EU Buffer States and UNHCR "Processing" Centres and "Safe Havens"

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

EU Buffer States and UNHCR "Processing" Centres and "Safe Havens"

Denial of Visitor Visas for Families

No Deportations to Iraq!

For Your Information:
European Council and EU-Western Balkans Summit: Issues to be discussed

A recent Statewatch commentary refers to the development of the EU’s immigration policy since the mid-1980s when the creation of "Fortress Europe" sought to construct a "cordon sanitaire" at its external borders to keep migrants out. Tentative steps were taken in the late 1990s to try and introduce readmission agreements with third world countries so that nationals (and stateless people) could be returned. The High Level Group on Migration, set up in December 1998, attempted to target selected countries (like Somalia and Morocco) by bringing political and economic pressure (like threatening exports and withdrawing aid) to bear to get agreement.

The reaction post-11 September through the "war on terrorism" has been of an entirely new dimension, Statewatch says, because every refugee and asylum-seeker fleeing poverty and persecution is a potential "terrorist" or criminal (as well as being perceived as a "burden" of western economies).

A new Statewatch analysis of the EU's readmission agreements with non-EU states concludes:

"The EU's approach to readmission agreements involves insisting that more and more non-EU countries sign up to road readmission obligations to the EU with little or nothing in return. EU policy has been backed by harsher and harsher rhetoric and threats against third countries as the EU becomes more and more unilateralist and focused solely on migration control. These policies are unbalanced, inhumane, and internally contradictory."

One of the latest initiatives is the creation of a "Circle of Friends" or EU "neighbours" which are defined as Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus plus the "Western Newly Independent States (WNIS)" of Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo plus the "Southern Mediterranean" states of Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria and Tunisia (only Ukraine and Moldova are seeking accession to the EU). The plan is to create a "friendly neighbourhood" of "prosperity" and "peace" with the underlying motivation being to protect the EU from trans-border threats of terrorism, crime and migration. These countries, Statewatch comments, will be expected to institute "reform" (free market capitalism) and to implement key parts of the EU's acquis communautaire – especially on "enhanced cooperation on justice and security issues" including illegal migration, judicial and police cooperation and "threats to stability". The European Commission is reluctant to define the final borders of the EU but the new formalised "buffer states" will create in turn problems for the new set of buffer states like Western Sahara, Mali, Niger, Chad and Sudan in Africa, Georgia, Armenia and Iran and in Asia Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and even the US (in the Bering Straits). It can be expected, like in the past, that buffer states be subjected to political and economic pressures to adopt EU "standards" on the control of migration (and crime).

The EU has thus moved through a number of stages: (i) "Fortress Europe" to secure its own borders, the creation of "buffer states" (against immigration, terrorism and crime) in central and eastern Europe states, most of which are to join the EU in 2004, (ii) now there is the creation of formal new "neighbour" states which in turn creates new "buffer" states. This latest development coincides with two other strategic initiatives: First, moves to strengthen "Fortress Europe" through controls at the external borders of the EU, the move from voluntary repatriation to forced repatriation and new laws to punish those who harbour or give work to un-recorded migrants. The second initiative, Statewatch comments, is the swift adoption of the British government proposal to create so-called "safe havens" (camps which do not have to meet EU standards) in "neighbour" states (e.g. Ukraine) and "region of origin" (e.g. West Africa), to return migrants suffering poverty and persecution to camps in the countries or regions from which they are fleeing.

Internal UNHCR documents dated April 2003 show that the organisation is bidding to undertake a similar role in cooperation with the EU (here it is trying to fend off the IOM, International Organisation on Migration, which is an unaccountable intergovernmental body). The first stage would see the "immediate transfer: upon arrival anywhere within the territory of EU Member States [of].. all asylum-seekers" to "closed reception centres" located in one or two member states where they would be "processed" under a fast-track procedure taking no more than "one month". Those found in need of protection (from persecution) who be distributed "fairly" around the EU (no choice for the refugee is set out), so-called "economic migrants" would be immediately sent back to the country of origin under EU imposed readmission agreements or sent to detention centres in the region of origin. The aim is that there would be no national asylum and appeal processes only those carried out in EU closed processing centres.

The effect will be to remove national procedures and hence national responsibility for refugees and asylum-seekers. They will be placed in enormous processing centres out of sight and no doubt heavily guarded to stop escapes and to deter protests.

The overall message was highlighted at a Greek EU Presidency conference in Athens on 15-16 May where the Foreign Minister, George A Papandreou, welcomed a selected audience of "many of the best thinkers in migration". He went through a catalogue of measures to combat "illegal immigration" and said that the EU "must welcome the economic migrants that our societies need" through "smart borders" (emphasis in original) and "well-managed immigration selection schemes" which could meet the expected 30% fall in the working population (and a drop from 22% to 12% of the EU's share of world trade). A report, he noted, suggested that the EU needed 30 million immigrants by 2020. These migrants were needed, he said, to do the jobs that: "too many of our fellow Europeans are not willing or able to do" – in other words for either the dirty low-paid jobs or highly-skilled workers, Statewatch comments.

By Siti Altaf Deviyati, Institute of Race Relations

Ethnic minority communities in the UK face clampdown on visits from members of their family living abroad. Six national organisations – Citizens Advice, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, the Law Society, the Immigration Advisory Service and the Legal Action Group – have written to the home and foreign secretaries to demand an explanation for the massive increase in refusals of family visit visas – particularly marked in countries of the Far and Middle East in the latter half of 2002. These refusals are having a negative impact on the emotional well-being and family life of many ethnic minority communities in the UK, they say.

Applications down, refusals soar

Research compiled by Citizens Advice criticises the fact that family members of Britain's ethnic minority communities are increasingly being prevented from visiting relatives in the UK.

The findings, which were based on information provided by Ukvisas, show that since the abolition of the associated appeals fee in the middle of 2002, the overall family visitor refusal rate rose by 34 per cent. This increase in the overall refusal rate occurred despite a fall in applications for visas. Refusals predominate in certain regions such as South Asia, the Middle East, Central Europe and the Far East. In New Delhi for instance the rate of visa refusal doubled from 29 per cent in January to 59.4 per cent by 31 July; in Tehran the refusal rate increased threefold, while in Dhaka, it rose to 84.5 per cent. So far, there has been no concrete reason given to explain these increases and the fact, that at some posts, the refusal rate is as high as 100 per cent.

The home secretary had ordered a review of visa applications, on the assumption that the abolition of the fee for appeals would cause a substantial hike in the number of unfounded family visa applications – which inevitably would result in many refusals. But this preconception actually runs counter to the reality portrayed in the Citizens Advice research report. For instead of the anticipated increase in applications, there has been a stark reduction in the number of applicants and, at the same time, a tremendous increase in the number of visa refusals. For instance, in Mumbai, where the rate of refusal rose by 104 per cent, the applications fell by 33 percent and in Moscow, where the refusal rate rose by 124 per cent, the application rate fell by 13 per cent.

Quality of decisions questioned

The quality of the decision-making by entry clearance officers is also queried in the research because of the fact that 50 per cent of all appeals against original refusal are successful. In fact, at oral hearings 70 per cent of refused applicants, a huge number, win their appeals.

Citizens Advice has written to ministers at the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as well as the Lords Chancellor's Department (LCD) drawing their attention to the rise of 34 per cent in the overall refusal rates for family visa applications since 1 August 2002. An immigration policy officer from Citizens Advice told IRR news that the rate of refusals for the first three months of this year is still "appallingly high" and "no credible or satisfactory explanation for the steady increase" has been provided by ministers.

"Iraq unsafe, Kurdistan unsafe!" were the words shouted by Iraqi and Kurdish protestors in front of the Home Office on Wednesday, June 17.

Around fifty refugees gathered in front of the Home Office to protest against the government's decision to repatriate asylum seekers to Iraq, a country that it deems now to be "safe". The Home Office has stated that preparations for the return of Iraqi refugees have taken place.

The situation in Iraq is such that many refugees perceive that they would be sent back to a place full of disorder and chaos, thus endangering their own and their families' lives. According to Aram Saeed, a Kurd who fled Saddam's regime a year ago, to come to Britain, "it is impossible to live in Iraq at the moment because of the chaos and lack of security". Sawsan Salim from the Kurdistan Refugee Women’s Organisation supports this view. She told the Institute of Race Relations that the basic necessities needed for a decent living are currently lacking in Iraq and that the situation, especially for women, is very bad. The International Federation of Iraqi Refugees, which organised the picket yesterday, submitted a petition to the Home Office calling on the government to suspend its plans to deport Iraqis.

The picket was a part of the many activities that are being conducted all over Britain, as part of Refugee Week, from June 16 to 22.

Information provided by the Greek Presidency, June 18

The European Council meets in Thessaloniki on June 19-20, with the participation for the first time of the leaders of the enlarged Union of 25 Member States.

At the opening session of the European Council on Thursday (19/6), the leaders will discuss the issue of migration (EU financing of programmes and infrastructure works, protection of external borders, problems relating to illegal immigration, etc.)

At the dinner later in the evening, discussion will focus on the Middle East problem, the situation in Iraq, the issue of weapons of mass destruction and the fight against international terrorism.

On Friday (20/6), the President of the European Convention, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, will present the conclusions of the Convention on the Future of Europe. There will also be a roundtable discussion with interventions by the delegations of the ‘25’ and an exchange of views on all outstanding institutional matters (establishment of the posts of full-time EU President and Foreign Minister, election procedure, number of Commissioners, voting). The conclusions of the discussion will subsequently be announced by the President of the European Council, Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis.

At noon on Friday, during a lunch, the discussion will focus on transatlantic relations and the agenda of the EU – USA Summit to be held in Washington on June 25. In addition, the European Union’s High Representative for CFSP, Javier Solana, will present a text on the European security strategy, following the mandate he was given by EU foreign ministers at their recent informal meeting on the Greek island of Kastellorizo.

In the evening, the three candidate countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey) will have a meeting with the Greek Presidency. Later in the evening, a dinner will be hosted by the President of the Hellenic Republic, Constantine Stephanopoulos

On Saturday (21/6), the European Union – Western Balkans Summit (of Heads of State and Government and Foreign Ministers), with the participation of the High Representative and EU Special Representative to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Lord Ashdown, the UN Special Representative in Kosovo, Michael Steiner and Stability Pact Special Coordinator Dr. Erhard Busek, will focus on relations between the EU and the countries of the Western Balkans. The summit, within the framework of Zagreb Process II, will conclude with the adoption by the European Council of the Thessaloniki Declaration on the strengthening of the European vocation of the countries of the Western Balkans.