Sir, – Sorcha Pollak's article of March 21st draws attention to the divergent treatment afforded to arriving Ukrainians, on the one hand, and asylum seekers, on the other, airing the views of campaigners who highlight what they brand as "hypocrisy" (News, March 21st).
Such whataboutery is insensitive to the plight of incoming Ukrainians. It also ignores some key legal distinctions that explain why the two situations are being treated differently.
Four EU member states are directly adjacent to Ukraine. Ukrainians already had a right to cross the border into the EU under current international rules (a 90-day visa waiver scheme). This was not the case with respect to virtually all of those arriving from the Middle East and Africa, who arrived irregularly (that is to say, illegally), with many passing via safe non-EU countries on the way to Europe’s frontier.
There is a precedent for burden sharing and common solutions to humanitarian crises in EU law, dating back to before the creation of the Dublin Regulation. The “Temporary Protection Directive”, which has been applied to the Ukrainian crisis, was enacted in 2001 to deal with sudden large-scale migrations of people, who could have arrived from anywhere. It was not specifically devised to deal with Ukraine. In applying the directive, Ireland is complying with its obligations under EU law.
Part of the raison d’être underpinning the directive is not to give better protection to persons fleeing conflict (indeed, in many ways, their rights are less than those of persons ultimately recognised as refugees), but rather to propose a pragmatic and quick solution to deal with huge sudden influxes the EU cannot stop. We simply do not have the infrastructure to process all of the asylum requests that would otherwise arise.
Further, in many ways, Ukrainians are in fact treated less well than those who ultimately receive asylum. Whereas persons who receive refugee status can expect permanent resettlement in most cases, the Temporary Protection Directive does not hold out this prospect, rather giving Ukrainians a three-year pass to stay in the EU country in which they settle.
Finally, in the case of Ukraine, there is little or no likelihood of bogus requests. The asylum system exists, in part, to filter those who qualify for asylum from those who do not. However, many migrants arriving to Europe in recent years do not in fact qualify for asylum, but are rather economic migrants. This drains European states’ resources and increases waiting times for those who genuinely qualify for asylum. This is not the case with respect to Ukrainians, where arrivals are almost exclusively women and children fleeing a war on Europe’s border that has already displaced 10 million people.
These distinctions are relevant in the context of the unique situation with respect to the war in Ukraine. Ireland is complying with its obligations under EU law, and the EU has had to react to an unprecedented influx of people.
It has done so in a manner that has shown compassion, open-heartedness, and anything but hypocrisy. – Yours, etc,
PROF CIARÁN BURKE,
Jena Centre
for Reconciliation Studies,
Friedrich Schiller
Universität,
Jena,
Germany.
Sir, – Fr Alan Hilliard makes some interesting points on welcoming Ukrainian refugees to Ireland ("Ukrainians arriving in Ireland should be embraced as diaspora not refugees", Rite & Reason, March 21st), but sadly I detect anti-British sentiment in his article. He opens his article by stating that 500 Ukrainian people are being welcomed at Dublin Airport every day, in "direct contrast to the harsh treatment people have been receiving at Calais" (ie the British border checks). Fr Hilliard later refers to the Irish diaspora in British, stating that many suffered "ostracisation and violence" during the IRA bombing campaign. I lived in London during the worst of the IRA atrocities and I was never once made to feel uncomfortable. Fr Hilliard fails to mention that his beloved Ireland, which is now welcoming refugees, is also the country where a mob burned down the British embassy and where a few years later the British ambassador was murdered. Of course it is great that Ireland is now welcoming thousands of refugees, but Ireland is not holier that thou. Indeed Ireland still has only a tiny percentage of Europe's refugees and asylum seekers when compared to other European countries like Greece, Germany and Sweden. – Yours, etc,
EUGENE O’DONOVAN,
Ealing,
London.
Sir, – In response to the Ukrainian crisis, the Government should greatly expand the range of financial supports available to assist refugees here.
Previously €770,000 was made available in the Irish Refugee Protection Programme under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) 2014-2020. The mechanism of this programme which allowed local authorities to apply for funding to support refugees should be redeployed but with significantly enhanced funding.
Together with this, Community Response Forums, similar to those established nationwide for the Covid-19 crisis, should be dedicated across all local authority areas for the Ukrainian refugees crisis. Such a forum indeed has already been initiated in Kerry (with a motion passed by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council on March 14th seeking such forums nationwide) where coordination between Kerry County Council, local organisations, volunteer groups, as well as bodies such as the HSE, An Garda Síochána and the Department of Social Protection, is being undertaken. The Government should promptly ensure that all councils can receive support to steer such response forums with an adequate AMIF funding stream source. – Yours, etc,
Cllr JOHN KENNEDY,
(Fine Gael),
Dún Laoghaire
Rathdown County
Council Offices.