The European Dream Ends Here

Back in 2023, an agreement on migration was reached between Italy, an EU member, and Albania, a non-EU country. Signed by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her Albanian counterpart, Edi Rama, and approved by the Albanian parliament on 22 February 2024 with 77 out of 140 votes in favour, the agreement will last five years. It outlines the creation of two types of migrant management facilities on Albanian territory: a “hotspot” (entry point) and a so-called “Centre for Stay and Repatriation” (CPR). Migrants, including asylum seekers, who arrive in Italy or are intercepted at sea by Italian coast guards will first pass through these two facilities, where a decision will be made on whether they are to be repatriated or granted asylum in Italy.

The CPR camp is located in Gjadër, a small village in northwest Albania, in a non-operational former military installation. Gjadër and the surrounding area have been under the influence of the Catholic Church and the Franciscan Order for many years. The camp will operate entirely under Italian jurisdiction and will be managed by Italian institutions and companies; hence, the whole process will be managed by the Italian side. Albania will cooperate on surveillance and security outside the centres. Migrants will not be free to leave these centres, but will be forced to stay inside them until a decision has been made about their repatriation.

When the centre, currently under construction, is finished, the camp will have capacity for 3,000 people and will cost 600 million euro over five years, which will be paid by Italy. According to Potere al Popolo, a left-wing party in Italy, “the estimated cost of crossing from Italy to Albania is between 250,000 and 290,000 euro, approximately 18,000 euro per migrant. A big expense for those who have been complaining for years that Italy ‘wastes’ too much money on the rescue and reception of migrants.”

Refuge or Detention?

At the core of this bilateral agreement lies the creation of an extraterritorial zone in Albania, where migrants arriving from Italy will be received and held. This “agreement”, as it is technically termed, aims to curb migratory flows by externalizing the process of assessing migrants’ status and undermining the right to asylum. According to experts, this agreement is unique, relying on the concept of “burden-shifting”, meaning the transfer of responsibility for the reception and repatriation of migrants to other countries.

Two opposing attitudes have emerged towards the establishment of a migrant/asylum-seeker camp in Albania: one is fundamentally political, rooted in far-right populist ideas, while the other is focused on international law, justice, and democracy in a broader sense.

The political approach centres purely on managing migratory flows toward Italy and Europe as a whole. This approach, associated with the far right, does not seek a true solution, but rather aims to displace the problem beyond Italy’s borders. For instance, Giorgia Meloni has referred to the policy as a “liberating” agreement, seemingly intended to relieve Europe of migration pressure. By asserting that Italy’s major problem is immigration, and that the solution lies in deporting migrants to Albania, she simply relocates the issue beyond Italy’s and the EU’s borders — an arrangement that appears to suit all parties involved.

This issue ought therefore to be examined within the framework of anti-immigrant policies promoted by populist parties such as Salvini’s Lega Nord and Meloni’s Fratelli d’Italia, of which the latter is widely regarded as a neo-fascist party.[1] However, a Sky TG24 survey shows that over 55 percent of Italians oppose establishing asylum-seeker and migrant camps in Albania, while 57 percent are dissatisfied with the Italian government’s migration policies. The main Italian opposition parties, as well as various left-wing collectives, oppose the agreement. Caritas and other Italian civil society groups have also expressed concerns about the agreement: “The money would have been better invested in integration processes, thus moving away from the punitive logic of the migrant who arrives irregularly on Italian soil and has no right to anything.”

From the Albanian government’s perspective, the populist approach to this issue also poses challenges, for it views the agreement as a repayment of an old debt — a matter that we will explore further below. Not to mention that this approach treats migrants as instruments rather than human beings with dignity and inalienable, universal rights. During her visit to Albania, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen expressed support for the policy, stating that the EU does not oppose the bilateral agreement to transfer migrants to camps in Albania, but will merely monitor its implementation.

Thus, on the one hand, we have the European politicians and EU technocrats who support the agreement, focusing only on its processes and outcomes, while overlooking the consequences and implementation methods of the project as a whole. On the other hand, a recent decision by a Rome court based on a ruling by the European Court of Justice mandated that the first 16 migrants sent to the Gjadër camp be returned to Italy because they do not come from “safe” countries. The agreement stipulates that only migrants from countries deemed “safe” — where civil rights are respected and a democratic order is in place — can be repatriated. However, the European Court of Justice states that for a country to be classified as “safe”, it must not only be subject to Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but must also guarantee safety throughout its entire territory. This ruling acknowledges the court’s authority to determine, based on circumstances and evidence, whether a country is genuinely safe. The Commissioner for Human Rights in the Council of Europe, Dunja Mijatović, also expressed concern that the measures proposed in the agreement significantly increase the risk of exposing refugees, asylum seekers, and immigrants to human rights violations.

The Constitutional Court of Albania endorsed the agreement, but limited its assessment to considerations of sovereignty and territoriality without addressing potential human rights violations as the European court has done. In November 2023, after the protocol was signed, a group of civil society organizations and human rights activists requested that Albania withdraw from the agreement because it “may result in unfair removal of freedom of movement for asylum seekers, violating the international principle of ‘non-refoulement of asylum seekers’ with potentially legal consequences for the Albanian state”.

Today, neo-fascists continue to assault democratic institutions, the separation of powers, and organizations that rescue migrants at sea.

The left-wing political party Lëvizja Bashkë articulated its opposition to the erection of what it calls “internment camps”. Various Albanian activists and residents of the area around the camp have protested and denounced the agreement, arguing that Albania has the highest number of emigrants and asylum seekers in the region — the Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies estimates that from 2010 to 2019, nearly 500,000 people emigrated from Albania — and yet is undertaking to solve Europe’s migration problem.

Another protest was held on 16 October when the first ship with immigrants arrived in Albania at the port of Shengjin. “The European dream ends here”, read the protest’s main banner, while another banner depicted Edi Rama and Giorgia Meloni dressed as prison guards. “The migrant crisis is not a crisis that can be resolved at the expense of other peoples”, the activists explained to the press.

The winner of this confrontation — whether it be the populist politics of the far right or the principles of law, justice, and human dignity — will determine the future of democracy in the EU. The attack by Meloni and members of the Fratelli d’Italia party on Italian democratic order, particularly the separation of powers, as well as international law and the European Court of Justice, following the Rome court’s decision to return the first migrants sent to Albania serves as evidence of the significant threat that far-right politics poses to democratic institutions.

As Eric Hobsbawm noted in The Age of Extremes, the focus of far-right attacks is on democratic institutions and the rights and freedoms of individuals — a reality that the history of the early twentieth century, marked by the rise of fascism and Nazism, confirms. Today, neo-fascists continue to assault democratic institutions, the separation of powers, and organizations that rescue migrants at sea, among others. The independence of democratic state institutions such as the judiciary, along with cultural institutions in general, serve as guarantors of political and social freedoms, as well as spaces where individuals become aware of their place in society and its challenges. This has always been unacceptable to fascists in the past, and is unacceptable to neo-fascists today. The latter do not address the inequalities and systemic injustices produced by the ever-growing power of the local and international oligarchies that increasingly dominate Europe. However, by attacking institutions and human rights, they aim to silence any internal criticism and dissent, thereby endangering the very foundations of democracy.

Why Albania?

The choice of Albania goes beyond geography. The most important factor is that our country, according to Transparency International, is governed by corrupt officials linked to organized crime. Former president Meta, one of Prime Minister Rama’s former associates, was arrested for corruption, three ministers are in prison for corruption and connections to organized crime, one deputy prime minister is in hiding, several mayors, members of parliament, and senior government officials from the ruling majority are incarcerated for corruption, abuse of power, and electoral crimes, while dozens of others are under investigation by the Special Structure Against Corruption and Organized Crime (SPAK). Precisely because of their corruption and mismanagement, these leaders have demonstrated a willingness to submit to the interests of foreign governments, especially autocratic leaders notorious for violating democratic rights and freedoms

The dismantling of laws protecting natural habitats, an act criticized by Brussels and environmental organizations and activists, paved the way for the transfer of the Albanian island of Sazan and Karavasta Lagoon to Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. According to prosecutors in Washington, Charles McGonigal, a top FBI agent accused of using his position to benefit an associate’s business in Eastern Europe, developed a relationship with Albanian Prime Minister Rama and took steps to benefit the politician. Legislation tailored to particular interests has become a norm in Albanian politics, as evidenced by SPAK’s findings. Nevertheless, one of Rama’s most controversial international agreements remains the establishment of the migrant camp in Gjadër.

The German philosopher Hegel believed that the problem of society’s “rabble” — specifically the poor and unemployed produced by capitalism — could be addressed by sending them to colonies. Hegel was led to propose such measures by his inability to find real solutions to the causes of exploitation and poverty. By dispatching the underclass to colonies, the state would resolve the problem of overpopulation while extending its interests to other lands. This was not solely Hegel’s dream, but that of all of Europe. Australia was also established as a British penal colony, and the United States was founded by the unwanted and marginalized from the old continent.

Albania may have a corrupt government connected to organized crime, but for Europe and Italy, as long as it submits to the latter’s interests, it can be hailed as a democratic country making progress.

Immigrants are viewed similarly to how Hegel perceived the “rabble” and the excluded of Europe. Although they are not a direct product of Western capitalism, they are nevertheless the indirect consequence of colonial and neocolonial policies. They are products of Western intervention, shaped by a logic of domination that is exclusionary, divisive, and violent, which has been ingrained in the minds of the ruling elites of the neocolonies. Nevertheless, Europe’s response to this problem is fundamentally flawed — it does not aim to resolve the issue, but rather to shift responsibility away from itself. The rise of the far right in Europe and their ascent to power in several significant countries has underscored the attempt to offer extreme solutions to the immigration issue, often in violation of national and international laws and institutional decisions.

It seems that democracy, along with its institutions and principles, holds value only in Italy and Europe. In contrast, in other countries, particularly in a poorly governed nation like Albania, these principles can be violated without consequence. The construction of makeshift shelters that do not meet basic hygiene requirements, for example, can occur in Albania, where accountability is non-existent, but such practices would not be tolerated in Italy. “The containers in Gjadër are not suitable for a long stay anyway.[2] Two soldier beds, two metal cabinets and four plastic chairs are the furniture that take up most of the space in them. There is room for four people in each room. Showers and toilets are located in another part of the camp.”

Albania may have a corrupt government connected to organized crime, but for Europe and Italy, as long as it submits to the latter’s interests, it can be hailed as a democratic country making progress. Sovereignty and human rights can be disregarded in exchange for the silence of the other party. Albania is eager to join Europe at any cost, even if it means sacrificing its basic political sovereignty. It is no coincidence that the opening of negotiating chapters with the EU started following this agreement. Moreover, this important step towards EU accession serves as a tool for the ideological manipulation of public opinion.

The ideological argument underlying this policy is a reversed form of gratitude towards Italy, which welcomed Albanians during the mass exodus of the 1990s when we fled to European countries. The truth is that the Italian people welcomed us at that time, not the state, and today these same people oppose this agreement. In 1991, under the auspices of the state, Albanians were taken to a stadium in Bari, put into a space that the great Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben compared to concentration camps in his book Homo Sacer, an extraordinary zone devoid of rights, where people were treated as bodies stripped of political dimension, with bread being dropped to them from helicopters as if they were animals. This is not to mention Italy’s history of fascist occupation, brutal political and military domination, and the economic exploitation of the country by the fascist regime from the 1920s until 1943.

Mobilizing for Democracy in Italy and Albania

This situation creates several paradoxes. On the one hand, we have Albania’s transformation into a tourist attraction, while on the other, we see it reverting to a colony of “illegal” migrants that resembles a penal colony (beware, if you attempt to go to Italy, you may end up in a place like Albania) more than a centre for accommodation and repatriation. Another paradox is that up until now we have only been a country of emigrants. Henceforth, we will also become a country of immigrants, or to be precise, a place that receives migrants to other countries, because no one would willingly choose to migrate to one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in Europe.

Europe does not welcome the underdogs because they are unmarketable — they are people whose families have fled from war or hunger, individuals scarred by conflict, and those with mental health issues. Capitalist Europe seeks employable and exploitable individuals, demanding skilled workers such as doctors and engineers, and it makes a well-considered plan for their arrival. However, this ongoing brain drain and exodus of the labour force from Albania will ultimately lead to its destruction.

There is a significant risk that this agreement could set a precedent for similar agreements involving our country and others in the region. Meloni herself encouraged European countries to use this agreement as a model. According to Deutsche Welle, the Meloni-Rama plan, along with its legal problems, bears similarities to a plan by the former UK Conservative government to send migrants to Rwanda. That plan was also foiled by the courts and eventually overturned by the Labour government. Several European countries, including Germany, are nevertheless still looking into the possibility of launching similar offshore migrant detention centres. European states, especially those governed by right-wing or far-right governments, will seek similar arrangements in the region, or even with Albania itself. As always, this would likely be in exchange for silence regarding corruption, theft, injustices, and lack of representation.

In the confrontation between far-right populism and the principles of law, perhaps mobilization and struggle from below will determine the path of democracy in Europe.

The neocolonial policies of countries like Italy may act as a condition for the opening of negotiating chapters in the accession process to the EU. The conditional foreign policy of certain EU member states such as France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, and Bulgaria is well known. The latter two countries have long hindered the opening of negotiations between the EU and North Macedonia, one due to the country’s name issue and the other for reasons of identity and history. Such conditional practices could extend to other issues, such as migrants.

Both Albania and Italy have critical civil society, left-wing political parties, anti-racist groups, and leftist collectives that are openly against the bilateral agreement. On the other hand, Albanians are divided over the migrant camp deal. Some think that Prime Minister Rama should have consulted the people first rather than deciding on his own. “Albanian people have always been generous with others”, says one of the residents interviewed by Deutsche Welle. Edi Rama knows how to take advantage of Albanians’ sense of generosity and hospitality, as he tried to do with the ideological argument of gratitude towards Italy. But precisely because of their generosity and hospitality, Albanians would surely change their minds if they knew the conditions in which immigrants are detained.

On the anniversary of the signing of the Italy-Albania agreement on 6 November, last year the new Network against Migrant Detention, organized by Italian and Albanian activists and anti-racist groups, held a conference in front of the Parliament of Albania in Tirana to launch a new transnational mobilization against the CPR system and the deportation and detention of migrants. The Network against Migrant Detention opposes the neocolonial logic expressed by this agreement, the security model that prioritizes border protection over the protection of human life, and the inevitable economic speculation that come along with these systems.

Another important mobilization against the CPR was organized in Tirana by Refugees Welcome Italia, Albanian collectives, and Lëvizja Bashkë. The organizers’ main demands are the annulment of the Italy-Albania agreement and an end to the construction of detention centres for migrants in Italy and elsewhere. The unification of the struggle against CPRs, as the Manifesto Carovana Albania by Refugees Welcome Italy says, is crucial: fighting CPRs in Italy means fighting them in Albania, and fighting CPRs in Albania means fighting them in Italy. This means that in the confrontation between far-right populism and the principles of law, perhaps mobilization and struggle from below will determine the path of democracy in Europe.