Posted on 17.05.2012 in Belarus, Featured, News, Uncategorized

Belarus Plays The Border Security Card With The EU

Belarus plays The Border Security Card with the EU

In response to the EU sanctions policy, Belarus allegedly weakened control at the Belarus-EU border recently. This puts in doubt Belarus’ willingness to implement in the nearest future local border traffic agreements with western neighbours in full.

It makes the prospect of signing a readmission agreement with the EU even more remote, which in turn makes visa facilitation impossible in short term.

Belarusian border post

“I can increase the number of border guards and customs posts, but you should be ready to pay”,  Belarusian ruler Aliaksandr Lukashenka said addressing Europeans in April, making it clear that the move comes as a response to the EU sanctions policy. The migration wave to the EU results from the NATO operation in Afghanistan, he added.

Apparently to demonstrate that illegal immigration is a serious problem, Belarusian state media recently reported about alleged detention of Egyptian terrorists who arrived in Belarus with the intention of illegally entering the EU. A group of five expected to enter the EU “to join the underground resistance that confronts the public and political order of European states”, an official police statement said.

Belarusian state media provided neither their names nor how they arrived to Belarus.  Egyptians chose Belarus as a transit country since they were aware of the border control weakening, the official communication explained in a clear sign of blackmail.

Belarus has no readmission agreement either with the EU or with any of the member states. That makes a relaxed border policy a more serious problem.  Readmission agreements impose legal obligations to readmit own nationals and also, under certain conditions, third country nationals and stateless persons who do not or no longer fulfil the conditions of entry to, presence in or residence in the requesting state.

All the other immediate EU neighbours in the east (Russia, Ukraine, Moldova) have agreed with the EU on readmission. Among the Eastern partnership countries, Georgia lately signed the readmission agreement, too. EU negotiations with Armenia and Azerbaijan are in progress.

Unpleasant Consequences of a Worse Border Management

Belarus does not belong to the club of top transit countries and it never did. Last Frontex annual risk analysis mentions Belarus with regard to the trafficking of petroleum products rather than as a significant transit country for illegal migration.

Indeed, a few hundred illegal immigrants coming from Belarus that EU neighbour states detect annually is not a big thing. To put it into context, the total number of detentions of illegal border-crossing in 2011 was 141 thousand, where Central and Eastern Mediterranean routes’ constituted 86%.

Poland-Belarus border

However, the alleged border control weakening is alarming for Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Although European side kept quite so far, such turn in the border policy of an official Minsk is surely of concern to the immediate neighbours. At the same time, playing the border (in)security card will surely bring adverse effects to Belarus’ security itself. If Minsk keeps promoting the message of porous western frontier it risks becoming a transit hub for illegal immigrants for real, with all the negative effects that it implies.

Belarus’ play with border issue and its reluctance to agree on readmission puts a clear obstacle to the developments of people-to-people contacts and visa facilitation regime.

First, reorientation of border forces from the western border to the south indicates that Belarus does not intend to launch long-awaited local border traffic agreements with Lithuania and Poland in the near future. At least, the agreements will not be able to become fully functional, as this requires an intensification of customs and border work, not their reduction. While the local border traffic regime was launched at Belarus-Latvia border a couple of months ago, similar agreements are stuck with Lithuania and Poland for political reasons.

Second, visa facilitation agreements are linked to the readmission agreements. Without the latter, the EU cannot proceed with visa facilitation. There was not a single case of unilateral reduction of visa fees and facilitated procedures  introduced by the EU for third country nationals without readmission agreement in force.

Currently the so called EU Visa Code stipulates all the procedures and conditions for issuing short-stay visas. Creating a precedent of unilateral visa facilitation for Belarusians will cause problems in the negotiations with other countries like Armenia and Azerbaijan whose citizens go through the same burdensome visa procedures when applying for a Schengen visa.

Those countries that already went through painful negotiations on visa facilitation and readmission, including Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova, would not be happy with EU double standards and more favourable attitude towards their slugging EaP partner either.

EU Pushes for Negotiations, Belarus Remains Indifferent

In June 2011, EU Commission sent a letter to Minsk inviting to start negotiations. Almost a year passed with no response. During the last few months, the Council recalled its invitation twice. Belarus’ procrastination with the negotiations seems ridiculous, as for many years Minsk has been claiming the visa facilitation with the EU countries to be its priority.

Belarus worries that “thousands, if not tens of thousand” of illegal migrants would be re-admitted and gather in Belarus if a readmission agreement comes into force, Belarusian MFA press-officer Savinykh explained the sluggishness in starting the negotiations.

The readmission issue may be solved either in the framework of Customs Union between Belarus, Russia and Kazakhstan, or by concluding readmission agreements with EU member states first, he suggested.

Removing a third countries nationals clause from readmission agreement with Belarus would make Minsk concerns over illegal migrants utterly meaningless. However, such a generous move regarding illegal migration, especially towards an immediate neighbour, holds little value for the EU. Therefore, visa facilitation is a hostage of an apparent gridlock over the readmission agreement.

But how well-founded Belarusian concerns over the readmission agreement are? It turns out, they are greatly exaggerated. First, available statistics on readmission between EU and other countries show that fears about excessive numbers of re-admitted migrants are groundless. In 2010, some 867 persons were readmitted by Ukraine, out of whom 469 were its own nationals (55%).

Second, reports from Belarus and EU member states indicate that Georgians constitute the biggest number of migrants arriving in Belarus with the intention of illegally entering the EU. The current visa-free regime between Belarus and Georgia significantly facilitates their entry. Introduction of visa regime and stricter review of visa applications by Belarus consular service would reduce the number of Georgian nationals that illegally go to the EU via Belarus.

With this in mind, a real figure of re-admitted third country nationals is unlikely to exceed a couple of hundred persons a year, that is much fewer than an official assumption of “thousands, if not tens of thousands’ migrants.

Benefits for the population at large from enhanced people-to-people contacts and better border control would seem to be highly exceeding the costs. The only significant cost would be supporting dozens of illegal migrants at a detention centre while seeking for their further deportation to the countries of origin.

The question remains: how sincere is the willingness of Minsk to introduce a facilitated visa regime for Belarusians?

Source: Belarus Digest