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.”
Diplomacy
Greece’s Marinakis says paying Hormuz transit fees beats enduring Red Sea shipping crisis detour
Evangelos Marinakis, one of Greece’s leading shipowners, has announced that he is prepared to pay up to $200,000 per transit to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to civilian maritime traffic.
Speaking to the Financial Times, Marinakis stated that paying a transit fee would be a far better option for him than having the strait closed to navigation.
As the chairman of Capital Maritime Group, which controls a fleet of 185 vessels including approximately 35 tankers, Marinakis emphasized that shipowners have been forced to use alternative routes around the Cape of Good Hope for years due to attacks launched by the Houthis in the Red Sea, a detour that has generated substantial additional costs.
The Greek shipowner indicated that paying a transit fee of $100,000 or $200,000, depending on the size of the cargo or the vessel, is far more reasonable than enduring the current logistical challenges. He added that such payments could offset all the losses experienced so far.
Following US strikes on Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the Tehran administration had introduced transit fees of up to $2 million for certain vessels transiting the waterway.
In May, Iran announced the establishment of a state agency tasked with managing the Strait of Hormuz. It was stated that the institution in question would provide real-time updates regarding maritime activities in the waterway.
Ebrahim Azizi, the chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, had noted that only commercial vessels and countries cooperating with Iran would be able to benefit from the facilities provided under this “professional mechanism.”
US President Donald Trump has explicitly opposed the imposition of transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz. In a statement on the matter, Trump said, “We want the strait to be open. We do not want any transit fees to be charged. This is an international waterway.”
On the other hand, the draft text of a planned 60-day ceasefire extension agreement between the parties stipulates that the Strait of Hormuz will remain open without any transit fees being demanded.
According to the draft details reviewed by Axios, the US in return commits to lifting the blockade it has imposed on Iranian ports. The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, however, announced that the management of the Strait of Hormuz has been excluded from the scope of the agreement with the US, asserting that the issue will be addressed solely by littoral states.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has pledged compensation for Armenian farmers affected by restrictions on exports to Russia.
According to Sputnik Armenia, Pashinyan made the announcement during an election campaign meeting in the Gegharkunik region.
Speaking at the event, Pashinyan said the subsidies would be designed to offset losses incurred by producers.
The prime minister also acknowledged that some Armenian products had failed to meet required quality standards, adding that such companies would receive support aimed at improving product quality.
Addressing alternative markets for Armenian exports, Pashinyan said several Armenian business delegations were already engaged in negotiations abroad.
He added that Armenia had received offers for the purchase of roses as well as fresh fruits and vegetables.
Pashinyan argued that Armenia’s agricultural output was not particularly large, describing this as an advantage under current circumstances. According to the prime minister, “a respected supermarket chain in Europe” would be capable of selling the entire volume of these products on its own.
Russia’s Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor) imposed temporary restrictions on imports of stone fruits and grapes from Armenia effective July 2.
The ban covers cherries, sour cherries, apricots, plums, peaches and nectarines, among other products.
On the same day, a temporary suspension was also introduced on certification procedures for live fish shipments from Armenia. Russian authorities had previously restricted the entry of flower products originating from Armenia into the Russian market.
In addition, Russia’s Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor) halted the import of all consignments of Jermuk mineral water from Armenia.
In a statement, the agency said levels of bicarbonate, chloride and sulfate ions in the mineral water exceeded established limits and could mislead consumers regarding the product’s medicinal properties.
The Russian regulator argued that the growing number of violations stemmed from the abolition of Armenia’s Agriculture Ministry and the transfer of its responsibilities to the Economy Ministry.
Rosselkhoznadzor further stated that Armenia’s Economy Ministry was experiencing structural problems and was unable to adequately perform the supervisory functions assigned to it.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he has asked the United States to grant Ukraine a license to manufacture missiles for the Patriot air defence system.
In a post on social media platform X, Zelenskyy argued that current US production of missile defence interceptors is insufficient and could contribute to crises in different parts of the world.
“Producing 60-65 missiles a month is nothing compared with the challenges we face today. This is no secret, and Russia knows it as well,” Zelenskyy wrote. “We need to expand production. As I requested from the previous US administration, I am asking the current administration to grant Ukraine a license to produce Patriot missiles.”
Zelenskyy said US companies possess advanced technologies that are not available in Ukraine, while Kyiv could contribute its extensive battlefield experience in return.
He also argued that granting such a license would benefit not only Ukraine, but also the Middle East and any country Washington chooses to support.
Washington pledges to maintain defence support
Zelenskyy’s remarks came a day after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on May 30 that Washington would continue supporting Ukraine’s defence capabilities and ensure military shipments to Kyiv continue.
“We want them to be able to defend themselves, and we will find a way to help them do that,” Hegseth said.
Several days earlier, Yuriy Ihnat, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force, warned that the country’s air defence forces were experiencing a shortage of missiles.
“Due to certain supply problems, we are practically at starvation levels when it comes to missiles today,” Ihnat said.
Concerns persist over air defence missile stocks
In April, Zelenskyy warned that Ukraine’s stockpile of air defence missiles could be exhausted at any moment.
He said that under current conditions, air defence missiles were more critical for Ukraine than the air defence systems themselves.
Highlighting what he described as a critical shortage of Patriot missiles, Zelenskyy said: “We are facing a deficit now that could hardly be worse.”
Concerns that Ukraine could face a severe shortage of US-made air defence missiles had previously been reported by Reuters.
The situation was expected to worsen as the United States and its allies depleted significant portions of their arsenals during tensions with Iran, a point Zelenskyy also underscored.
In a separate statement in January, Zelenskyy said Ukraine lacked sufficient missiles for both US- and European-made air defence systems.
The Ukrainian leader said he had been forced to personally secure every package of missiles from European countries and the United States.
Hungary’s new PM Magyar vows absolute ban on illegal migration, challenging Brussels over fines
Greece’s Marinakis says paying Hormuz transit fees beats enduring Red Sea shipping crisis detour
Drone strike ignites St. Petersburg oil terminal as major economic forum opens
Qatar and UAE LNG tankers go dark in Strait of Hormuz to evade security risks
Trump administration targets 60 nations with new tariff draft under Section 301
-
Asia2 weeks agoIran conflict accelerates yuan adoption and record CIPS volumes in global oil trade
-
Asia2 weeks agoXi and Putin deepen partnership with call for ‘multipolar world’
-
Europe2 weeks agoFive EU states push gradual single market access for Western Balkans
-
Middle East1 week agoLeaked documents show IRGC routed Chinese military equipment through UAE
-
Europe1 week agoFrench justice minister calls for three-year halt to legal immigration
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoNATO weighs Hormuz security mission if Iran blockade remains in place by July
-
Middle East1 week agoIran says Hormuz transit will remain free but ships must cover operational costs
-
Europe2 weeks agoGermany initiates diplomatic contact with France’s National Rally ahead of presidential election
