In a recent interview with a German newspaper, Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis refers to his project of extending the wall at the external Evros border with Türkiye by calling it a ‘protective barrier’ and just one of several components that will help to reduce ‘illegal migration’. This statement of his raises several questions. For instance it is already arguable, if it is really the European territory that needs to be protected, rather than the people reaching it in search of safety. Which is, as the Greek government should know, a right that is guaranteed by International and European law and therefore anything but illegal.

Greece firstly finished a wall at the Evros border in 2012. Back then, it had a length of 12.5 km and was patrolled by Greek border guards as well as by officers from Frontex. Additionally, floating barriers were placed along the river. In 2021, the country extended its wall up to 40 km in the following year, in order to further impede people from crossing the border to Greece, stating at the same time, that the border will remain ‘safe and inviolable’. In April this year, Mitsotakis signed the contract for an additional 35 km extension. In the event that accompanied the signing of the contract, Mitsotakis explained his intention of building a border fence that extends the complete external border with Türkiye, which signifies a total length of 140 km.

Today, the Greek wall is accompanied by digital border surveillance, as well as an increasing number of border guards and barbed wire. However, despite the widely expanded surveillance system, the authorities regularly fail in protecting people in need of rescue. Instead, the number of reported incidents of violence and push backs has increased in recent years, making accessing asylum in Greece even more difficult. Furthermore, getting information about the situation at the border remains difficult. Since the area is a military exclusion zone, access is highly restricted. Therefore, human right violations can happen without being documented. Another reason why Brussels should keep insisting on an Independent Monitoring System, as it has been requested by several NGOs for a long time.

Mitsotakis estimates that Greece will need 99.2 Million Euro for the newly signed extension of the border fence. Examining the concerns from different actors, it is not surprising that the European Union has so far been refusing to provide the necessary financial support. Until now, financing walls at the external borders is a red line the Commission prefers not to cross.

Nevertheless, their approach is rather contradictory, as the European Union does not agree on financing the wall itself, but the technology that supports it. The Commission agreed on funding what is vaguely called ‘infrastructure’, including watchtowers, vehicles and so on. The rejection of funding the physical wall itself, is explained by referring to the European principle of sound financial management, as stated in Article 33 of the financial regulation, including the principles of economy, effectiveness and efficiency. However, it can be claimed that by financing the necessary infrastructure that accompanies border fences for them to function, the European Union de facto funds the fences as well or at least facilitates their construction.

The issue is an ongoing topic in European bodies, that is far from over. It has also reached the EU Parliament, where the ‘European conservatives and reformists’ have recently introduced an amendment which specifically called for the fund of border barriers. Even though it failed in a close vote, the manoeuvre has shown the growing support for a European policy that counts on isolation.

Additionally, the Greek Prime Minister stated that the wall was one of the measures that ‘helped’ preventing 250.000 people from entering the borders in the past years. Considering the lack of legal and safe pathways for people in need of protection, it is questionable if the interception of 250.000 people without an individualized process isn’t a breach of international law - e.g. article 18 and 19 of the EU Charta of Fundamental Rights - rather than something the Greek government should be proud of.

Greece is at the forefront of the response to the increase of people arriving at EU territory and has – due to a lack of international solidarity – reasonable interests when it comes to the regulation of border crossings. Nevertheless, it must do so in accordance with its legal obligations, including the protection of human rights as well as the rule of law.

Also, contrary to frequent statements made by different members of the Greek government, the majority of those who arrive on Greek territory are indeed entitled to International protection. This is something that is not only demonstrated by reports on the situation in the different countries of origin of people seeking asylum, but also by the recognition rates, which remain high despite the obstacles people face when being confronted with the Greek asylum system.

For example, the overall recognition rate in-merits in 2022 for first instance decisions was 62.3 %. In other words - about three in five applications examined on the merits were accepted. For certain countries of origin, the recognition rate was especially high - e.g. the recognition rate for Afghan nationals was 99.6 % in the same year. The recognition rates highlight why in a world that is suffering from several crises that cause the displacement of millions of people, the European answer cannot be the construction of walls, sitting still and hoping for less people to come. Instead, if Greece and the European Union want to fairly manage migration, they must ensure that there are safe and regular ways for people to arrive at the territory as well as accessible points where people are able to exercise their right to seek asylum.

Experience has shown that the costs for building a wall exceed its benefits. Ultimately, physical barriers and more militarized borders do not stop people from crossing borders, but force them to re-route and opt for more dangerous routes instead. An increase of border enforcement also leads to increased opportunities for smugglers to make profit. This happens to the detriment of people in danger and contrary to Greece’s often stated objective to fight human smuggling. Walls are not only ineffective, but instead can be seen as a mainly symbolic tool. Their symbolic effect is one though, that the European Union - that is built on certain values - should rather avoid.  Throughout history walls have been seldom remembered as a good idea and most likely it won’t be different with this one. Or as Luxembourg’s prime minister Bettel phrased it: “I’d be ashamed to see a fence with a sign ‘Financed by the EU’ on it.”