Action Plan for Albania
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
| 1999 |  | 2004 |
Summit document
FINAL
A5-0287/2000
12 October 2000
REPORT
regarding the action plan for Albania and the neighboring region
(7886/2000 – C5-0305/2000- 2000/2158 (COS))
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
Presenter: Anna Karamanou
CONTENTS.
Page
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE PROCEDURE……………………………………………………………………………………. 4
PROPOSAL FOR A RESOLUTION…………………………………………………………………………………………. 5
EXPLANATORY REPORT………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HUMAN RIGHTS, COMMON SECURITY, AND DEFENSE POLICY…………………………………………….. 21
In a letter dated May 16, 2000, the Council, at the request of the Presidency, transmitted to the President of the European Parliament the action plan for Albania and the neighboring region (7886/2000 – 2000/2158 (COS)).
At the meeting on July 3, 2000, the President of the Parliament announced that she had forwarded the action plan to the Committee on Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Justice, and Home Affairs for substantive examination, in accordance with Article 48 of the Rules, and to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security, and Defense Policy for an opinion (C5-0305/2000).
At its meeting on May 23, 2000, the Committee on Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Justice, and Home Affairs appointed Ms. Anna Karamanou as the rapporteur.
At its meetings on June 22, 2000, July 13, 2000, September 14, 2000, and October 11, 2000, the Committee on Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Justice, and Home Affairs examined the action plan and the draft report.
At the last meeting mentioned, the committee approved the proposal for a resolution with 25 votes in favor, 0 votes against, and 2 abstentions.
Present during the vote were the following Members: Robert J.E. Evans, Vice-Chair; Bernd Posselt, Vice-Chair; Anna Karamanou, Rapporteur; Christian von Boetticher; Alima Boumediene-Thiery; Marco Cappato; Michael Cashman; Charlotte Cederschiöld; Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (substituting for Martin Schulz); Ozan Ceyhun; Carlos Coelho; Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli; Georgios Dimitrakopoulos (substituting for Thierry Cornillet); Francesco Fiori (substituting for Marcello Dell’Utri, in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2, of the Rules); Pernille Frahm; Evelyne Gebhardt (substituting for Joke Swiebel); Margot Keßler; Timothy Kirkhope; Ewa Klamt; Hartmut Nassauer; William Francis Newton Dunn (substituting for Jorge Salvador Hernández Mollar); Elena Ornella Paciotti; Hubert Pirker; Adriana Poli Bortone (substituting for Roberta Angelilli, in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2, of the Rules); Anna Terrón i Cusí; Maurizio Turco (substituting for Frank Vanhecke); and Gianni Vattimo.
The opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security, and Defense Policy is attached to this report.
The report was submitted on October 12, 2000.
The deadline for submitting amendments will be indicated in the agenda for the session during which the report will be examined.
Resolution of the European Parliament on the action plan for Albania and the neighboring region (7886/2000 – C5-0305/2000-2000/2158 (COS))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the action plan for Albania and the neighboring region, approved by the Council of General Affairs on June 13 and 14, 2000 (7886/2000 – C5-0305/2000),
– having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community (in particular Articles 3(1)(d), 13, 14, and Title VI) and the Treaty on European Union (in particular Articles 2, 6, and Title VI),
– having regard to the mandate of the High-Level Group on “Asylum and Migration” to develop action plans regarding the main countries of origin or transit of asylum seekers and migrants,
– having regard to the conclusions of the European Council in Tampere on October 15 and 16, 1999, and in particular conclusions 2, 3, 4, 8, and 11-27,
– having regard to its previous resolutions on the issue of migration and asylum, and in particular the resolution of March 30, 2000, on asylum seekers and migrants: action plans for countries of origin and transit – High-Level Group[1],
– having regard to Article 47, paragraph 1 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Justice, and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security, and Defense Policy (A5-0287/2000),
taking into account that the action plan for Albania, like the plans that preceded it for other countries, is inspired by a comprehensive approach that must inherently provide a sufficient balance of the proposed measures,
B. taking note with satisfaction of the quality and coherence of the report on Albania prepared by the High-Level Group, particularly to the extent that it considers the situation of human rights
C. considering that migration should be regarded as a fundamental freedom and that a suitable legal framework for the EU must be developed for a legal and stable migration policy, particularly aimed at countries that are closest to its external borders and which already have historical and cultural ties with it,
D. considering that Albania is simultaneously a country of origin and transit for migrants heading to Western European countries, often attracted by the prospects of a better life and false promises of employment that can lead to the tragedy of debt, illegal work, prostitution, child exploitation, and ghettos,
E. considering that particularly restrictive policies for granting visas contribute to forcing individuals, fed by the “trade of illusions,” to seek illegal means to cross the external borders of the Union,
F. considering that practical border control measures should not be inconsistent with the promotion of mobility and the free movement of people in Europe, and that consequently the role and actions of consulates and other representations of member states in Albania and the neighboring region must align with European policies and regulations in this area,
G. considering that numerous illegal migrants, if their attempt to migrate fails, often repeat their efforts under extremely dangerous and inhumane conditions, resulting in numerous casualties, primarily among children and women,
H. considering that illegal migrants also have the right to the protection of their fundamental human rights,
I. considering that the vast majority of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo who were forced to leave Kosovo have already returned to their homes, without this meaning that full normalization has occurred, as there are still situations of risk and uncertainty, particularly for the Serbs in Kosovo and other minorities,
I. considering therefore that applications for asylum or temporary protection from Kosovo no longer appear to be a significant potential source of inflow into EU countries, but rather constitute exceptional cases, and that furthermore, the return of refugees needs to be monitored and supported,
J. considering that only after the events in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999 and following the European Council in Helsinki in December 1999, with the prospect of enlargement, did the role of the southeastern region of Europe become more significant for the European Union (Stability Pact), and that this reflects a historical delay and a lack of political vision on the part of member states, especially when compared to their stance toward the candidate countries in Central Europe,
K. considering that, beyond the events in Kosovo, the issue of Albania and the relations between the countries in the neighboring region remain a factor of concern and instability in Europe, which particularly interests EU member states given that NATO’s military success has not translated into political success and ethnic polarization remains particularly acute,
L. considering that any action for conflict prevention, reconstruction, and stabilization in the region must take into account the integration prospects of Serbia and the Balkans as a whole,
M. noting with satisfaction that the European Council in Santa Maria da Feira approved a report on the EU’s priorities for external relations in the field of justice and home affairs, emphasizing that effective support must be provided for the governance of societies in transition during crisis management, and deciding to strengthen the Euro-Mediterranean partnership as well as a common EU strategy towards the Mediterranean region, which includes various initiatives in the areas of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, migration, and asylum (see particularly points 14, 22, and 23 of Annex V of the Presidency Conclusions),
GENERAL
1. welcomes the fact that the action plan for Albania and the neighboring region takes into account both the economic and social causes of migration in its analysis;
2. finds it strange that, despite the powers conferred on the Union following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, the task of preparing the action plan for Albania and the neighboring region has been undertaken by a working group of the Council rather than by the European Commission;
3. commends the specific measures included in the action plan for the areas of asylum and migration, as well as for other issues in the fields of justice and home affairs;
4. expresses regret over the overall lack of balance in the action plan, which primarily contains measures aimed at control and repression, reflecting a confusion between asylum seekers, migrants for socioeconomic reasons, and transit individuals; regrets that the drafting of the plan was not preceded by a discussion involving the citizens of the country and the surrounding region; notes that readmission agreements with politically unstable countries like Albania cannot be either applicable or consistent with the spirit and letter of international treaties;
5. expresses concern over the precarious situation in Albania, which is manifested by political instability, the fragile nature and violent competition of the party system, the poor functioning of the constitution and non-compliance with laws, administrative chaos, high crime rates, corruption, insecurity due to the loss of control over parts of the territory by government authorities, and illegal arms trafficking, despite the serious efforts of the Albanian government;
6. reminds Albania that unless internal security improves, including the safety and protection of national minorities, no substantial social and economic improvements can be achieved;
7. notes with satisfaction and hope that positive forces are emerging that deserve support, aiming for democratization, societal development, reconstruction, and rapprochement with the EU, which also applies to the neighboring region of Albania and is partly a result of the events in Kosovo;
8. calls for the establishment and strengthening— in collaboration with the Council of Europe, Italy, and Greece (the only EU country that shares a border with Albania), the two EU countries primarily affected by the instability in Albania and feeling the consequences of illegal migration and criminal networks—of a dialogue between European officials and the central and local authorities of Albania, mainly to consolidate the political rapprochement with Europe, to contribute to the emergence of new leaders in the country, to support legitimate democratic institutions (parliament, local communities, civil society organizations), and to assist in the proper functioning of the rule of law and the judicial and administrative systems, as well as to support independent media;
9. notes that while the action plan emphasizes measures to suppress the movement of people from Albania to the EU, these measures are not coupled with legal protection and basic socioeconomic security measures for migrants and refugees in Albania;
10. requests that during the implementation of the action plan, active participation be enabled for local authorities, non-governmental organizations, and representatives of the UN;
11. calls for particular emphasis to be placed on combating prejudice and discrimination against women during the implementation of the action plan and for the rights of minorities in Albania to be recognized;
12. requests that the Albanian government harmonize its methods for analyzing data and statistics to be compatible with those used by EUROSTAT;
13. calls on the Commission, the Council, and all member states to support Albania in its efforts against illegal migration, as well as in the fight against corruption and organized crime, within the framework of these measures;
14. expresses regret that a significant portion of the measures that have budgetary implications is not covered by the budget;
15. believes that the success of these reforms will also be a decisive factor in improving the economic situation in the country, as only in this way can foreign investments, which are urgently needed, be encouraged and contribute to the modernization of the outdated economic structure;
MIGRATION
16. calls for the establishment of legal measures specifically for migration from Albania and the neighboring region, which could be based on the study of the root causes of the phenomenon and aim to break the vicious cycle of human trafficking and organized crime, as well as the trafficking of weapons, drugs, and stolen vehicles, all of which are closely linked to illegal migration;
17. emphasizes that, since migration is a complex phenomenon linked to political, historical, social, and economic factors, and because many refugees and asylum seekers often have no other choice but to enter the EU illegally, irregular migration should not be considered a criminal act;
18. points out to the Council and the Commission that supporting administrative reforms, legal system reforms, and thus legal security will largely have positive consequences regarding the number of Albanians choosing to remain in their country, thereby directly curbing migration flows;
19. expresses regret that the integration of Albanian nationals residing permanently in the 15 EU member states, as well as other third-country nationals, is not prioritized but is limited to a single measure (124 i) at the end of the action plan list, emphasizing that European asylum and immigration policy should be based on the full implementation of the Geneva Convention, respect for international human rights documents, and provide guarantees for the individual protection of refugees and their families;
20. calls for the full implementation of Articles 29, 30, 31, and 34 of the EU Treaty, regarding the utilization of the experience gained from the implementation of the protocols by the most concerned member states, for:
– the initiation of coordinated actions with the maximum possible cooperation of Europol in order to put an end to the trafficking and prostitution networks of women and children and the activities of criminal networks involved in the illegal trafficking of migrants, which are often linked to networks in the destination and transit countries of the EU;
– the legislative initiatives required for the crime of human smuggling and their exploitation through forced labor and prostitution (see measure 124 f);
21. calls on the Commission and the Council to undertake specific and effective actions aimed at cooperation with the Albanian, Italian, and Greek authorities in order to curb the continuous flow of illegal migrants—Albanian nationals and nationals of third countries—who enter neighboring EU member states through sea and land borders;
22. recommends the continuation and strengthening of training and awareness-raising activities regarding the realities of illegal migration, specifically designed for the “at-risk population” of the relevant countries, and the enhancement of self-help groups;
23. calls for more objective and freer information as well as the elimination of prejudices and stereotypes by the EU mass media;
24. expresses concern and opposes the new negotiations and the non-discriminatory implementation of bilateral or multilateral readmission agreements for migrants, particularly in cases involving non-Albanian minorities or stateless persons, and calls for any potential agreement at the Union level to be specifically structured for this purpose; demands that the needs of local communities be taken into account and that they be supported in order to successfully reintegrate returning individuals;
ASYLUM
25. requests from the political authorities of Albania and the neighboring area, from the institutions of the EU, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and from NGOs to contribute decisively to the establishment of an asylum system in Albania and the neighboring area, to the extent that these countries play and could perhaps play the role of host country, emphasizing the guarantee of access to asylum procedures, facilities for receiving refugees, and social integration measures, in order to prevent the continuous movement of migrants and refugees;
26. requests, for this reason, that the Commission ensure the most active possible participation of NGOs in the preparation and implementation of plans;
27. reminds that, under the Geneva Convention, no state can expel or return refugees, in any way, to their country of origin or to a third country where there is a risk of persecution and that the return of refugees, displaced persons, and those who have been granted temporary protection can only occur on a voluntary basis, due to the non-implementation of the readmission clause, and to the extent that the possibilities for reintegration are satisfactory and sustainable and that, in general, serious security conditions have been established in advance;
28. requests the reintegration of individuals in Kosovo with simultaneous assistance for the most vulnerable categories such as the elderly, unaccompanied minors, disabled individuals, injured or sick persons, and women, while also ensuring real security conditions;
29. demands that member states do not execute readmission measures in Albania for individuals whose asylum applications have been rejected or not examined, unless the administrative structures responsible for processing applications have been significantly strengthened (see measure 124 a); agrees with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees that, for the time being, Albania cannot be considered a “safe third country” where refugees can find effective protection;
30. supports the preparatory work of the Commission regarding the development of a stability and association agreement between the EU and Albania.
***
31. assigns its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the government and parliament of Albania.
I. THE HIGH-LEVEL GROUP
The action plan for Albania is part of a broader experimental plan that includes five other countries: Afghanistan and neighboring areas, Morocco, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Iraq. The plan was developed by the High-Level Group on Asylum and Migration, which was established on December 7-8, 1998, by the Council. The main purpose of the plan is to curb migration to the countries of the European Union, which is why statistics on migration flows and asylum applications were the main criterion for selecting the countries. Other criteria taken into account included the likelihood of success of the action plans and the consensus of the states, as well as geographical balance. The experience and knowledge gained from the implementation of the programs will be used in shaping a common and comprehensive European policy on asylum and migration.
The action plans include an analysis of the political and economic situation of the countries, as well as the state of human rights, while attempting to analyze the causes and reasons that drive migration. Medium- and long-term measures are proposed within the framework of broader cooperation of the Union at political, economic, and humanitarian levels, as well as on issues of development and internal affairs with the countries in question. Some of the proposed measures are of no practical value, some are useful, but none will certainly overturn the undemocratic regimes. It is clear that the authors of the plans, while recognizing the critical political situation in these countries and the ongoing human rights violations, are more concerned with how to limit the tendency to flee rather than with the possibility of providing protection to persecuted citizens. Regarding the readmission agreements, they lack any political realism due to the political instability and absence of the rule of law in the selected countries.
In the case of Albania and the neighboring area, the action plan was submitted as a preliminary report in the fall of 1999, approved by the Council of General Affairs on June 13 and 14, 2000, and, as things stand, there are possibilities for multi-sectoral cooperation of the European Union. However, the need for coordination among the various negotiation and consultation groups must be emphasized: the EU-Albania bilateral dialogue at the ministerial level and at the level of senior management, the OECD mission, international conferences on Albania, the “FRIENDS OF ALBANIA” group, the European Union observer mission, the Stability Pact for Southeastern Europe, and the process aimed at starting negotiations for a stabilization and association agreement.
Regarding the structure of the action plan for Albania and the border area, the plan includes:
– foreign policy: 6 measures (no economic burden);
– economic development and cooperation: 9 measures (all entail economic burden, with specific reference to the corresponding budget item);
– justice and internal affairs, asylum and migration: 15 measures, one of which is subdivided into three parts (12 with economic burden, but only five with specific reference to the corresponding budget item).
The measures, among other things, aim to strengthen democratic institutions, non-governmental organizations, and civil society, to develop independent media, to raise awareness about the respect for human rights, to prevent and combat corruption, as well as measures to enhance local government and strengthen the capacity to address asylum requests in accordance with international standards.
ΙΙ. BRIEF PRESENTATION OF THE HISTORICAL-POLITICAL SITUATION [2]
Albania, like the other Balkan states, has been marked by five centuries of Ottoman rule and the legacy of communist regimes. Politically, Albania, like Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Romania, is a creation of the 19th and 20th centuries, as a consequence of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the intervention of the great powers. According to Robert Lee Wolf, the result of this historical experience has been the violent nationalism that characterizes both the internal and international political behavior of these four states. None of these countries has lived for long without some form of external intervention, preventing the development of a strong tradition of democratic governance. Albanians speak their own language and claim to be descendants of the ancient Illyrians. However, the great powers became aware of their existence only during the Balkan crisis of 1875-1878 and favored the creation of an Albanian state, primarily to limit neighboring states—Greece, Serbia, and Montenegro.
The conclusion of the Treaties of San Stefano and Berlin in 1878 and the cession of several areas with an Albanian population to Montenegro sparked Albanian nationalism, which took a specific form in Kosovo with the creation of the “Albanian League,” which sought autonomy for Albanian territories under Ottoman rule. It was then that the first references to the Albanian Nation emerged, while the effort for cultural and linguistic unity continued throughout the 1880s, at the same time that other states in the region were involved in their own campaigns for territorial annexation and suffered from the interventions of the great powers.
On the political front, Albanian leaders were very hesitant, believing that the time was not ripe for independence. However, the Young Turk Revolution in 1908 and the attempt at forced Ottomanization, along with the refusal to recognize the Albanian Nation, led to the uprising against the Turks in 1909-1911. Albania was recognized as an independent state in 1913, and in 1920 it became a member of the League of Nations.
The emergence of Albania as a satellite state of Yugoslavia after World War II had a strong nationalist dimension, while Tito’s plans for the annexation of Albania with the aim of creating a greater Yugoslavia were not realized. Tito’s break with Stalin in 1948 facilitated Albania’s break with Yugoslavia, the establishment of a more rigid and isolated regime, and its oscillation between alignment with Stalin and with China, under the leadership of Enver Hoxha, who ruled the country from 1944 until his death in 1985.
The post-Cold War era in the 1990s was marked by intense student protests, miners’ strikes, the collapse of the political and economic system, unemployment, food shortages, administrative chaos throughout the country, a mass movement of farmers toward Tirana, and the simultaneous exodus of thousands of Albanians to European Union countries, particularly to Italy and Greece.
During this period, events beyond the borders began to influence Albania’s political orientation. Attention was mainly focused on Kosovo and Tetovo. In this context, Albanian and Kosovar intellectuals took the initiative in October 1991 to create an Assembly for National Reconciliation and Unity that would lead the country out of the deep crisis and restore its national dignity. Thus, Albania entered the post-communist era with a devastated economy, while being pressured by the diaspora and nationalist groups for the unification of all Albanians, further confirming the close relationship between economic hardship and nationalism.
The current political situation is characterized by instability and the absence of civil society, both in Albania and the surrounding region, in terms of an autonomous political understanding of ethnicity and the rise of nationalism to fill the void left by the lack of state institutions. The country has not yet recovered from the collapse of the “pyramid schemes” in 1997, which paralyzed economic, political, and social life, while intense polarization characterizes the political landscape.
The future of Kosovo is a very critical issue. Those who know the region well argue that any solution must take into account the situation of the region as a whole. The issues raised by Albanians in Kosovo and in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia represent two distinct but related problems in the Balkans today. Their relevance lies in the fact that for Albania, the Albanian minorities abroad constitute the National Question, and although for most Albanians the idea of a Greater Albania is a myth, it should not be underestimated.
One of the greatest dangers to peace and security in the region would be to marginalize and isolate Albania and the surrounding area from the countries of the European Union. Without a serious effort to build democratic institutions, Albania cannot be a reliable regional partner. Changes can only occur if Europe accepts the fact that Southeast Europe, including Serbia, is an integral part of the continent. Today, in the Balkans, the Union’s ability to manage crises and promote economic development and stability in conflict-affected areas is being tested.
III. ASYLUM AND TEMPORARY PROTECTION
The statistics from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees indicate that by the end of the summer of 1998, due to the crisis in Kosovo, several hundred thousand displaced persons had been counted, three-quarters of whom had left their homes in Kosovo.
With the prolongation of hostilities, these individuals began seeking refuge in Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, and elsewhere. By the end of March 1999, more than one million residents of Kosovo of Albanian descent had been forced to leave their homes, and almost half of them ended up in Albania by the end of the hostilities (approximately 450,000). Another 250,000 sought refuge in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 21,700 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and 70,000 in Montenegro.
Several hundred thousand remained in the province of Kosovo, having been displaced from their homes, and about 10,000 moved to EU member states where they found protection under asylum application processes, temporary protection, or other forms of protection. Based on agreements reached at the international level and in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, residents of Kosovo of Albanian descent were accepted and received protection, primarily within Kosovo itself.
The establishment of viable political and economic structures, that is, a safe environment, is a fundamental prerequisite for the return of refugees and displaced persons. Today, it has been noted that the majority of the displaced have returned to Kosovo (if not to their homes) just weeks after the signing of the peace agreement (June 1999). By mid-March 2000, more than 830,000 people had returned to Kosovo, and there has since remained a serious risk of persecution and discriminatory behavior against Serbs and other minorities in the region, such as the Roma.
Unfortunately, the appeal of special representative Bernard Kouchner to avoid overloading Kosovo with mass returns was not heeded, and the pace of refugee returns remains high. Many reports from international organizations and non-governmental organizations emphasize the ongoing insecurity in the region [3] and the absence of the rule of law.
It is particularly emphasized that the states that offered protection to the Albanian residents of Kosovo during the crisis, despite the fact that the conflict has ended, have a duty to continue providing protection to individuals who still need it. Stability in Kosovo largely depends on the EU’s willingness to agree to a gradual and coordinated return of refugees to the region. The European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees are calling on member states to extend the protection they provide for humanitarian reasons, in accordance with the 1951 Convention, to individuals who fear persecution due to discrimination against them (minorities, individuals of mixed ethnic origin, individuals who had relationships with Serbs after 1990, individuals who opposed the liberation army, the disabled, the sick, the elderly, unaccompanied children, etc.). Repatriation should occur under conditions of dignity, safety, and the consent of those involved.
From the perspective of the international community, and particularly the EU, appropriate planning and coordination for the return of refugees, as well as aid programs for rebuilding and restoring peace in the region, are necessary. The Stability Pact process is key to the return of a larger number of refugees and finding viable solutions in the area. Governments, non-governmental organizations, and international bodies must exert their influence to ensure that the Pact is not just rhetoric but becomes a reality.
In the context of further developing the action plan for Albania and the border area, and given that Albania lacks experience in asylum matters and cannot be considered a safe country, particular attention should be paid to the following:
– the establishment of an Albanian asylum system based on the Geneva Convention, which will ensure implementation with specialized personnel, appropriate resources, and suitable structures (in accordance with the new Albanian constitution of November 1998 and the new relevant law of December 1998) and will provide genuine protection for asylum seekers and refugees in the region;
– cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to adopt proper interviewing and investigation procedures;
– regarding the return of asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected and the implementation of readmission agreements, provided the safety of the return location has been verified, the example of a small group of EU member states that have begun to implement a regional approach can be followed (memoranda of understanding concerning the obligation to readmit citizens under conditions of safety and dignity, covering travel costs and providing financial assistance upon arrival and departure, offering vocational training to returnees). Measure 124 e) third point should be utilized in this direction.
IV. MIGRATION AND IRREGULAR MIGRATION
Albania is simultaneously a country of origin and transit for migratory flows heading to Western European countries. From 1990 to 1997, approximately 15% of the Albanian population left the country, primarily for economic reasons and public order, but also due to the strong pull of factors such as the significant presence of Albanian communities in certain EU countries, the influence of television and radio programs, or knowledge of the language of the destination country.
The data available to us indicates that Albanians make up the largest percentage of citizens from non-EU countries in Italy and Greece. In Italy, they actually represent the majority of legally settled migrants.
Foreigners residing legally in member states should indeed be socially integrated through specific measures. In this case, the action plan for Albania, like those that preceded it, proves to be particularly inadequate, possibly due to the absence of a common and comprehensive Union policy on asylum and migration (measure 124n, which does not provide any specific details but refers to the community program EQUAL). The potential policy of the European Union in this regard could be based on the “co-management” of migration flows between the countries of the Union (including candidate countries), countries of origin, and transit countries. The European Parliament has repeatedly emphasized the need for the Union to establish a legal migration channel, equipped with provisions that would create a “status” for those migrants who have entered and are residing legally in Europe.
Regarding illegal immigration, our attention should not be focused almost exclusively, as is the case with the Action Plan, on readmission agreements (for example, measures 124 h and i). It is a fact that smuggling networks organize the journeys of prospective migrants, and the reputation of these organizations, combined with the absence of a legal migration route, drives more and more individuals of various nationalities to attempt to cross into EU countries via Albania. Often, human smugglers are also drug and arms traffickers and have good contacts with other criminal organizations, particularly in Italy, Greece, and Turkey. It is worth noting that during the recent visit of the Greek Minister of Public Order, Mr. Chrysochoidis, to Tirana, it was agreed to establish an International Center in Southern Albania to combat organized crime and human trafficking.
However, the rapporteur believes that focusing attention on combating human traffickers does not help in understanding and effectively managing the phenomenon of migration. Ultimately, traffickers receive the hostility and rejection of wealthy countries towards accepting refugees or migrants. The anger against traffickers largely helps to obscure xenophobic and racist attitudes. The fact that traffickers often save lives from persecution by totalitarian regimes, that they provide services to refugees protected by the Geneva Convention and to desperate individuals for whom all other routes are closed, is completely overlooked. Therefore, treating traffickers as the root cause of migration or creating the impression that their disappearance would also eliminate illegal immigration does not contribute to the search for a comprehensive and open European policy on asylum and migration.
Pending this policy, it is reasonable to pay attention to the following:
– taking joint measures to combat the exploitation of migrants by trafficking networks;
– training and exchange of experiences regarding legal issues related to border crossing and fraudulent documents;
– transmission of information regarding trafficking, the trafficking of women for prostitution, drugs, and weapons to the accredited control bodies of the concerned countries;
– study of effective and, as far as possible, safe techniques for monitoring maritime borders;
– addressing the dialogue with the countries of origin of migrants with particular sensitivity at points where stable passage to Albania or the border area is identified;
– supporting local communities (e.g., measure 123i and 124k) regarding the reintegration of returnees and their participation in local development programs.
V. RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW, SECURITY
Countries chosen by the European Union for any cooperation must fully respect their international obligations, condemn violence and gangs, have relevant legislation, and ensure that crimes such as summary executions, mutilations, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as well as violence against women and minors are prosecuted. Moreover, target countries should combat discrimination based on gender or sexual preferences and promote tolerance and respect for the rights of minorities.
Despite the significant efforts made by the government since late 1997, Albania continues to suffer from a serious deficit in public order and security in large parts of the country, increasing crime rates, and corruption, while the police and courts face this situation with extremely inadequate resources.
Regarding the functioning of the rule of law, the Community, in cooperation with the Council of Europe, has focused its efforts on reforming state institutions, such as ministries, and on creating an appropriate legal and institutional framework for public administration (police, judiciary, customs, combating fraud and corruption).
The Community needs to continue supporting Albania in its efforts to strengthen the rule of law, the concept of citizenship, and in the development of new legislation.
To this end, the action plan provides for:
– in measure 123a), among other things, the desire to make progress on the issues of stabilization and democratization of Albania, supporting the state institutions of the country and the administrative reform (customs, justice, and police);
– in measure 123d), the support for NGOs, independent media, and civil society;
– in measure 123f), measures aimed at restoring respect for human rights and the rights of minorities; these measures need to be clearly defined;
– in measure 123g), measures for the prevention and combat of corruption;
– in measure 123i), the improvement of statistical cooperation with Albania;
– in measure 124a), the strengthening of infrastructure and local administrative services (provision of “institutional capacity”);
– in measure 124b), training and exchange of personnel in the fields of migration and asylum.
VI. BUDGET AND TIMETABLE ISSUES
The study of the Action Plan indicates that a significant portion of the proposed measures (21 out of 30) has financial implications.
Among the measures that have financial implications, approximately two-thirds can rely on existing budget funds. Specifically, for the measures related to justice and internal affairs, as noted in paragraph II, fewer than half of the interventions can be funded for the current year.
Overall, examining all the chapters of the Action Plan, approximately two-thirds of the measures are—or should be—in the implementation phase, while one-third should be implemented by the end of 2000.
In this context, however, apart from the delays in transmitting the Action Plan to the European Parliament, which has become a formal procedure, it is difficult to assess the feasibility of implementing the measures and, in short, the likelihood of success for the plan in the current year.
It is particularly important for the Council to commit to providing the Parliament with detailed information on the implementation of the measures, the options that have been chosen, and to justify any potential non-implementation of certain measures.
On the contrary, it is positive that the draft budget of the Communities for the year 2000 includes a new item, named B7-667 “Cooperation with third countries on the issue of migration,” for which an amount of 5 million euros is currently allocated. The rapporteur notes with satisfaction that the inclusion of this new item is largely due to the work of the European Parliament and that this item allows for the undertaking of community actions in the countries specified by the action plans, in highly sensitive areas, albeit not immediately but certainly. During the budget approval process, it is particularly important for the European Parliament to insist on adjusting the registered amount and improving the justification for its allocation [4].
VII. CONCLUSION
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, despite its reservations regarding the goals and effectiveness, supports the Action Plan for Albania and the neighboring region. At the same time, it calls on the EU and Albania to strengthen and broaden the political dialogue on a range of issues, aimed at the stabilization process, enhancing the European orientation, and concluding an association agreement between Albania and the European Union as soon as possible.
10 OCTOBER 2000
OPINION of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defense Policy.
to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
regarding the action plan for Albania and the neighboring region.
(7886/2000 – C5-0305/2000 – 2000/2158(COS))
Drafting committee member: Doris Pack
HISTORY OF THE PROCEDURE
At its meeting on July 12, 2000, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy appointed Ms. Doris Pack as the rapporteur for the opinion.
At its meetings on September 19 and October 10, 2000, the committee examined the draft opinion.
At the aforementioned last meeting, the committee unanimously approved the following conclusions.
Present during the vote were the following Members: Elmar Brok, chair; Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne, William Francis Newton Dunn, Catherine Lalumière, vice-chairs; Doris Pack, rapporteur; Sir Robert Atkins (substituting Silvio Berlusconi), Alexandros Baltas, Bastiaan Belder, Andre Brie, Gunilla Carlsson, María Carrilho (substituting Rosa M. Díez González), Ozan Ceyhun (substituting Elisabeth Schroedter, in accordance with Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Rules), Andrew Nicholas Duff (substituting Francesco Rutelli), Pere Esteve, Pernille Frahm (substituting Eustratios Korakas), Michael Gahler, Jas Gawronski, Vitalino Gemelli (substituting Gerardo Galeote Quecedo), Alfred Gomolka, Bertel Haarder, Klaus Hänsch, Magdalene Hoff, Georgios Katiforis (substituting Marío Soares), Alain Lamassoure, Cecilia Malmström (substituting Paavo Väyrynen), Pedro Marset Campos, Linda McAvan, Emilio Menéndez del Valle, Philippe Morillon, Raimon Obiols i Germa, Arie M. Oostlander, Reino Kalervo Paasilinna (substituting Sami Naïr), Hans-Gert Poettering, Jacques F. Poos, Mechtild Rothe (substituting Jan Marinus Wiersma), Luís Queiró, Lennart Sacrédeus (substituting Jacques Santer), Tokia Saïfi (substituting José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra), Jannis Sakellariou, Ioannis Souladakis, Hannes Swoboda, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Ursula Stenzel, Freddy Thielemanns, Gary Titley, Johan Van Hecke, Geoffrey Van Orden, Matti Wuori, and Christos Zacharakis.
After the opening of the Iron Curtain, Albania has become one of the key countries of origin and transit for migrants entering the EU. This intense wave of Albanian migration is largely due to economic conditions, as well as social circumstances caused by a family structure characterized by outdated social frameworks and inadequate legal security due to organized crime activities.
The action plan concludes with the correct observation that a large number of Albanians are leaving their homeland because the authorities are unable to ensure public order and protect human rights. At this point, it is necessary to further examine how the EU can support, through projects, the restoration and maintenance of public order in Albania.
The action plan for Albania and the neighboring region, developed by the High-Level Working Group of the Council on “Asylum and Migration,” despite its somewhat unclear structure, analyzes all significant issues related to the large wave of migrants coming from or passing through Albania. At this point, it should be emphasized again the Kosovo war and the great instability it caused in Albania and throughout the region.
In this context, the rapporteur wishes to particularly highlight the ongoing activities of the “Friends of Albania” group, which, through its work within the framework of assistance from international organizations, significantly contributes to improving living conditions in Albania.
Most of the actions mentioned in the action plan are not new; they already exist or are in the planning stage; however, some of the actions that are still in the initial stage can be strengthened through analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security, and Defense Policy calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs, which is responsible for the substance, to include the following elements in its draft resolution:
1. welcomes the fact that the action plan for Albania and the neighboring region takes into account both the economic and social causes of migration in its analysis;
2. finds it strange that, despite the powers conferred on the Union following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, the task of preparing the action plan for Albania and the neighboring region has been undertaken by a working group of the Council rather than by the European Commission;
3. emphasizes that, given the somewhat outdated social and family structures in Albania, any economic and political development plan must take the social structure into account;
4. requests, for this reason, that the Commission ensure the fullest possible involvement of NGOs in the drafting and implementation of plans;
5. commends the specific measures included in the action plan for the areas of asylum and migration, as well as for other issues in the fields of justice and internal affairs;
6. calls on the Commission and the Council, as well as all member states, to support Albania in its efforts against illegal immigration, as well as in the fight against corruption and organized crime within the framework of these measures;
7. points out to the Council and the Commission that supporting administrative reforms, reforms of the legal system, and therefore legal security will largely have positive consequences regarding the number of Albanians who choose to remain in their country and thus will directly curb the migration flow;
8. believes that the success of these reforms will also be a decisive factor in improving the economic situation in the country, given that only in this way can foreign investments, which are urgently needed and can contribute to modernizing the outdated economic structure, be encouraged;
9. calls on the Commission and the Council to take specific and effective actions aimed at cooperating with the Albanian, Italian, and Greek authorities in order to curb the ongoing flow of irregular migrants—Albanian nationals and nationals of third countries—who enter neighboring EU member states through maritime and land borders;
10. reminds Albania that if internal security in Albania is not improved, including the security and protection of national minorities, substantial social and economic improvements cannot be achieved;
11. emphasizes that providing appropriate compensation to security forces is necessary to increase their effectiveness;
12. supports the preparatory work of the Commission regarding the drafting of a stability and association agreement between the EU and Albania.
[1] It has not yet been published in the Official Journal.
[2] The observations contained in this paragraph are derived from the study: D. Triantafyllou – Th. Vereni: “The Albanian dimension in Southeastern Europe: is it a threat?,” February 2000.
[3] ECRE Position on returns to Kosovo, European Council on Refugees and Exiles, June 2000.
[4] The recorded justification states: “This amount is used to finance programs and projects within the framework of cooperation with countries and regions of origin and transit on the issue of migration and asylum.”