Tusk’s asylum coup: Breaking away from populist narratives

At a party convention on 11 October, Polish prime minister Donald Tusk declared that Poland will suspend processing asylum applications under certain circumstances, as part of a strategy to curb irregular migration. Obviously, domestic political considerations heavily informed this decision. Like his counterparts Mette Frederiksen in Denmark or Mark Rutte in the Netherlands, Tusk wants to outsmart populists by adopting their tough rhetoric on migration in the hopes that it will bolster his party’s candidate in the crucial presidential election of 2025.

However, the European dimension of this strategy is no less relevant. Having put an end to an eight-year illiberal era in Poland, Tusk has positioned himself as a champion of democracy, rule of law, and civil rights across the continent. This is why his decision weighs heavier than the anti-migration campaigns led by the usual suspects, such as Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni and her Hungarian counterpart Viktor Orban. Unsurprisingly, Tusk faced widespread criticism in the media and among human rights watchers, who claimed his move compromises European values and rules. 

But Tusk has not suddenly transformed into an anti-migration crusader. Unlike Orban, he is not going to abolish the right to asylum, nor is he resorting to racist and xenophobic arguments. The plan is to create the possibility of a temporary suspension of the right to asylum on designated areas when facing threats of destabilisation. Like Finland, which introduced a similar law in July, Poland has been since 2021 exposed to hybrid warfare by neighbouring countries as they push migrants across the border and assist in the destruction of security facilities. This year alone, there have been around 26,000 irregular and often violent attempts to cross the Polish border from Belarus. In July, a Polish soldier was killed during clashes with migrants. While the number of border crossings went down in the summer, Polish authorities cite intelligence reports that more violent attacks against the border are planned by the dictators in Minsk and Moscow.

To be sure, any temporary suspension of the right to asylum is unlikely to solve the problem. Presenting the “asylum stop” as a key measure to deter irregular migrants was at best a PR maneuver. Despite legitimate concerns that this policy will normalise and embolden right-wing narratives, it will not meaningfully change the situation on the ground – for better or worse. For the past three years, Poland has used pushbacks against migrants, including those exhibiting violent behaviour, while the number of asylum applications filed to the Polish authorities has remained relatively low (10,700 this year up until September, mostly from Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians). Most migrants view Poland as a transit country and do not wish to claim asylum and settle here. New asylum rules, if adopted, will thus neither reduce the number of border crossings nor significantly worsen the situation of asylum seekers.

While the European mainstream language on migration hardens — Tusk received a whole-hearted support from his peers at the recent EU summit — viable solutions to irregular migration remain scarce. Neither the suspension of the right of asylum, nor enhanced internal border controls (putting at risk the Schengen area), nor the relocation mechanism envisaged by the migration pact, will ensure effective control or reduction of migration flows, as they do not address the key flaws of the European asylum system.

First, the ineffectiveness of the return policy: according to a recent declaration by Ursula von der Leyen, only 20 per cent of migrants slated for deportation are actually repatriated to their countries of origin. Second, the strong incentive for economic migrants to use illegal ways to get to Europe: if the likelihood being sent back is minimal, why not to take the risk? The result is smuggling and the tragic death toll associated with it. Third, the asylum system is not fair: it favors those with a lot of money (for smugglers) and good health (to survive the journey), not those most in need of protection.

The middle way between the unsustainable status quo and the tactics proposed by Orban or Trump is thin but walkable

Unlike populists, democratic mainstream parties cannot disregard the right to asylum. Neither will they ever surpass populists’ brutality and radicalism when addressing migration. The middle way between the unsustainable status quo and the tactics proposed by Orban or Trump is thin but walkable. Through diplomatic efforts and partnerships, the European Union needs to incentivise countries to adopt European and international asylum standards or repatriate their citizens if they are refused asylum in the EU. European nations should offer financial support, legal migration ways to Europe for their citizens, and resettlement opportunities for refugees recognised by the UN refugee agency.

The “Rwanda model” should not be outright rejected but developed to align with European standards. Sending migrants to third safe countries to process their asylum applications, provided this approach adheres to international law, could deter those seeking to exploit the EU asylum system. Making more countries in the world safe for refugees is in the interest of Europeans and in line with the Geneva Convention. Democrats and human rights defenders should not a priori dismiss these kinds of solutions but rather focus on ensuring they are compatible with our rule of law and human rights standards. In May 2024, a group of 15 EU countries (including Poland, but not Germany and France) signed a letter advocating this approach.

The EU migration policy is undeniably at a crossroads. Emulating populist narratives and implementing superficial solutions will only lead to further rise of right-wing parties, more brutality, and the ultimate end of the refugee protection – one of the key achievements of post-war Europe. But there is an alternative. Should Tusk’s initiative push Europeans to overhaul the current asylum system by involving international partners and making third-country solutions adhere to EU standards, it would be a breakthrough worth its name. Otherwise, Tusk’s acclaimed success at the EU summit will turn out to be a mere Pyrrhic victory.