Backgrounders

index  |  next>>

INTRODUCTION

June 20, 2003 will mark international refugee day – a day when governments should reaffirm their obligations to protect some of the world’s most vulnerable people. Instead, European governments will meet on June 20 to debate the United Kingdom’s (U.K.) proposal that promises to undermine those obligations. This proposal, to be discussed at the European Council meeting in Thessaloniki, Greece, outlines the U.K.’s “new vision” for the global management of asylum seekers, refugees, and other migrants.

The “new vision” proposal is to automatically send asylum seekers, refugees, and other migrants arriving in the U.K. to “regional protection zones” abroad. Other “transit processing centers” would be located at the external borders of the E.U. (the “zones” and “transit centers” are hereinafter referred to as “processing centers”), where asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants would be intercepted and required to submit their claims. The U.K.’s proposal attempts to circumvent its legal obligations to refugees, which are triggered when refugees are under the U.K.’s power or effective control.

The U.K. government says that it wants to increase protection for refugees in countries that are geographically closer to their homes.1 In addition, it claims the U.K. or any other E.U. country might consider admitting refugees who could not be sent back to their own countries or integrated into the countries hosting the processing centers.2 However, increasing refugee admissions is not the purpose of the U.K.’s “new vision.” On the contrary, the plan has been touted by the U.K.’s immigration minister as a way to halve the numbers of asylum seekers in the U.K. by September 2003.3 It is a means of pandering to xenophobic sentiments at the expense of human rights.

Human Rights Watch believes that this “new vision” constitutes an effort to avoid the U.K.’s responsibilities under the Refugee Convention and human rights treaties, most fundamentally to protect refugees from return to an unsafe place and to uphold the human right to seek and enjoy asylum. In addition, the proposal undermines the U.K.’s responsibility to work with other governments in addressing the problems of the world’s refugees, and not to “penalize” refugees who enter illegally. The institution of this policy may make the U.K. and any other government involved, as well as international organizations contracted to implement the policy, complicit for harms experienced by asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants transferred to and held in processing centers. Finally, the institution of processing centers in countries with serious records of human rights abuse promises to undermine the norms of “effective protection” under international and domestic law.

The U.K. acknowledges that Australia’s refugee policy is its source of inspiration for its “new vision” plan.4 In September 2001, in an attempt to reduce arrivals of asylum seekers from the Middle East and South Asia, the Australian parliament passed legislation permitting the forcible transfer to and detention of refugees in third states as part of its “Pacific Solution.” Australian law now permits the interception and forcible transfer of asylum seekers to other countries such as Nauru or Papua New Guinea where asylum seekers are placed in detention while waiting processing. Asylum seekers can also be intercepted and sent back to Indonesia. In Australia, and now as a feature of the U.K. proposal, the establishment of regional processing centers is an attempt to circumvent the purpose of the international protection norms enshrined in the Refugee Convention by diverting refugee protection obligations to poorer and less-equipped countries, as well as to international organizations—such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM)—without the territorial and sovereign legal responsibilities of states.

The U.K. recognizes that persons held in processing centers would need to be safe and protected, but the modalities for achieving this goal are not set out in the proposal. This failing raises serious concerns for Human Rights Watch since many of the countries suggested for hosting processing centers under the plan such as: Albania,5 Croatia,6 Iran,7 Morocco,8 northern Somalia,9 Romania,10 Russia,11 Turkey,12 and Ukraine,13 have serious records of violating the rights of asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants.

The U.K.’s proposal was forwarded to the E.U. on March 10, 2003. In a subsequent meeting of the European Council, the European Commission was asked to evaluate it. On June 3, 2003 the Commission issued a Communication on this subject for review at the June 5-6, 2003 meeting of E.U. Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) ministers and for consideration at the June 20, 2003 European Council meeting in Thessaloniki, Greece.14 The Communication offered its own interpretation of what might be accomplished in Europe to strengthen the integrity of the asylum system. With regard to the U.K. proposal, the Communication raised a series of important questions that this Human Rights Watch commentary seeks to answer.



1 “New International Approaches to Asylum Processing and Protection,” Correspondence from H.E. Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to H.E. Costas Simitis, Prime Minister of Greece and President of the European Council (hereinafter Blair-Simitis Correspondence) March 10, 2003, at para. (1) (ii).

2 Blair-Simitis Correspondence at para. 2.

3 Alan Travis, New Asylum Centers Open by End of Year, The Guardian, May 9, 2003.

4 A leaked copy of one version of the U.K. proposal acknowledges the relationship to Australia’s policy.

5 Alan Travis, New Asylum Centers Open by End of Year, The Guardian, May 9, 2003.

6 Jitendra Joshi, “Britain Defends Plan to Process Refugees Outside EU,” Agence France Presse, March 27, 2003.

7 Fabrice Randoux, “EU Wants Iraq Refugees Kept in Region,” Agence France Presse, March 28, 2003.

8 Jitendra Joshi, “Britain Defends Plan to Process Refugees Outside EU,” Agence France Presse, March 27, 2003.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Alan Travis, “UN Puts Forward ‘Fairer’ Alternative to Blunkett’s Asylum Processing Plan,” The Guardian, May 12, 2003.

12 Fabrice Randoux, “EU Wants Iraq Refugees Kept in Region,” Agence France Presse, March 28, 2003.

13 Richard Ford, Asylum-Seekers May go to Transit Camps in Albania, The Times, May 9, 2003.

14 Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, June 3, 2003 (COM(2003) 315 final).


index  |  next>>

June 17, 2003