Arguments

Instead of providing urgently needed safe escape routes, Frontex is waging an outright war against migration – while thousands of people continue to drown in the Mediterranean. Almost 24,000 people have died on their way to Europe since 2014, in front of the eyes of the best-equipped agency and its task forces – and these are only the official figures and only those assigned to the “Mediterranean” region. This despite the fact that Frontex has an increasingly comprehensive picture of the Schengen external border: it invested 147 million in aerial surveillance (Frontex Aerial Surveillance Service – FASS) and analyses cross-border movements in real time at its headquarters.

The agency also actively cooperates with over 20 countries outside the EU. An example: Frontex cooperates with the so-called Libyan Coast Guard, which intercepts migrant boats and forcibly tows them back to Libya, where migrants are held in violent conditions. It actively supports the expansion of aerial surveillance in the Mediterranean, while at the same time official rescue missions continue to be reduced.

Numerous reports in recent months also show Frontex officials participating in pushbacks in the Aegean and glaring gaps in fundamental rights mechanisms and reporting systems. These do not work and are merely a disguise, leading neither to binding accountability nor to effective control of the work at European borders.

In the meantime, Federal Councillor Keller-Suter has started the referendum campaign with the threat of a Schengen exit – she fails to mention that there are different scenarios for the “how to continue after a NO to the Frontex expansion”.

It is true, however, that the Schengen Agreement does indeed have a strict exit clause that applies if Switzerland does not adopt further developments of the so-called Schengen acquis. Nevertheless, a NO to the Frontex expansion does not automatically mean the end of Switzerland’s cooperation with Schengen, because a withdrawal from Schengen is not inevitable even if the referendum takes place. Rather, there are political negotiation possibilities to clarify the continuation of cooperation. In line with public statements in this direction, several experts we interviewed confirmed the view that the exit is negotiable. Rainer J. Schweizer, professor of European and international law, has already written something similar.

The Schengen agreements are the basis for the free movement of persons, which creates freedom of movement within the Schengen area. The flip side of this free movement of certain people, which is very much shaped by economic considerations, is the increased “protection” of the Schengen external borders and thus the ever more vehemently implemented policy of isolation and the striving for absolute mobility control. With this external border, the EU and Schengen states are creating a neo-colonial wall that makes both legal migration from third countries increasingly impossible and legal escape routes almost completely blocked.

For us it is clear: the free movement of persons will not be affected by this vote – we demand an expansion of freedom of movement. Freedom of movement within Europe is an achievement. It is about time that it applies not only to people in the Schengen area, but to everyone.

It must be taken into account that the current EU migration policy is based on militarisation, a network of camps and brutal border violence. Frontex plays an important role in this policy. No treaty justifies supporting this regime. Switzerland’s participation in this military operation under the guise of border protection is unacceptable. It is time to send a clear signal against this violent migration policy by voting NO to the expansion of Frontex.

We understand the referendum and the upcoming vote as part of different and diverse resistance against the violent EU migration policy. The vote alone will not abolish Frontex and border violence. But by taking money away from Frontex, we can use an important lever. Moreover, this vote is the first time that the EU migration regime through Frontex is being negotiated in public in Europe in this way. This is a great opportunity to strengthen the common demands – No to Frontex, Yes to freedom of movement – part of a multi-faceted resistance and networks of solidarity.

This is especially important for Switzerland, which likes to hide behind its status as a landlocked country – discussions about Frontex and the EU’s policy of sealing people off are strongly underrepresented in public discourse. Thanks to the referendum, there will now be several months of intensive discussion about what is happening at the EU’s external borders, what Switzerland has to do with it and, ultimately, a vote on the question of how the people in Switzerland who are entitled to vote want to behave about it. In addition to the vote, which is limited to a political-institutional level, we hope that as many social actors as possible will become active, that we can strengthen our networking and that the anti-border movement will emerge stronger from the No-Frontex referendum and the vote.

We are convinced: a migration policy based on solidarity is possible. Much is already being done: Every day, people defy the violent border policies, civilian sea rescues oppose the deaths on the Mediterranean, cities in solidarity organize themselves, vehement communities put up resistance. But the responsibility lies in the heart of Europe, in Brussels and in Bern. And it is precisely for this that the referendum provides a concrete means of pressure: funding. Because the calculation is simple: without money, no Frontex.

As the Defund-Frontex campaign calculates, Frontex has invested well over 100 million euros in air surveillance since 2015, but 0 euros in naval vehicles with which lives can be saved. The campaign further calculates: If only one third of the current Frontex budget were reallocated, a separate European sea rescue programme could be created, including its own fleet. That would be one of many alternatives.

Firstly, we plead for legal and safe escape and migration routes.

Secondly, we need a new way of thinking and a new practice in dealing with migration: migration is not a threat, but a reality.

Thirdly, we need a different perspective on people in exile. As the mayor of Palermo put it: “Those who live in Palermo and are citizens of Palermo live by the principle that home is where you put your feet. As mayor, I make no distinction between those who were born in Palermo and those who live in Palermo.” The people who live here shape the here and now. It is important to fight together for equal rights and to work towards everyone being able to (co-)shape their own lives and the lives of society. In the current political discourse, migrants on their way to Europe are increasingly criminalized – also by the risk analyses of Frontex. This criminalisation is regulated by laws, whereby racist unequal treatment is considered legal and thus legitimized. People in exile are increasingly prosecuted as a result. An example of this is the situation in Greece, where refugees are systematically accused of being traffickers and face heavy prison sentences. There is an urgent need to decriminalize people in exile.

Fourthly, in order to combat global structural inequalities, today’s borders and their effects need to be challenged. Global problems such as global warming, environmental disasters, the pandemic or social injustice. need global solutions, not nationalistic ones. The isolation of Europe – which Frontex plays a central role in enforcing – is not a solution to this, but a racist and imperial response. In the current system, other people are endangered under the pretext of security for some. What is urgently needed are solutions based on global solidarity.

In migration policies that center principles such as human dignity and freedom of movement, there would also be room for an agency that takes care of the reception and support of people who have fled. With a budget of several billion euros and 10,000 people working for people in exile, a lot would be possible.