[FR] Ukrainian refugees: the next step

At their meeting on 3 March, the European Union’s Home Affairs Ministers crossed the Rubicon by unanimously activating the Temporary Protection Directive to deal with the exceptional and undoubtedly sustained influx of Ukrainians forced by the war to leave their country.

This directive was specifically designed to be implemented ‘in the event of a mass influx […] of displaced persons from third countries who cannot return to their country of origin.’ It allows for the immediate granting of a residence permit to these individuals. This gives them the right to study and work in the EU, to move freely within the Schengen area, to access housing, to receive medical care and to enable their children to attend school in Member States. Initially valid for one year, this protection could be extended twice for six months and even for a further year if the Council decides so by a qualified majority. This measure will therefore provide protection to Ukrainian nationals beyond the 90-day stay to which they are already entitled under the visa liberalisation regime between the EU and Ukraine, as the majority of Ukrainians have left their country with their passports.

This text, adopted more than 20 years ago at Germany’s request in the context of Serbia’s war in Kosovo, had in fact never been implemented, even at the height of the Iraq-Syria crisis, which saw several hundred thousand people from the combat zones knocking on the EU’s doors, mainly through Greece and Italy. This reluctance was linked to the fear felt by many Member States that the returns normally planned at the end of the protection period could not be enforced. This fear is undoubtedly less pronounced today, reflecting the hope that a rapid solution can be found to the conflict arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The speed with which decisions were taken in a matter of days by the Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA) at the initiative of the French Presidency contrasts with the Council’s procrastination over the adoption of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum initiated by the European Commission in autumn 2020. This speaks volumes about the seriousness of the situation and a genuine resurgence of solidarity with the Member States of first entry to which these Ukrainians are heading, whom the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) already considers prima facie to be deserving of refugee status. At this stage, these first-entry Member States are also the ones bearing the main burden of reception: Poland, Romania and Slovakia. They have not asked other EU Member States to share with them, through relocation, the burden of asylum that they intend to bear primarily. While on Thursday 3 March the UNHCR announced that more than 1 million people from Ukraine had reached neighbouring countries and the Commission estimated that 7 million could eventually do so, Poland said it was ready to take in 1.2 million Ukrainians and Romania 800,000. These figures are already considerable and exceed the total number of people welcomed by the EU in 2015 and 2016. The measures decided by the JHA Council are primarily aimed at helping these countries by establishing a crisis management mechanism that allows for the allocation of exceptional budgetary resources for the immediate humanitarian reception of refugees and also supports them in managing their external borders, particularly with Ukraine and Belarus, in order to carry out the necessary security checks.

“If the flow of people fleeing the intensification of fighting in urban areas were to increase […], it is difficult to imagine that the countries of first entry could continue to bear such a burden alone. ”

But if the flow of people fleeing the intensification of fighting in urban areas were to increase or simply continue at a high rate, it is difficult to imagine that the countries of first entry could continue to bear such a burden alone. The question of some form of relocation between Member States will arise and must be anticipated now. Several EU Member States have already indicated that they are preparing for such an eventuality, and civil society is already demonstrating its willingness to help. The application of the Temporary Protection Directive would then prove its full worth: not only by guaranteeing people the minimum rights they need to survive and be safe in the host country without delay, but also by facilitating their transfer to any EU Member State without the need for further administrative checks. Only when the deadline set by the directive implemented on 3 March expires would the question of longer-term protection, refugee status or subsidiary protection arise.

The Syrian precedent, that of a long war being waged on Ukrainian soil, cannot be ruled out, even if all possibilities remain open at present. In order to provide long-term shelter for a population of several million Ukrainians, the European Union should consider a genuine mobilisation, effectively applying the solidarity that it has found so difficult to envisage until now in order to reform the Dublin Regulation. A Commission communication dated 8 March outlines the premises for this by describing the full range of integration measures provided for in the directive beyond emergency humanitarian needs: housing, schooling and access to the labour market to which displaced persons could be entitled. In this context, the capacities of civil society and local authorities will be indispensable. The quality of coordination between these different actors and the availability of financial resources as close as possible to the ground will be two practical tests of the effectiveness of solidarity.

Another test that is already apparent to the public is that of non-discrimination between people deserving aid and protection. While the urgency of the situation justifies giving priority to Ukraine, care must be taken in the long term not to neglect the needs of other non-European nationalities in terms of reception and integration. This could fuel anti-Western sentiment, which is already present in southern Europe, and would not be in line with the fundamental values of the European Union.