“Safe Enough for Me, But Not for You?”: How Europe Redefines Refuge for Refugees 

Guest post by Jasmin Lilian Diab. Jasmin is the Director of the Institute for Migration Studies and an Assistant Professor at the Lebanese American University. She is a Research Affiliate at the Centre for Refugee Studies at York University, a Global Fellow at Brown University’s Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Studies, and a Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Lebanese Studies at the University of Cambridge. As of 2024, she is a Visiting Professor at Sciences Po Lyon. 

Introduction 

“[...] So, let me get this straight. Lebanon is ‘safe enough’ for us Syrians at the moment, but not for EU citizens? Is that why they warn their citizens against travelling to Lebanon? Is that why they gave Lebanon 1 billion Euros to keep us in? To emphasise this? That Lebanon is safe enough for me, but not for you white fancy people? Have I understood this correctly?” 

—Interview, Syrian Male, 46 years old, North Lebanon, 2024 

As EU countries debate the ‘status’ and categorization of nearly two million Palestinians in Gaza and the displaced populations from South Lebanon, the question of who qualifies as a “refugee” or “internally displaced person” (IDP) and who is “entitled to protection” looms large. At the same time, these very countries caution their citizens against travelling to the Middle East due to “quickly-worsening” security concerns. This juxtaposition reveals a troubling contradiction at the heart of European policies: while certain regions are deemed too dangerous for European travellers, they are considered safe enough to return refugees to, and leave displaced groups in. This contradiction raises serious questions about the values underpinning EU policies on migration and refugee protection. 

Over the past decade, the EU has faced significant challenges and committed gross human rights violations whilst ‘managing’ migration and refugee flows from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Often referred to as refugee rentierism, the response from many EU countries has been to externalise the responsibility of migration, adopting policies that often seek to deter or return refugees to their countries of origin or redirect them to other states within the MENA. This approach is starkly at odds with the safety advisories these same countries issue to their citizens, advising them to avoid travel to these regions due to risks such as violence, terrorism, political instability, and health concerns. As part of a larger ongoing study on the hierarchization of refugees (and refuge), this blog post examines the deep-seated racial hierarchization and white supremacy that underpin these contradictory policies, exploring how they reflect a broader North-South divide. 

The Paradox of Safety: Racial Hierarchization in EU Policies 

The paradox at the core of EU migration policies is striking: EU countries routinely issue travel advisories cautioning against visits to many MENA countries, citing risks such as political unrest, terrorist activities, and general insecurity. Yet, when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, these countries often deem parts of these regions—such as Libya, Sudan, or Syria—safe enough to return people who have fled conflict, persecution, or severe socio-economic conditions. All while telling the citizens of these countries that they do not ‘qualify’ for asylum. . The recent EU-Lebanon deal, for instance, is a reminder that even amid EU countries warning their citizens against travelling to the country which is currently entangled in a regional armed conflict, the EU will give Lebanon 1 billion Euros to ensure that refugees within the country, as well as its own citizens, do not leave its shores and head their way. 

This paradox highlights a troubling double standard in the way safety is assessed. For European citizens, safety criteria are stringent; entire regions are often deemed unsafe based on relatively broad security assessments. For refugees and asylum seekers, however, the standard is markedly lower. The same regions and countries considered too dangerous for European tourists are judged “safe” for those who have already suffered significant trauma, violence and displacement. This discrepancy suggests a hierarchy in the valuation of human lives, where the worth of an individual is determined not by universal standards but by their origin and perceived worth. A clear example of this can be seen in the 2016 EU-Turkey Statement, where Turkey was labelled a “safe third country” for refugees, despite documented cases of inadequate reception conditions and forced returns to conflict zones. This selective approach to safety assessments, driven by political expediency rather than humanitarian concern, underscores a pattern of racial and geopolitical hierarchization that is replicated other agreements such as Libya and EU’s Migrant Interception Agreement, whereby conditions post-return continue to be marked by detention, torture, rape and sexual violence, extortion, forced labour and unlawful killings. 

To understand the roots of this paradox, we must consider the historical and racial contexts that inform contemporary EU policies. The legacy of European colonialism has a profound impact on how countries in the MENA and broader African continent are perceived. Legacies of racial hierarchies endure today in policies that continue to devalue non-European lives. White supremacy, though often implicit, additionally serves as a critical factor in shaping these policies. The underlying belief that European lives are inherently more valuable and deserving of protection manifests in the way EU countries prioritise the safety of their citizens while disregarding the well-being of non-European refugees.  

Externalization of the Refugee Burden 

The EU’s externalisation policies are a direct manifestation of this racial hierarchization. By shifting the responsibility for refugee protection to transit countries in the MENA, the EU effectively places the responsibility of managing migration flows on these states. This approach includes funding border controls, establishing detention centres, and making agreements with third countries to prevent migrants from reaching Europe, such as Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Lebanon. While these policies may address “immediate political concerns” within the EU, they often come at a severe cost to human rights and international protection norms. 

The impact on refugees is profound. Despite the obligations of transit countries under refugee law, those intercepted in transit countries often face inhumane conditions, abuse, and a lack of legal protections. These externalisation policies prioritise European security concerns over the rights and well-being of refugees and migrants, reflecting a deep-seated belief in the inferiority of non-European lives. The result is a system that perpetuates inequality and injustice, where the most vulnerable are left in precarious situations with little hope of a safe or dignified resolution. 

Contradictions extend to the asylum procedures themselves. The burden of proof placed on asylum seekers from these regions is exceptionally high. They are required to provide detailed evidence of persecution, danger, and personal risk—often a challenging and traumatic task for individuals who have fled violent or unstable environments. Ironically, many of the countries from which these asylum applicants originate are simultaneously listed on travel warning lists for EU citizens. The EU advises its citizens against travelling to these regions due to security concerns, yet requires refugees to prove that they face significant danger there. 

Implications of the EU’s Contradictory Policies 

The discrepancy between EU travel advisories and refugee return policies, alongside the prolonged asylum processes, exposes a clear double standard driven by both historical and contemporary racism. By declaring regions unsafe for their own citizens yet safe for returning refugees, EU countries reinforce a hierarchy that privileges European lives over those from the MENA and African regions. This is more than policy inconsistency; it’s a reflection of racialized decision-making that perpetuates long-standing inequalities in global migration systems. 

Addressing this issue demands more than superficial adjustments—it requires a fundamental rethinking of the core values shaping the EU’s refugee protection approach. A meaningful shift would involve dismantling the racial hierarchies that prioritize some lives over others and recognizing the deeper implications of these policies. The case of Lebanon, where displaced populations live in prolonged uncertainty, offers a compelling lens to examine this broader trend. Ultimately, genuine equality will only be possible when the EU confronts the persistence of racism and inequity within its migration frameworks and commits to creating a truly just system for all, regardless of origin. 

Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or post a comment here or on Facebook. You can also tweet us.