The EU is Outsourcing its Human Rights Responsibilities – Freedom House

European Union’s Reputation at Stake: A Report on Outsourcing Responsibilities and the Need for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

For more than a decade, the European Union’s reputation as a beacon of freedom and democracy has been flagging. Recent events have contributed to the problem, including the bloc’s failure to suspend Hungary’s turn at the rotating presidency and its collective inattention and inaction regarding the crisis of democracy rapidly unfolding in Slovakia. These events, among others, have exacerbated questions about the EU’s commitment to the core values of its founding treaty.

Complex Geopolitical Position

Today, the EU finds itself in an increasingly complex geopolitical position. Facing mounting social, economic, and security pressures, EU leaders and member states are turning to short-sighted solutions to secure their long-term futures. Unfortunately, in areas ranging from migration and asylum policy to resource extraction and energy security, the EU is increasingly outsourcing its responsibilities to partners that demonstrate less respect for fundamental freedoms. Yet, by embracing its roots as a values-driven solution to the problems of international relations, the EU has the potential to lead, setting a shining example for a balanced, principled approach to achieving domestic stability and ensuring respect for human rights.

Saddling others with the EU’s asylum responsibilities

For years, the European Union has sought solutions to the persistent challenge of mass migration—which has seen extremely high numbers of migrants arriving in Europe to seek a life free from the hardships they faced in their origin countries—through bilateral deals with authoritarian neighbors. Almost a decade ago, our colleague Nate Schenkkan testified to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the EU was cutting a dirty deal with Turkey’s authoritarian government by asking it to stop refugee flows in exchange for money and a “reinvigorated” EU accession process. According to relief agencies, the EU–Turkey deal has come at “immeasurable cost” to asylum seekers and refugees, whose human rights have been violated by Turkish authorities. Subsequent reproductions of the so-called Turkish model in Libya and Tunisia have resulted in even more extreme violations of basic human rights.

Now, Giorgia Meloni’s Italian government is following a similar playbook with its trans-Adriatic neighbor, Albania. An agreement between the two countries, signed in 2023, entails sending up to 36,000 EU–bound asylum seekers per year to the Albanian port city of Shëngjin to have their asylum claims processed. In return, Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama hopes that Meloni will reinvigorate discussions on Albania’s potential EU membership, which have been plodding forward for a decade. While the processing centers will operate under Italian jurisdiction, and thus will be beholden to EU law, rights groups have noted that there is an increased risk to the basic rights of asylum seekers sent to Albania, a country with a weak judicial system and shaky human rights record. Other experts have been more blunt, claiming these sorts of policies are “racist.”

Although Meloni’s government continues to push this policy, earlier this week, an Italian court ruling suspended the detention of asylum seekers in Albania and mandated their return to Italy in order to comply with a recent EU court ruling on the repatriation of migrants. However, numerous EU leaders and member states have praised the Italy-Albania framework as a model for future bilateral agreements, despite the risks it poses to asylum rights. If member state Italy is ultimately allowed to sidestep its obligations, the EU would be undermining its fundamental values of promoting democracy and the rule of law and protecting the rights and dignity of all. Further, by making Albania’s membership a matter of quid pro quo, Italy and the EU have opened the doors to non–EU member states, including hybrid and authoritarian governments, seeking to leverage their geostrategic assets in return for fast-tracked accession talks.

Extracting resources at the expense of local communities

Between the EU’s green transition and the Russian military’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the bloc’s need to diversify its sources of energy and raw materials has only intensified in recent years. But this well-intentioned pursuit has made non–EU countries in the bloc’s periphery vulnerable to human rights abuses and environmental degradation. The issue has been thrust into the spotlight in Serbia, where the government signed a deal with the EU in July allowing for the extraction of critical raw materials like lithium.

The agreement, which could bring billions of euros to Serbia’s economy, has been widely criticized by Balkan watchers as an undue reward bestowed upon an increasingly autocratic government. Human rights experts have also expressed concern about the safety of workers at the eventual lithium mines, given Serbia’s poor track record on labor rights, while residents in the affected areas fear being displaced from their homes once construction starts. Moreover, Serbian environmental activists have long decried the potential environmental damage of the mines—especially air, water, and land pollution. For all these reasons, thousands took to the streets across Serbia to protest the agreement, which led to dozens of activists being detained and arrested in August. With the independence of Serbia’s governing institutions in question and critical voices increasingly under pressure, concerns that authorities will not enforce the labor and environmental standards in the memorandum are real.

Rejecting false dichotomies

Even prior to the reelection of former President Donald Trump in the United States last week, the EU’s leaders were developing plans for a new strategy to ensure Europe’s international competitiveness. Some experts have even suggested that a Trump victory may be “just the shock needed” for Europe to galvanize around a common vision for the bloc’s future.

But, while linking energy and trade routes across the continent could bring tangible economic and security benefits to Europe, these opportunities should not come at the expense of either the public’s well-being or governance standards writ large. Just as Schenkkan warned in 2015, its current policy toward migration and resource extraction risks “exposing the EU as cynical and shortsighted, destroying its greatest strength as a rules-based, values-driven institution.”

Conclusion

In outsourcing its responsibilities to protect the rights of asylum seekers, workers, and everyday citizens to non–EU countries with lower rights and governance standards, the EU has taken a step away from being a principled leader in the global fight for freedom. Recent events have left the EU appearing to be primarily concerned with protecting its own interests rather than living up to its promise to pursue a values-based approach to global affairs. To shore up its credibility and make good on its promises to champion democracy and fundamental freedoms, the EU and its member states must enforce stronger human rights conditions in their agreements with external partners and align their external actions with the bloc’s expressed internal values. Now is the time for the EU to show the world that it remains committed to good-faith cooperation with its neighbors and allies and stands firm in its rights-respecting approach to governance and global leadership.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

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

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

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

• SDG 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular, and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.
• SDG 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.
• SDG 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources.

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

• Indicator for SDG 10.7: Number of countries implementing planned and well-managed migration policies.
• Indicator for SDG 16.6: Existence of independent national human rights institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles.
• Indicator for SDG 17.16: Amount of financial resources mobilized by developed countries to support developing countries in achieving sustainable development goals.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: freedomhouse.org