Why Kosovo and Colombia Should Not Be Considered Safe for Asylum Seekers

Introduction

The European Union maintains a list of countries designated as “safe,” implying that asylum seekers from these states face no serious risk of persecution, torture, or conflict. While this classification aims to streamline the asylum process, it has drawn increasing criticism for overlooking ground realities. Among the most contentious entries are Kosovo and Colombia—two nations facing persistent instability, human rights concerns, and systemic violence.

Kosovo: Post-War Tensions and Ethnic Friction

Despite gaining independence in 2008, Kosovo remains embroiled in deep-rooted ethnic and political tensions. The region continues to experience sporadic violence, particularly in the Serb-majority north, where clashes with security forces and targeted attacks persist. Minority groups, including ethnic Serbs and Roma, face discrimination and limited access to public services.

Furthermore, Kosovo grapples with high unemployment, fragile democratic institutions, and limited press freedom. Many civil society organizations and international watchdogs argue that Kosovo’s security situation remains precarious, and vulnerable populations are still at risk.

Colombia: A Fragile Peace and Endemic Violence

Colombia’s inclusion on the safe country list is equally contentious. While the 2016 peace accord with the FARC was a historic step, the country remains plagued by violence from other armed groups, such as the ELN and dissident FARC factions. Human rights defenders, journalists, indigenous communities, and Afro-Colombians are frequently targeted in rural areas.

Despite governmental efforts, impunity for violent crimes remains widespread. Colombia continues to experience forced displacement, drug-related violence, and inadequate state presence in many regions. These issues contradict the EU’s criteria for deeming a country “safe.”

Human Rights Concerns and EU Policy Implications

The classification of Kosovo and Colombia as “safe” has significant implications for asylum seekers. Applications from nationals of these countries may be fast-tracked or rejected outright, under the presumption that return does not pose a serious risk.

However, multiple reports from the UN, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International highlight the dangers still present in both countries. Labeling them “safe” ignores individual vulnerabilities and contravenes the principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of international asylum law.

Conclusion

The inclusion of Kosovo and Colombia on the EU’s safe country list reflects a disconnect between policy and reality. Asylum decisions should be grounded in up-to-date, evidence-based assessments that reflect the real risks faced by individuals. Until then, the illusion of safety continues to endanger lives.