Tony Blairs assault on international refugee protection

Translation: Susanna Noack

The British prime minister Tony Blair belongs to the most eager advocates of a war of aggression against Iraq. He has offensively defended the break with international law and has thus opened the way for the destruction of the UN-security system. It seems that an era threatens to dawn in which major military powers are pushing through their own interests in the disguise of pre-emptive wars. Such a politics produces new refugees. At the same time Tony Blair and his government are attempting to fight the latter more effectively in the future. Their plan: the dismantling of refugee protection in Europe and the circumvention of the Geneva refugee convention.

The scheme: returning refugees to camps near their countries of origin

Under the cynical heading „A new vision for refugees“ Blair, foreign minister Straw and home secretary Blunkett have developed a scheme which substantially assaults refugee rights in Europe. The idea: refugees who succeed in reaching European ground, are to be kept in detention here briefly and then transferred as quickly as possible to so called protection zones near their countries of origin. These protection zones are nothing but big refugee camps. As part of the vision Great Britain wants to create a worldwide network of such refugee reservations together with other EU member states. In all the major regions of origin of those seeking protection, such regional protection zones are to be created. They are to be administered by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and financed by the rich countries. The British concept intends for refugees spontaneously arriving at the borders of Great Britain and other EU member states to be turned back or deported as quickly as possible to the protection zones. Refugees are to remain in the planned refugee reservations until the situation in their countries of origin stabilizes.In case it does not, their asylum applications are to be processed in these camps. Successful applicants for asylum would then be accepted into EU member states in numbers limited by a yet to be determined quota. Those not recognised as genuine refugees would face deportation to their countries of origin. The thus established and designed reservations „near the countries of origin“ are to be qualified sooner or later as secure third states to which refugees can be deported without further individual case consideration.

Deportation, flight prevention, direct provision, lack of rights

The British plan covers all important regions from which people nowadays flee to Europe. The planned refugee reservations are to be created in countries such as Turkey, Iran, Northern Somalia, Morocco, Romania, Croatia and the Ukraine. A British pilot scheme has already begun in Albania. According to British conceptions, social standards in the protection zones shall not in any way be equivalent to those in industrial states. Cheap direct provision is all that is planned – Blair’s proposal makes no secret of that. Thus the analysis of the presumed failure of the present asylum system in the world is based on costs: a person applying for asylum in Britain costs the state up to 10.000 US dollar annually, while the UNHCR gets by on an average 50 dollar annually for the support of refugees in the regions of origin. The British „vision for refugees“ consists of making EU member states more or less free of refugees. The responsibility for refugees is to be transferred., the role of the UN High Commissioner for refugees is to be downgraded from warrantor of refugee protection in all signatory states of the Geneva Refugee convention to warden of the reservations.

Withdrawal from international obligations: political staging

In a first pilot phase there still seems to be the feeling of being bound to the standards set by the European Human Rights Convention and the Geneva Refugee Convention. On the medium term though, changing the Geneva Refugee Convention and revising article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention is to be considered. A downright political staging is planned. Its goal is, in particular, to break away from the absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment of article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention. One no longer wants to protect those fleeing torture. Rather, article three is to protect only from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in Great Britain itself, which would make it possible to deport all other torture victims or those threatened by torture without further commitment.

Fighting causes for flight with military intervention

In the British scheme, shifting the responsibility for refugees to their regions of origin is to be supplemented by fighting the causes for flight regionally: within refugee-producing states. After some nice programmatic remarks that of course one is committed to the amelioration of the human situation and living conditions in these states, the authors of the proposal come to the point. Since the end of the cold war, the Nato has been redefining its role and has included peacekeeping measures in its strategy. This could also be the starting point for inducing potential refugees to stay within or return to their regions of origin. The humanitarian intervention is presented as the farthest reaching form of prevention. And it should be added that a model case has already been delivered by the Nato: in Kosovo. There too, the majority of refugees were transferred to camps near their homes. The idea, now being proposed as the cure, to relieve countries of first asylum by taking on a certain number of refugees, has already been tried out there. Blair’s scheme is not satisfied with simply referring to Nato-practice. Further arguments supporting the idea of presenting military invention as a medium for the protection of human rights are drawn from the selective interpretation of the work done by the International Commission on Intervention and State’s Sovereignity (ICISS). It includes the following chain of ideas: state sovereignity includes the responsibility of each state to protect its citizens. Wherever a state cannot fullfill its obligations because of war, repression or decline, the international community has the obligation to intervene. There is a „responsibility to protect“. Interventions of this sort should be preventive and should already encompass the responsibility for rebuilding. Very much in the same spirit, invitations of tenders for rebuilding Iraq after the so-called pre-emptive war have already been sent to American companies. According to these conceptions, refugee protection is reduced to the obligation to „protect“ refugees within their countries of origin. War is supposed to be a suitable means for that. This vision, as the paper self-confidently states, should become part of a new global system of asylum. The authors regret that compared to Great Britain, some nations are much more careful regarding interventionist ideas. There is no telling yet whether the United Nations will adapt the proposals of the commission. That Blair is committed to circumventing the regulations of the United Nations, he has already proven sufficiently during the preparations for the war on Iraq.

An alliance against refugee protection

The British Prime Minister is currently making efforts to promote the British idea on EU-level as well as in other industrial nations. He wants to form an alliance for the demolition of refugee protection. It is necessary to stand up against that. Because the achievements made in the development of human rights after the Second World War, the civilized responses to barbarianism are thus put up for reconsideration.The Geneva Refugee Convention was and still is a response to the failed refugee convention in Evian in 1938. The unwillingness of the participating states to grant protection to those persecuted by the Nazi regime, sealed the fate of many people. With the Geneva Refugee Convention the transition from an act of governmental mercy to an individual right to protection for refugees was made. At its core, asylum means protection of refugees from being turned back or deported to their countries of origin, guarantee for the necessary procedures and a dignified existence. The proposal of the Blair government attempts to dismantle any legal protection for asylum seekers in Europe and to admit those entitled to asylum in small numbers only according to the benchmark of political appropriateness. Already, the majority of refugees in the world stay in their regions of origin. About three-fourths of all refugees live in developing countries. Now, in addition, the latter are supposed to take on those refugees who have succeeded in fleeing to Europe.

„Vegetating“ as a standard programme for refugee protection

Up to now, the British scheme is the most far-reaching attempt to put an end to refugee protection within the EU and in cooperation with other industrial nations. The idea of refugee protection used to be that refugees were admitted into a state where they would not only be granted protection but rights as well. The British proposal reduces it putting up refugees near to their countries of origins, ideally in the places they came from. Protection zones will be designed as big refugee camps. Refugee protection is reduced to the military guarantee of a stopgap. In practice, no one there is in the position or even willing to guarantee any rights beyond the fullfillment of the most basic humanitarian needs. „Vegetating“ will become the standard programme of refugee protection.