North African countries refuse shelters on their territories

The decision approved last June 28th by the European Union about the construction of refugee camps for migrants outside its borders, immediately proved to be a reckless solution, because it did not take into account the will of the North African countries, where Brussels wanted to build shelter facilities, to prevent unauthorized emigration to the old continent. In the European intentions the countries of the southern Mediterranean coastal strip had to become an authorized waiting area for the migrants, waiting for the admission requests to be evaluated. The intentions declared were to avoid the massacres of the sea and the issues with non-geverantice organizations, engaged in the rescue of refugees and their landings, almost all in Italian ports. The decision taken by European countries was, however, wrong at the beginning because it had not provided for a prior consultation of the countries that were to host the reception facilities. This method has revealed an approximate choice and destined to a sure bankruptcy, as it has promptly verified. Probably the real intention was to build an alibi against the Italian country to continue leaving the management of migratory flows in Rome. It must however be specified that often the starting points of the nautical routes to Italy belong to North African states that have rejected the European proposal; often the control of the coasts is not ensured by the state bodies of these countries, which in fact favor human trafficking and risked crossings to Italian waters. The response of the countries of the southern Mediterranean coastal strip has been compact in rejecting shelters, but this decision raises questions about the effective controls they exercise at their borders. To leave from the Mediterranean coasts, in fact the migrants have to cross the borders and the relative territory of the states that refuse the collaboration with Europe. If, on the one hand, border management is complex, on the other hand there seems to be a sort of voluntariness in allowing the traffic and departure of migrants, in this case the doubt of the use of an instrument of pressure towards Europe it does not seem to be completely impossible. The reasons for the refusal, which remains, however, very understandable, are generally similar for all North African countries: the perception of the reception centers is that of internment camps, to which both the political and social classes are firmly opposed. Even in countries such as Tunisia, which from the point of view of the democratic process is one of the most advanced and, therefore, would have specific characteristics, the fear of repeating the situation suffered during the Libyan conflict, moreover in an economic context depressed, it is a further reason for rejecting the solution proposed by Brussels. For Egypt the question of rejection seems to be the organizational one, because the country of the pyramids suffers from a situation already very heavy in terms of welcoming refugees from fifty different nations. Algeria and Morocco say they disagree with this solution, but with these states it would be necessary to make agreements on migrants coming from these countries, which contribute to increasing the number of migrants. Finally, with Libya it does not seem possible to even foreshadow an agreement for the treatment of migrants, often kept in inhumane conditions and sold as slaves. Keeping negotiations with Libya central seems counterproductive, because the representatives of the two Libyan governments seem to implement the strategy of Gaddafi, who regulated the flow of migrants according to their needs, establishing a regime of blackmail, whose subject most interested was the Italy. The current Libyan executives seem to hold a double conduct, which may be a consequence of the division of the country, but also of the limited capacity to manage migratory flows, to which a certain calculation must also be added in using the migrants departure pressure tool . Europe, after having worked out such a useless solution, must still find new solutions to the migratory problem and must necessarily find them internally, without counting on external collaborations or on models, such as the one based on collaboration with Turkey, inapplicable in the countries North Africans. The only possible solutions are those of the revision of the Dublin treaty and the compulsory quota, with the provision of strong penalties for those who do not accept them.