Migrants: Europe should not ask for help to dictatorships

There is a clear contradiction, far from resolved, in resolve to contain the flow of migrants to Europe through an agreement with Egypt. This understanding, which comes from Berlin, follows the format adopted by the European Union with Turkey, which has raised many doubts. It seems clear that the moral reasons to enter into an agreement with a dictatorship, a regime that has lost all contact with democracy, and then appears the farthest thing possible from Europe, are inconsistent with every principle that protects the most basic civil rights and that should be the basis of every political choice from the old continent. Germany advocates this solution because it fears the disintegration of the European Union and, through it, the broad market which it is derived. But it is a solution that can be applied only in the short term, in a longer time span, this solution will be a element of blackmail to worsen. The rest of the experience with Turkey is certainly not comforting: the choice to come to terms with some sort of dictatorship proved to be a compromise, even on the practical side, it failed to settle the problem of refugees. Of course, the basic problem is that some European countries, those of Eastern Europe, refuse to share the problem with the southern states; it is an attitude that takes advantage of the legal vacuum in Brussels and also the common feeling of the northern European nations. However, the solution to agree with countries where there are dictatorships force becomes only one aggravating circumstance of each other. If, historically, the West was, before the Arab Spring, suffered this problem in a limited way and circumscribed, thanks to the presence of dictatorships on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, the current evolution should not be allowed to repeat this solution, it would be like not to have noted the historic changes under way and the new sensitivity that should have been transposed. But, on the contrary, it can be said that the practical needs make these conditions do not apply. The real problem is that not enough consider the moral issues to deal with a dictatorship, not in an abstract sense, but just in terms of convenience. The Gaddafi's attitude seems to have been forgotten by the European states, but it has been well assimilated by some dictatorships like element of pressure on Western states: through the regulation of migration flows is able to blackmail the states most vulnerable to this phenomenon. But Turkey and Egypt seem to have taken a quantum leap compared to the old dictators who were content to financial instruments to stop, at least temporarily, the trafficking of persons. Ankara before, and now Cairo, have understood that in addition to the economic aspect, may also get forms of far greater advantages, through official international agreements. The first thing that is assured is an international visibility they need to break their isolation due to the conditions imposed in their countries. This is certainly not secondary, since it increases, especially internally, the prestige of the dictator, who sees recognized by an international entity, a role enshrined by treaty. This needs to be a form of complicity with those who have reduced civil rights and use coercive means against the opponents and, in general, on the population to assert its power. This treatment of the citizens of your country is a guarantee of the lack of the minimum requirements that must be offered to refugees in the facilities where they will be accommodated. Basically we agree on the concrete possibility that migrants end up in gigantic prison, with no guarantees on their treatment. Leaving aside the obvious moral considerations of potential situations that people fleeing violence and misery, are subject, one must focus on the real benefits of this choice for the European states. It seems evident that the aim of those who have nothing to lose will still groped to get where he set. The approach to the problem of migration flows must be solved by other methods, investing the sums earmarked for the agreements with the dictatorships, essentially in two ways. The first is to reduce migration due to lack of food and those caused by climate effects, intervening in countries of origin, through strict protocols, which ensure the effective allocation of investments, while the second mode, which concerns the countries crossed by conflicts must be handled with shared acceptance procedures, without forcing the refugees to be victims of human traffickers, establishing criteria of arrival as quickly as possible. In this way the possibilities of blackmail would be taken away from countries with governments not presentable and you might just give up on having relations with them.