The rational irrationality of the migrant crisis and the loss of state sovereignty

Greece is the main gateway to Europe. As such, it is the first destination for the majority of migrants, either asylum seekers, refugees, or economic migrants, in their journey towards the developed states of Europe, where peace, stability and prosperity are taken for granted. These migrant populations entering Greece either from the islands or the short ground borders in the north east through the Evros river, regard their arrival in its land as a relief, leaving behind the turbulent situation in their home state and the unfriendly Turkish soil.

This short piece does not intent to define who constitutes as a refugee and what distinguishes him or her from an illegal migrant. There are several pieces and international treaties that define these. The purpose of this piece is to highlight one specific decision that comes as a result in the European effort to confront the unconceivable influx of these populations in to Greece and Europe; the establishment of Turkish liaison officials in the Greek islands and its indirect implications on Greece’s sovereignty. But why is this minor decision so important and why does it deserve your time? Well, it comes down to the relationship between Greece and Turkey, a “special” relationship that goes back in time, with its “high and mainly “low” moments.

In order to understand the rational irrationality behind this decision, it is mandatory to state what was decided in the agreement between the EU and Turkey. Briefly, according to the initial agreement, it is scheduled that Turkish officials, labelled as “immigration liaison officers”, will be deployed on the Greek islands of the East Aegean Sea, primarily, Lesvos, Chios and Kos, in order to check and decide who fits the profile of a refugee or is described as a migrant, and therefore should be relocated to Turkey and then back home.

But, again, why is this, seemingly logical decision so irrational for Greece? Imagine if a Mexican officer were settled within the US’s borders and decided who may enter America and who may not, or an Iranian officer being settled in Turkey to decide the fate of those entering the country. Who is eligible to decide that the receiving state does not have the authority or the security mechanisms to clarify who may or may not enter its home soil? In these fictional cases, and specifically in the real-life scenario of the current migrant influx from Turkey to Greece, there is a de facto challenge to state sovereignty caused from the decision to settling foreign officers, who will have the jurisdiction to decide for you, on your territory. Additionally, this is a state which systemically challenges your sovereignty in specific issues. It becomes apparent that it is certainly a provocative decision.

It is difficult to accept the rationale behind this decision. It may not have been such an important issue if it happened to a sovereign state, without any other ongoing issues. But, it is taking place in Greece, a state in an ongoing economic crisis, with external officers examining its fiscal and economic figures and policies, which, according to some analysts, already constitute a loss of state sovereignty.

The final details of the decision have not been disclosed yet, but even the discussion around such a sensitive issue, especially in these times, where state nationalism is re-emerged (see the Visengrad states), should ring bells to the ears of the Greek government and, possibly other EU members since such a methodology is not unlikely to be seen within their own borders. Who may tolerate such a concession of state sovereignty?

Polychronis Kapalidis is a Lieutenant and a Maritime Security Researcher in the Hellenic Navy.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.