Camps for EU Deportees in Moldova: Myth or Plan?

This time the influential British newspaper Times wrote about plans to accommodate EU migrants in our country, which, however, did not prevent the Government from calling it a “fiction” and a “fake”. But the topic is gradually gathering momentum, as we can see, and is moving into practical level 

Vladimir ROTARI, RTA: We have already got used to the fact that from time to time information surface in the information field that Moldova is planning to redirect the flow of migrants in order to relieve the European Union countries of them. Many people probably still remember the funny news of eight years ago about 30 thousand Syrians, whom Maia Sandu allegedly promised to accept in case of victory in the 2016 presidential elections. To this day, she and her PR people use this episode as one of the most vivid examples of fake news directed against the current head of state. It was also recalled this time, when insider reports emerged about the EU’s intention to set up centers in countries negotiating accession to accept migrants deported from the EU. Government spokesman Daniel Voda unequivocally called it a “fiction”, comparing it to stories about Syrians and the sale of Moldovan land to foreigners. The official was not even embarrassed by the fact that this time the source was not a wretched media outlet, but a quite respectable British newspaper Times, referring to “an unnamed European diplomat”. The reaction of the authorities to this newsbreak is nothing of surprise. Obviously, the appearance of such a story, instantly picked up by the opposition media resources, was as inconvenient as possible and required a categorical refutation. The elections were less than two weeks away, and any association of the ruling regime with this issue, towards which our society has an openly intolerant attitude, was impermissible. At the same time, one cannot but say that the issue of using Moldovan territory in some way to solve the problem of illegal migration to the European Union is gradually moving from the realm of deep theoretical considerations and conjunctural “scare stories” to the practical plane. There are objective reasons: the problem, unsolved for many years, makes the societies of European countries put it as a question before their ruling elites. Some of them are starting to veer to the right in order to adjust to the interests of voters, while others are losing elections to right-wing and far-right colleagues who have long exploited the migration crisis for their own purposes. As a result, the right-wing Europe is no longer an expert forecast, but a reality. And it dictates somewhat changed approaches to the most acute problems, in particular the migration one. Last year I wrote a large article about whether we will host camps for those seeking refuge in the “European garden”. It was prompted by the statements of one of the leaders of the German Christian Democratic Union, Jens Spahn, who, on behalf of his party, advocated transporting refugees to third countries while their applications were being processed. He included Moldova among such countries. The Times piece talks about a slightly different model, but the point is the same: to prevent the unjustified use of the social support system in Western European states. The current state of affairs is that many people from disadvantaged countries in Africa and the Middle East, even though they realize they will not be allowed to remain in the EU, still enter illegally to benefit from financial payments while their applications are being processed, which can take years. There are many ideas on how to deal with this mishap. Last time I told you how the British government, which spends billions of pounds a year on the detention of illegal immigrants, tried to implement the concept of sending them to Rwanda, with which it had an agreement. As a result, the project never implemented: it faced accusations from human rights activists, resistance from the judiciary and was finally buried after the resignation of its main supporter, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. Even back then, I assumed that Moldova could be much more attractive as a place to host undesirable persons. Firstly, we are a country with already open accession negotiations with the EU - that is, a priori we seem to meet many democratic and European standards. And in terms of ensuring human rights, there should be far fewer questions for us than for African Rwanda. Secondly, if Chisinau agrees to such an offer, it may be used as an example of our republic’s European solidarity and as an additional argument for the internal European audience, in case it is necessary to make the next step on the way of Moldova’s integration into the European Union. Of course, this topic is very toxic for our authorities in view of the ongoing election campaigns, which is also understood by Brussels. Therefore, I think that until the parliamentary elections are over, no one will seriously promote the issue of “migrant centers” in Moldova, at least publicly. But in the future, I would not rule out its appearance on the agenda of relations with the EU at all, moreover, it would even be logical, provided that we really get closer to the European family. Are there any advantages for Moldova? Depends on how you look at it. Based on experience, the EU is ready to pay generously for the services of those countries that help it cope with the migration crisis. If we become one of them, we can rely on a decent monetary incentive. Besides, against the background of rapid depopulation, the migrants flow may become one of the few sources of labor force replenishment - although proper integration into Moldovan society will also require time and resources. Of course, such “camps” have a high risk of becoming a place of attraction for criminal elements, crime, conflicts, human rights violations, which will detrimentally affect both the international image of the country and public sentiment. But it is possible to revert these elements, especially since we are hardly talking about tens of thousands of people - most likely, the figure will be rather modest. Although it may be enough to significantly undermine the ratings of those political forces that would agree to this hypothetical proposal by Brussels.