The UN refugee agency is urging Lithuania to rethink its hard-line approach to irregular migration on the Belarusian border and to fully implement its commitments under the European Union’s Migration and Asylum Pact, warning that unilateral deviations could erode a fragile compromise painstakingly reached in Brussels.
In an interview with BNS, Annika Sandlund, the UNHCR’s representative for the Nordic and Baltic countries, called for a review of Lithuania’s emergency legislation that allows border guards to summarily turn back migrants trying to enter from Belarus. The pushback policy, introduced in response to a surge in crossings in 2021 and later formalised by the Seimas in 2023, has become one of the most controversial elements of Lithuania’s migration management.
Sandlund stressed that the UNHCR strongly condemns the instrumentalisation of migrants by any state, including Belarus. Vilnius and its Western partners accuse the regime in Minsk of deliberately channelling migrants toward EU borders in an orchestrated attempt to destabilise Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. Yet, she argued, even when people are used as tools in a political confrontation, they remain victims in their own right. Many are prey to smugglers, traffickers and criminal networks and often flee difficult conditions or persecution in their countries of origin.
“We do not think that people should be used as pawns in a political chess game,” Sandlund said. “But we also recognise that people who are instrumentalised are victims. They are often victims of smuggling, of exploitation, of various criminal gangs.”
For the UNHCR, this has direct legal and practical consequences. Sandlund underlined that the way someone arrives at the border does not determine whether they are a refugee. That status depends on conditions in the person’s home country and on the individual circumstances of their flight, something that can only be established through proper asylum procedures. “That does not mean they are not refugees,” she said of people channelled by Belarus. “It is a separate determination that looks at the situation in your country of origin, not how you arrived.” From the agency’s point of view, Lithuania’s current approach “could definitely be reviewed at this stage”.
According to official figures, Lithuania has pushed back nearly 1,600 irregular migrants at its border with Belarus so far this year, compared with 1,002 in the whole of 2024. The influx began in 2021, when thousands of people, many from the Middle East and Africa, were encouraged or coerced into attempting to cross into the EU via Belarus. Vilnius responded by tightening border controls, building physical barriers and authorising rapid returns, arguing that it was facing a hybrid attack rather than a conventional migration situation.
Sandlund’s concerns do not stop at the border line. She also urged Lithuania to honour its obligations under the EU’s Migration and Asylum Pact, which aims to balance responsibility and solidarity among member states. Under the solidarity mechanism, each EU country must either accept a certain number of asylum seekers relocated from frontline states or make a financial contribution instead. The pact was the result of years of difficult negotiations, with governments trading concessions across multiple dossiers.
“We think it would be fairer to just accept what has already been decided,” Sandlund said, warning that if individual countries start to carve out their own approaches after the fact, the entire agreement risks unravelling. “The EU pact was years in the making, so all countries had many opportunities to negotiate, and in the end it is a compromise. If they do not, and everyone starts going their own way, the whole thing will fall apart.”
Lithuania’s stance on the solidarity mechanism has hardened in recent months. The government decided last week that it will take in only half of the migrants assigned to it for next year and pay a financial contribution for the remaining share. Under the pact adopted in May 2024, Lithuania is supposed to accept around 160 people annually or pay approximately 3.28 million euros instead, with the final numbers to be confirmed by the European Council. Interior Ministry officials note that any payments would have to be built into the state budget and would be made in 2027, once the accounting for 2026 is complete.
Prime Minister Inga Ruginienė has argued that Lithuania’s administrative capacity is limited and that the country can adequately vet and integrate only about 40 relocated asylum seekers per year. Beyond that, she says, state institutions would struggle to conduct proper security checks and provide the necessary support. Lithuania also points to the tens of thousands of Ukrainians it has taken in since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, as well as the ongoing pressure from irregular crossings at the Belarusian border, as reasons for caution in accepting any additional commitments.
Sandlund acknowledges that under the solidarity mechanism and standard resettlement practice, states retain the right to decide who ultimately comes. They can vet candidates for security and other reasons and refuse individuals who do not meet the criteria. However, she emphasised that this flexibility is already built into the EU pact. In her view, using it as a justification for unilaterally reducing the number of people accepted sends the wrong signal. “This mechanism does allow you to vet the refugees. We would encourage you to stick to the agreement,” she said.
Lithuania’s dual approach – strict pushbacks at the eastern border and a minimalist reading of its solidarity obligations in the EU – reflects a broader tension in European migration policy. On the one hand, governments in frontline states argue that they are dealing with hostile hybrid operations and must defend their borders robustly. On the other, international law and EU rules require that individuals who reach a border and express a need for protection be given access to asylum procedures and not be summarily turned away to unsafe conditions.
The UNHCR’s intervention is a reminder that there is an international expectation that even in hybrid scenarios, humanitarian and legal standards must be upheld. For Lithuania, a country that has positioned itself as a strong advocate for the rule of law and human rights in relation to Russia and Belarus, finding a balance between security and protection will be crucial not only for its international reputation but also for the cohesion of EU migration policy.
As the June 2026 start date for meeting its solidarity commitments draws closer, Vilnius will have to decide whether to align more closely with the letter and spirit of the pact or continue to seek exceptions and informal caps. The choice will reverberate beyond Lithuania’s borders. If one of the EU’s staunchest rule-of-law advocates is seen as selectively applying an agreement it signed, the arguments of those who want to treat migration policy as a purely national matter will gain strength. That is precisely the outcome the UNHCR is warning against as it appeals to Lithuania to review its emergency laws and respect the compromise reached in Brussels.
