LSE PRESENTATION
REFUGEE AND ASYLUM RIGHTS: 50 YEARS ON
Rachael Reilly
Forcible displacement: a global phenomenon
- global migration/ forcible displacement – are phenomena that touch all of our lives
- the refugee/ dispossessed/ exiled – is an enduring image of the 20 century/ the human
fall-out from civil strife/ political conflicts/ and war
- as we enter 21st century – little looks set to change
Global refugee numbers – UNHCR estimates that approx. 50 million forcibly displaced
persons world wide – figure includes 30 million IDPs
- in other words – one in every 120 persons world wide is forcibly displaced
- what is population of LSE? – sense of perspective/ last year the UK accepted less than
1% of the world’s total refugees/ Guinea – one of world’s poorest countries hosted 50
times more refugees than UK last year
The International Refugee Protection Regime - 50 Years on:
-
2000 – 50th anniversary of founding of UNHCR
2001 – 50th anniversary of 1951 Refugee Convention
June 20 – first World Refugee Day
The right to seek and enjoy asylum
- core principle of human rights protection
- enshrined in Article 14 (1) of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- recognition that when all other forms of human rights protections have failed - individuals
must be able to freely leave their own country and seek refuge elsewhere
- over the years – the institution of asylum has literally provided the difference between life
and death for those whose lives are at risk
- the principle is not a new one – most religious faiths have incorporated the principle of
asylum as part of their teaching – the principle of hospitality/ welcoming the stranger/
providing sanctuary – and most of the religious texts contain epic narratives of flight and
exile
- today – the right of asylum can be seem as the ultimate litmus test of a state’s
commitment to human rights – how will states welcome those to whom it owes nothing/
who have minimal political currency/ can’t vote and are likely to be more a source of
domestic irritation/ those who have reached the state of last resort
UNHCR – established December 1950
- to respond to European refugee crisis in aftermath of World War II
- antecedents: UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) – 1943
- IRO – 1947 – both set up to respond to WW II refugees
- HCR established with a limited 3 year mandate/ still renewed on a 5 yearly basis
- establishment corresponded with start of Cold War era and first refugees from Eastern
communist bloc
-
-
Hungarian refugee crisis 1956 – HCR’s first experience of dealing with mass outflow of
refugees fleeing political repression – 180,000 – Austria/ 20,000 fled to Socialist
Yugoslavia
Since then HCR has remained in business – refugee crises unfortunately became human
face of conflicts of 20 century/ looks unlikely to change in 21st century
1951 Refugee Convention – July 1951 came into force
- 1st attempt by states to codify protections for refugees
- ’51 Convention established the first ever working definition of a refugee as a person who
due to fear of persecution on the grounds of their nationality, race, religion, membership
of a social group or political opinion is unable, or unwilling to avail themselves of the
protection of their own country and is forced to flee and seek protection elsewhere
- it established the fundamental principle of non-refoulement/ the cornerstone of
international refugee protection – that no refugee can be returned to a country where
their life or freedom is threatened - this principle has since become an accepted principle
of international customary law and has been reflected in subsequent international
instruments – e.g. the 1984 Convention Against Torture / this means that even those
states that have not ratified the Refugee Convention are bound by the principle of nonrefoulement
- and it established some basic social, economic, legal rights that should be provided to
refugees by the international community in the absence of national protection
-
Human Rights Instrument
’51 Convention is significant because it was the first major international human rights
instrument to be established after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
some question whether the Refugee Convention constitutes a human rights instrument –
geared more towards the interests of states than the interests of individuals
but it provides some fundamental protections and principles that it is questionable
whether states today would still endorse today
The erosion of the regime: industrialized states
- international refugee protection regime was established primarily by western states –
with particular impetus from W. Europe and USA – in the aftermath of WW II
- indeed the regime has been criticized by states elsewhere (e.g. Asian states) for being
too euro-centric and inapplicable to the realities of refugee movements in that region –
although we can question the motivation for Asian states to hold this opinion – given the
total absence of any national./ regional/ or international refugee protection regime in
many Asian countries and their poor protection record
- nevertheless – western states were traditionally seen as the guardians of the refugee
regime
- the reality 50 years on is that these same states are the ones leading the charge to erode
and dilute the refugee regime
- nowhere is this trend more pronounced than in W. Europe
Refugee protection: the human rights perspective
NB: from human rights perspective – regressive trends in refugee protection over the past
10 – 15 years
- other areas of human rights (e.g. women’s rights/ children’s rights/ international justice/
land mines) – can chart progress over the past 2 decades
- in contrast states have regressed in commitment towards defending rights of refugees
and forcibly displaced
-
from an advocacy perspective – difficult to know how to appeal to state interests to
protect refugees – return to moral obligations that guided states’ response to refugees 50
years ago
Human Rights Mechanisms
- NB: have to look to other mechanisms within HR’s system to hold governments to
account for refugee and asylum policies
- no independent monitoring/ treaty body for Refugee Convention
- technically UNHCR is guardian of Convention – but HCR is a government-run/
government-funded body – degree of autonomy and independence is questionable
- increasingly other human rights treaty body (i.e. Human Rights Committee/ Committee
on Economic and Social and Cultural Rights/ CAT/ CERD/ working group on arbitrary
detention) are critically examining government’s asylum policies (e.g. UK’s asylum
policies criticized by CERD in 2000/ HR’s Committee criticized Australia for mandatory
detention policies in 2000/ and CAT intervened twice to delay return of rejected asylum
seekers from Australia whom it feared could face torture in countries they had fled)
- refugee community should make greater use of these alternative HRs mechanisms to
hold govs/ to account for shameful treatment of refugees and asylum seekers
- IDEAS???
The politics of refugee policies
- refugee policy is intrinsically political – essentially an anomaly in international relations –
entails states providing protection and assistance to nationals of other states – in many
ways it touches on some of most thorny aspects of state sovereignty – rights of states to
control who it allows into their territories/ citizenship/ also inter-state relations
- this is why when establishing the international refugee regime states took great pains to
ensure that the Preamble of the Convention and the Statute of HCR clearly state that
providing protection to refugees should be viewed as a purely humanitarian/ non-political
act and should not be the source of tension between states
- in reality – international response to refugee crises has hardly ever been purely
humanitarian/ non-political – almost always motivated by domestic or international
strategic/ political interests
Aftermath of WW II – states motivated by a sense of moral obligation/ shame and
responsibility to meet the needs of refugees
Wars of independence in Africa
- sense of obligation amongst former colonial powers to provide protection to former
colonies
- 1960’s/ ‘70’s – first major refugee crises in Africa
- wars of independence/ post-independence wars
- Algerian war of independence 1954 – 62 – hundreds of thousands displaced to Tunisia
or Morocco
- Great Lakes – Tutsi Rwandans fled into neighboring Congo and Tanzania
- Ethiopia/ Sudan/ Mozambique
- 1969 OAU Refugee Convention – expanded refugee definition
Cold War Era
- motivated by geo-political strategic concerns – superpower rivalries/ proxy wars
- e.g. refugees from Soviet/ Communist bloc given refuge in W. Europe and US
-
Mujahadeen from Afghanistan given refuge in Pakistan – effectively armed and trained in
refugee camps
Khmer Rouge from Cambodia – given refuge in Thailand (check facts)
Horn of Africa – refugees from Ethiopia given refuge in Sudan
Indo-Chinese refugee crisis – 1970’s/ 80’s – refusal by countries of first asylum in region
to provide long-term refuge – western states (especially US because of pivotal role in
destabilization in region) stepped in and resettled more than half a million refugee –
mainly from Vietnam and Laos
End of Cold War – refugees lose geopolitical strategic and military value
- governments more concerned with establishing regional blocs/ friendly relations with
neighbours – refugees viewed as potential irritant
- also faced with domestic economic crises/ diminishing resources – refugees seen as
unneeded economic burden rather than political asset
- and blamed as scapegoat for domestic problems (unemployment/ rising crime/ social
malaise/ degradation of environment)
- at same time civil conflicts and mass human rights abuse have not abated/ also growing
economic deprivation and disparities in many regions of world
- coupled with globalization/ increasing access to global communication and transport
networks – more people on the move
- politicians and media shamelessly manipulated and exploited xenophobic fears for shortterm political gain – refugees/ asylum seekers and migrants easy target for irresponsible/
populist politics
- UK is quite an extreme example of how politicized whole refugee question can become/
also of very poor leadership of politicians who pander to perceived populist xenophobia
for short-term political gain
-
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
-
Kosovo:
Kosovo refugee crisis was an anomaly in post Cold War approach to refugees – return to
Cold War/ post WW II motivations – unprecedented (at least in past decade) international
response to crisis – both in terms of public response and also political response
several motivating factors:
geo-political significance: refugees regained central geo-political/ military strategic
importance – direct correlation between NATO bombing offensive and mass refugee
flows
media: media access meant that whole crisis was accessible to general public and
sustained media focus – meant that didn’t disappear from TV screens/ news headlines –
also CNN factor meant global coverage
public reactions: re-emergence of sense of public responsibility/ guilt/ shame – need to
do something – public response was unprecedented – outpouring of funds/ concern –
also global response – to a certain degree government response was in response to
public response
self-interest: also self-interest – major refugee crisis in Europe – like Bosnia – fears of
situation over-spilling/ mass outflows of refugees into W. Europe/ also de-stabilizing
region – one of main reasons for intervention with HEP in Macedonia
racism: finally, racism – no doubt that images of white, European refugees clutching
mobile phones in muddy fields captured public imagination – sense of identification/ that
could be us/ guilt and shame
Disparity in funding: Kosovo highlighted gross disparity in international responses to
refugee crises
-
-
Guinea comparison – in 1999 while HCR had budget of $10 million/ week to spend on
Kosovar refugees – unable to raise one $ from a $4million appeal to move the refugee
camps in Guinea away from the border where they were vulnerable to cross-border
attacks
2 years later those same camps were under attack with grave consequences for the
refugees – killed/ forced to flee back into rebel-controlled areas of S/ L
Developments in W. Europe
Globalization/ growth in asylum applicants
- convergence of effects of globalization/ economic disparity and deprivation/ and civil
conflict and HR’s abuse – led to larger numbers of people on move in late 80’s and 90’s
- corresponded with closure of most legal migration channels into W. Europe in 1970’s
- numbers of asylum applications in W. Europe began to increase dramatically (e.g.
157,280 in 1985 – to 673,947 in 1992)
- perceived view by governments that people not in need of international protection were
abusing asylum system to enter European countries for reasons of economic betterment
EU Harmonization
- E.U. growing and strengthening - European governments start to focus on harmonizing
immigration and asylum policies – key focus of E.U. policy
- harmonization towards lowest common denominator – knock-on effect – as one E.U.
country tightens policies – others feel that they have to do same – to prevent floods of
people coming to their territory – seen as easy access
- Dublin Convention and Schengen Agreement – early 1990’s – both implemented
common border policies and were foundation for harmonizing refugee policiesdetermining which country should assess asylum applications
- 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam – also dealt with harmonization of asylum policies
- 1999 Tampere Summit – on freedom/ security/ justice – reaffirmed centrality of 1951
Convention
- High Level Working Group on asylum and migration – Action Plans on countries of origin
– integrated migration/ development/ conflict resolution – 6 countries (Somalia/
Afghanistan/ Albania/ Morrocco/ Iraq/ Sri Lanka)
- Presidency proposal – French Action Plan on immigration control/ Austrian proposal/ Iraq
action plan/ German action plan etc.
Four main trends:
Underlying objective = restrict movement of people/ reduce numbers entering EU
- impact 2 fold:
a) shift responsibility back onto those states least able to cope and already bearing lion’s
share of problem
b) force people to make use of illicit and criminal methods to leave their own country – with
serious humanitarian consequence
1) Non-arrival policies
- restricting access to asylum
- visa controls/ carrier sanctions/ posting immigration officers in countries of origin
- interception
Problems:
- policies are problematic for various reasons:
a) Migration control: seen as migration control measures by governments –
aim of stemming flows of people at source/ curtailing “irregular”
migration and preventing “illegal” entry
b) Obstruct to seek asylum at same time they fundamentally obstruct the
right of any individual to freely leave their own country and seek and
enjoy asylum
c) Non-refoulement can also undermine fundamental principle of nonrefoulement – principle of refoulement does not imply any geographical
limitation/ states can not discharge responsibility by moving border
control away from their own borders
d) Responsibility to private actors also shifts responsibility away from
states onto private actors (e.g. airlines/ other carriers)
2) Diversion policies
- attempts by states to abrogate own responsibilities and shift onto third countries/
countries of origin
a) Safe third country policies: readmission agreements – high risk of
refoulement/ chain refoulement/ often returning refugees to countries
without adequate RSD/ asylum procedures/ no adequate safeguard
against refoulement
b) Safe country of origin policies: internal flight alternatives/ containment
policies – fundamentally undermines principle of right to seek and enjoy
asylum/ contrary to non-discrimination principles of Convention and 67
Protocol that lift geographical restrictions from Convention/ high risk of
refoulement
c) Protection in region: protection in the region/ containment policies – no
guarantee of protection in the region/ regionalization of conflicts means
that some individuals remain at serious risk even in neighboring
countries
Outcomes:
- diversion of responsibility from wealthy states onto poorest states – those least able to
cope
- contrary to international law - fundamentally undermines right to freely leave one’s own
country and seek and enjoy asylum/ jeopardizes principles of non-refoulement and nondiscrimination in application of Convention
- contradictory to whole idea of global refugee regime – global responsibility sharing/
ultimate abrogation of responsibility
3) Restrictive application of the 1951 Convention
- drafters of ’51 Convention intended it to be interpreted in generous and inclusive manner
- states deliberately applying restrictive interpretations – with net objective of diminishing
their obligations under the Convention/ reducing numbers of people granted refugee
status and therefore entitled to rights guaranteed under Convention
a) non-state actors: e.g. refusing asylum to those fleeing persecution by
non-state actors (e.g. Germany/ France for Afghans/ Algerians/ Sri
Lankans)
b) civil conflict and violence: refusing asylum to those fleeing generalized
situations of civil conflict/ violence rather than individual persecution
(NB: one of reasons for expanded OAU Convention definition) (e.g. UK
– Sri Lanka)
c) Social group/ gender-based persecution: refusing to recognize genderbased persecution as persecution on grounds of social group/ or
persecution by private actors (e.g. domestic violence) (e.g. case in US
courts of Guatemalan women with asylum claim on grounds of domestic
violence)
d) past persecution: insisting on actual past persecution rather than future
fear of persecution
e) Change ’51 Convention: proposals by governments to completely
overhaul ’51 Convention – seen as out-dated/ irrelevant/ ill-equipped to
deal with modern-day migration challenges (e.g. Austria/ Australia/ UK)
4) Deterrence policies
-
overall objective of making countries of destination seem as undesirable as possible/
deter people from coming/ and punish those who do
essentially governments are criminalizing the right to seek and enjoy asylum
Detention: increasing use of detention as a deterrent and also to penalize those who arrive
without valid documentation
- detention often arbitrary/ can be indefinite/ often in isolated detention centers, sometimes
incommunicado
- without proper access to legal counsel/ due process/ right to appeal decision to detain
etc.
- also often in totally inappropriate conditions – e.g. alongside convicted or accused
criminals
- e.g. US – detention in county jails/ Australia – incommunicado detention centers
- psychological impact of detention on asylum seekers/ also severely curtails legal rights/
impedes integration
- Hague’s proposals to detain all on arrival – very much like US and Australian system –
amounts to arbitrary detention –
- under examination by working group on arbitrary detention and other HR treaty bodies
NB: Art. 31 of 51 Convention expressly prohibits the penalization of asylum seekers who
arrive in a country without valid documentation – drafters of Convention recognized that
many refugees are forced to flee their country of origin without valid documentation/ use
false documents – arbitrary detention of asylum seekers is thus in contravention of 51
Convention
Social/ economic deprivation: withdrawal of social welfare benefits/ curtailment of economic/
social rights (e.g. the UK – withdrawal of social welfare benefits/ voucher schemes)
Low recognition rates
Public information negative public information campaigns (e.g. Australia – sharks/ crocodiles and
poisonous snakes!)
These policies create a vicious cycle
i)
restrictive entry policies/ visa controls etc/ coupled with closure of all legal
migration channels – forces people to make use of illicit/ criminal human
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
vii)
trafficking and smuggling syndicates/ travel on false/ invalid documents or
without any documents
people are then penalized for arriving in a country through irregular channels
and without valid documentation – frequently detained as a punishment
equation in government’s/ media’s/ public’s eye between “illegal” entry in a
country and illegal status – perception that those who arrive through illegal/
irregular means must also be “bogus” asylum seekers (meaningless term as
every individual has fundamental right to seek and enjoy asylum)
this in turn can have negative impact on status determination process –
perception of immigration/ asylum officers can be coloured by fact that asylum
seeker has arrived through irregular channels/ seen as untrustworthy – can
result in higher rejection rates
in public’s/ politician’s/ medias eyes this feeds image of country being
overwhelmed with “bogus” asylum seekers/ invalid claims
in turn can lead to very negative images and stereotypes of refugees/ asylum
seekers and migrants – fuels xenophobia and racism
restrictive policies also send strong message by politicians that refugees/
asylum seekers are not wanted – also fuels racism and xenophobia
Net results of policies:
a) serious abrogation of responsibilities by very states responsible for
establishment of international refugee regime
b) makes mockery of global refugee regime – when same states
responsible for its establishment are discharging themselves of any
responsibilities – by shifting responsibility back onto countries/ regions
of origin/ third countries
c) serious risk to fundamental principles of refugee protection
i)
non-refoulement (Art. 33)
ii)
right to freely leave one’s own country
iii)
right to seek and enjoy asylum
iv)
non-discrimination (67 Protocol and Art. 3)
v)
global responsibility sharing
vi)
Art. 31 – not penalizing refugees for illegal entry
The UK: Straw’s proposals
Lisbon speech – June 2000
Institute of Public Policy Research, February 2001
Pre-election statements
-
1) Safe country of origin policies:
Proposal to establish an agreed upon EU list of countries falling into 3 categories:
high risk/ intermediate/ safe
asylum seekers from countries considered to be “safe” would not be considered/ or dealt
with under an accelerated process
Problems:
a) Contrary to international law: dismissing asylum applications on basis purely of country of
origin is fundamentally flawed and contrary to international HRs and refugee law
b) Non-discrimination: proposal violates principle of non-discrimination – enshrined in Article
3 of ’51 Convention
also violates principles of non-discrimination enshrined in other major HRs instruments
in addition – contravention of 1967 Protocol which expressly lifts geographical limitations
from ’51 Convention 0- thus safe country of origin policies are serious derogation of
obligations under 67 Protocol
c) Right to seek asylum: right to seek and enjoy asylum is an individual right – no stipulation
where that right should be exercised
- a person can be at individual risk of persecution on grounds of race/ religion/ nationality/
membership of particular social group/ political opinion regardless of country of origin – why
states have an obligation to substantively consider the asylum claims of individuals
d) Risk of refoulement: blanket refusal of asylum claim merely on basis of country of origin –
risks returning individuals to situations of danger and violates fundamental principle of
non-refoulement/ also safeguarded under European Convention on HRs and 1984
Convention Against Torture
e) Amsterdam protocol: proposal is an extension of existing practices amongst EU states to
refuse asylum applications from nationals of EU countries under protocol to Amsterdam
Treaty (proposed by Spanish gov. as protest to EU states (Belgium and France)
providing asylum to members of ETA (although some EU states – Belgium/ Sweden/
Netherlands and UK) subsequently said that they would consider applications from EU
nationals – harshly criticized by Amnesty/ HRW/ ECRE etc. for being contrary to
principles of int’l refugee law
f) Practical problems: Lists - practical questions about criteria for drawing up lists/ how
would EU govs decide on common lists/ how would they separate identification of
countries from political/ economic considerations (NB: already recognition rates reflect
relations with governments e.g. Sri Lanka v. low recog. Rates in UK?)/ would lists be
revised/ by whom/ based on what information etc.?
g) Accelerated procedures: serious questions about manifestly unfounded cases/
accelerated procedures – rights of appeal/ limited legal safeguards/ risks of refoulement
are high
-
-
2) Resettlement and applications in the region
proposal for EU states to identify countries and ethnic groups most at risk (with help of
HCR)
EU countries would agree on quotas of refugees from high risk countries/ groups for EU
resettlement
process asylum applications in third country – with help of HCR for resettlement in EU
countries
those refused would be subject to migration policies of 3rd country
modeled on Kosovo HEP/ and resettlement programmes as in US/ Australia/ Canada
a) broad support for increasing resettlement quotas
b) should not be off-set against spontaneous asylum applications (e.g. as Australia
is currently proposing)
c) also problematic to identify countries and ethnic groups most at risk – for same
reasons as elicited above (i.e right to asylum is individual right and shouldn’t be
based on country of origin/ also non-discrimination/ risks of refoulement)
d) protection in region also very problematic – often protection can not be
guaranteed in region (e.g. Afghans in Pakistan/ Iran)/ or individuals can not find
safety in region (e.g. HRs defenders in Great Lakes)
e) practical considerations – what happens to those whose applications are
refused? will they be returned to countries of origin? Can their protection be
guaranteed in region? What rights of appeal?
Displaces problem back onto regions of origin – often least able to cope or to
offer effective protection
g) Undermines right to seek asylum/ risks refoulement
f)
-
3) Caps on numbers of refugees allowed in
latest proposal of Straw in run-up to election (Observer interview/ May 20)
set a cap on number of asylum seekers
set in low tens of thousands/ level agreed by EU states
a) most absurd proposal – akin to suggesting a cap on the number of heart attacks that will
be treated/ or number of earth quake victims that will be assisted/ per year
b) runs totally counter to individual right to seek asylum/ risks returning refugees to
situations of grave danger/ fundamentally undermines UK’s obligations under 51
Convention
NB: while these proposals may be viewed as short-term strategy part of run-up to General
Election - should no under-estimate global export value
- once ideas such as these become public/ enter policy debate – they gain a currency of
their own – and are very likely to re-emerge\
- while it may be difficult to actually amend the Convention – there are many other ways to
introduce policy changes such as these
- Austrian proposal: e.g. July 1998 – Austrian Presidency of EU produced a strategy paper
criticizing ’51 Convention for being out-dated and irrelevant and proposing a
comprehensive approach to migration policy
- Australia: Australians have taken up idea of determinations in the region/ quotas (or
maybe the UK copied idea from Australians!)
- Very dangerous precedent set by Straw – especially if it was purely for short-term
political gain in the UK – further undermines entire global refugee system
Global export value
Developing countries host majority of world’s refugees:
- despite barrage of restrictive policies in West – developing countries still bear brunt of
world’s refugees
- still provide generous refuge to millions of refugees that come across their borders –
even though many of them are in dire economic straits/ face their own political strife and
civil conflict
Numbers: e.g. nearly 2 million Afghan refugees in Iran/ 1.5 million in Pakistan/ more than half
million in Tanzania/ half a million in Guinea – with ratio of refugees to local population of 1: 15
Host country fatigue:
- host country fatigue/ frustration with international community (e.g. Pakistan/ Iran/
Tanzania/ Guinea)
- push backs/ border closures/ security crack-downs – round-ups of refugees
- Africa – Great Lakes region – since Rwandan refugee crisis – refugees associated with
threats to national security e.g. Tanzania – forced round-ups/ crack-downs on urban
refugees in Kenya and Uganda
- W. Africa – Guinea crisis – v.v. serious situation – security of refugees severely
threatened – attacks on refugees following anti-refugee statements by Conte/ crossborder attacks/ refugees and local civilians caught up in conflict – many fled/ some
refugees fled back into S/L
-
Pakistan/ Tajikistan/ Iran – Afghan refugees – border closures/ push-backs/ forced
returns/ detention
Asia: Thailand/ Malaysia/ Bangladesh – declining commitment to refugee protection/
push-backs/ forced return/ detention etc.
The WCAR: interface between refugees and racism
Fundamental link between refugees and racism
a) racism/ xenophobia/ ethnic intolerance as cause of forcible displacement
- recognized in ’51 Convention definition
- “ethnic cleansing” and forcible displacement as deliberate strategy to expel a population
on basis of ethnicity/ nationality
b) racism/ xenophobia in host countries
- cycle of racism and xenophobia (where does it start?):
- restrictive and punitive policies
- policy sends very xenophobic message that foreigners are not wanted – overall objective
to keep people out
- forces all migrants to make use of irregular means of entry
- leads to stereotypes of all migrants as “illegal” or “bogus”
- negative portrayal in media – manipulation of stereotypes
- politicians also manipulate stereotypes – supposedly pandering to public opinion – begs
question – who sets public opinion?/ xenophobic rhetoric for short-term political gain
- social and economic discrimination against migrants – lack of access to basic services/
assistance – contributes to negative stereotyping
- rise in racist violence/ xenophobic attacks/ racial tensions – is there a link to the asylum
debate and policies??? e.g. Oldham riots – has climate of asylum debate severely
damaged race relations in the UK??
c) racism/ ethnic intolerance as obstacle to solving refugee crises
– obstruction to right to return/ local integration/ resettlement
d) disparity in international response
– Kosovo vs. Africa scenario (1999 UNHCR estimated that spent $120 per person in former
Yugoslavia/ in contrast to $35 per refugee in Africa
WCAR:
(some background
– international conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance – 3rd world conference against racism
- series of preparatory meetings over past 2 years
- main conference will take place in Durban in August/ Sept.
HRW input to conference
- different issues (caste/ criminal justice/ reparations/ women/ migrants and refugees)
- Migration caucus: HRW involvement with migration caucus
- Refugee NGOs not involved – why? strong migrants rights lobby group/ refugee NGOs
have not been so active in using WCAR as forum for advocacy – why is this? have
refugee NGOs failed to recognize fundamental link between racism and refugees/
migration? Or are they just too beleaguered and resource-strapped?
-
-
Collaboration - WCAR is positive example of refugee and migrants-rights caucuses
working together – traditionally not done so
Interface between migrants/ refugees and racism: in many aspects no distinction
between xenophobia and racism experienced by refugees and migrants – perpetrators of
racism don’t distinguish legal status (e.g. entry policies/ freedom of movement/ detention/
social and economic discrimination/ xenophobia in the public media and by politicians/
racist violence etc.) – affect migrants and refugees equally
differences: causes of migration and forced displacement/ obstacles to solutions
HRs protections not control: attempts to keep focus on HRs protections and not on
control mechanisms (e.g. sections on trafficking)
Challenges for Lubbers
a) funding
b) IDPs
c) keeping protection at core of mandate
d) protecting humanitarian workers
e) challenges in industrialized states – especially EU