You went to Guyana. There, European law does not apply. Concretely, what differences have you noticed compared to your experience with Frontex?
I had for some time wanted to visit a particular territory: a French department located outside the Schengen area and outside certain provisions of European Union law. This department in which France exercises its sovereignty in migration matters. This wish was also part of a desire to meet our compatriots overseas. I went to Guyana, as you mentioned, accompanied by Rody Tolassy, MEP of the National Rally in Guadeloupe.
This trip allowed me to appreciate the suffering of our compatriots, confronted with imported violence. Guyana, located in South America, shares borders which are not always well controlled, and faces development challenges specific to this territory. These were the objectives of my stay.
This might surprise you, as a former director of Frontex, but I would like to say that currently, and very fortunately, Frontex does not have the legal competence to intervene in Guyana, nor in Mayotte for that matter. So, it is fortunate that Frontex is not present in our overseas territories and cannot send all these activists from Europe. The population of Guyana, whether French or foreigners living legally there, is fully aware of the precariousness of the situation.
It is an economically less developed territory, despite significant potential, and which is facing extremely rapid population growth. This leads to major challenges in sectors such as education and health. We cannot therefore afford to see in Guyana a situation comparable to that of Mayotte.
We sometimes find ourselves in quite paradoxical situations, typical of French administrative law. For example, with regard to Administrative Detention Centers (CRA), to send detainees back to South America, they must first go through Paris. What do you think of this situation?
I actually visited the administrative detention center near Cayenne, where we were warmly welcomed by border police officials. We then met the prefect of Guyana, who received us with great availability. He was accompanied by the directors of the services involved in border protection, such as the departmental director of the border police, the commander of the gendarmerie groups, due to the fight against gold panning, and the head of customs.
There was also the general, commander of the military system in Guyana, involved in securing the borders and the fight against gold panning. This reception shows that the National Rally is a serious party, and that the government cannot afford to neglect, so to speak, a delegation made up of three French European parliamentarians belonging to our movement. Subsequently, my colleagues and I visited the border at Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni.
We sailed by canoe on the Maroni, which forms the border between France, and more precisely the department of Guyana, and Suriname, a former Dutch colony, still influenced by the Netherlands, although totally independent today. Coming back to the administrative detention center, we were able to see the absurdity of the situation: to return foreigners in an irregular situation in Guyana to their neighboring countries in South America, it is necessary that they first go through Paris.
Indeed, French police officers explained to us that they often find themselves obliged to pass irregular migrants through Roissy, which forces them to transport them to mainland France. This represents a journey of approximately 8,000 kilometers, before sending them back to South America. This is an absurd situation.
From a logistical point of view, we can say that, on an economic and financial level, this constitutes inefficient management of resources. But beyond this aspect, this also presents a legal risk, because these people are in a French territory with a special status. Indeed, this territory is outside the framework of European Union rules regarding immigration and border management. By taking them to metropolitan territory, we transport them to an area where European law fully applies.
What motivated you to leave your position as director of Frontex to become a Member of the European Parliament for the National Rally? What prompted this change of direction in your career?
I have always tried to work in compliance with European rules as they exist, at least in theory. My goal was to make Frontex function as a real border and coast guard agency, in line with the expectations of states and national governments, including the left-wing one in Madrid, which, although having difficulty in pronouncing against the NGOs, did not put up any resistance when it came to finding solutions to reduce the number of migrants. This was what was expected of us.
However, a balance of power quickly emerged. I took office in January 2015 and left in April 2022. By the summer of 2017, we were already feeling tensions. The agency was experiencing phenomenal growth, both in terms of staff and budget. In my public speeches, I began to assert that Frontex was not a humanitarian NGO and that we should not make it a super NGO.
I said this to my employees during cohesion and internal training seminars, and I increasingly expressed this position in my public communications and in the media at European level. I reiterated that our role should be that of a police force helping Member States to control their borders, and that we should not act like NGOs or collaborate with them in this regard. This declaration ended a taboo and removed the ambiguity that existed about the agency's mission.
Also read: Fabien Bouglé, energy policy expert: “We are witnessing the start of the energy war! »
