Eastern European countries say ready to challenge EU on migration rule – Euronews.com

Report on the European Union’s Pact on Migration and Asylum

Introduction: A Challenge to Regional Solidarity and Sustainable Development Goals

The European Union’s recently announced Pact on Migration and Asylum, designed to create a more equitable system for managing asylum seekers, faces significant opposition from a group of member states. This dissent presents a direct challenge to the EU’s institutional framework and its commitment to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The pact aims to alleviate the disproportionate burden on southern European nations, but resistance from Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic threatens the viability of this collaborative approach.

The Solidarity Mechanism: An Instrument for SDG 10 and SDG 17

The Pact on Migration and Asylum establishes a mandatory “solidarity pool” to ensure a more balanced distribution of responsibility across the Union, directly addressing the targets of SDG 10 by seeking to reduce inequalities among member states.

Core Components of the Solidarity Framework

In alignment with SDG 17, which promotes global partnerships for sustainable development, the pact requires all member states to contribute proportionally based on their GDP and population. The framework provides three distinct options for contribution:

• Direct relocation of a quota of asylum seekers.
• A financial contribution of €20,000 per asylum seeker a member state declines to relocate.
• Financing operational support for member states under significant migratory pressure.

A combination of these options is also permissible. The minimum annual targets established under this framework are 30,000 relocations and €600 million in financial contributions, representing a tangible commitment to shared responsibility.

Institutional Dissent: A Test for SDG 16

The refusal of several member states to participate in the solidarity mechanism tests the strength and inclusivity of the EU’s institutions, a core tenet of SDG 16. This opposition undermines the principle of a unified, rules-based regional governance structure.

Positions of Opposing Member States

1. Poland: Prime Minister Donald Tusk has stated that Poland will neither accept migrants under the pact nor make financial contributions.
2. Hungary: Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has echoed this sentiment, vowing not to implement the pact, accept migrants, or provide financial support, making it a central theme of his “zero migrant” policy.
3. Slovakia: Prime Minister Robert Fico has similarly warned that the country will not participate in the scheme or contribute to the solidarity pool.
4. The Czech Republic: The incoming government has expressed its rejection of the quota system, with representatives citing threats to national security.

Procedural Framework and Potential for Exemptions

The pact’s legal structure includes provisions for exemptions, which could either serve as a flexible tool for governance or further weaken the pact’s objective of reducing inequalities (SDG 10).

The Exemption Process

Member states classified as being under a “significant migratory situation” themselves can request a temporary exemption from contributing to the solidarity pool. The European Commission has identified Poland and the Czech Republic as potentially eligible. Key aspects of this process include:

• Any exemption must be approved by a qualified majority of EU ministers, requiring the support of at least 15 of the 27 member states, representing 65% of the EU population.
• If an exemption is granted, the member state’s share is not redistributed, resulting in less overall support for frontline nations like Italy and Spain. This outcome would directly counteract the pact’s goal of achieving greater equality under SDG 10.

Implementation Challenges and Future Outlook

The widespread reluctance to accept relocations poses a significant implementation challenge. Officials acknowledge that if a majority of states refuse their obligations, enforcing the pact will be difficult. The situation highlights a critical juncture for the EU, where the commitment to collective action and partnership, as envisioned in SDG 17, is being severely tested. The final resolution of this matter is anticipated to be a key topic at the European Council meeting in December.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article focuses on the management of asylum seekers and the distribution of responsibility among EU countries. This directly relates to inequalities faced by migrants and the unequal burden placed on “hotspot countries” like Italy, Spain, and Greece. The EU’s plan aims to address this imbalance, connecting the issue to the goal of reducing inequality both among people (migrants) and among countries.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The core of the article is a dispute over the implementation of the EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum. This highlights challenges related to building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at a supranational level. The conflict between the European Commission and member states like Poland and Hungary tests the strength and legitimacy of EU laws and decision-making processes.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article discusses a breakdown in partnership and solidarity among EU member states. The proposed “solidarity pool,” which involves relocating asylum seekers or making financial contributions, is a mechanism for partnership. The refusal of some countries to participate undermines the principle of cooperation and shared responsibility, which is central to SDG 17.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.

  The EU’s “Pact on Migration and Asylum” is a clear example of an attempt to create a “planned and well-managed migration policy.” The article details the plan’s quota system and financial contributions, which are designed to manage the flow of asylum seekers in an orderly and responsible manner across the Union.

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

  The conflict described in the article tests the effectiveness of EU institutions. The European Commission has proposed a plan, but its implementation is being challenged by several member states. The debate over exemptions and the potential for countries to ignore the law, as noted by a diplomat who said, “the Commission won’t fine them all,” directly questions the accountability and effectiveness of the EU’s institutional framework.

• Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources…

  The EU’s migration plan is built on a partnership model where member states are required to share financial and operational resources to support countries “under migratory pressure.” The article explicitly mentions the mobilization of financial resources through a “solidarity pool” with a minimum of “€600 million in financial contributions,” which directly aligns with this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicators for Target 10.7:

  The article provides specific, quantifiable indicators for measuring the implementation of the migration policy. These include:

  • The number of asylum seekers relocated: The plan sets a minimum of “30,000 relocations.”
  • The cost of non-relocation: A specific financial metric of “€20,000 per person they do not agree to relocate” is mentioned.
• Indicators for Target 16.6:

  Progress towards effective institutions can be measured by observing the outcomes of the political process described:

  • The number of member states complying with or challenging the law: The article identifies Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic as challengers, which serves as an indicator of institutional weakness or lack of consensus.
  • The successful application of decision-making rules: The process for granting exemptions through a “qualified majority” is an indicator of the institution’s procedural integrity and responsiveness.
• Indicators for Target 17.16:

  The strength of the partnership can be measured with concrete financial and proportional indicators mentioned in the text:

  • The total amount of financial contributions mobilized: The article states a minimum of “€600 million in financial contributions” for the solidarity pool.
  • The formula for equitable contribution: The requirement for countries to contribute “in proportion to their population and total GDP” is a clear indicator for measuring fair burden-sharing within the partnership.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: euronews.com