May 2003
Op-ed
by Ruud Lubbers, UN High Commissioner for Refugees
GENEVA
– Asylum has recently become a hot political topic in some
European countries. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, there
are some very genuine concerns about the way the asylum system
is being managed; about the role of people smugglers; and about
those who misuse the system by falsely portraying themselves as
asylum seekers. These factors feed off each other.
Secondly,
there is another abusive group at work – including some
politicians, pressure groups and newspaper editors – who
are wilfully distorting the issue. I am appalled at the exaggerations,
statistical manipulation and scare-mongering that have proliferated
recently. This is a dangerous path for society to go down. As
a former Prime Minister, I know how hard it is to draw up far-sighted
policy when you are buffeted by a political whirlwind whipped
up by distortion and exaggeration.
UNHCR, the
UN refugee agency I head, is proposing a three-pronged approach
to improve the global asylum system. One prong is devoted to the
regions from which refugees originate; one is geared to the gradual
transformation of the EU into a single asylum space; and one to
sharpening individual states’ domestic asylum systems.
This is not
a menu of options but an organic whole. Unilateral actions by
a single state, or even a small club of states, will not bear
fruit unless they are acceptable to other countries around the
world, particularly developing countries that host huge refugee
populations, sometimes for decades. These countries will need
to be convinced that the richer countries will share the economic,
social and political burdens imposed by large movements of refugees.
If they feel the rich states are only interested in passing the
buck back to them, they will not cooperate.
The amount
now spent on supporting refugees in their regions of origin is
woefully inadequate. Little wonder that refugees – genuine
refugees – lose hope and head towards Europe. Their original
hosts, with inadequate financial support, are unlikely to encourage
them to stay. Nor are they likely to welcome them back, just because
Europe doesn’t want them either.
So, under
the "regional prong," UNHCR is proposing a more coherent,
wide-ranging effort by donor states to support refugees in their
original host countries, and to find solutions by helping them
return home, by resettling them to other countries or by helping
them to start new lives locally in their region of origin.. But
all this requires development assistance that would increase the
self-reliance of refugees and benefit the countries that host
them, thereby reducing the pressures to seek asylum further afield.
Indeed, each dollar or euro spent on solutions for refugees in
regions of origin would have double value. That this is not happening
is shameful and makes no financial sense.
The regional
prong would include special arrangements tailored for specific
refugee groups, an initiative I call "Convention Plus,"
since it builds upon and complements the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Precedents for this include the special programme for the Vietnamese
boat people (a phenomenon that began as a refugee movement and
turned into a largely economic one). This programme not only helped
halt the uncontrolled economic migration, but also led to solutions
being found for virtually all the Vietnamese, whether refugees
or economic migrants. There is certainly scope to produce more
imaginative initiatives of this type.
Under the
"EU prong," UNHCR proposes separating out the groups
that are clearly misusing the system, namely asylum seekers from
countries that produce hardly any genuine refugees. These asylum
seekers would automatically be sent to one or more reception centres
somewhere within the EU, where their claims would be rapidly examined
by joint EU teams. Those judged not to have any sort of refugee
claim would then be sent straight home. The limited number of
recognized refugees among them would be shared between the EU
states. There must be a strict time limit for the entire process.
Readmission agreements between the EU and the rejected asylum
seekers’ home countries have to be reached in advance, so
that people are not detained for months or years simply because
they cannot be deported.
I believe
it is vital that such an initiative takes place within the EU’s
borders. The centres would then be bound by EU legal standards.
That is important not only to safeguard the human rights of the
people being assessed, but also for states, because it would effectively
reduce the legal obstacles that would emerge if such centres were
located outside the EU. The accusation of burden-shifting would
not arise.
If the regional
and EU prongs of this approach are implemented effectively, we
will quickly see beneficial results within each EU state’s
individual domestic asylum system. Nevertheless, vigorous efforts
need to continue in parallel to streamline domestic systems –
to make them faster, fairer and more efficient.
I am very
pleased that these proposals have found an echo in a recent Communication
published by the European Commission at the request of Member
States. The dialogue is currently continuing at the EU Summit
in Thessaloniki. We should not miss this opportunity to put in
place a more balanced and equitable approach that safeguards the
protection of refugees, promotes solutions and restores public
confidence in asylum systems. This is one of the most urgent policy
challenges confronting Europe today.
ENDS
