes” of Eastern Europeans arriving, arguing that they wanted to exploit the benefits system, and exacerbating fears of job insecurity. By 2019 around 3.7m EU citizens had settled in the UK, but this happened over several years and was a consequence of the EU enlargement that the UK had supported.

The 2015 migrant crisis prompted further debate on those coming to the UK. Millions of refugees fleeing poverty and persecution in the Middle East and Africa sought safety elsewhere during this period. Although the majority became either internally displaced or lived in neighbouring host countries, the Vote Leave Brexit campaign used concerns about immigrants to its advantage.

Dominic Cummings’ 2016 tweet that remaining in the EU risked a repeat of attacks against women by migrant men carried out in Cologne in 2015, and Nigel Farage’s famous ‘breaking point’ poster of long queues of migrants actively stoked these fears. In this way, the Leave campaign successfully politicised the issue of migration and asylum. The focus was placed on the EU’s attempts to forcibly resettle migrants amongst its member states, supposedly diminishing British sovereignty.

Post-Brexit migration policy

Boris Johnson stated that migrants crossing the Channel in dinghies were “very bad and stupid and dangerous and criminal”, omitting the fact that his party’s policies are a driving factor of such bahaviour. Post-Brexit, the Government stepped up its existing hostile policies and proposed the new UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS). Official figures suggest it will settle 5,000 refugees, but it threatens the safety of thousands more. Its removal of legal routes and safe schemes, like the Dublin Agreement, causes asylum seekers to risk their lives at sea.

Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel create a false narrative of criminal migration. They normalise anti-immigrant rhetoric and portray asylum seekers and refugees as threats to British safety and sovereignty, rather than vulnerable people fleeing war and persecution. In 2016, the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination declared that “divisive” language used by UK politicians during the Brexit campaign prompted a rise in hate crime. A poll in 2017 also found that anti-immigrant sentiment garnered support for the Leave vote.

This narrative is also reflected in the Government’s excessive detention of asylum seekers. The UK is the only country in western Europe without a detention time limit. This means that British authorities can indefinitely detain asylum-seekers (698 people as of June 2020), often keeping them in poor conditions.

The Napier Barracks are one such example. After numerous reports of suicide attempts, unsanitary conditions, and the spread of COVID-19, the Home Office temporarily removed those held there, only to return them after the Easter weekend. Criminalising migrants and depriving them of their dignity in this way contributes to their ‘othering’. It implies that they are burdens on the state, solidifying the narratives of suspicion and division that developed in waves around 2004 and 2015.

Rewriting the narrative

The UK’s new asylum laws were prompted by a Brexit vote that aimed to ‘take back control’ from Brussels but, ironically, replicate the EU’s famous red tape by creating yet more paperwork.

More troublingly, efforts to ‘take back control’ have jeopardised the dignity and safety of people fleeing conflict. The Government must implement a more humane policy. Practically, it should expand the UKRS and end indefinite detention, but rhetorically it should also encourage more empathy. In doing so, politicians can attempt to articulate a positive vision for refugees in the UK.

Lara Brett is studying for an MA in Contemporary European Studies at the University of Bath.

The UK must uphold asylum seekers’ rights with its new immigration system

The UK risks failing to uphold its international legal commitments to asylum seekers with its post-Brexit immigration regime. Pursuing an ‘Australian-style’ system will only make this worse.

The UK and international asylum law

The UK is party to several international treaties which afford rights to individuals seeking asylum in foreign countries. These legal instruments grant the right to seek asylum when escaping persecution in another country. Additionally, when fleeing ones own country due to a well-founded fear of persecution, those seeking asylum may legally enter foreign countries without any documentation. States cannot impose penalties on individuals who do this.

It is therefore not illegal to cross the English Channel by boat without documentation under certain circumstances, despite the claims of several media outlets and the Prime Minister. When discussing migrants crossing the Channel, he stated that “[w]e will send you back […] you are an illegal migrant and […] the law will treat you as such”.

Whilst their asylum claim is being processed, asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK and must rely on £37.75 per week, provided by the state. This often results in such individuals living in poor-quality housing and sharing a room with several others. These conditions arguably contravene the right to adequate housing, which includes a right to non-discriminatory access to adequate housing and the right to choose one’s own residence.

Moving to Australia?

Despite the harshness of these conditions, those seen in Australia’s offshore detention centres are much worse.

The UK Government has to some extent sought to replicate Australia’s approach to asylum, even mirroring tactics they have used to try and deter asylum seekers from attempting to enter the country. Following Australia’s offshoring policies, which involve holding asylum seekers in costly detention centres on islands off mainland Australia, the Home Secretary Priti Patel suggested building detention centres on St Helena and Ascension Island to house unauthorised arrivals into Britain by boat. Although rejected for logistical reasons, this consideration of using overseas British territory to hold asylum seekers suggests the UK is moving towards much harsher treatment of these individuals.

Under the Dublin III Regulation, the UK has so far been able to legally expel many asylum seekers. Following Brexit, the Government has replaced this law with its own legislation to enable it to return asylum seekers to a “safe third country” if they have travelled through one on their way to the UK. Whilst Article 28 of Dublin III states that asylum seekers should not be detained prior to removal to the safe third country unless deemed a flight risk, the UK has detained many asylum seekers and has no laws on maximum detention periods as restrictions on detention are not mentioned in the revised regulations. Evidence suggests that this practice will remain, raising questions around the UK’s respect for the right to not be arbitrarily detained.

As Priti Patel implements a new post-Brexit immigration system, rhetoric around ‘taking back control of our borders’ and ‘tackling illegal migration and asylum claims’ has become commonplace. This clearly mirrors Australia’s tactics, where asylum-seeking is framed as synonymous to illegal immigration in need of a harsh reaction. The Government has been open about wanting to send this message to those attempting to exploit the system.

Additionally, new immigration commitment to support “the most vulnerable” refugees – such as children, women and those already subjected to torture – implies a hierarchy of asylum seekers, where only those at the top will have their rights recognised. This could result in the UK disregarding its obligations to asylum seekers it deems to be less vulnerable, in clear contravention of the Refugee Convention and Protocol.

Doing what’s right, not what’s popular

Both Australia and the UK continue to fail to uphold the human rights of asylum seekers attempting to enter their countries. They manage this by finding loopholes within the laws on refugees, however they ultimately cannot avoid the fact that they are violating people’s human rights in doing this.

It remains unclear what Australia’s – and soon, potentially, the UK’s – reasoning is for opting for costly offshore detention centres over housing individuals on the mainland for less. They may argue this is for deterrence, but there is no evidence deterrence works. Attempting to outdo the harshness of the conditions asylum seekers are fleeing from seems a questionable goal for any democratic government.

The UK should refrain from following Australia’s lead and instead fulfil its obligations to asylum seekers by upholding their basic human rights.

Katy Adams is an MA Human Rights student at University College London

This is the second of two blogs exploring the British government’s desire to mirror Australia’s immigration policies; the first outlined international law for asylum seekers and refugees, discussing Australia’s approach to immigration and their practice of offshoring.

European governments must understand the Middle East’s borders before taking action in the region

In the 20th century, British and French governments in the Middle East laid the foundations for mass displacement. Today, their policies continue to shape the region, but fall short of resolving this issue.

Today’s map of the Middle East was shaped by European powers. In 1916, Britain and France divided it up in the Sykes-Picot agreement, laying claims over lands thousands of miles away. Borders were created without consideration for local ethnic groups or pre-existing territorial powers, changing the geo-political landscape and causing discontent amongst populations who were separated from their local groups and organised into different states.

This paved the way for subsequent instability in the Middle East. The UK and France should recognise the role they have played in destabilising their former mandates and take action to help end conflict and provide safe countries for returning migrants.

Complicated British-Israeli-Palestine relations

The Sykes-Picot agreement also created historical ties between Britain and Palestine. After the Second World War and the horrors of the Holocaust, there was considered to be an urgent need for a Jewish homeland. In 1947, the UN General Assembly approved Resolution 181 for the partition of Palestine, which was predominantly Arab, but gave the minority Jewish population over 50% of the land. Following Israel’s founding in 1948 and the Arab-Israeli war, the Israelis received 78% of the Palestinian Mandate.

This triggered mass displacement for the Palestinians and further territorial disputes. Britain kept a close eye on these affairs, sponsoring the UN Security Council Resolution 242 to bring an end to Israel’s 1967 war with its Arab neighbours.

Today, British-Israeli relations remain amicable. Last year marked 70 years of diplomatic relations between the two states, with Israel being one of the first countries to sign a trade continuity agreement with the UK. British diplomatic relations with Israel tend to avoid strong criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Nevertheless, in January 2021, the UK government expressed concern at Israel’s decision to build new settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, as this exceeds Israel’s 78% share of the Palestinian territories. The UK, in line with most of the international community, maintains that the former territory is Palestinian. It does not recognise Palestine as a state, but continues to advocate for a two-state solution. This raises the uncomfortable question of where these two states should draw their borders.

French lessons?

The French government also continues to have a vested interest in Middle East affairs, as evidenced by its actions in Syria. French withdrawal from that country in 1946 resulted in decades of violence, with the al-Assad family’s torture and killing of peaceful protestors sparking the 2011 civil war and mass displacement.

Along with members of an international coalition, France has attempted to end the conflict, committing over €1bn towards Syrian civilians between 2019-21. Much of that money has gone to neighbouring countries Lebanon and Jordan which are hosting fleeing Syrian refugees. France participates in military operations under Operation Chammal and founded the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons in 2018. It also advocates for peace negotiations, to protect civilians and bring about an end to the root causes of continuous mass displacement.

Although the Israel-Palestine conflict is different to that in Syria, France’s foreign policy is an example of what more the UK could do in the Middle East. For instance, it could provide more aid money for the Palestinians and be a more vocal advocate for finding a peaceful solution. Aiding peace in the Middle East would help the UK government in its desire for the country to be seen as a global player as well as providing much-needed stability for millions. Resolving decades of conflict could help resettle those who have fled and allow them to rebuild their lives in a safe environment.

Nearly ten years after it began, there is no sign of the Syrian conflict abating. There is also little indication of peace between Israel and Palestine. Continuous Israeli expansion and violence committed by both sides continue to fuel distrust. As of 2019, there were 5.6m Palestine refugees, according to UNRWA. Many remain in Palestine in desperate conditions and with no opportunity to leave.

It is important that European states prioritise the establishment of stable democratic governance, rather than anything which would exacerbate tensions by encouraging actors to struggle for power. Countries such as the UK and France must tread carefully in advocating peace and crisis resolution.

Lara Brett is studying for an MA in Contemporary European Studies at the University of Bath.