Final wrap-up of the visa ban topic

I hope. I'm ready to write about something more constructive.

I’d really like to write more about issues that are forward-looking and constructive, with an eye to things getting better.

Like how the current energy crisis in Europe and political leaders’ reaction to it throw a sharp light on how the West does democracy at home versus how it does democracy promotion abroad.

I also really want to explore the prospects of a political process - “negotiations” - for ending the war in Ukraine. Because the discourse around that has been extremely odd, as if (Western) international relations experts had suffered collective amnesia about how international relations actually work. I admit, I’m daunted by the abuse and accusations (Russia shill etc) I might get for it.

But through August, the discussion around the visa ban became really loud, insistent and deeply problematic. At such moments, I feel compelled to wade in and contest some of the worst ideas, especially cavalier proposals to throw out considerations of human rights en masse.

Three weeks ago, Holod Media, an independent Russian media company founded in 2019 and recently launching its English edition, asked me to write an opinion piece about the proposed visa ban for Russian citizens.

Here is the piece: Europe Must Handle Awkwardness.

Holod’s editor came up with that title, but I quite like it. It illustrates a fundamental principle of human rights and freedoms - that we must tolerate people and their ideas, even if it’s awkward, uncomfortable or offensive. Human rights - and therefore our laws and policies, which must be based on them - are not a popularity contest.

Holod asked me to write about how I got involved in refugee and asylum work, and featuring stories of those I helped. Unfortunately, and as happens so often, these details ultimately had to be cut for the final version.

Almost 20 years ago, I got involved in working on refugee issues, asylum, migration, because people from the North Caucasus asked me for help as they were fleeing Russia. At the time, I had just promised myself I would let their needs, priorities and demands guide my work, so I wouldn’t impose any outside agendas (as a lot of people were doing at the time, because of the protracted wars in Chechnya), including my own. I had no choice but to rapidly learn everything I could about asylum laws, policies and practices in Europe, the US, the UK etc, find experts and partners, start lobbying, solve problems.

Since then, working with refugees and on asylum cases has been a constant in my work. I’m grateful for that. I’ve learned a lot. It helped me center my work on what people need at every step of their - literal - journey. I learned to admire activists and organizations that work full-time on migration, because it’s the hardest, most frustrating work in the human rights industry (maybe trying to bring down the patriarchy is harder still).

The second part that was cut was about whether a visa ban would “work” - and why that should not matter. (Like I wrote, it won’t work. Not in the sense that it will contribute to ending the war, or really any other meaningful way.)

I got uncomfortable with all the faux-sensible arguments for a visa ban and their shallow utilitarianism. Just because something works does not mean it is permissible. This kind of thinking takes us dangerously close to blackmail. Today we’d limit Russians’ travel to Europe, but then if that doesn’t stop the war (and it wouldn’t), what do we do tomorrow? Murmurs of deporting Russians from Europe are already being heard. And if that doesn’t work, either, how about we take the relatives of Russian officials or oligarchs hostage? And if Putin still does not relent, start cutting off their fingers one by one? I’m exaggerating for effect, but this is essentially the logic at play here.

Then, on August 31, the EU’s member states announced that they would not adopt a full visa ban, but instead suspend the EU’s visa facilitation agreement with Russia. This is, as a staffer in the European Parliament described it to me, a very typical EU solution. A vague, sloppy compromise with practical implications deliberately left unclear. It skirts the issue of whether fundamental principles and EU law are at stake (they are).

It’s far from clear what suspension of the visa facilitation agreement will look like in practice, except that instead of a €35 visa application fee Russians would now have to pay €80 (which is laughable, given that trips to the next visa center for fingerprinting can cost hundreds of €€€, and that the actual journey to Europe will cost even more). It also appears that informally, individual member states were signaled that if they wanted to stop issuing visas or significantly reduce the speed of the process, they could do so.

At least this heated discussion, with its racist tinge, has died down now. I hope I won’t have to write about this anymore. But I have my doubts. Apparently a full visa ban is already on the list for the next package of EU sanctions.