The EU States have gone voluntarily by the refugee deal dependent on Turkey – so they disguise their inaction.
An acute crisis has the advantage that it accelerates decisions – the agreement between the EU and Turkey was no bust-up and night shifts. It is now an agreement, including the Balkan route through fences and unilateral border blockades in the best case, but by the sustainable inclusion of all major players. The downside of decisions under time pressure, however, is that questions crucial you leave or go to.
Despite all the issues and moral issues raised by the inclusion of Turkey in the solution to the refugee crisis, he was pragmatically probably unavoidable. A recovery of the controls on the EU’s external borders in the Aegean Sea is illusory without them, and alternatives such as the “plan B” practiced in the Balkans would receive even more lift without the control of the maritime border. Even the billions from Europe are likely to improve the situation of the refugees. And finally convinced the logic that a direct transfer of refugees reduce the incentives for the dangerous journey across the sea.
How should in the short term an efficient asylum bureaucracy out of the ground pounding the Greeks?
It is questionable that the EU now fully put on a swing votes as Erdogan, to cope with a crisis, which itself could not solve and wanted to. The horse-trading to engage Europe, neither morally nor in foreign policy is a gem. With his increasing authoritarianism, Erdogan is a heavy mortgage, to the poor state of human rights and the lack of protection of for refugees in the country. The EU Turkey has now although recognized safe third country that can be legally deported the refugees. But the Turks have to yet, that they also really shelter. Here, the EU in the future must look critically, instead of looking away from political opportunism and problematic tasks in the refugee question simply “outsource”.