Summits Exacerbate Problem of Refugees which the Big Powers Themselves Create

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Summits Exacerbate Problem of Refugees which the Big Powers Themselves Create

Actions against the G8 Kananaskis Summit

Myths and Realities – Asylum in Britain

UNHCR: World Refugee Day Marked

The G8 summit in Canada and the Seville summit of the European Council have taken decisions on the fate of peoples which, among other things, will exacerbate the problem of refugees and how dispersed peoples and people seeking asylum are dealt with.

The British government itself is and has been one of the most backward in its proposals for people seeking asylum, and refuses to look in anything but a self-serving way at the nature of the issue and what are its causes. It has been the biggest champion of the Action Plan for Africa which aims to counter the demand of the African peoples to decide their own future for their own benefit with a programme to bring Africa within the globalised imperialist system for the benefit of the financial elite. At the same time, it was the advocate of a programme for penalising countries from which those seeking refuge come. Not only this, but its is pushing a Bill through parliament with is openly based on the premise that Britain is a so-called "soft touch" for asylum seekers and takes steps to make it more difficult for them to seek a "better life" in this country. Not a few people have pointed out that while Tony Blair is so keen to globalise the movement of capital he is dead set against the globalisation of the movement of peoples.

Together, this adds up, as the Jesuit Refugee Service Europe director, John Dardis, said: "Europe is prepared to spend billions of euros on control of its borders but can't find the money to address the root causes of migration. When you put the results of the G8 summit with the results from the Seville summit, it has not been a good month for refugees."

David Blunkett in his forward to the White Paper on which the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill is based, cites the causes of the problem of refugees, like that of fear and hunger, as "conflict, war and persecution". He does not enquire much further into the causes of conflict, war and persecution themselves. But even taking David Blunkett at his word, it would follow that Tony Blair's international trips as the chief salesman for the British arms monopolies must be placed high up on the list of the factors fuelling enforced migration of peoples. Indeed, if one looks at the Home Office figures for the first quarter of 2002 on the nationality of the majority of those seeking refuge in Britain, one finds first of all that people from Iraq, where Britain and the US have been the biggest advocates of the genocidal sanctions and which they have never stopped bombing, head the list. Refugees from the Anglo-US war on Afghanistan comes next. People of Zimbabwean nationality, where Britain has openly fomented trouble and refused to honour its obligations, are fifth in number, behind Sri Lanka and Somalia. Of course, when the US was bombing Kosova, with British backing, people seeking refuge from the conflict in the Balkans swelled the numbers.

However, this is not the whole story, because the economic and political agenda of globalisation, with its enslaving relations, also cause devastation and cause people to become, in the phrase which the government uses with contempt, "economic migrants". "Aid" is given with strings attached and massive debts accrue. For example, at the G8 summit "debt relief" of $1bn was offered whereas African leaders had asked for between $15bn and $20bn. Nothing was done about the high duties imposed on goods from African countries.

The European Council, at its Seville summit, in calling for striking "a fair balance" between an asylum policy complying with international conventions and action to combat "illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings" did not start from what is just and humane, still less the issue of the reasons behind seeking asylum. The use of the term "fair balance" underlines that the EU leaders did not consider the rights of asylum seekers as human beings.

Instead they were concerned about the "proper management of migration flows" and "integrated management of external borders". While it paid lip-service to "an integrated, comprehensive and balanced approach to tackle the root causes of illegal immigration", this was presented as nothing more than a "long-term objective". Even within this context, its reference to "closer economic cooperation, trade expansion, development assistance and conflict prevention" as means of "promoting economic prosperity in the countries concerned" shows that the same policies and values which have led to the contemporary problem of refugees are to be followed. Instead, "third countries which do not cooperate in combating illegal immigration" are made the problem.

Tony Blair's position was particularly backward in this regard. He emphasised the "comprehensive approach which is based on first measures to combat illegal migration, including action on visas, readmission agreements and a repatriation programme, including early returns to Afghanistan". This year, he said, the government wants "agreed co-ordinated management of external borders, including joint operations at external borders, and a network of member states’ immigration liaison officers" followed by "a common approach to the point of external borders and the common issues and risks that are associated with them". He added that the government reserves the "right to adopt any appropriate measures should they (countries of origin) fail to cooperate". When Tony Blair says that "certain parts of our economy are dependent on those migrant workers – what we object to is illegal immigration," he is saying that the government bases its stand on what is beneficial to the making of capitalist profit. Thus, unskilled labour is welcomed into the country on a short-term basis, for example in agriculture, provided it does not have the same protection which is afforded to British-based labour. On the other hand, work permits are granted under Crown Prerogative to highly skilled migrants – numbering 82,437 in the years 2000 – and a "Highly Skilled Migrant Programme" was inaugurated in January. In the NHS, also, the government is recruiting abroad on such a scale that poorer countries are bitterly complaining that their skilled health staff are being severely depleted, causing grave problems for the health of the people. The government's aim in ending "illegal immigration" is also linked, as he says to "making sure that our relationship with [the countries of origin] is one founded on good governance", in other words that they adopt the western values of representative democracy, a market economy, and so forth.
Thus, the humane treatment of immigrants is the last thing on Tony Blair's mind, and nor is the government's programme one of assessing asylum and immigration within the wider context of war, poverty and the enslaving relations of globalisation. Least of all is it to recognise the rights of those seeking asylum, refuge and a better life, or upholding the right of peoples and nations to solve their own problems without outside interference.

The aim of the EU leaders as a whole was to ensure the mobility of labour within the EU but set up "secure borders" which constitute barriers to those seeking immigration from outside, as well as strengthening customs barriers and tightening up on visas. At the same time, the method of the EU of addressing "illegal" immigrants is to refuse to recognise their rights as human beings. It is in this sense that the slogan "No Person Is Illegal" is being raised in marches and protests against the inhuman treatment of people seeking asylum. Protesters have also argued that by making it more difficult to achieve entry into the EU by legal means is actually to exacerbate the problem of those trafficking in immigrants for gain.

The hysteria being created about a "flood" or "influx" of refugees does not match reality and has the aim of diverting the struggle against the anti-social offensive. Where numbers of asylum applications to Europe have risen, as, for example, when they rose to 390,000 in 1999 after the bombing of Kosova, it is clear that it is not the so-called "third countries" who are to blame. Numbers, according to the UN refugee agency UNHCR, are now decreasing, as in 2001 around 384,000 people sought asylum in the EU.

The British government is attempting to come up with justifications for its racist and anti-people stand on the issue of immigration and asylum seeking. It is racism under the guise of anti-racism and combating the "far right". For example, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "We are inoculating ourselves against the virus of the far right. The way you deal with matters that the far right are seeking to exploit is by recognising where there is a legitimate problem and then dealing with it, in a proportionate, determined and humane way." Presumably Jack Straw wants us all to have a mild infection of "far rightism" so that the so-called "extreme" parties and organisations do not come to power. In fact, this translates into the government itself following the policies which are the stock in trade of the "far right", while declaring it is acting in a "proportionate" and "humane way" (as opposed the disproportionate and inhumane way of openly right wing organisations). But the way to deal with a legitimate problem is not to delegitimise it. It is to declare that there are no delegitimate people, that all have rights by virtue of being human, and that self-serving criteria based on the success of business in the global market are not the ones which should be used in dealing with either "economic migrants" or "asylum seekers".

It is in this context that David Blunkett speaks of "cracking down on illegal immigrants and threatening that Britain should "no longer be seen as 'a soft touch' to economic migrants". While feeling obliged to say that the government "wants to aid those genuinely fleeing persecution", in the very same breath he emphasises that it is ensuring that Britain "has the skills it needs for the economy to remain competitive". And if this is not clear enough, he adds that "those seeking nationality will be expected to learn our languages, to understand the workings of our society and to take a new citizenship pledge." And he adds, "I am equally determined that would-be illegal immigrants get the message that we are tightening our rules and deploying every possible measure to deter and to detect them." It seems that people should indeed be more worried about the inoculation against the "virus of the far right" than about the MMR vaccination.

The proposals on tightening border security in Europe and sending back "illegal immigrants" not only put the lives of refugees at risk, they raise serious questions about the EU and the government stand on "illegal immigrants" and their source countries. They are an attack on the most vulnerable and attack on the rights of all. They are racism under the thin guise of anti-racism and humanitarianism. They are not designed to deal with the issue of "illegal immigration" and "economic migrants", but will exacerbate the problems that the big powers themselves are responsible for.

The working class and people must oppose this agenda of Britain, the EU and the G8, which is an integral part of the stepping up of reaction all along the line. It goes hand in hand with the demand that everyone submit to the same "British values" and blame "alien values" for the anti-social offensive. It must be vigorously opposed on the basis that an injury to one is an injury to all!

From June 26-27 the leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) countries met in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada, guarded by thousands of heavily armed police and armed forces. Thousands of people from all walks of life participated in actions in cities across Canada to raise the vision that a different world is possible. They, at one with the sentiment of the masses of the people the world over, opposed the imperialist anti-social agenda of the G8 to be replaced with a popular pro-social agenda with the aim of empowering the working class and people to exercise control over their lives.

On several occasions during the Summit, actions were held to challenge the exclusion of the Canadian people and any of the world's people from the G8 Summit. Protesters highlighted that the G8 has no business meeting behind closed doors to decide the fate of the people and that it is the peoples of the world who must decide their own fate. On June 26, Canadian postal workers headed to Kananaskis Village to deliver hundreds of letters from the people of Canada to the G8 Summit. After being stopped, they handed over the letters to a Summit representative. Later that day, more than 100 cars approached the barricades demanding to be allowed to address the G8 delegates. Gord Christie, a spokesperson for the Calgary and District Labour Council, stated, "We have many legitimate concerns. We should be able to participate in the discussion the G8 are having which have huge impacts on our lives." The caravan was turned away. On June 27, members of the Iyarhe Nakoda First Nation demonstrated on the road leading to the Summit location, stating their opposition to the fact that while the country's Prime Minister negotiates "aid" packages for Africa, the peoples of the First Nations in Canada live in deplorable conditions. On the last day of the Summit, demonstrators attempted once again to make their voices heard by the G8 delegates, blocking cars leaving Kananaskis, resulting in a two and a half mile line of cars on the TransCanada motorway.

Throughout the Days of Action, the monopoly media praised what was referred to as the non-confrontational character of the policing during the demonstrations. But this could not cover over that the programme of the G8 states also includes the increasing criminalisation of dissent. The so-called "non-confrontational" police presence, which they sought to highlight by contrast with previous violent attacks on anti-G8 protests and other demonstrations against international summits, was in fact backed up by buses of riot police, as well as attempts to intimidate demonstrators through extensive video surveillance. The fact is that all the people's forces were prevented from reaching the Summit site through armed force and intimidation, and the propaganda was that the demonstrations could "turn ugly" at any moment, raising the spectre of the "violent protester". Thus while the G8 leaders continued their deliberations on how to further enslave the world, the protesters, representing the best sentiments of humanity, continued to affirm and elaborate a vision for another world, free of such enslavement.

The following are extracts from a report produced by Oxfam a year or so ago.

Myth: Britain is a soft touch and takes more than its fair share of refugees

Reality: According to recent United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' figures, the UK received a total of 71,200 applications for asylum in 1999; this was a significant increase on 1998, attributable partly to the war in Kosovo. However, relative to population many other European countries take far more asylum seekers - Britain is 8th out of 13 European countries in these terms, with 1.21 applications per 1000 people. Luxembourg was highest (6.79 per 1000), and Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark all receiving more applications relative to the population of their country.

Moreover, it is primarily the poor countries in the South (e.g. Iran, Pakistan, Tanzania) which bear the brunt of refugee movements. There are an estimated 8 million refugees in Africa (including 2 million from conflicts in Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea), together with several million more displaced in their own countries.

Myth: Most asylum seekers come from safe countries

Reality: The majority of refugees coming to the UK to seek asylum in recent years have been from the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Colombia, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. These are all countries where there has been serious conflict or where grave human rights abuses are common.

Myth: Only a tiny proportion of refugees are genuine and the rest are "bogus"

Reality: Around 29% of asylum seekers were found to be in need of protection and were granted refugee status, or otherwise allowed to remain, during 1998, and around 47% during 1999 (Home Office figures). In addition, between another 10% and 20% are generally successful on appeal. The figures therefore indicate that around half are successful, and there is no justification for routinely attaching the adjective "bogus" to those seeking asylum, which does tremendous harm to those legitimately seeking asylum.

There are also some that appear to be rejected unfairly. For example they may be turned down for entering the UK with false papers, despite the fact that this may have been the only way to escape persecution in the asylum seeker's country of origin - a reality which is acknowledged under international refugee law (Article 31, 1951 Refugee Convention).

As a party to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention the UK has an obligation to examine applications for asylum. If an asylum seeker can demonstrate a "well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" then they should be given refugee status. There is a duty on the UK to ensure that, through its actions, no one is forcibly returned to any territory where their life or freedom may be in danger.

Myth: Asylum seekers are taking housing

Reality: Asylum seekers are primarily being housed in "hard to let" accommodation. … Dispersal under the existing interim arrangements is happening far more slowly than originally envisaged by the government; this is evidence of the poor state of the housing stock in many areas and the fact that appropriate accommodation is simply not available.

Myth: The extent of trafficking is going up

Reality: Trafficking has risen in recent years, but the increasingly restrictive approaches of Western governments, including the UK (e.g. the introduction of visa restrictions and carrier sanctions; the application of "safe third country" and "safe country of origin" concepts; readmission agreements) are pushing asylum seekers into the hands of traffickers.

Trafficking in human beings cannot be condoned, and the government should take action to curb it, however it must recognise the impact of its own immigration and asylum policies in compounding the problem. It is essential that any measures be directed at the individuals and groups making profits out of desperate human needs, and not their victims. There is a significant danger that measures to combat trafficking may prevent genuine asylum seekers from gaining access to asylum procedures.

Myth: Council tax is going up to fund asylum seekers

Reality: The costs of looking after asylum seekers are currently meant to be met by central government rather than through council tax; this basic principle should ensure that the costs do not fall disproportionately on particular authorities.

In practice, the Home Office estimates that it will spend £300 million to meet the cost of supporting asylum seekers in 2000-2001. Despite some recent government concessions, local authorities say they face a £90 million shortfall in funding to support asylum seekers. In particular they argue that the extra costs of health, education and social care are not fully met by central government.

There are also particular problems (most prominent in Kent) in relation to funding support of unaccompanied (or separated) children, the responsibility of the Department of Health. This is partly because supporting unaccompanied children costs more, owing to their extreme vulnerability. Many have become separated from their parents or carers through conflict, flight and displacement and arrive in the UK alone. Often it is family or friends who – fearing for the child’s safety and well-being – go into serious debt to purchase an airline ticket or to arrange travel with traffickers.

A major reason why support for asylum seekers is proving more expensive is because cases are taking so long to process; the average time of 13 months is far in excess of the government’s stated aim (for families) of two months plus four months for any appeal. When the Labour government came to power in May 1997 there was a backlog of some 50,000 outstanding cases, but by the start of 2000 this reached a peak of 104,00 owing to factors such as computer systems failure in Croydon, the introduction of new casework arrangements; insufficient staffing; poor quality decision-making.

Myth: Asylum seekers [are freely entering the country]

Reality: The majority of asylum seekers are granted temporary admission pending an outcome of their claim. However, many asylum seekers are held in detention whilst their claim is processed. They are detained at some 30 detention centres and prisons around the country. In breach of international human rights law, there is no adequate judicial oversight of the decision to detain and it appears that detention is being used routinely rather than in exceptional circumstances only.

In March 2000 a detention centre for newly arrived asylum seekers was opened in a former army barracks at Oakington in Cambridgeshire and three further centres are being built to detain asylum seekers whose cases have been refused, prior to their removal from the UK.

There is significant concern that asylum seekers are being held at Oakington on the basis of their country of origin alone, echoing the much criticised "white list" procedures operated by the previous government (subsequently abolished by the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act).

Myth: Dispersal will deal with the problems

Reality: The current arrangements for dispersal (i.e. moving asylum seekers from London and the Southeast to other parts of the country to designated accommodation on a "no choice" basis) are presenting significant difficulties for asylum seekers. The absence of specialist legal advice and interpretation services is widespread. Most specialist asylum legal representatives are located in London and the south-east; without good legal advice there is a real danger of asylum seekers being returned without being able to make a fair application.

And "no-choice dispersal" is separating asylum seekers from their communities and other essential support networks (family, friends and the cultural and linguistic support).

Commemorations of World Refugee Day, which is marked each year on June 20, focused on the contributions and needs of women, who make up the majority of those forced to flee their homes, according to the United Nations.

"This year, we pay special tribute to the courage and determination of refugee women," said the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Ruud Lubbers. "We must ensure that their voice is heard, that their potential is developed, and that their role is fully recognised."

The High Commissioner outlined key priorities towards achieving this goal, including involving female refugees in community leadership, registering all refugee women so as to enhance their security and protection, improving strategies to prevent gender-based violence, and providing sanitary materials for all women and girls. "We have made significant progress in all of these areas, but much more needs to be done as we continue our global efforts to help refugees realise their full potential in building a future for themselves and their children."

Activities marking the day took place in countries across the world. UNHCR staff in the Albanian capital of Tirana staged a festival of folk songs and dances in co-operation with the Theatre of Opera and Ballet. Sports competitions, sales of handmade items, photo exhibits, radio and television interviews, tree-planting ceremonies and concerts were held by staff in 114 countries where UNHCR has offices.

That World Refugee Day is ever more necessary to mark is an indictment of the inhuman and enslaving relations perpetrated by the big powers. Far from solving the world's problems, including that of refugees and the plight of women, the neo-liberal and imperialist agenda of globalisation, which is attempting to draw every country into its net, is causing poverty and uprooting peoples on an ever greater scale.