Yesterday @guardian presented shocking report of violence, pushbacks & deaths @ EU borders. Which raises questions:

Why has such news (130 deaths on one day this April) ceased to shock majorities in ?

What could be do done to change this situation?

A thread. (1)

Why so little shock?

Some say: because Europeans have grown heartless. They don’t do what is obvious! Send rescue boats. Open more “legal pathways”. Address root causes

This is not convincing.

Not the analysis, not the proposals: these would not reduce deaths at sea! (2)

Yes: there is an urgent need to rescue as fast as possible. And: Relying on the Libyan coast guard taking people back to inhumane camps is abhorrent.

But 2016 - the year of record numbers rescued in the Central Med & taken to , ~180,000 - was the year of MOST deaths. (3)

It was a result of having NO policy other than coordinating rescues from Rome & bring 180,000 to Italy.

Large numbers left Nigeria, The Gambia, etc to cross the Sahara to Libya & then the sea: 100,000 of 180,000 from West Africa.

Rescuers must rescue. But more is needed. (4)

The key to reduce deaths is fewer people getting into boats (or even cross the Sahara to Libya).

Look at IOM numbers on deaths each month in Central Med since 2014. The highest were in 6 months 2014 (time of Mare Nostrum). And in 2016.

Still, too many die now! (5)

Status quo is terrible: the EU should rescue fast & not rely on Libya.

But going back to the policy of 2014-2017 will lead to MORE, not fewer deaths. There is no support for this in . There should not be.

So what IS a way forward, that is not 2016 & not 2021 policy? (6)

Some say “legal ways”. “Those who can come legally would not risk their lives.”

But what is meant here: a. resettlement of refugees? b. Evacuation of vulnerable people from Libya? c. Migration of non-refugees?

a. is very important. But it would not stop non-refugees trying. (7)

Below are the nationalities of those who crossed central Med to Italy 2020. Few would be refugees. So few would qualify for resettlement.

“legal ways” for Tunisians, the largest group, should mean something else: visa free travel. As they enjoyed till early 90s. Is this .. (8)

... realistic? Yes, but only if it leads to more security & control of EU. Interior ministers in can lift visa.

They did for . Tunisians are wealthier than Ukrainians. But cooperates on returns. Would do so? If offered visa free travel, why not? If .... (

... this involves taking few people back.

How so? There is a cut-off date. Those who cross the sea & are rescued fast by EU boats are taken back to Tunisia after that date; plus Tunisians who are required to leave the EU.

But is this not refoulement? Not if it involves ...

... a. an assessment if a person is a refugee.

This should be fair & fast, and could be done within weeks in Malta or Lampedusa by EU coordinated effort. It is a matter of resources.

Who could be returned to ? Those who are safe in & are not refugees. And those ...

.. who could get a fair asylum determination there.

@Refugees UNHCR could do for those returned as part of this project. UNHCR does this world-wide. The key: there should be few returns needed, as irregular crossings & deaths should drop fast.

would not rely on Libya ...

Italian & Maltese MRCCs should again coordinate sea rescues.

& others should guarantee: those who cannot then be returned to they will relocate from .

And there should be more resettlement of refugees directly to the EU from North & West Africa.

This policy ...

... would preserve the refugee convention & EU law. It would reduce deaths, without pushbacks & relying on Libya. It would increase resettlements.

Is this easy. No. Every detail requires effort. But it is a realistic alternative to both the deadly 2016 & 2020 policies.

Europeans are not suddenly heartless. The images of death & brutality shock many.

But majorities need to be offered a policy alternative that is credible & works fast. And is in line with existing laws. END

@cochetel @IOMchief @gmaniatis @FilippoGrandi @YlvaJohansson @KenRoth