European Commission Under Scrutiny for Withholding Human Rights Inquiry Findings in Tunisia Migration Deal
The European Commission is facing significant criticism for its refusal to publish the findings of a human rights inquiry it conducted regarding Tunisia prior to announcing a controversial migration pact. This deal, which aims to prevent migrants from reaching Europe, comes amid increasing concerns surrounding the authoritarian nature of the Tunisian government.
An investigation by the EU Ombudsman has revealed that the Commission conducted a risk management exercise to assess human rights concerns in Tunisia. However, despite requests for transparency from the Ombudsman, the findings of this inquiry have not been disclosed, raising alarms about the Commission's commitment to human rights.
Until now, Brussels has maintained that a human rights impact assessment (HRIA) was unnecessary regarding last year’s contentious deal, which has faced multiple abuse allegations. The Ombudsman’s report highlights that this assertion is contradicted by evidence indicating that a thorough risk management exercise was carried out before the agreement was reached.
The EU-Tunisia migration pact, unveiled in July 2023, promises €150 million (approximately $125 million) towards curbing illegal migration. Critics argue that this financial support is provided despite mounting evidence of human rights violations perpetrated by Tunisian security forces against migrants, including allegations of rape and physical abuse, as uncovered by a recent Guardian investigation.
Further exacerbating the situation is the re-election of Tunisian President Kais Saied, who has a history of making racist comments regarding migrants from sub-Saharan Africa. The implications of his administration's actions on human rights are dire, with international observers noting that the plight of migrants is unlikely to improve under his continued rule.
The Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, criticized the European Commission for its lack of transparency and accountability regarding the human rights abuses associated with the migration deal. She emphasized the need for an explicit human rights impact assessment before entering into such agreements, as these assessments are typically made public and would ensure greater scrutiny of the conditions surrounding EU funding.
In addition, O'Reilly has called for the establishment of concrete criteria for when EU funding should be suspended due to human rights violations in Tunisia. She advocates for the creation of complaint mechanisms that would allow individuals affected by EU-funded projects to report alleged abuses.
Despite the concerns raised, the European Commission defended its procedures, stating that the risk management exercise was standard practice for all partner countries considered for EU budget support. The Commission claims this exercise took into account similar criteria as a typical human rights impact assessment. Yet, as the Ombudsman pointed out, the Commission has not been forthcoming with the inquiry's results, especially in response to the Ombudsman’s initiatives calling for transparency.
As the situation unfolds, the EU's accountability for human rights standards in its foreign agreements remains in question, highlighting the need for reform and a more robust approach to safeguarding the rights of vulnerable individuals in partnerships like that with Tunisia.
Related Sources: