theguardian.com
EU Faces Human Rights Accusations Over Asylum Seeker Expulsions
Europe's human rights commissioner, Michael O'Flaherty, has presented evidence of asylum seekers being forcibly returned from EU borders in Poland and Greece, violating international law, while expressing concern about a growing hardline stance on migration among mainstream politicians.
- What evidence of human rights violations at EU borders has been uncovered, and what are the immediate implications?
- The Council of Europe's human rights commissioner, Michael O'Flaherty, has found evidence of asylum seekers being forcibly expelled at EU borders, particularly in Poland and Greece. This violates international law and the right to claim asylum, despite the relatively low number of irregular border crossings (around 17,000 in 2024).
- How does the securitization response to migration at EU borders relate to broader political trends and international law?
- O'Flaherty's findings highlight a concerning trend of securitization of borders, where the focus on national security overrides human rights obligations. This is evident in actions like Poland's consideration of a temporary asylum suspension and Finland's closure of border crossings, driven by concerns about Belarusian and Russian interference.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the increasingly hardline approach to migration in Europe, and what safeguards are necessary to protect human rights?
- The increasing hardline stance on migration in Europe, exemplified by proposals for offshore processing centers and agreements like Italy's deal with Albania, threatens to further erode asylum rights. O'Flaherty warns that this 'securitisation response' and the willingness of centrist politicians to compromise on human rights protections create a serious risk of widespread human rights violations.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue through the lens of human rights violations, emphasizing the concerns of the human rights commissioner and asylum seekers. While acknowledging Belarus's actions, it largely focuses on the negative consequences of EU border policies. The headline, if it were to use the provided text, would likely further emphasize the human rights aspect of the issue.
Language Bias
The article uses strong language to describe the actions of Belarus ('deplorable and unacceptable') and the EU's response ('goes too far,' 'violation of law'). While these descriptions aren't inherently biased, the repeated use of such terms may subtly shape the reader's perception. The description of the prime minister's statement on migration as a question of "the survival of our western civilization" is a highly charged statement and should be presented as such.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the actions of Poland, Greece, and Belarus, but doesn't delve into the perspectives of other EU countries facing similar migration challenges. Additionally, while the Adriana shipwreck is mentioned, the full extent of the international response and investigation beyond Greece's ombudsman's call for a criminal investigation is not explored. The article also lacks details on the numbers of asylum seekers successfully granted asylum, which would provide a more balanced perspective on the overall situation.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as a choice between a strict "securitization response" and completely open borders. It overlooks the possibility of balanced approaches that prioritize security while upholding human rights.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the violation of international law and human rights due to the forced expulsion of asylum seekers at EU borders. This undermines the rule of law, justice, and strong institutions, which are crucial for peace and security. The actions of both Belarus in orchestrating irregular crossings and EU countries in employing excessive securitization responses contribute to instability and conflict.