Diplomacy
The Economist calls for a new asylum system in wealthy nations
The renowned British magazine The Economist has proposed that wealthy countries establish a new and better asylum system, separating the right to asylum from labor migration.
Briefly mentioning the history of the UN Refugee Convention, the magazine pointed out that the number of countries adhering to this convention is steadily decreasing today.
Noting the hardening stance of the West and the convergence of views between social democrats and right-wing populists in Europe, The Economist argued that the asylum system is no longer working.
“The system designed for post-war Europe cannot cope with a world where conflicts are widespread, travel is cheap, and wage inequalities are vast,” the magazine stated, writing that approximately 900 million people wish to migrate permanently. Since it is nearly impossible for a citizen of a poor country to legally migrate to a wealthy one, most do so without permission.
The Economist said, “In the last two decades, many have discovered that asylum is a back door. Instead of secretly crossing the border as they used to, they approach border guards and claim asylum. They know that it will take years for this claim to be decided, and during that time, they can disappear into the shadows and find work.”
Arguing that “voters” are right to think the system is being abused, The Economist recalled that the majority of asylum claims in the European Union are now rejected outright.
Pointing to the “fear of border chaos,” the magazine asserted that this fear “has fueled the rise of populism” from Brexit to Donald Trump and “poisoned the debate on legal migration.”
“To create a system that provides security to those in need and also a reasonable flow of labor migration, policymakers must separate these two issues,” wrote The Economist.
Stating that approximately 123 million people have been displaced due to conflict, disaster, or persecution—a figure three times higher than in 2010, “partly because wars last longer”—The Economist argued that while all these people have the right to seek a safe life, this “safety” does not mean access to the labor market of a wealthy country.
According to The Economist, “Resettlement in rich countries can be no more than a tiny part of the solution. In 2023, OECD countries received 2.7 million asylum applications. Although this is a record number, it is very small compared to the scale of the problem.”
At this point, the magazine wrote that the option of “readmission agreements with third countries,” which EU countries in particular have been trying to implement for some time, is the “most pragmatic option.”
Under this plan, described as “offering more refugees a sanctuary close to their homes,” asylum seekers would stay in “the first safe country or regional bloc they set foot in.”
The Economist continued:
“Refugees who travel shorter distances are more likely to one day return home. They are also more likely to be accepted by hosts who are culturally closer to them and aware that they have sought refuge in the first shelter they found after fleeing a disaster. This is why Europeans have largely accepted Ukrainians, Turks have been generous to Syrians, and Chadians to Sudanese.”
Claiming that “caring for refugees in places close to their homes is often much cheaper,” the magazine pointed out that the UN refugee agency spends less than $1 per day on each refugee in Chad. “Given their limited budgets, rich countries could help far more people by adequately funding refugee agencies instead of housing refugees in first-world hostels or hiring armies of lawyers to defend their cases,” it asserted.
The magazine also called on host countries to be “generously helped” and encouraged to “allow refugees to support themselves by working,” as they are increasingly doing.
Writing that “compassionate Westerners” may feel an “urge to help” refugees arriving on their shores, The Economist claimed, “But if the journey is long, arduous, and costly, those who complete it are often not the most desperate, but the male, healthy, and relatively affluent.”
The Economist continued:
“Refugees who fled the Syrian war to neighboring Turkey represented a broad cross-section of Syrians; those who reached Europe were 15 times more likely to have a university degree. When Germany opened its doors to Syrians in 2015-16, 1 million refugees who had established a safe life in Turkey decided to migrate to Europe for higher wages. Many have led productive lives, but it is not clear why they were prioritized over other, sometimes more qualified, refugees who wanted to seize the same opportunity.”
Arguing that “voters” have made it clear they want to choose whom they accept and that this does not mean “accepting everyone who arrives and claims asylum,” the magazine made a recommendation to wealthy countries, stressing that if they want to stop such migration, they must change the incentives.
Advocating that those who migrate from a safe country to a wealthier one should not be considered for asylum and that arrivals should be sent to a third country for processing, The Economist said, “If governments want to host refugees from distant places, they can select them at the sources where the UN registers those fleeing war zones.”
Noting that deals can be made to win the cooperation of third-country governments, The Economist advised wealthy countries to act together, as the EU has begun to do, and added, “Once it is understood that those who arrive uninvited have no advantage, the number of such arrivals will fall.”
Describing this as the “politics of the possible,” the magazine suggested that this would restore order at the border, thereby creating the political space for a calmer discussion of labor migration.
Also arguing that wealthy countries would benefit from more foreign talent, the magazine suggested that most of these countries want “young labor to work on farms and in care homes,” and that a regular “flow of talent” would make both host countries and the migrants themselves more prosperous.
The Economist‘s assessment concluded as follows:
“Dealing with the backlog of irregular migrants who have already arrived will still be difficult. Trump’s policy of mass deportation is both cruel and expensive. A much better solution would be to allow those who have put down roots to stay, while securing the borders and changing the incentives for future migrants. If liberals do not build a better system, populists will build a worse one.”
Members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) have stripped Armenia of its voting rights and its ability to appoint representatives to official positions due to a two-year debt to the organization’s budget.
Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, “This decision was taken based on the organization’s charter due to Armenia’s failure to fulfil its obligations for several years.”
Prior to the CSTO leaders’ summit in Moscow, Peskov had stated that member states would “react” to the Caucasus country’s non-participation in the organization’s activities.
Ahead of the Moscow summit, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said his country’s “interest has run out” regarding the CSTO. Through his press spokesperson, he announced that he would travel to Türkiye on 11 November to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP31) instead of going to Russia.
The CSTO leaders’ meeting was held with the participation of Russian President Vladimir Putin alongside the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.
The leaders jointly took the decision to revoke Armenia’s voting rights.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the participants also signed a joint declaration.
The declaration stated: “We confirm our unconditional commitment to the goals set out in the CSTO treaty and charter towards creating favourable and stable conditions for the comprehensive development of member states.”
Pashinyan had frozen Yerevan’s de facto participation in the CSTO in February 2024, citing the organization’s failure to aid the Armenian side during the armed clashes in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023.
Having referred to the CSTO as a “soap-bubble alliance” since that time, Pashinyan accused the organization’s members of “planning war” together with Baku. He stated that Armenia would not return to active work within the alliance at least “over the next five years”, adding that he would welcome it if the country were expelled from membership.
Relations between Armenia and Russia grew tense once again in the spring of 2026, after Yerevan moved closer to the European Union (EU) and the Kremlin responded with a trade war.
In May, Pashinyan refused to travel to Moscow to attend the Victory Day parade and declared that he did not support Russia on the Ukraine issue.
In response, Putin called on Yerevan to determine its foreign policy course through a referendum, advising Armenian authorities not to forget the fate of Ukraine.
The US administration has reportedly called on Russia to submit proposals for a prospective security treaty with Europe that would include measures to ease tensions between European nations and Moscow.
According to a report by news site Axios citing sources familiar with the matter, the US side conveyed the request during trilateral negotiations held in Abu Dhabi.
During the talks, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner suggested that the Russian delegation prepare a fresh proposal outlining its security concerns and demands.
The US delegation reportedly asked that this proposal clarify what kind of “symmetrical steps” Moscow is prepared to take to de-escalate tensions and “provide non-aggression guarantees to Europe”.
Another source familiar with the White House’s approach said the Trump administration aims to run the processes for a new European security architecture and a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine simultaneously.
Under this plan, the actual implementation of the security understandings would take effect only after the signing of an accord ending the conflict in Ukraine.
Assessing the approach to the process, the source said: “[Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy will not agree to any compromise without knowing what will happen next regarding security guarantees. Putin also wants to see the exact same picture clearly. This is precisely why the security portfolio is so decisive.”
The same official noted that the US will not reach a security agreement with Russia without the support of Europe and Ukraine, adding that Washington will not grant Moscow veto power over European security decisions.
Vladimir Medinsky, aide to the Russian president and head of the delegation in the Ukraine negotiations, previously stated that the fundamental objective was building a comprehensive new security system in Europe.
Medinsky noted that the structure in question must take on the character of “a fair, new, modern Yalta and Potsdam that carries the spirit of Helsinki 1975 and responds to contemporary realities”.
The Russian official argued that if such a system were established, peace lasting for decades, or even centuries, could be secured in Europe.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also announced that Moscow possesses its own position paper on how a new security architecture in Eurasia should take shape.
Lavrov stated that Russia hopes the Washington administration will “maintain its determination to pursue dialogue aimed at achieving an honest balance of interests where nobody’s security is impaired”.
Russian authorities have repeatedly stated that the country has no intention of attacking Europe.
Pointing out that they have no reason to fight NATO countries, Russian President Vladimir Putin previously said: “We have no interest whatsoever, neither geopolitical nor economic, political nor military.”
In a statement in October, Putin said Russia has no plans to attack anyone “in 2029, in 2030, or in the year 2050”.
On the other hand, Putin claimed that “all NATO countries are fighting Russia” and stated that the Russian military is currently the most combat-ready armed force in the world.
Following the contacts in Abu Dhabi, Kushner announced that he and Witkoff would travel to Moscow.
Explaining that they plan to meet Putin during the visit to discuss European participation in negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict, Kushner argued that the parties could make “far greater progress” if the Russian leader consents to such involvement.
Yury Ushakov, aide to the Russian president, stated that the US special envoys will arrive in Moscow on 12 November, with the planned meeting with the Russian president scheduled for the first half of the day.
US Vice-President JD Vance has been personally involved over the past two weeks in indirect talks with Iran aimed at securing a fresh ceasefire and restarting nuclear negotiations.
According to Axios, Vance’s intense engagement indicates that he has taken it upon himself to extract the US from the conflict, which he views as responsible for the Republican Party’s shocking losses in this week’s elections.
This elevates the latest round of indirect talks to the highest echelons of the administration.
US officials and regional sources state that Trump is currently willing to let diplomatic efforts run their course to see whether any agreement is achievable.
Asked by reporters on Friday what his message was to Iran, Trump said, “We are talking to them.”
According to sources with direct knowledge of the matter, Vance speaks almost daily with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir, and other mediators regarding the negotiations with Iran.
White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s adviser and son-in-law, are also involved in the process.
Sources say Vance and the Qatari and Pakistani mediators have been discussing the possibility of holding a working-level technical meeting between the US and Iran in the coming days, though this has not yet materialized.
Before the war began in late February, Vance was among the most sceptical voices in Trump’s inner circle on the issue, advocating instead for a diplomatic solution.
In April, he led the US negotiating delegation at the Iran summit held in Islamabad and was personally involved in the talks that yielded a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between the US and Iran in June.
Vance subsequently headed the US delegation during a series of direct talks with Iran in Switzerland.
Two weeks ago, Vance sent a letter to Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, proposing that direct negotiations resume.
Rezaei is one of the closest advisers to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.
Iranian officials noted that Vance’s letter generated positive momentum toward restarting talks.
On Wednesday, Vance said the war was the primary reason for the Republicans’ repudiation at the polls.
Sources involved in mediation efforts report that while progress is being made, the process is moving very slowly.
On Friday evening, the prime minister of Qatar said, “Over the past few weeks, we worked with our colleagues in the US administration who have a sincere intention to contain the situation and de-escalate. Thanks to them and the voices of reason in Tehran, we prevented the situation from spinning out of control.”
The prime minister added that discussions with the Trump administration continued following the midterm elections, though they were not as active as in previous days “because there are other matters.”
Nevertheless, he noted that the US intention to find a diplomatic resolution “remains ongoing” and emphasized that an agreement is possible.
On Friday morning, Trump and the Emir of Qatar discussed Qatari efforts to bridge differences between the US and Iran as part of an accord.
According to a statement from his office, Sheikh Tamim emphasized the necessity of “pursuing dialogue and diplomatic channels to resolve differences, prevent the region from facing further escalation, and ensure freedom of maritime navigation as well as the security of energy supplies.”
Separately, Trump confirmed on Friday that the US military conducted a strike on an anti-aircraft missile launcher on Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz after it fired a missile at a US fighter jet.
Journalist Dursunoğlu warns Iran removed missile limits as Gulf risks widen
Nvidia board prepares to remove CEO Jensen Huang amid scandal
CSTO strips Armenia of voting rights over two-year budget debt
US voters approve bans on transgender athletes across four states
US urges Russia to draft proposals for new European security pact
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoSecular dress code dispute exposes deeper Türkiye-Azerbaijan strains
-
Europe6 days agoEU urges citizens to prepare 72-hour survival kits for crises
-
Asia2 weeks agoChina expands Africa arms sales, displacing France and Western rivals
-
America2 weeks agoBolsonaro reportedly leaves Brazil on jet linked to scandal-hit firm
-
Diplomacy1 week agoProtesters storm Kyiv site holding soldiers over torture allegations
-
Russia2 weeks agoPutin proposes Arctic energy cooperation to US to ease gas sanctions
-
Europe1 week agoPro-Ukraine Republicans in US Congress dwindle after departures
-
America2 weeks agoRubio outlines Venezuela election plan, says US will not wait two years
