Transferring the asylum procedure to countries outside the EU heats up emotions in the European elections. EU Commissioner Jutta Urpilainen criticizes ministers’ enthusiasm for the Rwanda model.
BRUSSELS Transferring asylum applications outside the EU to third countries has become one of the controversial issues of the European elections.
EU Commissioner for International Partnerships Jutta Urpilainen (sd.) points out that especially the so-called Rwanda model is against international agreements.
– The idea of outsourcing the entire asylum application process to a third country in Africa and paying the countries to receive these applicants, and then flying them there with expensive money, is against international agreements. It is also very expensive.
According to him, the relocation of asylum seekers also does not fit in with the immigration package just agreed in the EU.
Britain plans to move asylum seekers to Rwanda to wait for asylum applications to be processed. A positive decision would not open doors to Britain, but the persons would be given the right to stay in Rwanda. Those who received a negative decision would have to return to their country of origin.
In the Finnish government, the Basic Finns support the Rwanda model. More detailed plans, for example, regarding the destination country of returns, have not been presented.
The coalition has changed its position and now emphasizes cooperation with third countries. The Rwanda model works as a parallel model for the coalition, prime minister Petteri Orpo (col.) emphasized Iltalehti’s election exam Monday evening.
Asylum procedures are also discussed elsewhere in the EU. For example, Italy transfers the processing of asylum applications to Albania. However, those who receive a positive decision can go to Italy.
According to Urpilainen, asylum application processes need to be made more efficient so that people who have received a negative asylum decision can be returned to their countries of origin.
On the other hand, according to him, more legal immigration is needed because Europe needs a skilled workforce.
The portfolio does not limit the commissioner to one thing
Urpilainen’s term as commissioner is coming to an end. After the EU elections, the assembly of the new commission will begin, which may take up to half of next year.
The Africa portfolio raised doubts, especially in the business world, that it would be of no use to Finland. According to Urpilainen, the homeland has had its share.
– In the cooperation that I have created with 126 countries in Latin America, Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, I have also been able to advance Finland’s goals and open cooperation to Finnish companies as well.
Urpilainen’s main task has been to get investments started, for example in Africa, by combining private and EU money. He has piloted the EU’s Global Gateway investment program, which aims to achieve investments of EUR 300 billion by 2027.
The targets are related to, for example, the fight against climate change, traffic and energy.
Urpilainen emphasizes that the commissioner can influence the affairs of the entire commission in addition to his own portfolio. You have been able to make your own contribution equally to forest matters, energy issues, agriculture and digitalization.
– Decision-making in the commission is collegial, so every commissioner must have an opinion on matters to be decided on a political level.
According to Urpilainen, that task differs from the minister’s task.
Finland is even more divided
During the presidential election campaign, Urpilainen visited Finland a lot and noticed an unpleasant change:
– What worries me is that today Finland is more divided, more polarized than before.
According to him, the confrontation can be seen in the political debate, social media and the labor market. There is a lack of mutual respect. According to him, the development worries people in general.
– In my opinion, it is a bad development and because of that I would hope that it is also talked about in Finland, how despite different opinions, we can look at the common good and seek common goals.
Huhtasaari and Tuppurainen argued in the A-studio about the Rwandan model: “This sounds simply gross”