The Right to Resort to the Bargaining Card: How Migration Became an Arena of Political Conflict

Dr Al-Sadiq Ali Haj Al-Sheikh
In a world where war, poverty and political instability intersect, people often find themselves forced down paths they never chose, leaving behind their homeland and memories in search of safety. Seeking asylum is not merely a matter of crossing borders; it is a painful human journey that begins when remaining in one’s own country becomes a threat to life and dignity.
Today, however, this journey is increasingly shaped by political calculations and the competing interests of states. Refugees find themselves caught between protections guaranteed by international law and national policies influenced by concerns over security, the economy and national identity. Between those who regard asylum as a humanitarian obligation and those who view it as a political and social challenge, the issue has become a genuine test of the world’s ability to reconcile the protection of human beings with respect for state sovereignty.
The scale of the humanitarian crisis is reflected in the statistics. Millions of people around the world have been forced to flee their homes because of war, persecution and crises. At the same time, thousands of migrants and asylum seekers continue to risk their lives crossing deserts and seas. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), thousands of people have died or disappeared in recent years while attempting to reach Europe. The true figures are likely to be considerably higher, given that many shipwrecks leave neither survivors nor recoverable bodies.
Asylum in International Law: A Human Right Confronting Political Reality
Under international law, asylum constitutes a fundamental human right. International protection for refugees was significantly strengthened after the Second World War, particularly through the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which established the legal framework for protecting individuals fleeing persecution.
At the heart of this system lies the principle of non-refoulement—the prohibition against returning a person to a place where they face persecution, torture, or threats to their life.
Yet implementing these principles continually exposes tensions between states’ legal obligations and their sovereign right to protect their borders and regulate migration. States are expected to respect individuals’ right to seek protection while simultaneously maintaining border control and preventing irregular migration. This tension has generated an ongoing debate over how best to balance national security with humanitarian responsibility.
It is also essential to distinguish between refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants. A refugee enjoys international protection once their claim has been recognised. An asylum seeker is someone whose application for protection remains under consideration. A migrant, by contrast, may relocate for economic, educational or social reasons. Confusing these categories often distorts public debate and can result in policies that fail to distinguish between those seeking better opportunities and those fleeing for their lives.
Asylum as a Political Issue
In recent years, asylum and migration have become central political issues, particularly in the United States and Europe, where they increasingly feature in election campaigns. Some political movements associate migration with concerns about security, economic pressures, national identity and the strain on public services, while critics warn against blaming refugees for wider economic and social challenges.
As a result, refugees frequently find themselves caught between their need for protection and domestic political disputes entirely unrelated to the reasons for their displacement. This illustrates the dangers of politicising asylum, whereby individuals escaping war and persecution risk becoming little more than electoral statistics or bargaining tools in political contests.
The United States, Europe and Asylum Policy
In recent years, the United States has adopted increasingly restrictive approaches to migration and asylum, particularly along its southern border, placing greater emphasis on border security, reducing irregular entry and tightening asylum procedures.
Similarly, European states have strengthened the external borders of the European Union, tightened registration and screening procedures, enhanced cooperation with transit countries to prevent migration before it reaches Europe, and sought to reform mechanisms for sharing responsibility among Member States for receiving asylum seekers.
Governments argue that these measures are necessary to safeguard national security and public order, while critics contend that excessive restrictions risk denying protection to individuals facing genuine danger. The debate highlights the continuing difficulty of balancing states’ sovereign authority over migration with their legal and moral obligations towards those in need of international protection.
Europe, the Sahel and the Horn of Africa: Migration Management Through Conditional Cooperation
Europe no longer treats migration as a challenge that begins only at its borders. Instead, it increasingly seeks to manage migration before migrants reach European territory. Consequently, cooperation with countries in the Sahel, North Africa and the Horn of Africa—regions that serve as countries of origin or transit—has expanded considerably.
This has produced a relationship based upon reciprocal interests: Europe provides financial assistance, development aid, technical support and security cooperation, while African states assist in combating human trafficking, strengthening border controls, limiting irregular migration and, in some cases, facilitating the return of individuals who are not granted legal protection or residence.
From a European perspective, these policies are intended to reduce dangerous migration routes and dismantle human trafficking networks. From a human rights perspective, however, they raise concerns about transferring migration management responsibilities to countries whose asylum systems may not always provide adequate protection.
At the same time, African governments recognise that their geographical position and role along migration routes provide them with significant negotiating leverage. They therefore seek to translate cooperation on migration into broader support for development, security and institutional capacity-building. Migration has thus become part of a wider diplomacy of mutual interests, with African countries leveraging their strategic location while Europe employs financial assistance and cooperation as incentives to sustain these partnerships.
The Khartoum Process: A Model of European–African Cooperation
The Khartoum Process, launched in 2014, represents an important example of this evolving approach. It established a framework for dialogue and cooperation between the European Union and countries in the Horn of Africa on migration and asylum issues, including efforts to combat human trafficking and migrant smuggling, address the root causes of migration, and strengthen cooperation in development and institutional capacity-building.
The initiative reflects a relationship based upon mutual interests. Europe requires African cooperation to reduce migration flows, while African countries seek European support for development, security and institutional strengthening.
The challenge, however, lies in ensuring that such cooperation extends beyond financing border control mechanisms and develops into genuine partnerships that address the underlying causes of migration and displacement. Addressing the symptoms without tackling the causes merely changes migration routes rather than resolving the problem.
The Human Dimension: When the Search for Safety Becomes a Journey Towards Death
Behind the legal and political debates surrounding asylum and migration lies an ongoing humanitarian tragedy involving thousands of people who lose their lives attempting to reach Europe via dangerous sea and desert routes.
According to data from the United Nations and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), thousands of people die or disappear each year along migration routes to Europe, particularly across the Mediterranean and along the Atlantic route linking West Africa to the Canary Islands.
One of the most devastating incidents occurred in 2023 with the sinking of a migrant vessel off Pylos, Greece, where approximately 650 people are believed to have died or disappeared, while only 104 survived. Similar tragedies have repeatedly occurred along the Atlantic route, where boats departing from the West African coast often disappear during lengthy and hazardous voyages.
Nor is the tragedy confined to the sea. Desert crossings expose migrants to thirst, starvation, extreme temperatures, exploitation and violence. In many cases, victims’ bodies are never recovered, meaning that official statistics almost certainly underestimate the true scale of the loss of life.
These figures are not merely statistics. They represent children, women and men who embarked upon extraordinarily dangerous journeys because they saw no safe alternative for obtaining protection or securing a better future. As lawful migration pathways become increasingly restricted, human smuggling networks become more influential, and the risks associated with migration increase correspondingly.
This exposes one of the central paradoxes of contemporary migration policy. While stricter border controls may reduce the number of arrivals, they do not necessarily eliminate the factors driving migration. Instead, they may compel desperate individuals to undertake even longer and more dangerous journeys. Border protection, therefore, cannot be separated from the protection of human life.
Towards a More Balanced Approach
Addressing the asylum crisis cannot depend solely upon stricter border controls. It requires a comprehensive strategy focused on addressing the root causes of conflict, poverty and instability, strengthening international cooperation, sharing responsibility for refugee protection, developing fair and efficient asylum systems, and combating human trafficking networks.
Similarly, partnerships between Europe and Africa should move beyond the narrow framework of “migration control in exchange for assistance” towards broader cooperation centred upon stability, development, investment, employment creation, education, conflict resolution and long-term peacebuilding.
Conclusion
The issue of asylum remains a powerful measure of the international community’s ability to reconcile national interests with humanitarian principles. States unquestionably have the right to protect their borders and regulate migration. However, that right should never become a justification for abandoning their legal and humanitarian obligations.
The solution lies not merely in constructing more barriers, but in creating a less unstable world—one in which the causes of displacement are addressed before they generate new refugee crises.
True security is not achieved by closing the door on those in need. It is achieved by fostering peace, development and justice, enabling people to remain safely in their own countries or, when forced to flee, to find refuge that preserves their dignity.
Ultimately, the real question is not simply how to prevent refugees from arriving, but how to prevent the conditions that force them to flee in the first place, and how to ensure that the search for safety never becomes a journey towards death.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=16662