Chancellor Karl Nehammer (ÖVP) never tired of stressing recently that the EU needed a U-turn in migration policy, even calling for a fence on the EU’s external borders. But is it purely symbolic politics, or can walls and fences have a real effect on illegal migration? Migration expert Florian Trauner explains.
At the major migration summit in Brussels, EU countries agreed on a tougher fight against irregular migration and people smuggling at the external borders. The fence previously demanded by Nehammer was not specifically mentioned in the closing statement, but it remains to be seen how the compromise between the states can now be translated into political measures.
While opinions on the migration issue sometimes differ diametrically, but also between EU states, migration researcher Trauner tries to bring concrete facts to the much-discussed question of a fortress in Europe.
Number of border barriers increased sharply
While there were only six border walls worldwide around 1989, the number has now skyrocketed to 74, Trauner explained on Twitter. Last year, for example, there were such restrictions about 1,500 kilometers from the external border in the EU – this corresponds to about 13 percent of the total length.
Fences are getting longer rather than shorter
In all likelihood, this number will “potentially increase significantly,” according to Trauner. Because Finland has already announced that it also wants to build border fences on the important parts of its land border with Finland – the affected border is 1,300 kilometers long. Bulgaria, which is now often cited as an example, already has a 237-kilometre wall to Turkey – according to Austrian demands, it must now be reinforced with €2 billion from EU funds.
However, Trauner sees this as a “symbolic” requirement – after all, such systems are already financed without EU funds, for example through support from other countries. For example, the Czech Republic contributed to the border wall of Lithuania.
Walls mainly have a local effect
Walls do indeed have an effect, Trauner continues. On the one hand, according to the expert, they are a “highly visible and symbolic measure for a restrictive attitude towards migration”. They also tend to reduce the number of migrations on those parts where the walls will be reinforced.
But you also have to consider the negative side effects of these plants: they do not combat the causes of migratory pressure, they often have a negative impact on local ecosystems and wildlife. They also interrupt economic and social exchanges at the local and national level, Trauner explains.
Thinking too short?
Above all, however, they only redirect migration flows to more dangerous routes (for example, the sea routes), thereby increasing the number of deaths on the run. This became apparent, for example, when the western Balkan route was closed by land in 2015, Trauner recalls.
In July 2016, more than 3,000 deaths were recorded in one month on the Central Mediterranean route – a 50 percent increase on the previous year.
Source: Krone
I am Wallace Jones, an experienced journalist. I specialize in writing for the world section of Today Times Live. With over a decade of experience, I have developed an eye for detail when it comes to reporting on local and global stories. My passion lies in uncovering the truth through my investigative skills and creating thought-provoking content that resonates with readers worldwide.
