EU-Tunisia Deal: Migration Control at the Cost of Human Rights?

People have lost faith. International humanitarian law has lost its credibility and value, both in theory and practice. Nowhere is this erosion more evident than in Tunisia, where human rights have taken a backseat to geopolitical interests. In recent years, Tunisia has faced mounting criticism for its deteriorating human rights situation, exacerbated by an increasingly authoritarian regime. This crisis has drawn global attention, particularly due to the European Union's growing role in shaping Tunisia's migration policy.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed in 2023 between Tunisia and the European Union (EU), is officially titled the "Global Gateway Tunisia-EU Partnership" and involves financial support for Tunisia, in return for a commitment by the Tunisian government to curb migration to Europe. Although the deal aims to stabilize Europe's borders, it has been heavily criticized for its role in supporting a regime accused of widespread human rights abuses.

Testimonies recorded by international human rights organizations are alarming. Tunisian authorities have been accused of arbitrary arrests, beatings, mass deportations and violent practices against migrants from sub-Saharan Africa, often leaving them abandoned in poor conditions at the border with Libya and Algeria. These practices expose people to extreme risks, as many are left without access to humanitarian aid or basic necessities. According to these testimonies, Tunisian security forces are applying violence against migrants at sea, using dangerous maneuvers against their boats, resulting in their frequent sinking and the deaths of dozens of people. The UN reported that in the first half of 2023 alone, at least 265 people died in these interception operations, and several others remain missing.

Despite growing evidence of violent and abusive practices by the Tunisian authorities, the EU continues to financially support Tunisia as part of its strategy to outsource its border management. The memorandum of understanding includes the provision of 105 million euros to strengthen Tunisia's border control measures, as well as other investments in the digital sector, renewable energy and economic support for the country. The EU has tasked Tunisian authorities, including the National Guard and Coast Guard, with the responsibility of preventing migrant departures to Europe. However, this strategy has allowed the regime of President Kais Saied to double-down on its authoritarian practices, limiting the rights of citizens and immigrants.

The international community is watching the intensifying repression of civil society in Tunisia with concern. Since 2021, core freedoms such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press and the independence of the judiciary have come under severe pressure. President of Tunisia Kais Saied has imposed severe restrictions focusing on dissent and political opposition, such as intimidating and imprisoning journalists, activists and political opponents, while humanitarian organizations are prevented from carrying out their work. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and humanitarian organizations stress that Tunisia is not a safe destination for migrants to disembark, as many of them are vulnerable to serious violations of their rights during the deportation process. Authorities are accused of using collective deportations and not carrying out individual assessments to protect migrants, thus violating the principle of non-refoulement, a fundamental tenet of international law that ensures that no one is sent back to a country where they risk persecution, torture or serious harm.

Although supported by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and some European leaders,  the EU deal with Tunisia raises ethical and political questions. Some MEPs express their dissatisfaction with the EU's stance, accusing it of not taking sufficient measures to protect human rights. In a letter to von der Leyen, MEPs call for tighter conditions on funding to prevent further funding being responsible for serious breaches. They also warn that the current agreement does not ensure the protection of migrants while entrenching the EU's cooperation with authoritarian regimes in the Mediterranean region.

Migration flows into Europe have been steadily increasing due to a combination of global crises, including armed conflict, climate change and economic inequality. In many regions of the world, worsening conditions are forcing people to flee their homes in search of safety, opportunity and a better life. For Europe, this means migration is no longer a distant concern; it’s a challenge at the region’s doorstep—one that will only intensify in the coming decades. By 2050, experts predict that climate change alone could force millions more to leave their homes, exacerbating the pressures on already strained migration systems.

At the same time, economic disparities between Europe and other regions, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, continue to fuel movement across borders. For many, Europe represents the hope of a more secure future, but the rise in migration is testing the EU’s capacity to manage arrivals without compromising its commitment to human rights and dignity. Understanding the root causes of migration—and addressing them through more sustainable, cooperative strategies—is essential if Europe is to remain a beacon of hope while ensuring fair and effective migration management.

However, political dynamics within Europe complicate these efforts. Anti-immigration rhetoric, fueled by populist movements, continues to shape public opinion and policy. While the EU must address these concerns, it cannot afford to compromise its foundational values. Transparent communication, highlighting the contributions of migrants and fostering solidarity among member states, will be essential.

The EU's current engagement with external partners like Tunisia reveals the complexities of balancing migration control with the principles of human rights. This approach is emblematic of a broader strategy that prioritizes agreements with neighboring countries to manage migration flows. For instance, the EU’s collaboration with Turkey under the 2016 migration deal showcased a significant investment in curbing irregular migration routes in exchange for financial aid. Some critics argue that such deals often sacrifice the EU's values in pursuit of pragmatic solutions, creating a precedent for controversial partnerships.

The EU-Turkey deal is often lauded for reducing irregular crossings in the Eastern Mediterranean, but it too has faced significant debate. Human rights advocates have pointed to overcrowded refugee camps on Greek islands as evidence of the deal's failure to ensure humane treatment for migrants. This demonstrates that while such partnerships may achieve short-term goals, they often fail to address systemic issues, such as improving asylum processes or offering viable resettlement options for displaced individuals.

In contrast, some EU member states have worked to set positive examples in migration management. Sweden, for instance, has emphasized the integration of refugees through extensive language and vocational training programs, enabling them to contribute to local economies. Similarly, Portugal has actively sought to attract migrants and asylum seekers to address demographic challenges, fostering policies that encourage inclusion and community-building. These examples illustrate that humane approaches to migration are both possible and beneficial when politics align with long-term planning.

To uphold its stated humanitarian values, the EU must reassess its reliance on third-country agreements that lack clear human rights safeguards. Establishing transparent oversight mechanisms, ensuring accountability in the use of EU funds, and prioritizing partnerships with countries that respect international law could mitigate risks of complicity in abuses. These measures should be complemented by internal reforms to create accessible legal pathways for migration, reducing reliance on external actors.

The EU’s ongoing partnerships with authoritarian regimes, such as Tunisia, to control migration raises crucial concerns about the ethics and long-term efficacy of such agreements. While these arrangements may offer short-term containment, they fail to address the systemic drivers of migration, such as political repression, economic instability and environmental degradation, prevalent in many MENA countries. Rather than outsourcing border control to regimes with questionable human rights records, the EU should focus on policies that address the root causes of migration. This involves supporting sustainable development, peacebuilding, and climate resilience in migrants’ countries of origin, particularly in regions like the MENA, where instability is exacerbated by conflict, corruption and climate change. 

In the case of Tunisia, the EU's ongoing funding despite proven violations demonstrates the need for a more rigorous policy assessing human rights criteria before distributing funds. Ending cooperation with regimes accused of abuses and creating accountability mechanisms would protect migrants and uphold the EU’s moral credibility. Without such actions, the EU risks eroding the principles on which it is built, undermining its international legitimacy and prestige.

Ultimately, the EU must evolve its migration policies to address both immediate concerns and long-term goals. By fostering internal solidarity, building ethical partnerships, and addressing the root causes of displacement, the EU can set a global standard for humane and effective migration management, reaffirming its role as a leader in promoting human dignity.