As forced migration increases, some host countries grow harder
MORE and more luckless people are seeking safety and a better future in whatever country they can find; and in various ways, many of the rich countries which might be able to help them are hardening their hearts, often under electoral pressure. That seems to be the common theme of many recent news reports about forced migration.
After a welcome decline between 2001 and 2005, the number of refugees—in the classic sense of people forced to leave their countries because of war or persecution—rose in 2007 for the second straight year, mainly because of turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United Nations reported this week. As of last December there were 11.4m people under the care of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, up from 9.9m a year earlier. Then there are people uprooted within their own countries: the December 2007 total was 26m, a year-on-year increase of 1.6m. Countries with high numbers of internally displaced include Colombia (3m), Iraq (2.4m), Uganda (1.2m) and Somalia (1m). And if you throw the net really wide, to include people forced to move by natural disasters, the number of uprooted people reached 67m last year, the UNHCR says. Its secretary-general, António Guterres, has predicted that the interlocking problems of climate change, food shortage and state failure could well make the problem worse before long.
Only a fraction of the people on the move actually invoke the UNHCR procedure under which somebody who faces persecution at home can demand asylum in another country. But that figure also ticked upwards (by 5% to 647,200) in 2007, the first rise for four years. In the European Union, the number of bids for asylum rose by 10.9% last year after several years of decline. Against this dire background, people who lobby for refugees' rights were dismayed by the European Parliament's passage on June 18th of a long-debated “returns directive” which sets the conditions under which illegal migrants can be detained, and eventually sent home.
Under the directive, people who enter the European Union illegally can be detained for at least six months, plus a further year if they “fail to co-operate” with the authorities. (Existing limits vary from 32 days in France to 20 months in Latvia; eight countries declare no limits.) They should be kept in purpose-built detention centres, except in cases of “unforeseen heavy burdens”, in which case ordinary jails will do. Anybody who is expelled from an EU country may not re-enter for five years. Defenders of the directive say it will raise standards in some places and allow detention only when necessary.
In theory, none of these measures has anything to do with bona fide fugitives from persecution; the new rules are aimed at illegal entrants with no claim to asylum, or at those who seek asylum and are rejected. But UNHCR officials, and migrants' lobbies, are still unhappy. They argue that asylum-seekers are often lumped together with illegal entrants, and that refugees get little chance to stake their claim.
It is true that the fate of asylum-seekers varies from one EU country to another. It seems that an Iraqi stands a better-than-even chance of being granted asylum in Germany, but virtually no chance in Greece. Two-thirds of the Chechens who sought asylum in Austria were successful, while no Chechen has found shelter in Slovakia. Those figures were cited by EU officials this week as they laid out a plan for a common asylum policy that would deal consistently with people at Europe's gate.
Does all this entitle other rich countries—sometimes exasperated by Europe's image as the home of compassionate capitalism—to give the EU a scolding for its treatment of the world's unfortunates?
Canada is often thought to have set a gold standard for the treatment of asylum-seekers. It gives them ample legal protection, and detains them only briefly and rarely. But refugee groups have criticised Canada recently over an agreement it has made with the United States to co-operate on asylum cases. This lays down that a refugee making his way from America to Canada be returned across the border for processing, on the principle that America is a safe asylum destination. That agreement was struck down by a Canadian court in November 2007, and is awaiting a review by Canada's Supreme Court.
Does the United States have any reason for self-reproach over asylum-seekers? It is certainly a very popular destination, attracting 50,700 applications last year, more than any other country. And in contrast with some parts of Europe, the word “asylum-seeker” (which in certain British contexts is a term of abuse) has no particular negative connotations in America. Plenty of Americans fret about labour migration, but the issue of asylum is lower on the public's radar screen than in Europe.
More's the pity, say some Americans who work with refugees. There are some genuine fugitives who find themselves in jail, often for long stretches—or else returned to their home countries with little consideration of their claims. One reason for this, say refugee advocates, is that people who flee from war zones—where local warlords extort “taxes” from the whole population—can find themselves branded as sympathisers with terrorism.
Maybe all rich democracies should look at the recent history of Australia, where attitudes (public and private) to refugees have lately swung from harshness to a softer approach. For the previous government headed by John Howard, a tough stance towards migrants was a political trademark. In 2001, after boatloads of mainly Middle Eastern fugitives started landing in western Australia, the government sent troops to board the Tampa, a cargo vessel that had rescued about 400 desperate people from their own sinking boat. Mr Howard's insistence that none of them would get to Australia was popular at home, but it marred the country's international reputation.
Over time, though, media reports about the conditions in which would-be immigrants were being kept in offshore detention centres, or in the Australian outback, had an effect on public opinion. Since Kevin Rudd, a centre-leftist, succeeded Mr Howard as prime minister last November, policy has changed. Two nasty detention centres on islands have been shut, and it has been made easier for asylum-seekers to graduate to residency and citizenship. The public seems, on balance, to approve—though full employment and a thriving economy, thanks to the world commodity boom, probably help.
The Economist
-----------------------------------------------------------
It was interesting to learn that refugees can invoke a UNHCR procedure under which somebody who faces persecution at home can demand asylum in another country. I did not know such a procedure existed, but I think it's a wonderful idea. Fear of immigrants or immigration always seems tinged with discrimination and xenophobia, even though problems posed by immigration do exist. Refugees with no option but to flee their country should receive safe asylum automatically.
No comments:
Post a Comment