The Amsterdam Treaty, june 1997
Knocking at the gate, june 1997
Hungary
Rumania, preselection for the European Fortress
France, Human rights for 'sans-papiers'
Belgie, "He who keeps silent now must fear everything" Ratko Zamir
Duitsland
For them there were not 5,000 police officers, who had already
taken up their boring jobs in the provinces again, after their
hallucinatory experiences in the Capital of Criminalisation.
Jelle van BuurenKnocking at the gate
A week after the Euro summit in Amsterdam again black limousines
drove onto the courtyard of the Dutch Bank. With substantially
less decorum the government leaders of aspiring member-states of
the European Union - Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria and Slovenia -
were received by prime-minister Kok to be informed about the
outcomes of the Summit.New member-states
The revision of the Treaty of Maastricht was mostly in the
framework of the extension of the European Union with countries
from Middle- and Eastern Europe. The aspiring members -the
so-called 'associated countries' - are crammed for their entry.
The associated countries will have to comply with the European
regulations for the internal market before they can call
themselves member-state of the European Union.
Less well-known is that the associated countries are also
examined on the terrain of Justice and Internal Affairs, which
also includes the asylum- and immigration-policy. This
unfamiliarity is mostly the consequence of the secrecy with
which the European Justice- and Police-policy is formed. The two
most important structures in which this policy is shaped,
Schengen and the so-called 'Third Column of Maastricht' , which
is governed by the European Council of Justice and Internal
Affairs (The JBZ-Council), operate in a democratic and judicial
void.
The European Parliament, nor a national parliament, nor a
national or European judge can effectively exercise influence or
control on the policy. Combined with a near pathological strive
for secrecy, it makes the bodies to an ideal playground for civil
servants and politicians who are not keen on too large an
involvement of the citizen with Europe. In the Dutch Lawyers
Magazine, a magazine for critically inclined legal experts and
lawyers, the JBZ-Council was recently compared to a Politbureau.
The Russians are coming !
The preoccupation of the European member-states with the
immigrationpolicy of their neighbours in the East, dates from the
changes in the Eastern Block. While the average West-european
television viewer looked tenderly at the immense stream of
Trabants pulling up to the Berlin showrooms of prosperity and
luxury, there was a totally different feeling, behind closed
doors, in the rooms where the Schengen negotiators met. The
civil servants had just finished five years of tough negotiations
about the execution of the Schengen agreement, that had seen the
light in 1985. In this agreement it was concluded to open the
internal borders between the Schengen countries to create a room
where capital, goods, services and people could move freely.
During the negotiations the emphasis had been on the so-called
'compensating regulations' which were thought necessary "for
protection of security and prevention of illegal immigration",
as is stated in article 17 of the Schengen agreement. Just when
the negotiators had thought to have concluded their work with an
excellent set of regulations: visa obligations, stricter control
on foreigners and curtailing right of asylum, the stream of
Trabants crossed their plans.
The Schengen states saw themselves confronted with an unprotected
Eastern border where, only just before, hardened VOPO's stopped
short every illusions about flight or migration to the West. Not
only 20 million (impoverished) Eastern Germans entered
unexpectedly Schengen territory. In their wake Hungarians,
Rumanians and Yugoslavs were expected to find their way to the
West through the GDR.
But above all the threatening arrival of Russians brought
concern. Now they were not units of the Red Army, armed to their
teeth, but impoverished souls who could finally leave their
country, something that, ironically, the Western countries had
demanded for centuries. According to the more pessimistic
scenarios about ten million Russians were packing for a single
trip to Europe.A new Wall
The drastically redrawn map of Europe has caused a great deal of
headbreaking trouble for a number of judicial workgroups ever
since. The velvet revolutions of the Eastern european middle
class led to a period of great instability. A quaint combination
of new political parties, Western companies, speculators, mafia
and nationalistic separatist movements filled the power vacuum
that the communist rulers left behind. The forced introduction
of the market economy and shock-therapies, well known from the
Third World, delivered by the international financial
institutions led to poverty, unemployment and general
uncertainty. The exodus of Albanians to Italy and the civil war
in Yugoslavia confirmed the instability in the new Europe.
The European member-states reacted in first instance with the
closing of the borders. The Oder-Neisse river between Poland and
Germany is a symbol for the new division which is drawn in
Europe. Waiting times of 4 hours (persons and cars) to up to 20
hours (for trucks) are a daily routine at the borderpost
Frankfurt an der Oder. It is also there that a daily cat and
mouse game is played between people illegally crossing the border
and the Bundes Grenzschutz, who guard the border with high-tech-
warmth-cameras, helicopters, patrol boats, dogs and mobile
patrols.
The factual walls of the Fortress Europe were provided with a
firm legislative basis. In 1992 The EG-ministers of Justice
decided upon the introduction of the principle of 'safe
countries' and 'safe third countries'. Asylum-seekers who came
from a, in European eyes, 'safe country', or had stayed in a
'safe third country', are no longer allowed to the
asylumprocedure. On this list the Middle- and East-european
countries were immediately placed.
The possibility to apply for asylum in Western Europe was thus
closed with one stroke of the pen. More important was that
asylum-seekers who tried to reach the West through Eastern Europe
could be sent straight back. They were travelling through a 'safe
country', so had to apply for asylum there. In this way a 'cordon
sanitaire' was created, in which the Middle- and Eastern European
countries function as bufferstates against immigration to Western
Europe.Outer borders
When the countries of Middle- and Eastern Europe will join the
European Union, they will become , from a bufferstate, an outer
border. This thought has given the many a civil servant the
creeps. Will that outer border be guarded properly, they asked
themselves with concern. In December 1994 the European government
leaders decided that a 'structured dialogue' should take place
about immigration-policy. The pensioned English civil servant
Anthony Langdon, veteran of the secret civil networks in which
was worked at the asylumpolicy in the eighties, was sent to
investigate the asylumprocedure in the associated countries. The
European Union and the associated countries have "an immediate
and shared interest to stand against the pressure of illegal
immigration and hard crime that has raised its head as an
unwelcome consequence of the liberties of the democratic
transitionprocess", concluded Langdon over a year later (4660/96
Confidential CK4 5, Bruxelles 30 January 1996).
Landon proposed to take an exam of every of the associated
counties. The countries would have to prove "that they can
regulate their external borders against the pressure of unwanted
migration and illegal traffic." Langdon also took a lead in the
discussion, saying that the priority should lie at fighting
illegal immigration networks because "actions against illegal
immigration networks are a fight against both illegal immigration
and hard crime. " The country reports that Langdon recommended
are drawn up in so-called Clearing House CIREFI (Centre for
Information, Council and Data-exchange concerning Bordercontrol
and Immigration). This clearing house belongs to one of the more
secretive bodies of the Third Column of Maastricht. Although
CIREFI-documents are confidential, and in the words of the then
under-secretary Kosto "should not be given to journalists or be
published in any other way", it is possible, ocasionaly and with
some perseverance, to obtain some in the Netherlands.
Inventory
In the report (5335/3/96 REV 3 LIMITE CIREFI 8, Bruxelles 26
April 1996) that the CIREFI made, "an analysis is given about the
state of affairs on the terrain of Immigration in each of the
associated countries; there is mainly referred to measures taken
to fight the excesses of the phenomena."
CIREFI gave the aspiring members an extensive questionnaire. With
questions like: "is smuggling foreigners punishable?", "can
crown-witnesses be used?", "are employers of illegal foreigners
obliged to pay the costs of expulsion?", "can telephonelines be
tapped in combating people smuggling?", "are there centralised
institutes for expulsion?" and "are there specialised services
for document-fraud?"
After studying the answers the CIREFI concludes that establishing
"specialised structures for fighting illegal immigration" is of
"fundamental importance" and "an absolute necessity".
According to the report the Middle- and Eastern European
countries mostly want fast access to the databases of the
European Union. That means, among others, "involving the
associated countries in the functioning and detailed updating of
Europol."
A detail that strikes the eye is that the technical and financial
assistance that is offered to the aspiring members to straighten
out their immigrationpolicy, is financed from the so-called
PHARE-programm, instated originally to help the Middle- and
Eastern European countries in building their democratic
institutions. Combating illegal immigration apparently also
complies to that.Internal Security
For Germany things should be speeded up a bit. Early this year
the German CIREFI-delegation proposed to instate a joint clearing
house of the European Union and the associated countries "for
gathering and evaluating information as a strategic body in which
the power lines of an effective policy of combat are periodically
discussed and tuned." (5344/1/97 REV 1 LIMITE CIREFI 4, Bruxelles
20 January 1997). "For its own security the EU needs a system
that regularly (wat?) at least also contains the Middle- and
Eastern European countries as foremost countries of origin and
passage of immigrants." There is however a small problem with
CIREFI: they lack capacity for analysis. But luckily there is
always Europol: "Before everything it is important to obtain
insight in the criminal activities of the in Europe border
crossing operating gangs of people smugglers, who mostly first
start the illegal immigration and of which the elimination will
lead to a drastic curtailing of illegal immigration. As a
specific instrument Europol presses forward".
Besides the war-like language it is remarkable how the relation
between illegal immigration and people smuggling is put: first
there are criminal gangs, then illegal immigration arises. While
every immigration expert will put the relation the other way
round; the restrictive asylumpolicy and strict border control
leaves refugees no other choice then using the services of
illegal travel agents. That they jumped at the opportunity is
nothing else than a somewhat unorthodox interpretation of the
concept of free enterprise. But these kinds of nuances are not
spent at the builders of the Europe of internal security, as the
leaders like to call it nowadays. That tasks are given to
Europol, of which the Treaty has not been ratified by any
parliament yet, is just as well a minor detail in the light of
the enormous threats that the European member-states conceive.
It is hardly surprising that there is no check-list in the field
of legal protection for asylum-seekers in the aspiring
member-states. Are there sufficient reception centres? Are the
interpreters trained well? Is there enough legal aid? These
questions are not even asked.Clean swept sideways
The European parliament, that is beginning to get a certain
reputation as protector of the liberal and humanitarian
traditions of Europe, strongly criticises the policy of the
European governments in a report. "Persecution and
discrimination, nationalist conflicts, war and civil war, the
destruction of conditions of living by environmental destruction
and rising poverty in Middle- and Eastern- European countries and
the former Sovjet-Union are the main causes of fleeing and
immigration of the population" the European Parliament plainly
concludes. The policy of the European Union is seen as "not
corresponding with the international political values concerning
the protection of refugees nor with the principle of free
movement on which Eastern Europe has been pressed for decades."
Unfortunately though, the European Parliament has no jurisdiction
on the policy terrains of Justice and Internal Affairs. When the
aspiring members pass their immigration exam the outer borders
of Europe will move a bit further to the East. The new
member-states will comply with "the high Schengen standard in the
field of Migration- and Crime-fighting", like the German
government states contently in its yearreport about Schengen. The
solution of the refugee problem has not been brought any nearer,
but the European sideways are swept clean.
And will the residents of the new member-states be free to go or
stay where ever they want in the European Union? No. In the
report 'Extension of the European Union' the Dutch government
puts down any such hope. "To avoid immigration from the Middle-
and Eastern European countries, the free movement of employees
will be bound to considerable restrictions", according to the
government.
But then again, free movement of people is no longer the issue
in the European Union.
