Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

..yet Turkey and Greece, have not necessarily agreed to working together; they have agreed to coordinate their work with the other members involved so that neither will cross into eithers' territory.

...easy enough to organise i suppose, unless the boundary itself comes under dispute. (And technically, does the person need to be standing on Greek soil to claim asylum, as is the case in the USA?)

Pretty much they have to land. According to the law, arrival into territorial waters may be enough which is why there is an emphasis on early detection.

As a result there are clear obligations on Turkey and Gredce can quite legally prevent their arrival into Greece. Turkey also has obligations to prevent their onwards movement.

Countries who have put their hand up to accept refugees will provide consular services and screen applicants in Turkey and select those it will take.

In addition, those countries will only provide temporary protection visas. This means that once hostilities cease in Syria and is safe, they will be forced to return back home.

[erolz66]

As Paphit has said, could the UK and US take 10% of their population in an instant with no problem, I don't F think so.

Please try and understand the difference between the pressure on a country of trying to manage vast number of migrants passing through that country and the need for those to be properly dealt with on their way through and the pressure on a country in granting asylum to vast number of migrants to remain and live in that country as a recognised refugee.

In 2015 around 1 million migrants crossed into the EU. Of that number around 850,000 did so via Greece. Of the million that arrived in the EU 940,000 odd have claimed asylum. Of that 940,000 around 15,000 have claimed asylum within Greece. The remaining 930,000 have claimed asylum in other EU countries. They have passed through Greece to these other EU countries and their claims are being assessed in those countries and if granted those are the countries those refugees will be taken in by. The EU has not said that the 850,000 migrants that arrived via Greece must remain in Greece and that Greece alone must asses claims and grant those found to be genuine refugees asylum within Greece. Far far from it. It is saying that those that arrive via Greece do have to be 'processed' and the primary responsibility for that lies with the relevant Greek national authorities. They are saying that such arrivals in Greece can not simply be 'waved through' if Schengen is to continue to exist. It understand that in order to do this Greece needs huge assistance, directly financial and indirectly through various support mechanism and means. You can argue that such assistance is not enough of course but you can not argue none has been given. Greece was given 294.5 million euros under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund. €214.8 million under the Internal Security Fund – Borders and Visas for the period 2014-2020. It was given a further €133 million in emergency assistance in 2014. Figures for 2015 emergency and other funding are 'not available' to me right now but there will have been some. In addition to this direct financial assistance it is also receiving indirect assistance. From FRONTEX , who's budget was tripled in response to the current crisis. With the establishment of 'hot spot' facilities with support from the Commission, Frontex, EASO and Europol agencies. Enough aid an assistance ? Maybe not but certainly no any aid and assistance. Even the 3 billion euro deal with Turkey, should it actually go ahead and prove effective (seemingly big ifs right now) is with an aim of helping Greece deal with the pressure it is under.

Turkey has had and is under the pressure of having vast numbers of migrants 'passing through' it on the way to elsewhere, just as Greece is, AND it is under the pressure of having taken in between 2.5 million and 3 million migrants within Turkey itself as a result of this crisis. Just as the EU does not want Greece to just 'wave through' migrants heading for other EU countries without any control or checks , so to it does not want Turkey 'waving them through' to Europe without any control or checks either. To date it is just a fact that more of the migrants that have arrived in Turkey have been granted the right to remain there by Turkey as recognised refugees than those Turkey has let 'pass through' Turkey on their way to the EU.

Yes Turkey is an 'actor' in the war that has led to these people becoming refugees but certainly not the only 'actor', not by a long shot. In any case international law on asylum and refugees does not recognise any greater responsibility with regards to such people being placed on those states that are involved in the conflict that has made the refugees. It place the same obligations on all countries equally and rightly so.

[erolz66]

Refugees can only legally ask for asylum at the first country of their arrival that is considered safe if they have been displaced due to war.

I understand what you are saying, really I do. And the above is broadly correct - a migrant can legally claim asylum anywhere, but states may lawfully remove asylum seekers to safe third countries on the grounds that they could have claimed asylum there.

The key point here is "safe third countries on the grounds that they could have claimed asylum there." If Turkey is saying no we will not take any more refugees on top of the 2.5-3 million we already have and we will not process any more claims for asylum, then the right for a state to return them to the " first country of their arrival" becomes void in the case of returning them to Turkey. This is exactly what happened re return of migrants claiming asylum to Greece as the 'first country' in 2011. The ECHR and the ECJ ruled that EU members (under dublin agreements) and ECHR mebers under general international law could NOT legally return an asylum seeker to Greece on the grounds that Greece was the 'first country' because such asylum seekers could NOT in the judgement of the court effectively claim asylum in Greece due to the failures of the Greek asylum system. This is why any plans to force migrants in boats crossing the Aegean back to Turkey requires the agreement of Turkey. Without it all Turkey has to do is say that it will not allow such forced returned people to claim asylum in Turkey and the very act of returning them to Turkey then becomes illegal.

Greece is under no obligation to allow the arrival of registered refugees. If they manage to arrive in Greece then they become Greece's problem as Greece is obligated to take their asylum request and prevent their onwards departure to another EU country.

As I understand it this is not the case. Greece is obligated to 'process' those arriving via Greece. To establish who they are (fingerprints), if they are on known criminal databases, if they do not have valid grounds for asylum (and return them if they do not). Those that are processed and allowed into Greece - which means into any Schengen country effectively, at least when schengen is functioning as it should and indivdual members have not reimposed temporary individual boarder control, are then free (physically and legally) to seek asylum in any other Schengen member state (and have done so in massive numbers in 2015). What is more those states currently can NOT legally return such people to Greece for them to be granted asylum by and in Greece or not, under either the international laws on 'first country' or the much more codified and enforceable 'Dublin agreements' since the 2011 ECHR judgement. Even without this judgement many EU states have said they will take such asylum seekers ( that have been processed on arrival in Greece) directly from Greece and forgoe their right to return them to Greece, in recognition of the unprecedented scale of this current crisis.

There are obligations on Turkey to prevent the departure of refugees to Greece. So yes, intercepted boats can be refused entry into Greece and forced to return to Turkey and Turkey is obligated to take them back and process their refugee status and even provide protection visas.

Again this is not as I understand it. Turkey is obligated (under general international law, not specific treaty like the dublin agreements) to process and grant asylum to those refugees that SEEK such from Turkey -and it has done so to some 2.5-3 million as a result of the current crisis. I do not think there is any specific obligation on it to specifically prevent those in Turkey who have not sought asylum in Turkey from leaving Turkey to seek it elsewhere. As I understand Turkey can agree to take measure to physically prevent those migrants that wish to seek asylum in places other than Turkey using 'irregualr' means to leave Turkey but I do not think it is obligated to do so under international law. I suspect it it was obligated under international law Greece and other countries would have at least talked about suing Turkey at the ECHR for its failure to prevent migrants seeking asylum outside Turkey from leaving Turkey.

Countries will process from Turkey, or Jordan. They just don't want anyone rocking up on their doorstep.

Indeed. They dont want just anyone rocking on their doorstep that has made it to Greece either I think.

[supporttheunderdog]

If NATO can intercept these people before they get to Greece, they can and should be returned to Turkey. It's only once they land in Greece that they might become Greece's long-term problem. The crux zone.

The Secretary General stressed that this mission is “not about stopping or pushing back refugee boats,” but about contributing “critical information and surveillance to help counter human trafficking and criminal networks.”

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_127981.htm?selectedLocale=en

That is not what they said at the brief.

When refugee boats are intercepted, they will be forced to return back to Turkey. That is the whole point.

This is what was said at the brief... Word for word by the SecGen of Nato.

This is not about stopping or pushing back refugee boats.

[supporttheunderdog]

The spineless and corrupt EU should now just slap sanctions on Turkey and see what happens, but alas!

I personally consider that sanctions should have been applied to by the EU years ago to Turkey over its treatement of Cyprus, including a complete ban on Turkish trucks ships and planes coming to or passing over or through EU territory, including EU airspace, but as you say, spineless. I would almost go as far as saying unprincipled but sadly non member Turkey is seen as more imporant than member Cyprus. I was never convinced that joining the EU would provide solutions, as some hoped, and if that was a reason for joining it was a wrong reason. Turkey still has far to go befor it is in a fit and proper condition to join the Eu, and if anything has gone backwards, in the past few years....

And elswhere you call me a Turk lover.

[supporttheunderdog]

Meanwhile the priority should be to help Greece and patrol the EU external borders which are NOT the individual responsibility of Greece!

I think you will find that under REGULATION (EC) No 562/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32006R0562 The National Governments of Members States are responsible for the control of their borders, albeit under common rules.

Yup, that's true for internal borders. Different considerations for common external EU border for which all the states have to contribute surveillance and so all are equally responsible (hence Frontex). You may have been led astray here by erolz's zeal for bashing Greece.

I have not been lead astray by anyone. There is nothing yiu have quoted which supports your position only your own interprestion. Rather, please See clause 4 of the preamble to EU regulation EC2007/2004 of 26th 0ctober 2004 establishing FRONTEX which clearly states that responsibilty for external borders rests with the member states. This is therefore a matter of European law and fundamental to the basis upon which Frontex is established.

[GreekIslandGirl]

This is what was said at the brief... Word for word by the SecGen of Nato.

This is not about stopping or pushing back refugee boats.

And we've already told you that it's not feasible for huge warships to turn back tiny boats. No one is expecting the NATO warships to do this! It's about rapid communication of surveillance so that Frontex can shoo the boats back to Turkey!

How dense are you!

[Paphitis]

Meanwhile the priority should be to help Greece and patrol the EU external borders which are NOT the individual responsibility of Greece!

I think you will find that under REGULATION (EC) No 562/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32006R0562 The National Governments of Members States are responsible for the control of their borders, albeit under common rules.

Yup, that's true for internal borders. Different considerations for common external EU border for which all the states have to contribute surveillance and so all are equally responsible (hence Frontex). You may have been led astray here by erolz's zeal for bashing Greece.

I have not been lead astray by anyone. There is nothing yiu have quoted which supports your position only your own interprestion. Rather, please See clause 4 of the preamble to EU regulation EC2007/2004 of 26th 0ctober 2004 establishing FRONTEX which clearly states that responsibilty for external borders rests with the member states. This is therefore a matter of European law and fundamental to the basis upon which Frontex is established.

Then why are they sending in their warships?

You got a lot to learn I'm afraid. The whole point is to cut off the influx, so stopping the boats is exactly what they will be doing along with FRONTEX, Greek Coast Guard and Turkish Coast Guard supposedly.

You don't need to send war ships to facilitate the supply of intelligence.

[Paphitis]

This is what was said at the brief... Word for word by the SecGen of Nato.

This is not about stopping or pushing back refugee boats.

And we've already told you that it's not feasible for huge warships to turn back tiny boats. No one is expecting the NATO warships to do this! It's about rapid communication of surveillance so that Frontex can shoo the boats back to Turkey!

How dense are you!

It is feasible. They can also launch their own rigid hull inflatables which are ideal for the task. These can also conduct rescues of any refugees in distress.

[GreekIslandGirl]

This is what was said at the brief... Word for word by the SecGen of Nato.

This is not about stopping or pushing back refugee boats.

And we've already told you that it's not feasible for huge warships to turn back tiny boats. No one is expecting the NATO warships to do this! It's about rapid communication of surveillance so that Frontex can shoo the boats back to Turkey!

How dense are you!

It is feasible. They can also launch their own rigid hull inflatables which are ideal for the task. These can also conduct rescues of any refugees in distress.

OK that's great. Either way, I agree they are there to help the task of returning these boats back to Turkey.

It's these turkophiles (stud and erolz) that can't quite believe this help has finally materialized after the evaluation reports all pointed to the EU external border needing more manpower!