Transit of Refugees from Europe to Moldova and Ukraine: What Is the Service Fee?

The “great migration of peoples” of our time, as the publicists often call the problem of refugees, has an increasing influence on the demographic picture, cultural profile and political processes of the European Union. The problem which Brussels has been struggling with for four years (and, in fact, much earlier) is not only far from its solution, but also creates new difficulties in relations of the Eurozone countries, testing foundations of the pan-European project. Many countries of the EU do not want and cannot accept endless flows of migrants from Africa and Asia, while those wishing to take advantage of the hospitality of the Old World do not become less. However, both the EU neighbors and the countries associated with it, including Moldova and Ukraine, which today largely live off European financial support, may be involved in solving the migration problem. Moreover, the political elites of these countries on the eve of the elections are ready to offer their companionship to Brussels with an eye to support in both the electoral race and in hard financial times. Moreover, the European officials have recently expressed discontent with the acting authorities of Kyiv and Chisinau, criticizing them for imitating institutional reforms instead of passing them, corruption scandals and ignoring the EU recommendations. Brussels suspends the planned financial tranches, which together with the comments of European representatives inflicts tangible image losses to local elites. So, in June, the European Parliament adopted a special resolution expressing concern about the “continuing deterioration of the application of democratic standards in Moldova”, calling it “an example of state capture”. This was followed by a suspension of macro-financial and budgetary assistance to Moldova in the amount of 100 million euros. More recently, Parliamentary State Secretary Maria Flachsbarth, during her visit to Moldova refused even official meetings with representatives of the local government. During the press conference she said that the phenomenon of observance of the rule of law is completely absent in the country. The next six months will be decisive from the electoral point of view, and the acting authorities will try to show their worthiness to voters, following the tried and tested way of increasing salaries, allowances, and so on. Certainly, they need money for this, whereas the Moldovan budget for 2018 is 30% composed of external loans and grants. There are good reasons to believe that the ruling pro-European coalition led by the Democratic Party of the Republic of Moldova will try to gain the good European graces in the form of further financing and mitigation of rhetoric. There is enough criticism of Ukraine. The low-intensity but still military conflict in the East of the country, the national policy that leads to aggravation of relations with the EU members (Hungary and Romania), weak anti-corruption bodies and comprehensive economic problems cause persistent irritation in Brussels. Thus, the European Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations Johannes Khan notes that the Ukrainian authorities do not follow the implementation of their own legislation and are in no hurry to implement institutional reforms. The EU sees a serious defect in practical implementation of these reforms, which Kyiv should pay attention to, Khan said. “Just this, the international community is increasingly waning patience” he notes. Meanwhile, experts warn that the country is again on the verge of financial chaos. The treasury of Ukraine emptied by almost 80% –  from 9.3 to 1.9 billion hryvnia and this is the lowest since January 2014. Instead of money, Kyiv has accumulated a huge debt, including to the IMF, the financial tranches of which define whether the country will be able to withstand a default. However, to gain them, the authorities need to fulfill a number of anti-corruption requirements, as well as raise gas tariffs. Now six months before the election, President Petro Poroshenko will somehow explain to citizens that the rise in price of housing and communal services by 60-65% is the only chance for saving the country from falling into a debt hole. Both Kyiv and Chisinau current authorities will have to work out the main issue for themselves: how to keep the helm of state? For this, one way or another, they will have to get a kind of “letter for succession to the throne” from the hands of financial and image sponsors. But to achieve a reset of its legitimacy in a situation where Brussels is openly expressing dissatisfaction with the policies of local authorities will be very difficult. To smooth out the irritation of Europeans will not work out with promises alone. You can, however, offer something special, capable of overshadowing the accumulated negative. The European Union, meanwhile, is trying to form a balanced migration crisis exit strategy. Lacking solidarity to adopt joint rules for resolving the problems with refugees’ resettlement deepened the split in the EU. Many of its members try to isolate themselves from the excessive insistence of migrants by setting up barriers on the border that created a direct threat to the Schengen agreement. The influx of migrants particularly influenced the outcome of Brexit. According to the European Commission, more than 1.6 million illegal immigrants fleeing the armed conflicts and poverty in several regions of Asia and Africa arrived in the euro area from 2015 to June 2018. First, the countries of the community agreed to voluntarily place refugees on a quota (which depended on the population). However, later the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia refused to accept refugees, even despite the threat of fines from Brussels. As a result, the migrants’ resettlement across Europe was uneven, which caused a sharp criticism of the quota system. This was accompanied with the problems of adaptation and criminal behavior of the “guests”, which provoked social conflicts and discontent among the local population. In Germany, which leads in the number of requests for granting refugee status, migration problems nearly led to the collapse of the ruling conservative bloc of Angela Merkel, CDU/CSU. However, politicians decided at the last moment to establish transit centers in the country, where migrants will stay up to two days, awaiting deportation to other EU countries where they were originally registered. At the same time, the Chancellor of Germany still calls on other EU countries to work out an equitable system for migrants’ relocation, regardless of their geographical location. She called the migration problem of Europe “a common challenge for all”, adding that “this is not a problem of one, two or three countries”. “Since we all benefit from free movement in the EU, everyone should take responsibility and work to find a solution,” Merkel said at a recent meeting with the Spanish Prime Minister since after the closure of Italy’s ports Spain has become the main gateway to penetration into Europe. Migrants who do not receive refugee status are sent outside the European Union. For this, Brussels allocated money for the creation of a kind of “hostels country”. Appropriate arrangements exist with Libya and Turkey, now negotiations are in progress with Morocco and Tunisia, talks are planned with Algeria and Senegal. The European Commission has also allocated almost 40 million euros to improve conditions for the reception of migrants in Greece and supports the migration in the Bosnia and Herzegovina, associated with the EU, through which the migratory flows pass. To date, this assistance has already amounted to 24.6 million euros and the Commission plans to provide the poorest Balkan country with another 6 million euros in the near future. The Bosnia example can serve as an illustration that the EU-associated countries can be involved in solution of the migration problem, the most acute in the history of the EU. Recently Verkhovna Rada deputy Igor Mosiychuk wrote on his FB page that European officials also offer to Ukraine to place camps for migrants on its territory. This issue, by the way, has already been repeatedly raised in the media. Back in 2015, in an interview with the Italian radio RaiNews24, the European Commissioner for Migration, Dimitris Avramopoulos, said that it would be right if the countries that signed the association agreement also participated in solving the problems of the European Union – if, of course, they want to become full members of the EU. The European Commissioner had Ukraine in mind, above all. “The number of migrants should be distributed according to the principle ‘by all, without exception,’ and depending on the availability of areas suitable for living. I think that Ukraine has a high potential at this point because there is a lot of free fertile land, mild climate and an easy to access infrastructure”, said Avramopoulos. According to him, Ukraine is able to host up to 100,000 migrants who could engage in agriculture and sustain themselves. At the same time, the European Commissioner believed that such an approach could serve as an excellent stimulus to the development of the Ukrainian economy, since migrants are mostly hardworking. Already by that time the country’s largest temporary refugee accommodation point was completed near Kyiv in the town of Yahotyn at the expense of EU grants, the means of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the budget of Ukraine. As noted by the State Migration Service of Ukraine, the Yahotyn camp was designed for 250 people and was intended for all forced migrants from abroad. However, the Yahotyn project came up against the protests of local residents, joined by Ukrainian nationalists from Svoboda, Right Sector and the National Corps Azov. Despite this, in September 2017, the migration service of Ukraine, referring to the instruction of President Petro Poroshenko, said that the country will help Europe in solving the migration crisis and will accept refugees from North Africa and the Middle East. The department also noted that the state is ready to equip border checkpoints and build camps for the initial accommodation of refugees. Some time later the German newspaper Kraichgau News published an article in which it informed about Kyiv’s readiness to accept about 20,000 refugees from Europe by the end of 2018, by agreement with Germany. The publication referred to the words of the legal and consular officer of the German embassy in Kyiv, Dorothea Metschkowski, who noted that such a project would be supported by the Federal Ministry of Finance of Germany. The same article wrote also about Moldova. “It’s not a secret for anyone that Western Europeans, to put it mildly, do not treat their eastern neighbors very well, especially those that come from countries that are not members of the European Union. The grounds for such an unfriendly attitude are, in fact, known. It is impossible to name such countries as, for example, Moldova or Ukraine, who seek to become a member of the EU, civilized and democratic. But the desire of these countries to help the European Union resolve some issues deserves approval. We are talking about Ukraine’s readiness to accept and shelter refugees from Europe,” wrote Kraichgau News. Kyiv assumed that due to the tightening of the migration policy in the EU, the flows of illegal immigrants could be reoriented to other directions, including Ukraine. Earlier, the Head of the State Border Service of the country Petr Tsigikal noted that Ukraine could face the problem of a sharp increase in the number of illegal migrants who, based on the support of the diasporas, can come to the country “then to remain on an illegal basis or to cross the border into the EU”. Such a forecast is reasonable. Ukraine with its problems in the economy is unattractive for migrants seeking to reach the rich countries of the EU with well-established social support system. However, if other routes to Europe are closed, then Ukraine may be an alternative route for migration transit. Moreover, several million people live in refugee camps in Turkey. It cannot be ruled out that in case of complete closure of the Balkan, Italian and Spanish corridors, the Black Sea route may appear. The idea that refugees can try to get to the territory of Europe through the Republic of Moldova was also expressed by the head of the local National Bureau for Migration and Refugees at the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Moldova, Olga Poalelungi. Moreover, Moldovan officials expressed earlier their readiness to receive “guests”. In particular, “the country will provide asylum to all persons who will ask for protection,” State Secretary of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Mikhail Berega said in 2016 in Geneva at the session of the Executive Committee of the Program of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Meanwhile, both Moldova and Ukraine, whose governments cannot ensure normal economic growth and guarantee the welfare of all categories of citizens, are unlikely to be able to independently support refugees. However, with the help of the migration tranches, as for example, for Greece and Bosnia, Chisinau and Kyiv not only will be able to involve in the solution of the migration crisis in Europe, but even benefit from participation in such projects. The authorities of these countries can in this case receive political support from the European Union and money for the accommodation of refugees from Africa and Asia. This is exactly what the ruling elite needs today. Migrants can become another gold mine for elites. Loyalty in this issue and the willingness to receive refugees from the EU (which is interested in assimilation of educated and qualified refugees and deportation of the declassed elements) will provide political elites with the forced approval of Brussels. This, in turn, can be converted into electoral dividends, referring to the support of European values and the common European path. Besides, such a migration policy will allow the authorities to fight against the creeping depopulation typical for Moldova and Ukraine. Further exodus of active autochthonous population abroad in search of a better life in this case will be secretly welcomed. People of another culture with no political rights who do not need to be supported from the state budget may be preferable to “their” citizens who are dissatisfied with the situation in the country and who protest against bureaucratic arbitrariness. Getting good money for every migrant is more interesting than paying decent salaries and pensions. This is a very tempting business proposal for the pragmatic Chisinau and Kyiv ruling circles closely connected with the oligarchic structures. Political authorities are unlikely to ask the question in the pre-election period: what price will ordinary citizens have to pay for this?