The agreement between Italy and Albania to establish asylum-processing centers outside the territory of the European Union is a development that understandably raises serious concerns. This is not merely a new technical method for managing migration flows. Rather, it constitutes a profound political choice that may influence the way Europe perceives its obligations, values, and responsibilities regarding one of the most significant challenges of our time.
The European Union is facing genuine pressures. Rising migration flows, growing concerns among European societies regarding security and social cohesion, as well as the emergence of political forces advocating stricter border controls, are pushing governments to seek new solutions. It is within this context that the so-called “Albanian model” has emerged.
The question, however, is to what extent countries such as Albania can politically and socially assume such a role on a permanent basis. The current government in Tirana has chosen to respond positively, believing that this cooperation strengthens the country’s relations with the European Union and advances its European aspirations. Yet no government can ignore the domestic dimension of such a sensitive issue.
Experience shows that societies react when they feel their country is being asked to shoulder burdens that concern others. Opposition parties, the media, and civil society are likely to view such agreements as a limitation on national sovereignty or as a transformation of the country into a repository for problems that Europe is unable to manage within its own borders.
It is no coincidence that similar initiatives have failed in the past. The European Union has repeatedly attempted to develop mechanisms of cooperation with countries of origin or transit for migrants. In most cases, it encountered resistance. The governments of these countries concluded that the political and social costs outweighed the potential benefits.
At the same time, this new approach raises a broader question about Europe itself. The Union was built upon the principles of human dignity, respect for human rights, and the international protection of refugees. The Geneva Convention and the United Nations framework are not merely legal instruments; they are cornerstones of the post-war international order.
Certainly, Europe has both the right and the obligation to protect its borders effectively and to combat human smuggling networks. However, the externalization of asylum procedures cannot be allowed to evolve into a mechanism for transferring responsibilities to third countries. Otherwise, there is a risk of creating the impression that Europe is seeking ways to remove a problem from its territory rather than addressing it collectively and in accordance with its values.
The debate that is opening today extends far beyond migration policy. It concerns Europe’s very identity. It concerns whether security and humanitarianism can coexist, or whether one principle will ultimately yield to the other. And this is a question that concerns not only Brussels or Tirana. It concerns the future of Europe as a whole.