The fear of an uncontrolled refugee influx from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) has fundamentally reshaped European elite policies in the region, shifting the primary focus of engagement from normative promotion (democracy, human rights) to security and border externalization.

This overriding concern has dictated policy choices, financial allocation, and diplomatic priorities, essentially making European foreign policy a function of internal migration control.

I. The Policy of Externalization: Turning Neighbors into Border Guards

The most tangible consequence of this fear is the EU's migration externalization policy, which outsources border control responsibilities to MENA transit and origin countries. This policy is built on the transactional principle of "aid for control".

A. Financial and Material Incentives

Europe provides billions of euros in aid, loans, and technical assistance to countries like Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco, directly linking financial support to their cooperation in curbing irregular migration.

• Financial Deals: Major agreements, such as the EU-Turkey Statement (2016) and recent large-scale deals with Egypt (2024) and Tunisia (2023), commit significant funding for economic support, but a crucial component is earmarked for border management and counter-smuggling efforts. For example, the EU-Egypt partnership includes hundreds of millions specifically for Egyptian border and migration enforcement.

• Capacity Building: This aid funds the provision of advanced surveillance equipment (cameras, patrol vehicles, GPS technology), training for local security forces (coast guards, border guards), and the development of local detention facilities. The goal is to build a high-tech "Fortress Europe" buffer zone that intercepts migrants before they reach EU shores.

• Development Aid Re-prioritization: Fear of mass arrivals has led to the "securitization" of development aid. Funds historically designated for long-term poverty reduction and governance are increasingly re-prioritized to address the "root causes" of migration through programs designed to deter movement or facilitate the return of migrants. This conflates development with migration control, often to the detriment of genuine, need-based development objectives.

II. Strategic Shift: Prioritizing Stability over Democracy

The imperative to stop refugee flows has forced European elites to fundamentally re-evaluate their relationships with authoritarian regimes in the MENA region, leading to a de-emphasis on democracy promotion.

A. Engaging with Authoritarian Regimes

The fear of an uncontrolled influx of migrants and refugees has led European elites to seek partnerships with any entity capable of preventing departures, regardless of their human rights record.

• Transactional Diplomacy: The relationship has become overwhelmingly transactional. The desire for stability on Europe's borders trumps the commitment to human rights and democratic reform. European leaders are willing to engage with and financially support regimes like those in Egypt and Tunisia, whose human rights records are deeply concerning, as long as they effectively act as gatekeepers.

• The "Lesser Evil" Rationale: The elite calculation is that a stable, even authoritarian, partner capable of managing migration flows is preferable to a collapsed state or regime change that could trigger massive displacement and security vacuums (the "Libya scenario"). This approach effectively mortgages Europe's stated values for immediate security and political stability.

• Vulnerability to Coercive Diplomacy: This dependence on transit countries makes the EU vulnerable to "migration blackmail." Leaders in countries like Turkey and Morocco have on multiple occasions threatened to "open the gates" and allow migrants to proceed to Europe in order to exert diplomatic pressure, secure better financial terms, or influence EU positions on unrelated foreign policy matters. The European policy, born of fear, has inadvertently created a powerful new tool of leverage for its MENA partners.

III. Humanitarian and Legal Ramifications

The migration-centric focus has significant, often negative, consequences for the international protection system and the well-being of refugees in the MENA region.

A. Erosion of Asylum Rights

By attempting to deter all movement, the policies undermine the very principles of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

• Deterrence as Policy: The primary policy goal is deterrence rather than the effective management of asylum applications. This means that measures designed to stop irregular migrants also prevent legitimate asylum seekers from reaching a safe territory where their claims can be processed legally.

• Pushbacks and Refoulement: European-funded and supported operations, particularly in the Mediterranean, have been repeatedly accused of involvement in illegal pushbacks—forcibly returning migrants without due process—and complicity in the systematic detention and abuse of migrants in partner countries. This includes supporting coast guards who intercept vessels and return individuals to dangerous conditions, in breach of the principle of non-refoulement (the prohibition on sending refugees or asylum seekers to a place where they are likely to be persecuted or face danger).

• Creation of External "Camps": The vast majority of the world's refugees are hosted in developing countries, particularly in the MENA region (e.g., Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon). European policy attempts to reinforce this arrangement by funding services for refugees in these host nations. While necessary, this funding is often coupled with the expectation that host nations will contain these populations, rather than facilitating their safe travel or resettlement to Europe, effectively creating external containment zones.

In conclusion, the fear of refugee influx acts as a powerful securitizing lens through which European elites view the Middle East. It has transformed the EU's external policy from one ostensibly based on liberal values to one driven by realpolitik and the immediate necessity of internal security. This has resulted in the externalization of borders, the tacit acceptance of authoritarianism, and the erosion of Europe's normative influence in the region, all in the service of keeping irregular migration flows at bay.