European leaders hailed a deal thrashed out in the small hours of Friday as a breakthrough in the acrimonious dispute over migrants -- but does it really provide long-term solutions?
Analysts say the agreement has provided face-saving measures for leaders where immigration has become sensitive, particularly in Italy and Germany.
But they warn that key elements of the deal remain vague and that it could create new problems for a bloc badly split over how to deal with people fleeing violence and poverty in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.
Is everyone happy with the deal?
On the face of it, the deal allowed major players in the migration row -- particularly German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italy’s new populist government -- to claim success.
Merkel, whose coalition hangs in the balance due to a row over immigration, returned with a pledge from other countries to try to stop migrants from moving on towards Germany.
Italy’s Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, whose government said it had enough of migrants landing from Libya, succeeded in furthering his agenda of asking for greater solidarity from other EU states after threatening to sink the summit.
The rightwing “Visegrad” governments of central Europe -- Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic -- meanwhile hailed the deal as a huge victory, as it does not force them to accept any migrants.
Europe-watchers have highlighted the voluntary nature of the deal, saying it opens the door for fresh accusations that some countries are shouldering more of the burden than others.
But Pascale Joannin, director of the Robert Schuman Foundation, said voluntary European initiatives had succeeded in the past, such as the Schengen passport-free zone and defence cooperation. “It’s better when you can do things with all 28 countries, but when states are stubborn you can move forward with just some of them,” she said.
Which problems haven’t been addressed?’
“The text commits to nothing, no countries are named, there are no figures,” said Sebastien Maillard, head of the Jacques Delors Institute, a European think-tank based in Paris.
The deal’s proposal of “controlled centres” in volunteer EU countries, where migrants would have their asylum claims processed and be sent home if they are considered ineligible, has already run into trouble.
France and Austria swiftly counted themselves out because they are not on the main migrant route -- hardly the display of solidarity Italy is demanding.
“What really lies under the voluntary aspect is that it masks an absence of real agreement,” said Maillard.
Will the deal stop migrants arriving?
Migrants are crossing the Mediterranean in far lower numbers than at their peak in 2015, but the influx remains a source of bitter contention in Europe.
The deal includes several measures aimed at deterring migrants from coming, including the “disembarkation platforms” and a boosted African investment fund to create opportunities at home.
“The only thing European states appear to have agreed on is to block people at the doorstep of Europe regardless of how vulnerable they are, or what horrors they are escaping,” MSF’s emergencies chief Karline Kleijer said.
Does the deal protect migrants?
Rights groups say it’s too soon to tell what will become of the deal, but they worry it will make life harder for migrants themselves.
Philippe Dam, Europe advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said it was unclear what would happen at the new asylum-processing centres either within or outside Europe.
But he feared they could detain migrants at length or fail to properly consider asylum applications in their haste to process them.
