At a party convention on October 11, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Poland would suspend the processing of asylum applications in certain circumstances as part of a strategy to reduce illegal migration. Obviously, domestic political considerations greatly influenced this decision. Like his counterparts Mette Frederiksen of Denmark or Mark Rutte of the Netherlands, Tusk wants to overcome the populists by adopting their tough rhetoric on migration, hoping it will strengthen his party’s candidate in the crucial 2025 presidential election.

However, the European dimension of this strategy is no less relevant. After ending an illiberal eight-year era in Poland, Tusk positioned himself as a champion of democracy, the rule of law and civil rights across the continent. This is why his decision weighs more than the anti-migration campaigns led by the usual suspects, such as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her Hungarian counterpart Viktor Orban. Unsurprisingly, Tusk confronts widely criticized in the media and among human rights observers, who argued that his movement compromised European values ​​and rules.

But Tusk did not suddenly turn into an anti-migration crusader. Unlike Orban, he has no plans to abolish the right to asylum, nor does he resort to racist and xenophobic arguments. The plan is to create the possibility of temporarily suspending the right to asylum in designated areas when faced with threats of destabilization. Like Finland, which introduced a similar law in July, Poland has been exposed to hybrid warfare from neighboring countries since 2021 as they push migrants across the border and help destroy security installations. Only this year, they were around 26,000 irregular and often violent attempts to cross the Polish border from Belarus. In July, a Polish soldier was killed during clashes with migrants. While the number of border crossing points decreased in the summer, the Polish authorities quote Intelligence reports that several violent attacks against the border are being planned by the dictators of Minsk and Moscow.

Certainly, any temporary suspension of the right to asylum is unlikely to solve the problem. Touting the “asylum freeze” as a key measure to deter illegal migrants was a public relations maneuver at best. Despite legitimate fears that this policy will normalize and encourage right-wing narratives, it will not significantly change the situation on the ground – for better or for worse. Over the past three years, Poland has used rejections against migrants, including those who exhibit violent behavior, while the number of asylum applications submitted to Polish authorities has remained relatively low (10,700 this year until September, mostly from Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians). Most migrants consider Poland as a transit country and do not want to apply for asylum and settle here. The new asylum rules, if adopted, will thus not reduce the number of border crossings, nor will they significantly worsen the situation of asylum seekers.

As Europe’s dominant language on migration hardens — Tusk received wholehearted support from his colleagues at the recent EU summit — viable solutions to illegal migration remain limited. Neither the suspension of the right to asylum, nor the consolidated controls at internal borders (endangering the Schengen area), nor the resettlement mechanism envisaged by the migration pactwill ensure an effective control or reduction of migration flows, as they do not address the main shortcomings of the European asylum system.

First, the ineffectiveness of the return policy: according to a recent statement by Ursula von der Leyen, only 20% of migrants scheduled for deportation are actually repatriated to their countries of origin. Second, the strong incentive for economic migrants to use illegal routes to reach Europe: if the likelihood of being sent back is minimal, why not take the risk? The result is smuggling and the tragic death toll associated with it. Thirdly, the asylum system is it is not correct: favors those with a lot of money (for smugglers) and health (to survive the journey), not those most in need of protection.

Unlike populists, mainstream democratic parties cannot ignore the right to asylum. Nor will they ever overcome the brutality and radicalism of the populists when addressing migration. The middle ground between the unsustainable status quo and the tactics proposed by Orban or Trump is thin, but on foot. Through diplomatic efforts and partnerships, the European Union must encourage countries to adopt European and international asylum standards or to repatriate their citizens if they are refused asylum in the EU. European nations should provide financial support, legal migration pathways to Europe for their citizens and resettlement opportunities for refugees recognized by the UN refugee agency.

“The Rwanda model” should not be rejected outright, but developed to align with European standards. Sending migrants to safe third countries to process their asylum claims, provided this approach adheres to international law, could deter those seeking to exploit the EU asylum system. Making more countries in the world safe for refugees is in the interest of Europeans and in line with the Geneva Convention. Democrats and human rights defenders should not a priori reject these types of solutions, but rather focus on ensuring that they are compatible with our rule of law and human rights standards. In May 2024, a group of 15 EU countries (including Poland, but not Germany and France) signed a letter supporting this approach.

EU migration policy is undoubtedly at a crossroads. Emulating populist narratives and implementing superficial solutions will only lead to the further growth of right-wing parties, more brutality and the ultimate end of refugee protection – one of the key achievements of post-war Europe. But there is an alternative. If Tusk’s initiative pushes Europeans to overhaul the current asylum system by involving international partners and making third-country solutions adhere to EU standards, it would be a breakthrough worthy of its name. Otherwise, Tusk’s acclaimed success at the EU summit will turn out to be a mere Pyrrhic victory.