Interview in Der Spiegel on safe third countries and migration control in the English Channel

Is Germany the better Rwanda, Mr Knaus?

German original: Ist Deutschland das bessere Ruanda, Herr Knaus?

7 August 2024

The new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer wants to close the refugee route across the English Channel even without an agreement with Rwanda. Migration expert Gerald Knaus has a proposal and advises the Federal Chancellor to strike a deal.

SPIEGEL: Mr Knaus, the new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer wants to put an end to irregular migration across the English Channel. But he has cancelled the deportation agreement with Rwanda. You are now making a new proposal. What does it look like?

Knaus: A group of EU countries should take in every asylum seeker who reaches the UK across the English Channel from a cut-off date. In return, the UK will take a set number of asylum seekers or refugees from these EU countries for four years – for example, 10,000 people per year. Anyone from the EU who wants to go there can apply. Anyone who gets on a rubber dinghy is sent back. In one fell swoop, there would no longer be any incentive to cross the English Channel. The smugglers’ business model would be gone immediately.

SPIEGEL: You also personally presented this proposal to diplomats and Labour staffers in London. What was the reaction?

Knaus: There were many unofficial talks, but there is a certain openness. Starmer has the chance to regain control. And he can prove that this is possible without withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights, as some Conservatives are loudly demanding. The most important question for the British, however, is whether European countries can be found to join in.

SPIEGEL: Is there such a thing? The EU states can’t even manage to establish a real distribution mechanism among themselves. And the French government has already waved goodbye.

Knaus: It doesn’t have to be France just because the asylum seekers leave from the French coast. The main thing is that the third country is safe for refugees. As long as the courts have no doubts about this, the procedures and transfers can be completed very quickly.

“Olaf Scholz could prove that humane border control is possible.”

SPIEGEL: Which EU countries do you have in mind specifically?

Knaus: Germany, Denmark and Spain could lead the way. Perhaps Austria will also follow suit after the elections in September. It’s about countries where governments in the centre have an interest in tackling the issue of irregular migration pragmatically so that right-wing populists don’t continue to benefit – like Nigel Farage in the UK today. The racist violence we are seeing there right now is frightening. It shows how important it is for governments to counter populists with their own concepts.

SPIEGEL: Germany of all countries, which already takes in more asylum seekers than most other EU countries, is now supposed to be the better Rwanda?

Knaus: The coalition government, the Chancellery, and the Ministry of the Interior rightly declare that humane border control that reduces irregular migration is possible. Now Olaf Scholz could prove this – and turn the cooperation in the English Channel into a model project, a role model for other deadly borders in the Mediterranean. That would be a breakthrough that would also immediately relieve the burden on Germany itself.

SPIEGEL: In what way? You’ll have to explain that.

Knaus: The core idea behind agreements with safe third countries is that a small number of consistent transfers from a certain date have a major effect. If the plan works, after two months, no one will cross the English Channel in a boat. Germany would have taken in a few hundred, at most a few thousand people during this time, after which it would be over. However, the UK’s pledge would apply for several years. London would take in thousands of refugees or asylum seekers from Germany every year, without risking their lives. That would be European solidarity in the interests of all.

SPIEGEL: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has already announced that he wants to work more closely with EU countries. However, only in the prosecution of people smugglers. Even before the racist riots in England, voluntarily accepting refugees from the EU apparently seemed too risky to him.

Knaus: Intensifying the fight against smugglers will not work. We know this because the Tories have been focussing on this for years. London has already sent hundreds of millions of euros to Paris, funding the French police, so to speak, who are supposed to hunt down people smugglers in return. But this is a Sisyphean task. Those who are stopped simply try again. Those who get through once stay in the UK. This is exactly the kind of agreement that Europe is currently concluding with North African countries. They don’t work. Determination alone is not enough. A strategy is also needed.

SPIEGEL: You have long vehemently defended the British Rwanda Plan, which is based on a similar assumption: Once asylum seekers realise they can’t stay, no one will come. That has demonstrably not worked. Why should it work this time?

Knaus: The Tories themselves ruined the Rwanda agreement: they announced a deadline of 2022 and then nothing happened because they couldn’t convince British courts that there were fair asylum procedures in Rwanda. Safe third countries must also be safe from the perspective of European courts, otherwise this policy will fail. So there was not one deportation flight and of course no effect. In the case of the EU-Turkey agreement, which set a cut-off date in March 2016, the number of arrivals fell to three per cent in a short space of time, as did the number of deaths in the Aegean. This is exactly what is now needed in the English Channel.

“Global refugee protection is hanging by a thread.”

SPIEGEL: Wouldn’t your new proposal also fail in court?

Knaus: No. No court doubts that Germany or Denmark are safe third countries. In the end, it’s about an implementable vision: how can we reduce irregular migration worldwide in a humane way and open legal routes? This is the Canadian model. Last year, Canada tightened its third-country agreement with the US. Anyone who crosses the border irregularly from the south is sent back. At the same time, Canada accepts around 50,000 people seeking protection each year in a controlled manner.

SPIEGEL: Donald Trump could come to power in the US in January. If he is elected, he has announced the biggest wave of deportations in history. What would that mean for global refugee protection?

Knaus: It’s hanging by a thread. It is not a foregone conclusion that global refugee protection will survive another Trump presidency. That is why it is so important that heads of government like Starmer and Scholz, who are not indifferent to international norms, now show that they can achieve better results in a pragmatic way. In the end, they need to have the political courage to just go for it.

Recommended reading

ES report: A Channel Plan for London, Berlin and Copenhagen (5 July 2024)

ESI: Opinion on migration agreements with safe third countries (June 2024)

ESI report: A wise court – Rwanda, Safe Third Countries and a Channel breakthrough in 2023 (30 June 2023)

ESI Newsletter: Safe Third Countries, Rwanda and a Channel deal (30 June 2023)