In 2005, the Hague Program that was founded in the Tampere Program laid the objectives and mapped out the development of the second generation of procedures aimed at strengthening the management of European borders. Among the achievements of this documentation and the study carried out in 2002 was the creation of the European Agency for Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX), and the ratification of the European Union Community Code of policies aimed at managing the migration of people through boundaries. Furthermore, the Community Customs Code (CCC) established various mechanisms that aimed at increasing security necessities for the movement of products through borders. In spite of having, similar policies that were applied across every country in the European Union, the forms and margins of cooperation were left to the individual State. As an outcome of this setup, the collaboration among the Member States was difficult because some countries had an extensive partnership while others were not committed to the goal, others had an amalgamated institution like in the case of the United Kingdom, while others instead of cooperating, they were competing against each other. FRONTEX was founded to help in coordinating the border activities of European Union member States to combat illegal migration and terrorism. Such collaborative operations include the HERA I and HERA II, which was summoned by Spain and included a cooperation of various EU states with FRONTEX to track illegal migrants from Africa. These historic operations have been criticised for various reasons, including human rights violations and lack of conforming to democratic frameworks as discussed in the article.
Keywords: FRONTEX immigration, terrorism, European Union (EU), Spain, border security.
European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX) as a European Tool for Combating Illegal Immigration and Transnational Terrorism in Spain: A Historical Perspective
Introduction
Before any institution is founded, the fundamental question revolves around the reasons and grounds that the decision makers’ use to decide on what systems to establish. Léonard (2010, p. 239) purports that most of the European Union consoles literature assumes sensible decision makers while in the real sense, the decision to develop some resolutions could be driven by factors such as regional politics, myths, and fashions. In regards to the formation of FRONTEX the decision makers had a limited option to choose from, they had no otherwise, but to respond to the security threats caused by illegal migration. Carrera (2007, p.2) points out that the integration of the European States was based on policies and guidelines that aimed at solving a common problem. Through these procedures, the European Union developed a boundary supervision strategy that aimed at integrating a similar international reaction to immigration problems through a common border. The Southern marine border is among the most crucial strategic points targeted by border management policies. In 2004, the European Commission printed a document mobilising its member States to reinforce border security, especially in the southern border. The same document also mobilised for the intensification of the measures of the European Agency for the management of operational cooperation at the External Border (FRONTEX). In the same framework, the Finnish Presidency, and the European Council come to a consensus on a standard description of what a joint border meant for the region. Giving border security a priority combined with the development of a regional response to migration, which aimed at ensuring a multidimensional reaction, taking into consideration all the measures applicable to immigration, with specific attention given the irregular immigrants from developing countries, especially from Africa. The European Union guideline seemed to be grounded on different, but very interconnected and corresponding methodologies; the first one is a combined approach to the supervision of mutual regional boundaries and the second one being a comprehensive policy to handle migration (Léonard 2010, p. 248).
FRONTEX was given the mandate to manage the support and partnerships at the boundaries of the member countries of the European; it is also presented as a crucial institution in charge of executing a global and integrated framework on the boundary administration. The European Commission anticipated expansion of its territory, and therefore, it had to improve its capability and functions by strengthening its surveillance of the sea border and executing an active surveillance system (Papagiorcopulo 2014, p.31). All these mechanisms were to help member states deal with the increasing concern of irregular immigration. Furthermore, the document also anticipated at improving the fiscal resources of FRONTEX to twice its initial budget, so as to strengthen the agency and make it a relevant security institution in the European Union (Léonard 2010, p. 250). Triandafyllidou and Dimitriadi (2014, pp. 146-147), stipulate that before enhancing the capabilities and monetary resources of FRONTEX the Council should have carried a feasibility study to scrutinise and review the agency closely. The majority of FRONTEX's works is implemented at the domestic level, concealed in highest secrecy, and does not have any transparency. Such activities raise various concerns with respect to the law and compliance with the European Union principles. One solution to solve such a weakness is to involve the European Parliament directly to guarantee that the rule of law and the guidelines of proportionality are granted. Establishing various checks and balances would play an active role in keeping FRONTEX in check. Additionally, the European Union and the Council should make sure that EC policies, especially the Schengen Borders Code and the legal framework provided are strictly observed in every action that the agency takes on boundary management and coordination (Carrera 2007, p.3).
In regards to the function of FRONTEX the agency’s autonomy is still undermined from the politicised agenda in the arena of boundaries and immigration management. This is due to the dependence on member states’ cohesion for the agency to operate and its sensitivity to emergency-driven scenarios, which are politically motivated, in the domestic dynamics of a member state. Concerning such interferences, FRONTEX ought to be given immunity and autonomy from political interferences, primaries, and solidarity of various member states. Furthermore, while the agency’s mandate has been improved with the adoption of Rapid Border Intervention Teams (RABIT), the adoption of these teams remains a question in respects to the way in which some tasks and functions are implemented (Colombeau 201p. 32). In contrast to the commission's aim of deepening the outer scopes founded on immigration focused agenda, considering the reference to Africa. In fact, the contemporary actions of boundary control rely on the territorialisation of monitoring and preventing human movement from outside the borders of the Union (Carling and Hernández Carretero 2011, p. 43). Such action is implemented in conjunction with the third world states to prevent movement of immigrants to Europe. These activities nonetheless raise various concerns, among which are the following ones.
First, the activities could lead to human rights violation in regards to refugee protection and status. The actions of preventing immigration, underlines this type of pre-emptive control presumes an act of identifying a person as an illegal migrant before the immigrant, even out of their mother nation and goes into the European Union (Papagiorcopulo 2014, p.79). These types of activities ignore the fact an immigrant may not be illegitimate, but is an impending refugee or an asylum seeker. The pre-emptive thought of illegitimacy and boundary management could infringe the overall deference of human rights and the enablement of due entrance procedure and an individual assessment of immigration instead of taking a blanket approach and follow the laid down policies in the 1951 Geneva Convention ,which relates to refugees and asylum seekers (Menjívar 2014, p.354). Secondly, the choice to pursue pre-boundary surveillance inhibits the application of European Community law. Since the boundary checks are not under the scope of Community authority, nor on the realm of the European Public law, security and assurances, are therefore not applicable (Carling and Hernández Carretero 2011, pp. 51).
The legal Basis of FRONTEX
The legal justifications of the formation of FRONTEX could be traced in chapter four, Articles 62.2 a. and 66 of the European Commission Treaty, which addresses the issues of visas, immigration, asylum-seeking and various policies that touch on free migrations of individuals. Therefore, FRONTEX was established as a European Commission First Pillar institution (Colombeau 2017, p. 13). However, the current mandate placed on the organisation does not reflect its legal perspectives. An instance that corroborates the deficiency in legality mandates in some of the FRONTEX activities is the agency's participation in Community return policy (Beuving 2010, p. 220). According to the Article 9.1, of the Council Regulation 2007/2004, FRONTEX should offer the required support for mobilising a joint operation among its Member States. Even so, the Agency has undertaken various return operations initiated by different Member States; up-to-date there are no specifications of the precise duties of FRONTEX the council is yet to come to a consensus about the specific mandates of the agency (Petrillo 2013, p.107). Such a situation leads to a high degree of judicial improbability with respect to the activities of the agency in a sensitive arena such as returning illegal immigrants to their various countr. It also regards personal protection and the rule of law. Additionally, looking at the Programs carried out by FRONTEX between 2005 and 2008, the focus was to fight illegal migration, human trafficking and conduct various activities against global terrorism using border control (Triandafyllidou and Dimitriadi 2014, p. 157). Some activities, such as constraining human trafficking and conducting activities, aimed at reducing global terrorism are in fact inscribed in the Article four of the Accord of the European Union (TEU) also known as the European Union Third Pillar, which addresses issues on Provisions of Police and Jurisdictional Collaboration in Illegal Issues. The framework guiding the activities aimed at International assistance is the ‘steady expansion of the targeted at and Justifiable partnership,’ which permits operations and support among the Member States and the developing States (Petrillo 2013, p.139). The agency has been collaborating with the third-world countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon and Egypt, although this type of relations has been informal, whereby there is no treaty or protocol that bounds these States to cooperate with FRONTEX (Lax 2010, p. 628).
Finally, the agency cooperates with other institutions that are involved in security around the European region and internationally, these include; the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), Interpol, Europol, the Police Chief's Task Force and other actors responsible for internal controls of the border, customs and veterinary. Other partnering organisations currently working with the FRONTEX are Internal Border Police, the European Union Situation Centre, and other regional bodies such as the Baltic Sea Region Border Control Cooperation. Even though, it seems that the collaboration amongst FRONTEX and other organisations rests at the primary levels. In respect to Europol and OLAF, the administrative and professional level interactions have been established (Orsini 2016, p. 145).
Historical View of FRONTEX
Since the formation of FRONTEX the agency has worked for close to 10 years with its headquarters in Warsaw. The procedure used to create FRONTEX look quite short but various elements from the historical events of European integration that led to the formation of the Agency. The process was initiated in 1985, when Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Germany, and France decide to create a border free region (Balzacq 2015, p.110). Because this agreement was not made with the European Community structures, the official agreement was ratified in 1995, forming the Schengen Area of the European Union. From 1995, the members of the Schengen Area code have grown to 26 countries within the European Union and the European Union currently recognises the establishment as a law (Marhold 2016, p. 18). The continued importance of the Schengen area compelled the authorities to come up with an institution that would be responsible for the security and growth of the region. It is in the same reason that the Council Regulation (EC) 2007/2004 was pursued to form FRONTEX. The primary duty of the organisation is connected with the maintenance of the EU external boundaries and upholding the border security (Pallister-Wilkins 2015, p. 62).
From the onset of its formation, it was clear that FRONTEX could not handle the current situation, where various illegal migrants are transported across the country, unless it gets the necessary support from both states and non-state actors. The institution relies on the member states to provide it with equipment and the necessary capital. One challenge that comes with reliance on states, is that some states are not willing to participate in taking care of the external European Borders (Schmidthäussler and Niemann 2014, p.17). Therefore, when judging the performance of FRONTEX from a historical perspective, it is important to note that some failures that have been associated with the organisation are cause by some member states. Similarly, the media would always cover issues of how migrants are suffering to access Europe and the number of migrants who have died in this process, but none of them would recognise that in 2014, FRONTEX saved approximately 31,000 immigrants from drowning (Pallister-Wilkins 2015, p. 66).
Since the formation of FRONTEX the organisation does not have a risk management system. Instead, it applies to what is created by the Schengen Information System. Risk management consists of distinct goals -Optimisation of roles, channels of communication that are founded on the intelligence and exchange of information. All these factors combined led to what is referred to as an Integrated Border Management (Riekmann 2008, p. 24).
State of Security in Spain
Geographically, Spain is distant from terrorist breeding grounds such as Syria, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan. In recent years, it has emerged as a focal point for terror and its related activities. Orsini (2016, p. 142) stipulates that terrorism-related events have increased in Spain due to Spain’s proximity to North Africa and its history
Terrorism and illegal immigration are not new to the Spanish authorities. Since 1961, Spain has been experiencing various attacks from the ETA (a Basque Separatist Movement). The estimated causalities from these attacks were more than 800 citizens and security persons. Later in 2011, the EAT announced its end of armed resistance. Before the announcement of the EAT, in 2004 a train bomb attack was carried out, and Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. At this time, the Spanish and Europe Union administrators never considered Islamist terrorism as a significant threat (Wolff and Schout 2013, p. 308).
As compared to other States within the European Union such as Britain, France, and Portugal, Spain has the most number of illegal migrants; this is due to Spain's proximity to North African Countries. Especially the two Islands of Melilla and Ceuta (currently under the Spanish administration) which have been recorded as the entry point of illegal migrants. Terrorists also have used this chance to masquerade as migrants to gain access to Spain (Beuving 2010, p.230). For instance, in 2015, the FRONTEX authorities arrested six terror suspects whom they described as prepared physically and emotionally for Jihad. Melilla, which is only 12 kilometres, is currently being monitored by four different agencies, which include Morocco, Israel, FRONTEX and Spanish forces. These security operations show how this small Island is a threat to European Security (Vaughan-Williams 2008, pp. 63).
Immigration in Spain
Migration is among the contentious issues in the current century more than it has been in the previous times. Movement is increasingly shaping the politics of the European Union and additional countries linked to the Union. The population of immigrants arriving into the European Union has been increasing, despite various measures to curb it. According to the European Union Statistic Agency (Eurostat), Spain, UK, Germany, and Italy are the countries with the highest number of immigrants in Europe. According to these statistics, 67% of all the immigrants in the European Union reside in these four States. In just two decades, Spain moved from being a State of net emigration to one of the countries in the world with the most significant influx of immigrants.
After the World Oil Crisis in 1973 and the reduction of the demand for imported labour, Spain was among the countries that swiftly repatriated imported labourers back to their local states. The decrease in demand for labour also coincided with the 1975 democratisation of Spain, when the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco died WRONG PAGE NUMBER (Vaughan-Williams 2008, pp. 60). The period was characterised by an economic recession in Spain, a situation that did not attract migrants. However, when Spain joined the European Economic Community, (Currently the European Union) the economy grew again and turned Europe into a favourable ground for immigrant labour (Lüthi 1999, p.13). While immigration was ever increasing in throughout the world at the beginning of the 21st century, every region faced a specific challenge, which results in the current state of affairs, cultural, social composition, and immigrant population characteristics. The situation in Spain is unique such that in various ways; Spain holds a long, intimate and at times a violent relationship with some regions in the world from which multiple immigrants come from (Menjívar 2014, p.359). While there has been a perception that immigration in Spain ballooned rapidly, the reality is that migration in Spain grew gradually, only that the authorities did not give it the necessary attention at that time. The country's reception and reaction to its immigration population should be perceived within the design of previous colonial power whose relations with Latin America and North Africa have contributed to the current migration patterns (Dover 2008, p.129). Another factor that has led to an escalating nature of immigration is the risk that North and Sub-Saharan Africans have taken to travel to Spain using clandestine routes and methods. Spain's geographical location; which is at the south tip of Europe, bordering the Iberian Peninsula is in not only high proximity to Africa, but also its Islands of Ceuta and Melilla directly borders Morocco and the Islands of Canary, which are about 100 kilometres from Spain (Wolff and Schout 2013, p.322). With this proximity to Africa, Spain and Morocco have the most significant GDP per Capita difference in the world as compared to any other countries sharing the same border. In 2006, Gross Domestic per Capita of Spain was about $ 28,000 while Morocco was about $4,400, which makes Spain’s GDP per Capita Six times more than that of its most developed North African Neighbour. The current GDP per Capita of the USA is at $ 43,000 while Mexico has $10,600 as per statistics carried out in 2014 (Reid-Henry 2013, p.201). According to these statistics, the USA GDP per capita is only four times more that of Mexico; these figures show the widening disparities between Spain and its African neighbours and why immigrants find Spain attractive (Wolff and Schout 2013, pp. 305). The location of Spain has not only influenced immigrants from Africa, but also from other European Union Countries, especially from states such as the UK and Germany. Citizens of other European Union state migrate to Spain because of its warm and sunny weather coupled with lower costs of living, which is favourable for the retired European workforce. These European immigrants, however, are not considered a threat despite their large percentage in since their religion; ethnicity and wealth do not pose a threat to the original inhabitants of Spain as opposed to immigrants from developing countries (Schmidthäussler and Niemann 2014, p.20).
Spain drafted its first policy to constrain immigrants in 1985, before its inception into the European Union. The system was criticised for emphasising on policing rather than legal dealings, which purports that the country’s only desire was not being regarded as an immigrant gateway to Europe. Due to various changes and shifts in immigration patterns, the policy has been amended under the PSOE (Partido Socialista Obrero Española). These amendments included introducing policies that addressed the integration of immigrants’ rights and instituting a general principle of equity with the citizens of Spain (Beuving 2010, p.227). However, later, these policies were reversed under the administration of the centre-right Partido Popular administrations that viewed the PSOE reforms as policies encouraging illegal immigration. The current application of the Ley de Extranjeria, which was ratified in 2004 under the administration of the PSOE, in conjunction with the recent reforms, has given immigrants a six-year period of amnesty since 1985, in which the undocumented immigrants living in Spain should apply for citizenship (Léonard 2010, p.251). The six-year period is known as the regularisation period, was an indication of the need for Spain to regulate the labourers that have been fundamental to the growth of the county’s economy. The regulation has not only permitted immigrant workers to access social security and health care, but also has allowed them to contribute to these frameworks, despite the perception that immigrants drain such systems (Fink 2012, p.20). Current statistics indicate that immigrants contribute more to social security than they receive from it. Despite this contribution, the European Union and Spanish authorities still view immigrants as a threat to their safety, culture and the general welfare of the original population. Terrorism is another significant threat that presented to these immigrants (Mungianu 2013, pp. 359).
Significance of the Study
This study looks at the roles of FRONTEX in Spain through a historical perspective; this is important in informing various policy makers, scholars and people of interests, the underlying frameworks that was used in formation of this organisation. Consequently, the study reveals various loopholes and strengths within the mandated duties of FRONTEX, which is very important when coming up with future policies on this organisation or any other organisation that deals with security in any region.
Research Questions
Have the endeavours made by FRONTEX in Spain effective to stop or reduce unlawful migration and terrorist links, or, on the contrary, does it need to increase its coordination with Spain and other Western European countries?
Are there any constraints currently hindering FRONTEX from achieving its duties?
Aims of the Research
The main aim of this research is to determine, from a historical perspective, what has been the performance of FRONTEX since its creation in 2004 regarding combating illegal migration and terrorism in Spain.
To understand factors that constrain the day-to-day functions of FRONTEX from a historical perspective.
Conclusion
It is clear that from the onset, European policy makers never foresaw various challenges coming up when they were establishing the organisation. However, despite the challenges, FRONTEX has also recorded some crucial success in its duties that is worth recommendation. From the initial stages of formation, policy makers established this agency, as an institution that depends on states and that meant that it did not have any autonomy to make independent decisions, yet it was given the mandate to protect Europe from illegal migrants. Such paradoxical situations have not only constrained the normal functioning of the institution, but have also affected the ultimate outcome of its services in the region.
Methodology
Analysing the role of FRONTEX in Spain and its contributions towards constraining illegal migration and terrorism is an extensive subject that if this study were to use primary data, it would take a lot of time regarding getting the required permits and collecting data. Moreover, it could be costly due to the vast area covered by this research. Secondly, most of the operations and duties of FRONTEX are kept under top secrecy that if the study had to collect primary data, there would be many challenges that even the data collected it would not be successful. It is in this regards that the study has chosen to use a systematic literature review as the preferred research method. A systematic literature review is a type of analysis that research carries out to synthesise the available information on a specific issue and the dynamics that revolve around the subject. Instead of concluding one study, a systematic literature review looks at various studies to come up with an answer. The data collected from these secondary sources will be analysed using qualitative analysis. Since this research focuses on the historical perspective of FRONTEX most of the literature reviewed in this study would cover from the time FRONTEX was established in 2005 up to date, with specific references to terrorism and illegal migration in Spain.
For this particular study, all the literature reviewed is peer-reviewed and are within 2005 up to date. One major challenge is that this study faces while using a systematic literature review is that some studies did not come with a conclusive result; other studies have also suppressed some of their adverse effects. This study desists from using information from websites unless these are FRONTEX's websites or the European Union's. The main reason for using peer-reviewed literature and ignoring information from sites is to ensure that the study is credible and reliable to the targeted audience.
Securitization and Risk at the EU Border: The Origins of FRONTEX’, JCMS, Vol 47 (2) by Andrew. W. Neal; Published in 2009.
Andrew Neal, analyses the functions of FRONTEX through the Securitisation theory.
The Author starts by looking at the events that led to the formation of the FRONTEX and the various protocols that justifies its establishment.
According to Neal, FRONTEX was formed because of securitisation of migration. The fact the European Union viewed the movement of people as a threat to their security led them to come up with a body to fight immigration and justify that indeed it was a threat.
FRONTEX was established to find solutions for pre-emptive migration challenges as its central role. The dynamics and State agencies have changed the mandates of this agency to a need driven institution. 1.
As set in the Treaty of the European Union, this organisation was supposed to manage and mobilise the EU countries on their boundary services in advance before a problem, but it has been changed to an agency that is called upon when a State is in an immigration crisis.
Carrera, S. (2007) ‘The EU Border Management Strategy: FRONTEX and the Challenges of Irregular Immigration in the Canary Islands’, Centre for European Policy Studies.
This study is also a literature review which seeks to unveil the European Border management system and how it deals with illegal migration.
The study looks at various operations conducted by the FRONTEX outside the borders of the European Union and their possible outcomes, challenges and positive gains.
The study also looks at the autonomy and the roles of FRONTEX from a legal perspective, the policies that the shaped this agency and how various duties carried by this agency conflict with original guidelines and frameworks that led to the establishment of the organization.
The study concludes that as much during the formation of FRONTEX the organisation was given a clear set of duties; this notion is subject to debate because the agency has been over-politicised.
There is a possibility that FRONTEX massively violates the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, mainly from the third world country, in respect to the guidelines stipulated in the Geneva convention. Therefore, the European Union needs a legal body that would oversee the duties of FRONTEX.
FRONTEX was established to protect the citizens of the European Union; this should not come at the expense of other nationals.
Tryfon, K. (2012)‘The Contribution of EUROPOL and FRONTEX in Combating the Phenomenon of Illegal Immigration in Hellas’. Review of European Studies, Vol 4 (1)
The study was based on the ideas presented in the Surveillance of The Hellenic sea borders and trafficking of illegal immigrants. European policy, FRONTEX and the institutional role of the Hellenic Coast Guard.
The paper looks at the functions of various European security institutions that aim at protecting Europe from illegal migration and terrorism. Among these systems, the author analyses, Europol and FRONTEX.
The author mainly analyses FRONTEX through its operational sub-unit referred to as RABBIT, which he describes as efficient, but is not observing asylum seekers’ rights.
The Author is also against the fact that most operations conducted by FRONTEX are kept under secrecy.
The Author, however, acknowledges that FRONTEX cannot carry out the duty of protecting European boarders alone and therefore there is the need for collaboration with other countries and non-state actors such as the Interpol, Hellenic Police, and Hellenic Coast Guard with other organisations.
The study concluded that the European Union should try to solve the issue of illegal migration through International organisations such as the United Nations.
The European Union should design a long-time and comprehensive policy to govern the issues of illegal immigration, instead of an urgent plan, which is devoid of the fundamental rights given to men.
The European Union should come up with sound economic policies that should deter immigrants from coming to Europe, instead of spending a lot of money on surveillance and border management.
Vaughan-Williams, N. (2008) ‘Border work beyond Inside/Outside? FRONTEX the Citizen Detective and the War on Terror’, Space and Polity, 12:1, 63-79
According to Vaughan-Williams, FRONTEX is just another institution formed after the emergence of terror in 9/11.
Therefore, the duty of surveillance placed on FRONTEX is meant not only to secure European boundaries for irregular migrants, but also to report any information on global terrorism.
