THE "HUMAN RIGHTS BUSINESS"

European unity is under threat. And it is not just, or rather not so much the Greek crisis, which is keeping the financiers of many countries on tenterhooks. As many of the media have reported, the authorities in Denmark have announced their intention to resume controls on their borders with their neighbours in the Schengen Agreement - Germany and Sweden. Copenhagen has not disclosed the reason for its decision in order to protect itself from a flood of undesirable migrants. Denmark's intention to resume controls on its borders to combat illegal migration and smuggling was announced in an interview for the Danish news agency Ritzau by the country's new foreign minister, Kristian Jensen. He said the principles of border control comply with European legislation and will be coordinated with the neighbouring countries.

Experts recall that in 2011, against the background of an exacerbation of the migration crisis in the EU, Denmark announced that it was imposing border controls within the Schengen Zone: the authorities were prepared to spend 36m euros on strengthening the state borders, including providing equipment for the checkpoints. True enough, this decision was cancelled within a few months, mainly because it caused sharp criticism in the European Union. Its members regarded the Danes' move as a violation of the Schengen Agreements, the second article of which stipulates a lifting of border and customs controls within the borders of the Schengen Zone.

Many experts linked the Danish decision with the domestic political problems in that country. Indeed, the [centre-right] Venstre party, which has used anti-migration rhetoric in a very active way, has joined the Danish ruling coalition. The "precept" that Denmark occupies a leading place in the EU for the number of burglaries and, many people are convinced, most of them are committed by migrants from Eastern Europe coming to Denmark especially for this reason, was widely debated during the election campaign. However, as an analysis of statistics and practice shows, these sorts of xenophobic stereotypes are rarely justified.  But there is no doubt that the migration crisis is becoming an increasingly serious problem for Europe. And the urgency of the situation, experts believe, will only increase. Nearly 60 million people have been forced to leave their homes because of wars and persecution - that is the conclusion of an annual report published by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees - a record figure in the whole history of the UN. Many migrants die without achieving their cherished goal: to reach their point of destination they often have to cross deserts and seas. Particularly difficult in this respect is the Mediterranean, which separates Europe from Africa. In recent years it has become a communal grave for tens of thousands of migrants who had no chance of breaking out of the hulls of the sinking ships, the UN experts said. "In an age of unprecedented mass displacement of people we need an unprecedented humanitarian response," Antonio Gutteres, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said, presenting his report. "And also a renewed global commitment to tolerance and protection for people fleeing conflicts and persecution."

Of course, the series of tragedies off the shores of Europe has already forced the EU countries to take urgent action. The media has given details of how the navies of a number of European countries have begun an impressive rescue operation in the Mediterranean. But at the same time, a proposal to settle migrants in other EU countries, and not only those who for geographical reasons were the first to receive boats crammed with people, led to real disputes: not everyone was happy to see the "uninvited guests" from North Africa. And now the media are reporting more and more new "incidents".

The movement of trains in the Channel Tunnel was temporarily disrupted because of attempts by large groups of illegal migrants to enter it, a spokesman for the region's prefecture said. He said that "about 150 migrants broke through the barriers and reached the platforms where the special trains carrying vehicles through the tunnel operate from". It was not until three hours later, thanks to intervention by the police, that the situation was returned to normal. The police had to check every single truck in that area.

According to the Calais Department prefecture, there are now about 3,000 "illegals" there, mainly from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan and Afghanistan. And the worst thing is that no-one has a clear and reliable solution to the problem of migration. To patrol the territorial waters, which the EU is now doing? This, experts are convinced, is a "palliative measure", which will only slightly relieve the more painful symptoms of the problem. Destroying the boats in which the migrants sail to Europe is no solution, either. They will simply send whatever vessels they can spare. And at every port there are dozens of stories about how the dealers in live cargo have got rid of this "cargo" at sea, barely having seen the patrol boats.

But the main thing is that sending illegal migrants to Europe has long since become a profitable and prosperous business.

The world first learnt about this kind of business in the context of the US-Mexican border, which groups of "illegals" from Latin America constantly try to cross, hoping to find work in the US. Those who secretly and at a price promise to help people cross the border on both sides of the Rio Grande are not very respectfully called "coyotes".   

Reports are now filtering through to the European media that a place on the boats - which often fail to reach the shores of Europe - could cost from 3,000 to 5,000 euros - a huge sum for the poor countries of North Africa. And discovered in these boats are citizens of Afghanistan or Bangladesh, who still had to make it to Misurata in Libya.

But it is also true that just as many refugees come to Europe by perfectly comfortable means and are already applying for asylum here. And this is where the most important and - let's be frank most distasteful - things begin.

Yes, the right to political asylum is regarded as one of the most basic in the world. But something else is just as well known. This asylum, particularly with the present rush, is not granted "automatically". A request to obtain it sets off a mechanism, the purpose of which is to separate the political migrants - those who in their own country are really subjected to persecution for political, ethnic, racial or some other reasons - from "economic" migrants who simply want to move to a comfortable and prosperous Europe. It is true that everyone has a ready-made story about political persecution. In the USSR the status of refugee was applied to any "defector". Then the rules were gradually tightened. Today the procedure can drag out for several years and statements are checked thoroughly and scrupulously.  A few years ago, members of the Swedish Migration Service visited Baku where they met not only state officials, but also journalists. In a conversation with me one of them, mentioning that the stories about persecution, and so on, were thoroughly checked, said with a grin: "We're not the dumb blondes many take us to be."

But in reality this careful mechanism often misses the mark. Back in the 1980s the Turkish authorities regularly protested that in European countries functionaries of the notorious PPK (Kurdistan Workers Party) had been given the status of political refugees. Some EU countries recognized it as a terrorist organization whereas others didn't, but each individual representative, of course, dutifully said that he was a "fighter for the rights of the oppressed Kurdish people", and had no difficulty in obtaining the status of political refugee. In any event the murder in Paris of one Sakina Cansiz, who was on the run in Turkey for terrorism but lived in France with the status of political refugee, made people sit up and take notice.

Even more significant events took place after 16 February 1999, when the Turkish special services arrested the founder and head of the KWP [PKK] terrorist gang, Abdullah Ocalan, in the Kenyan capital Nairobi. Even before reports of this appeared in the press, an internal alarm system was activated within the KWP. Greek embassies were seized by members of the KWP in many cities in Europe. "Protest actions" gripped Marseilles, London, Bonn, Frankfurt and The Hague. The most audacious operation was the seizure of the UN headquarters in Geneva by a detachment of 40 Kurdish militants. The shocked European journalists admitted: "We have only now seen the true face of the KWP!" As the "Europeans" admitted through clenched teeth, the KWP was very effectively controlling those very "migration paths" where not only was there a political contract, but money, too. And wherever there is big and illegal money there is always a place for corruption, including, but more precisely, mainly among those same human rights advocates who had all but secured for themselves a monopoly on "white tunics".

For obvious reasons, in order to expose all the details of today's "asylum trade", at least another [Edward] Snowden would be required, but from among the professional "human rights fighters". However, informed sources advise focusing attention on this particular detail: "Someone arrives, say, in Europe and says that in his country he has been subjected to terrible persecution because he fought for democracy. Who do you think the migration authorities should turn to in order to decide whether he is telling the truth or not? There may be many sources of information, but they will unfailingly turn to the human rights people. And now that human rights activists have come across blatant discreditable financial practices in Azerbaijan, who is going to rule out the possibility that even before he departs citizen A will come to an agreement with human rights advocate B, and the latter - at a price, of course! - will confirm his story about "persecution"? Lists of "political prisoners", information about the overall level of democracy - everything today is supplied by one small group of civilian activists who have rapidly converted their "information monopoly" into a profitable business.