jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-woqpuh").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-woqpuh").fadeIn(1000);});});
Is it possible to protect borders and refugees at the same time? This was the question posed at a round table discussion at IPI’s Vienna office on June 7th. With so many people on the move around the world, and states desperate to protect their sovereignty, governments are increasingly under pressure to control and even close their borders. But this is hindering the ability of refugees to seek asylum.
Participants took part in an open and lively discussion on how to manage borders and maintain stability in a way that does not violate the rights of people on the move. IPI’s Senior Vice President, Walter Kemp, presented IPI’s previous work on Desperate Migration and Forced Displacement, including a report on the topic written for the Independent Commission on Multilateralism. He expressed concern at the lack of leadership and creative solutions to address the challenge, and encouraged participants to use this opportunity to come forward with fresh ideas.
The meeting started with a general consensus that the current situation should not only be Europe’s problem, rather the issue should be addressed at the global level with a sense of solidarity among peoples and states.
Mr. Kemp recalled the Salzburg Declaration of September 9, 2015 in which a number of senior officials taking part in the IPI Salzburg Forum called for a global rescue initiative to create humane, properly resourced and equipped reception centers in key hubs in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe where refugees and migrants are congregating. “Why not have a rescue operation to pick them up?” he asked, echoing the Salzburg declaration that said such an initiative would reduce unsafe journeys, save lives, cut smuggling and trafficking, and circumvent unsympathetic governments.
Several participants, including UNHCR Spokesperson and Head of Communications Melissa Fleming, said that such appeals have already been made, but there has been insufficient support for resettlement. She noted that UNHCR’s goal is to resettle at least ten percent of the Syrian refugee population currently living in neighboring countries within the next few years. Another participant noted that there are independent initiatives like a company called Refugee Air. Nevertheless, the scale remains much too small to tackle the millions of refugees–particularly from Syria–that are in need of protection. It was also noted that resettlement requires a common European asylum and migration policy rather than ad hoc national responses. Participants discussed the advantages and disadvantages of granting all Syrians temporary protection status.
In the course of the discussion (involving representatives of inter- and non-governmental organizations as well as representatives of states), at least one participant questioned why the current international protection regime makes a distinction between “good” refugees that need help and “bad” migrants that should be sent home. He noted that many migrants are also moving for the sake of survival, and that this trend will only increase because of inequality and climate change. He noted that most flows of peoples are mixed between the two, or that people’s status changes along different parts of their journey.
At the same time, most participants felt that it would be dangerous to reopen the UN 1951 Convention on the status of refugees. “We will never get a better Geneva convention again–so hands off the Geneva convention!” emphasized Heinz Patzelt, Secretary General of Amnesty International Austria. That said, there was wide agreement on the need to strengthen the legal regime to protect migrants.
Walter Kemp highlighted a number of lessons learned from a new IPI report on the Cayucos crisis of 2006-2008 when 40,000 people tried to cross from West Africa to the Canary Islands in small wooden boats. He noted the priority that was given to saving lives, the use of readmission agreements with countries of West Africa, law enforcement cooperation, and development assistance to reduce incentives for people to move abroad. However, it was noted that some of these lessons would be hard to apply in Libya at the moment because of instability.
Lessons learned from the exodus of Vietnamese boat people starting in the late 1970s were also recalled. Alexander Casella, who worked for UNHCR at that time, stressed that cooperation with Vietnam had been vital for alleviating this challenge.
The tendency towards the “externalization” of borders was discussed, as seen in the Cayucos crisis a decade ago, Australia’s asylum policy, and recent decisions in some EU countries to close their borders and push the responsibility back to Greece and Turkey. They highlighted the danger of such policies in terms of preventing people from seeking asylum and violating the principle of non-refoulement.
Participants discussed preparations for the UN high-level plenary meeting on addressing large movements of refugees and migrants that will take place in New York on September 19, 2016. They discussed some of the observations and recommendations of the UN Secretary-General’s report of April 12, entitled “In safety and dignity: addressing large movements of refugees and migrants.” IPI will hold a meeting in New York on June 23 to put forward policy suggestions for the high-level meeting.
There was a particularly lively discussion on how to change the toxic narrative towards migrants and refugees. Martijn Pluim of the International Center for Migration Policy Development said, “If we cannot change the narrative, then we cannot solve the problem.” Migration expert Kilian Kleinschmidt and human rights lawyer Manfred Nowak agreed that civil society needs to have the feeling that politicians have the situation under control. “One of the main reasons why the right wing party gained so much popularity in Austria is the fact that the political response to the refugee influx last year was perceived as chaotic. This created fear.” Nowak is convinced that creating positive incentives for countries to take more refugees, like establishing a global solidarity fund, could help to change the narrative from negative to positive. Mr. Patzelt of Amnesty International emphasized that hosting refugees is a question of willingness and not ability. He noted that Austria hosts more than two million tourists every year, so it should not be a crisis to take in at least 35,000 refugees.“It is ridiculous to say that European countries cannot handle it,” he said.
In this and other respects, participants highlighted the importance of leadership, a constructive narrative, and effective management of the process.
IPI will continue to seek actionable solutions to this issue through dialogue, case studies, and policy recommendations.
This report is for media and the general public.
SUMMARY
Kamensk-Shakhtinskiy, Russian Federation. The Observer Mission (OM) continues to operate 24/7 at both Border Crossing Points (BCPs). The overall cross-border traffic decreased at both BCPs.
OPERATIONAL REMARKS
The OM is currently operating with 21 permanent international staff members, including the Chief Observer (CO). The Mission is supported administratively by a Vienna-based staff member.
OBSERVATIONS AT THE BORDER CROSSING POINTS
Persons crossing the border
The profile of the people crossing the border can be categorized as follows:
The average number of entries/exits decreased overall from 10,917 to 10,491[1] per day for both BCPs compared to last week; the average net flow for both BCPs went from minus 60 (i.e. more exits from the Russian Federation) to minus 193 (i.e. more exits from the Russian Federation).
The Donetsk BCP continued to experience more traffic than the Gukovo BCP. The cross-border movements registered at both BCPs accounted for a little over 37 per cent of all entries/exits in Rostov region.
Persons in military-style outfits
During the reporting period, the number of men and women in military-style outfits, crossing the border in both directions, increased from 111 last week to 121 this week at both BCPs; 67 of them crossed into the Russian Federation while 54 of them crossed into Ukraine. Approximately 76 per cent of this category’s crossings occurred at the Donetsk BCP. Men and women continued to cross the border individually or in groups. Most individuals crossed by foot, however, some made use of private vehicles, buses or minivans, making it more difficult for the observer teams (OTs) to observe their movement across the border.
Families with a significant amount of luggage
During the reporting period, the OTs observed families, often with elderly people and/or children, crossing at both BCPs with a significant amount of luggage or travelling in heavily-loaded cars; three families were observed crossing into the Russian Federation while 11 were observed crossing into Ukraine.
Bus connections
Regular local and long-distance bus connections continued to operate between Ukraine (Luhansk region) and cities in the Russian Federation. In addition to regular bus connections, the OTs continued to observe bus connections on irregular routes. Often the buses do not state their route; instead they just have a sign on the windshield saying “Irregular”.
Among the bus connections observed by the OTs, the following “irregular” routes or destinations were noted: Alchevsk-Kharkiv-Kyiv, Stakhanov-Luhansk-Kyiv, Luhansk-Anapa, Alchevsk-Kharkiv, Stakhanov-Kharkiv, Odessa, Kharkiv and St. Petersburg.
During the reporting week, on some occasions the OTs at the Donetsk BCP observed buses with children on board crossing the border in both directions.
On some occasions, the OTs noticed the bus drivers removing the itinerary signs from the windshields of their buses. The majority of long-distance coaches commuting between Luhansk region and cities in the Russian Federation have license plates issued in Luhansk region.
Trucks
During the reporting period, the OM continued to observe trucks crossing the border in both directions and at both BCPs. Compared to the previous week, the number of trucks decreased from 727 to 714; 360 of these trucks crossed to the Russian Federation and 354 crossed to Ukraine.
Most of the trucks observed by the OTs were registered in Luhansk region.
Separately, the OTs also observed tanker trucks crossing the border in both directions. The number of tanker trucks increased from 48 last week to 59 this week. These trucks were observed crossing the border at both BCPs. The trucks, for the most part, had the words “Propane” and “Flammable” written across the tanks in Russian or Ukrainian. The majority of tanker trucks have hazard signs, indicating that they are transporting propane or a mix of propane with butane.
All trucks undergo systematic inspection by Russian officials, which may include an X-ray check. During the reporting period no X-ray checks could be observed at the Gukovo BCP since the Observation Team has no view of the mobile X-Ray, but it could be heard operating several times during the reporting period. 125 X-ray checks were observed at the Donetsk BCP. Out of these 125 trucks scanned during the reporting period, 98 trucks (78 per cent) were bound for Ukraine; the remaining 27 trucks (22 per cent) crossed into the Russian Federation.
Minivans
During the reporting period, the OM continued to observe passenger and cargo minivans[2], crossing the border in both directions and at both BCPs. The OTs observed minivans predominantly registered in Luhansk region; however, the OTs frequently saw minivans registered in the Russian Federation.
Compared to the previous week, the number of cargo minivans decreased from 342 to 322; 158 crossed to the Russian Federation and 164 to Ukraine.
Trains
The OTs continued to pick up on the sound of trains running on the train tracks located approximately 150 metres south-west of the Gukovo BCP. During the reporting week, the OTs heard trains on eight occasions; the OTs estimated that three trains were going to the Russian Federation and five trains were bound for Ukraine. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine was informed about the trains bound for Ukraine. Visual observation was not possible because of the line of trees in between the train tracks and the BCP and unfavorable light conditions.
Other observations
The majority of vehicles crossing the border have license plates issued in Luhansk region or in the Russian Federation.
The OTs continued to observe vehicles with Ukrainian license plates, including articulated trucks with “LPR” or “Novorossiya” stickers, or in rare cases “DPR” stickers on their license plates masking the Ukrainian flag.
During the reporting week the OT at the Donetsk BCP observed an ambulance on one occasion. The ambulance which was registered in Ukraine crossed the border into the Russian Federation and several hours later that same day it returned back to Ukraine. The Observation Team on the spot could not confirm if there was an injured person on board.
[1] Data received from Rostov region Border Guard Service
[2] Cargo minivans: light commercial vehicles with a maximum authorized mass of more than 3.5 t and not more than 7.5 t; with or without a trailer with a maximum mass of less than 750 kg (small cargo vehicles which correspond to driving license C1).
Related StoriesOn 8 June 2016, the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) agreed, on behalf of the Council, a negotiating stance on new rules on prospectuses for the issuing and offering of securities.
The draft regulation is aimed at reducing one of the main regulatory hurdles that companies face when issuing equity and debt securities. It sets out to simplify and alleviate administrative obligations related to the publication of prospectuses in a manner that still ensures that investors are well informed.
"This is an important reform that will help companies in need of finance to gain access to European capital markets", said Jeroen Dijsselbloem, minister for finance of the Netherlands and president of the Council. “The prospectus is an essential instrument for investors, but legal requirements must not create unnecessary barriers to raising capital."
The Council will confirm Coreper's agreement at a meeting on 17 June 2016, and will ask the presidency to start talks with the European Parliament. The aim is to adopt the regulation at first reading.
A reform of prospectus rules is amongst measures announced by the Commission under its 2014 “investment plan for Europe” with the aim of improving the business environment.
And it is a second major building block of the EU's 2015 plan to develop a capital markets union. In December 2015, the Council reached a similar agreement on proposals to facilitate the development of a securitisation market in Europe. The capital markets union is due to be fully functioning by the end of 2019. The aim is to strengthen the role of market-based finance, alongside bank finance, in the EU economy.
Prospectuses present information about a company that enables investors to decide whether to purchase securities issued or offered by that company. The law requires their publication when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading. However SMEs in particular can be deterred from issuing or offering securities because of the paperwork and costs involved. The draft regulation therefore sets out to provide all types of issuers with disclosure rules that are tailored to their specific needs, whilst making the prospectus a more relevant tool for informing potential investors.
Transforming an existing directive into a regulation, the text will moreover reduce divergences that have emerged in implementation by the member states. It will enhance the coherence of prospectus rules throughout EU single market, in keeping with the goals of the capital markets union.
The proposal establishes specific rules for companies already listed on a regulated market that wish to raise additional capital buy means of a secondary issuance, as well as for SMEs.
It also sets out to achieve greater convergence between prospectus rules and other disclosure rules.
The regulation requires a qualified majority for adoption by the Council, in agreement with the European Parliament. (Legal basis: article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.)
Dans de nombreux pays africains, les albinos sont rejetés, harcelés et dans le pire des cas, assassinés en raison de leur différence. On en a déjà parlé sur Slate Afrique, notamment sur le cas particulier de la Tanzanie l'un des Etats africains où les albinos subissent le plus de violences.