Refugee Watch
"A South Asian Journal
on Forced Migration"
The
War On Immigrants by Stephen Lendman
The Bar Dancer and The Trafficked Migrant: Globalisation and
Subaltern Existance by Flavia Agnes
Boundaries, Borders and Bodies by Hameeda Hossain
The Dynamics of Refugee Protection and Humanitarian Assistance in Nigeria by
Shambhavi V. Murthy Gopalkrishna
How to Balance Rights and Responsibilities on Asylum at The EU's Solution Border of Italy and Libya by
Rutvaca Andrijasevic
Refugee Protection and Mixed Migration: A 10-Point Plan of Action- Discussion
Paper I
The Unrecognized Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon- Discussion
Paper II
The Lack of International Protection of Iraqi Refugees in
Lebanon- Discussion Paper III
Book Review by Ksenia Glebova
Book Review by Binod Mishra
The
War On Immigrants
by Stephen Lendman(*Email:
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net)
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your
huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming
shore." Once that was true, but no longer. Emma Lazarus' beautiful and
memorable words we've all heard many times and know well are fading into
memory. If we're honest, they should be removed from "Lady
Liberty" and be replaced with something like: We'll take your Anglos,
especially well-off ones, and the ones we choose with needed skills; you
keep the rest, especially your poor, dark-skinned and desperate. We needed 'em
once for our homegrown sweatshops. No longer. We've got plenty all around
the world. It now looks like we'll make an exception though for the menial
or toughest low pay, no benefits, no security jobs no one else wants. We're
still debating it and will let you know.
Think they'll ever affix anything like that to the Lady's pedestal?
Fat chance. Whatever may emerge from the Congress, how would they ever
explain the hypocrisy of our once warm welcome and now cold shoulder and
callous rejection of immigrants. The fact is there are now fewer decent jobs
to go around for a growing population. We thus need to curb the foreign
inflow, and most wanting to come here don't have the right skills or
connections and aren't the "right" color. We don't say that
publicly, but honesty isn't a trait this country is noted for. Neither is
honor, integrity or practicing the high principles we espouse. Strip off the
mask, look hard at the cold, ugly face beneath and uncaring eyes and see a
heart of stone and not a sign of a soul.
Long ago we were building a new nation, needed lots of labor and
threw open our doors. Now we can be as picky as we choose and even slam the
door and bolt it, except for the special skills we need or the few
privileged we always welcome who can jump the queue to get in. We still need
lots of help to pick strawberries and cabbages, make beds and clean commodes
and so far have allowed the undocumented ones who make it here to stay for
that kind of work few others want. But racist and far-right lawmakers in the
Congress with a pathological desire to guard our borders like Fort Knox and
close them to people with dark skins we denigrate or label potential
terrorists are in a dog fight now with less extreme but hardly moderate
voices there. So far we don't know who'll win or if it will be a draw to be
replayed at a future time. We do know that if even the best of the current
proposals now being debated becomes law, future immigrants, those wishing to
come, and the undocumented already here will be the loser.
We also know that quality job opportunities for most working people
in the country including high-paying manufacturing jobs have been
disappearing for years as well as many other good ones we now export to low
wage countries. These jobs are routinely shipped abroad to exploit the
sweatshop labor there where live bodies, desperate for any work and having
to endure terrible on-the-job abuse, can be hired for pennies on the dollar
and no benefits or pesky unions compared to manufacturing and labor rates
here and what goes with them. So are many other lower level white collar
service jobs that can be done anywhere. Even the higher paying ones aren't
immune like those in high tech where skilled professionals can be hired in
"all you can eat numbers" in countries like India at quarters on
the dollar. What corporation hungry for profit could pass up a deal like
that. Never mind that doing it hollows out our economy and puts us on the
road to third world status just like those other nations whose workers are
rplacing ours.
Besides well-paying construction jobs and some others, what's left
here are mostly lots of low-wage service jobs. These are the unexportable
kind at Walmart (the nation's largest employer), McDonald's or menial hotel
or restaurant services (plus those strawberry and cabbage pickers) with few
or no benefits and often little chance to organize in unions for higher pay,
better benefits and worker protection. Other than those, our message now is
keep your people at home. We can use 'em right where they are. No need to
pay 'em much, pennies an hour will do, forget any social benefits and no
need to worry about those annoying unions. None allowed in sweatshop
countries like China, Bangladesh, El Salvador or Haiti. When any do spring
up in places like Colombia, all you need is a corporate friendly, anti-union
president willing to sell out his people to US interests, make the country
friendly to giant US transnationals like big oil, and allow paramilitary
hired killers free reign to have at as many socially-mnded
"troublemakers" as possible "eliminating" them and
intimidating the rest. That way you can get all the cheap labor you want
there practically for nothing. Can't beat a deal like that, so why let 'em
in here. We're trying to hold down the number of "undesirables"
we've now got so there aren't too many around to become restive and cause
trouble. It helps when we can recruit a lot of them to go fight and die for
us in our imperial wars. But we're handling the surplus by locking up as
many as we can in prison cells for any reasons we can justify passing new
laws to allow it. With 2.1+ million already behind bars (the largest prison
population in the world - two thirds of them black and Latino) and adding
about 900 more a week it seems to be working very well thank you very much.
At least so far. I've written at length about this horror under the radar in
my article titled "The US Gulag Prison System" - the one at home.
Unlike long ago, the land that once welcomed your tired, poor and
huddled masses now has hung out a "no vacancy" sign, is hostile to
the undocumented forced to come here because of our destructive trade
policies impoverishing them, the many legitimate arrivals already here and
contributing more than they get back, and is pretty nasty to the least
advantaged who were born here, especially if they're dark-skinned. As things
now stand, what's ahead is only likely to get worse.
Once We Welcomed Those Huddled Masses
For well over a century we were a growing nation thriving on the
influx of welcomed immigrants. At Ellis Island alone (where my ancestors
passed through a century ago) over 12 million of them entered the country
between 1892 (when it opened) and 1954 (when it closed). This country was
founded and built by immigrants - from Plymouth Rock and Jamestown in the
17th century to Ellis Island up to a half century ago. The numbers were
impressive and came in three great waves:
1. About 5 million from 1815 - 1860,
mainly English (on my father's side), Irish, German, Scandinavian and
northwestern Europe.
2. About 10 million between 1865 (post
Civil War) - 1890, again mainly from northwestern Europe.
3. About 15 million from 1890 - 1914,
many from Austro-Hungary, Turkey, Lithuania (on my mother's side), Russia,
Greece, Italy and Romania. Many Eastern European Jews fleeing religious
persecution like my maternal ancestors came in this wave. Thankfully they
did and made it. Otherwise it's likely they"d have met their fate
either at the hands of Stalin or Hitler.
Many immigrants came to America to escape war, political turmoil,
famine, or religious persecution. Others came against their will as chattel.
Most, however, came for economic reasons seeking a better life in a land
they saw as one offering better opportunity than the one they left. Some
found it, others were disappointed and had to wait for their second and
third generation offspring to finally reap some of what they themselves
never achieved. Still they kept coming en masse as 19th century America was
young and growing and needed a plentiful supply of skilled and unskilled
workers. After the 1880s the need was almost entirely for the unskilled to
fill the growing number of factory jobs.
Restrictive and Exclusionary
Immigration Legislation
The Naturalization Act of 1790 established the rules for naturalized
citizenship as required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Until
1882, almost anyone could move here and qualify, but thereafter the
government began to impose controls. Extreme racism was always in our DNA,
and it's surfaced and thrived throughout our history. It was evident in the
1882 Chinese Exclusion Act that made immigration from China illegal. It
didn't matter that it was Chinese labor (first hired in 1865) mainly that
helped build the transcontinental railroad, did the most dangerous work in
some of the most treacherous areas like the high Sierras, and worked for
less than a dollar a day. On May 10, 1869 when the final golden spike was
driven at Promontory, Utah to symbolize the connection of the
transcontinental system from east to west, ocean to ocean, it was mainly
Chinese coolie labor that raced to build the final 10 miles of track in 12
hours to be done in time for the ceremony. We showed our gratitude by
excluing them when they were no longer needed. Theodore Roosevelt, a known
racist and noted imperialist and war hawk recipient of the Nobel Peace
prize, treated the Japanese with equal disdain in the 1906 "Gentleman's
Agreement" that allowed the US the right to exclude Japanese
immigrants. The result was all Asians couldn't emigrate here until the
Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924 that established quotas restricting
Southern and Eastern European immigration as well as allowing some token
numbers in from Asia and other "less preferred" countries.
Through the years the immigration issue would resurface on occasion
as it has again today and generally reflected the political bias of the
times over any notion of fairness to all those in other countries wishing to
come here and those who'd already arrived. We've always had our favored
countries and world regions with Anglo Europeans being at the head of the
queue followed by Northwestern Europeans overall. People of color from Latin
America, Africa and Asia have always been least preferred, except for the
300 years when we forcibly brought black Africans here against their will as
chattel or allowed a few million Mexicans the privilege to come and be
exploited by the agribusiness of an earlier era. But besides that
disgraceful past, our racist heritage was there from the first time a
settler met a native Indian. All 18 million of them or so were only "in
the way" and had to be removed or first used before we did it - through
mass murder, forced resettlement or neglect. Racism was also a major
factorin the Mexican War in the 1840s when following our imperial
"manifest destiny" we stole half the country from our southern
neighbor. We didn't take it all because most of the population was in the
southern half, and we didn't want all those dark-skinned people diluting our
white Anglo majority.
Asians overall have been relative newcomers to the US because they
were either excluded entirely or greatly restricted by discriminatory
quotas. When the National Origins Formula was established in 1929, total
annual immigration was capped at 150,000, but, beyond some token numbers the
"no Asians allowed" sign was still official policy. The important
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the McCarran-Walter Act) opened the
door a crack to Asians, but in that McCarthy era time also increased the
power of government to deport illegal immigrants suspected of communist
sympathies. The INA ended racial restrictions but retained a quota system
with a preference to our more favored countries. Eventually the INA
established a system of ethnic preferences and also placed great importance
on labor qualifications. But the Act was overturned in 1990 when Congress
made it illegal to deny anyone entry because of their beliefs, statements or
associations. By then the times were a-changing, the cold war over and te
"red scare" of the 1950s was an anachronism. That window of relief
with no real enemies would be short-lived.
No legislation is ever written in stone, and in the Immigration Act
of 1965 quotas based on national origin were ended and preference instead
was given to those having US relatives. This enabled many more Asians to
emigrate here, and they along with Hispanics now comprise the fastest
growing segments of our population aided by their numbers entering the
country legally or illegally. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who had been in the country before
1982 (for many it could be hard to prove) but made it a crime to hire an
illegal immigrant.
Immigration Law Becomes More
Oppressive
Major changes in immigration law were enacted in 1996 when the 104th
Republican Congress enacted and Bill ("I feel your pain") Clinton
signed into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act (IIRAIRA) and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).
These were repressive laws supposedly intended mainly to control illegal
immigration and combat "terrorism." They did neither most often.
Instead, their provisions affect American families, legal immigrants and
others seeking to emigrate legally.
Under the 1996 statutes, legal immigrants are routinely detained
without bond, deported without consideration for discretionary relief,
restricted in their access to counsel, and barred from appealing to the
courts. The laws also allow additional grounds for deportation and can
subject long-term immigrants to mandatory detention and automatic
deportation for even minor offenses like shoplifting, disturbing the peace
or having a "joint" in their pocket. Low-level immigration
officials act as judge and jury (no jury of their peers is allowed), and the
federal courts are allowed no power to review most deportation decisions and
INS activities. These laws can also be applied retroactively. As a result,
many law-abiding immigrants living here for many years can now be deported
for minor offenses and youthful indiscretions that may have occurred many
years ago. These laws literally show no mercy. They allow no second chances,
they can change the rules if so desired, and they deny the targeted
immigrant due rocess in a court of law. The result has been families
unjustly torn apart and made to suffer. Where are you when we need you Emma
Lazarus?
Our leadership before and under George Bush never seemed or seems to
miss an opportunity to fail to miss an opportunity to do the right thing.
During Bill Clinton's second term Congress passed more immigration
legislation in 1997 that spurned most Central American refugee claims and
again in 2000 that offered only modest relief for some undocumented
immigrants. It was better than nothing but not by much.
Post 9/11 The Gloves Came off Along
with The Mask, and It’s a new Ball Game –Not One Any Immigrant of Color
or Muslim Wants to Play
Everything changed after 9/11, as if we didn't know by now. Start
with the passage of the repressive and now infamous USA Patriot Act in 2001.
It provided funding for more border guards and technologies to spot and
detain/arrest possible "terrorists" trying to enter the country.
It also authorized the indefinite detention of any noncitizen suspected of
engaging in "terrorist" activities. It gave the Attorney General
complete discretion to decide who was a suspected "terrorist" and
do it based on no evidence. Those of us paying attention know how things
have turned out. But not enough of us have, and that's why this bill passed
almost without debate allowing the government to move us dangerously closer
to a full-blown national security police state and get away with it - so
far.
This act, only a tyrant could love, stripped all legal protection of
liberty and justice for Muslims and Arabs in the US or those wishing to
come. It sanctioned their being monitored without notification as well as
their NGOs, civic, charitable and religious organizations. The American Bar
Association calls this unconstitutional, but just try to get redress. It
allowed the Justice Department the right to round up and detain an unknown
number of "suspects" from the Middle East and South Asia overall
including at least 5,000 Muslim men only three of whom were charged with a
crime. Federal immigration courts are allowed to hold secret hearings on
their status, and those thought to be in the country illegally or who had
some immigration violation were ordered deported even when going back to
their home country risked their being arrested and tortured. It also gave
the government authority to freeze the assets of any organization it deems
suspect for any reason. It's since been open season making it legal or the
government to conduct a witch-hunt which has gone on ever since including
allowing several federal agencies to raid the homes and offices of the
national Muslim leadership in Northern Virginia. It all amounts to a war on
Muslims and Islam, especially targeted at Muslim immigrants of color or from
the Middle East and South Asia.
A New Climate to Silence Dissent,
Destroy Civil Liberties and Discourage Immigration
The post 9/11 climate cast a pall of fear over the nation that
especially affects our immigrant population, particularly Muslims and
especially those from 25 designated countries (all but one majority Muslim).
It also includes poor and desperate Latinos mostly from Mexico and Central
America who come here undocumented (an estimated 60% of all Latinos are
coming from Mexico) or wish to when they can't do it legally. They
practically have no other choice because of the economic devastation caused
them by the exploitative US instituted so-called "neoliberal free trade
agreements" that have destroyed their ability to earn a living at home.
It's resulted in a mass witch-hunt roundup and secret detention of
thousands. Also many individuals were targeted for deportation and in their
removal proceedings were under gag orders and prevented from talking to
anyone. In addition, all foreign students were tracked as potential
terrorists, recent Muslim immigrants were asked to voluntarily submit to law
enforcement agency interviews and hospitals were required to collect
information on immigrant status before providing Medicaid. Also repressive
and restrictive regulations were established governing the granting of visas
including requiring face-to-face interviews never before needed and
withholding visas for certain categories of people until the FBI conducts
name checks to assure they're not a terrorist threat. Fingerprinting of all
visa-bearing travelers is also required either when they get them or when
arriving at airports and seaports. After October 26, 2004 the law required
this be done by collecting biometric identifiers at US visa-issuing ofices
abroad.
How long will it be before all immigrants and those needing visas to
visit will be required to have an implanted computer chip for ID and
tracking. Think I'm kidding? The FDA has already approved such an
experimental chip for use on 1,000 test subjects. Wanna volunteer? They'll
even know when you go to the "john." If they're pleased with the
results from these "lab rats", it's not far-fetched to imagine a
new repressive law one day requiring all of us - citizens, immigrants and
visa holders - to be so-implanted so they can monitor every move we make and
maybe even one day know what we think.
The new Department of Homeland Security (aka "Big Brother")
now controls this Orwellian nightmare system. It's run by an unindicted war
criminal, John Negroponte, US ambassador to Honduras from 1981 - 1985 where
he was our point man overseeing the infamous Contra wars in Nicaragua and
death squad activities and human rights abuses throughout the region. He
then briefly served as our "ambassador to the new Iraq" post
illegal invasion where he likely introduced the "Salvador death squad
option" now being used intensively in a crazed attempt to foment a real
civil war to divide the country. It's modeled after the one he was in charge
of in El Salvador against that country's freedom-fighting resistance
combating the brutal US supported right wing government in the early 80s.
DHS makes the visa rules, decides who can or cannot get them and be
allowed into the country. In the past the State Department handled this. It
was simpler then which encouraged foreigners to visit, attend school here or
emigrate. Now with a maze of hostile regulations, many foreigners are
dissuaded from coming at all or prevented from doing so. This has adversely
affected US corporations, the travel industry and also many universities
heavily reliant on foreign students and scholars. It's caused leaders and
officials in business, science and education as well as civil libertarians
to be concerned enough to warn this can only be detrimental to the strength
of the nation and our precious freedoms fast disappearing.
Blame the Congress for this mess. With immigration a hot issue, they
passed the Homeland Security Act in 2002 which abolished the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) and moved its functions from the Justice
Department to the newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Within the DHS the Bureau of Border Security now has authority over our
borders and enforcement of our immigration laws. The Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services was given responsibility over visas, citizenship,
asylum, and refugee status. Look for more repressive and restrictive rules
ahead in a post 9/11 climate hostile to people whether they already live
here legally, wish to visit, and especially if they want to emigrate and
happen to have a darker complexion than most of us.
A Nation Addicted to The Need for
Enemies-Real or Invented
With the end of the cold war and along with it the great "red
scare" and evil empire" of that period, the US was desperate to
find new enemies. How else could we justify a high level of military
spending and homeland security and readiness unless we could scare the
public enough to accept it. It's happened so often before you'd think people
would have caught on by to it by now - but you'd be wrong. When our
political leaders need an excuse to pursue some awful public-unfriendly
agenda for their own private reasons and benefit, they need a good excuse to
convince us to go along. They've found the best way most often is by
inventing a threat, hyping it to scare us to death, and then declaring war
on it. It seems to work every time so why not keep doing it. We've had a
"war on drugs" for over 30 years, and in the 1980s Ronald Reagan
"fought" that one, the "cold war" and made it a trifecta
by declaring a war on "international terrorism." In the 1990s the
"cold war" was just a memory, the "war on drugs"
cntinued to lock up mainly our poor and black population, the "war on
international terrorism" was shortened to a "war on
terrorism" and we added a new war to keep it in threes - the one on
immigrants which this essay is about and is very much connected to our
so-called but phony "war on terrorism."
First some numbers based on Census Bureau data. That bureau estimates
the nation's foreign-born immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a
record high of 35 million in March, 2005. Their data also indicate the first
half of the current decade has been the highest five year period of
immigration in our history. Between January, 2000 and March, 2005 they
estimate 7.9 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) entered the country,
3.7 million of whom they believe came illegally. Their data also shows that
between March, 1995 and March, 2000 the foreign-born population grew by 5.7
million or about 1.1 million a year and between 2000 and 2005 an additional
5.2 million immigrated here or about 1 million + a year. Census 2000 also
estimates between 8 - 11 million immigrants were living in the country
illegally. It's likely up around the higher number now or even more.
Hispanics now are the single largest
and fastest growing ethnic or minority group in the country according to the
Census Bureau. They number over 41 million or nearly 14% of the population
surpassing blacks at about 40 million or 13.4%. The Bureau projects that by
2050 the Hispanic population of the US will reach 102.6 million or 24% of
the total. In large and dominant states like California and Texas the totals
are even more dramatic with Hispanics numbering about one third of the
population and rising. And in no other major city is this trend more
prominent than in Los Angeles which is now or shortly will be a majority
Hispanic city.
The War on Immigrants on Three Fronts
Now Being Waged in The Congress
The current legislation that's now passed the House and a different
version so far unpassed in the Senate promises to wage an unholy war against
three classes of immigrants primarily - the undocumented ones already here,
(especially those of color), those coming or wishing to from Mexico from
where they can walk or wade across the border plus their Central American
cousins, and all Muslims (again especially those of color) from anywhere
including those from Arab countries who aren't white enough. Since 9/11 all
Muslims, including the ones living here legally, are clearly public enemy
number one. But those dark-skinned Latinos desperate to escape the
catastrophic poverty from US imposed "neoliberal free market"
trade policies aren't far behind. If anything passes close to its current
House form, it will create a legalized racially stereotyped underclass of
Untermenschen (subhumans) subject to legalized felony scapegoating. The
result will be a living hell for the millions affected and be as far-removed
a can be imagined from the 1960s civil rights legislation that tried undo
centuries of injustice and persecution of black people and all others long
denied their equal rights.
It's unclear how the latest incarnation of immigration legislation
will finally emerge or if in an election year whether any will. The
compromise Senate bill stalled as the Congress adjourned for their Easter
brake. Debate will resume when Congress returns, and if the Senate bill
passes, which appears likely but not certain, it will then have to be
reconciled in conference committee with the House. It won't be easy and may
not happen this year. The debate was heated in both Houses, and when the
conference committee meets to produce a final bill, it'll resume again for
sure. In the end the current "reform" (always code language for
annulling our rights) effort may emerge stillborn. The 109th Congress may
just kick it down the road to the 110th and let them deal with a very
contentious issue that could easily be solved if we had enough legislators
who believed in equity and justice instead of politics as usual liberally
seasoned with race hate, demonization and blame the victim.
It's very clear what the new law would look like if the so-called
House Sensenbrenner bill ever makes it on the books - HR 4437, The Border
Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. I
love the sweet-sounding language they always use that usually conceals a
horror beneath it. In the case of HR 4437 it's even worse than that. For me
and at my age, it's hard to believe anything like it could be passed by even
a single branch of the Congress. But I said the same thing about the USA
Patriot Act that passed both Houses quickly and overwhelmingly (only one
honorable senator voted against it) and was signed into law about as fast as
you could say bombs away. No one in Congress had time to read it or likely
even skim it.
Like its Patriot Act cousin, HR 4437 is a bill out of the bowels of
hell that only tyrants, racists and hatemongers of all stripes could love.
It criminalizes anyone in the country without documentation. Under current
law that's a simple civil violation and often or generally ignored when
those affected work for agribusiness that wants them or the Walmarts of the
world that do as well. Under the neofascist House bill, 11 million or so
undocumented workers already here would be legal felons and subject to
immediate detention and deportation with little if any recourse through the
courts. It would break up and destroy families. The children born here are
US citizens and could stay (supposedly, but don't count on it). Their
undocumented parent or parents could not. And should those deported decide
to return and get caught, it would impose mandatory minimum prison sentences
for them and anyone else judged to be promoting illegal entry.
The bill would also make it a felony subject to five years in prison
for anyone giving aid and comfort to the undocumented like food and water or
desperately needed medical care. There's a whole lot longer list of
nightmarish provisions in this monstrosity including building 698 miles of
five double-layer apartheid wall segments along the Mexican border with
California and Arizona (shades of Israel in the Occupied Territories where
the intent is to steal Palestinian land and destroy innocent lives or the
Berlin Wall). The Senate bill would pass on a physical barrier and impose a
virtual one instead consisting of surveillance cameras, sensors and other
monitoring equipment. Both bills call for measures to increase border
security. The House version would do it by increasing the size of a
Gestapo-like Border Control force 60-fold to 663,546 (that's one third
larger than the active duty US Army excluding reservists and National
Guard). These "border guards" will be little more than armed thugs
legally manated to do about anything they want because acting tough and
terrorizing are terrific deterrents, and they'd only be doing it to poor
dark-skinned folks we don't want who don't count for anything anyway.
This huge army, if it's created, already has a volunteer border force
in place called the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) or
"Minutemen" for short. Their name is sacrilegiously borrowed from
those "ready in a minute men" that go back in our history to the
mid-1600s and were trained to be first on the scene to defend us in a
conflict. All this force wants to defend is white supremacy and race hate.
It's an ultra-right neofascist group possibly numbering in the thousands of
Nazi-like paramilitary street thugs now terrorizing anyone they catch trying
to cross our borders and enter the country illegally, primarily in the
Southwest. Other organizations are just as extremist like the National
Policy Institute that believes the rights of white people come first,
"diversity" and "multiculturalism" are practically
sinful, Affirmative Action should be abolished and mass deportation is the
solution to our "illegal immigrant problem." These groups and
organizations are being tacitly supported by our elected oficials through
their silence or in too many cases their complicity. Let's be clear and call
all these groups and their members what they are - white supremacist racist
nationalists or simply hatemongers for short.
In the US today, this is what's going on to compound the existing
horror from the sort of domestic equivalent of this bill, the USA Patriot
Act, for those of us here legally. There's a sinister idea behind all this
legislation, other oppressive laws already on the books and a government in
charge that believes it can do whatever it wants about anything to anyone,
law or no law. We have a president who believes and has said he's
"above the law" and the "Constitution is just a goddamed
piece of paper." With that kind of attitude, should it surprise anyone
that what's now happening is a full-scale effort to create a repressive
national security police state with the consent of the public that's scared
of its shadow and willing to sacrifice its freedom for the illusion of
security. In reality, the Bush administration is trying to "keep the
legal and illegal rabble in line" while their quest for empire goes on
unobstructed and unabated by waging permanent war on all parts of the world
we haven't yet conquerd and colonized.
George Bush’a Temporary (Guest)
Worker Program-A Return of The “Braceros” if It Becomes Law
George Bush has proposed and the Senate may pass its version of a
temporary or guest worker program as part of their immigration legislation
when they return from spring brake. Shades of the infamous Bracero Program
that was in force from 1942-1964 and gave employers license to exploit over
three million Mexican migrant farm workers, deny them their rights and
subject them to severe harassment and oppression from extremist groups and
racist authorities. Whether or not we enact a new version of that old
program, we're currently moving toward establishing a police state as I've
already alluded to above to control and restrain the home population from
resisting or interfering with their global empire project. The easy targets
are those we label possible or likely "terrorists" followed by
anyone with dark skin living here, wishing to, already arrived undocumented
or others we may allow in to be used, abused and then discarded when no
longer needed.
We have a tainted history in our treatment of immigrants going back
many years. I discussed earlier what we did to the Chinese who built our
transcontinental railroad in the 19th century. It was no different in the
1930s when in the desperation of the Great Depression, Latinos were viewed
as taking jobs and getting government benefits from "real
Americans." As a result, up to two million Mexicans were
"relocated" to Mexico during that decade even though 1.2 million
of them were born in the US and were US citizens. In California alone,
400,000 Latino US citizens or legal residents were forced to leave. This
virulent racism resurfaced in 1954 when under "Operation Wetback"
(the name alone wreaks of race hate) and in a national reaction against
illegal immigrants, over one million here illegally were deported back to
Mexico by trucks, buses, trains and even ships. In some cases even their US
born children were sent with them even though they were US citizens. It's a
wonder we didn't put them all on forcd marches and make them go back the
hard way.
The stalled compromise Senate bill, endorsed by George Bush, is
little more than election year politicking to win the Hispanic vote. In
addition, it would create a permanently legal underclass of low-paid
workers, allow employers the right to exploit them and put added pressure on
US workers so as to restrain their wage and benefit demands.
The Senate bill divides illegal immigrants into three groups. Those
who arrived after April 1, 2001 could stay permanently if they pass
background checks and pay back taxes and a $2,000 fine (no easy task for
them); worked at least three of the past five years; work another six years
and get in the queue behind other applicants already in it. Immigrants who
arrived between April 1, 2001 and January, 2004 would have to return to a US
port of entry and re-enter the country legally with a temporary work permit.
They would also have to pass background checks and pay back taxes. Finally,
illegals who arrived after January, 2004 would be required to leave the
country. They could only return on temporary work permits.
Any immigration bill, if passed, will create an overwhelming burden
of documentation and verification on millions of immigrants as well as the
federal bureaucracy and employers. Immigrants going through the process
would be forced to give up their right to privacy protection, asylum and due
process. If an Employment Verification System is part of a final resolution,
they would also have to get a federal agency's permission to work. In
addition, it would require them to learn English and would subject them to
overwhelming bureacratic red tape that under the best of conditions likely
would be rife with errors and delays that would be nightmarish to resolve.
And to boot it would create an easily accessed database that would make all
those in it easy pickings for identity theives.
Employers under the Senate plan would be required to verify that
their new workers are in the country legally. They now only need to ask for
worker documents showing those they hire are allowed to be here. The plan
envisions a tamper-proof means of ID, such as a driver's license with a
picture, a fingerprint or an iris scan. If that provision becomes law, it's
step one on the road to a national identity card for everyone, possibly to
include an embedded chip so Homeland Security, the NSA and other snoop
agencies could keep tabs on all our moves and whereabouts. "Big
Brother" is alive and well and "in our face."
The immigration service would also have its hands full under this
plan. It would have to cope with the overwhelming burden of doing background
checks and verifying the identity, work history, tax obligations and English
language competency of 11 million or more people. This is on top of their
already enormous burden handling the influx of immigrants into the country.
The IRS and Social Security Administration would also be obligated along
with employers to help immigrants calculate what back taxes they owe and
what they had paid into Social Security accounts. Employers would have to
report these earnings and would be in violation of the law if they didn't.
A Comparison of Current Proposed
Immigration Legislation to Hitler’s Nuremberg Race Laws
What's on the table being debated in the Congress is not as extreme
as Hitler's infamous Nuremberg Race Laws, but there are some ominous
comparisons. Early on in Nazi Germany Hitler wanted to assert the
superiority of the "Aryan race." He hoped to create a Master Race
of pure blue-eyed, blond Aryan Caucausian Nordic types, and even though the
notion of Aryan has no racial meaning he inferred that it did in what he
preached and the laws he had enacted. The chosen ones were the Herrenvolk
and all others were called Untermenschen or subhumans. In the US today
Causausian Judeo-Christians are our Herrenvolk and all others are the
Untermenschen, especially people of color and Muslims.
We don't say that openly, write our laws with overtly denigrating or
restrictive racist language in them or practice a policy of extermination
today to create a "racially" pure society. But we did just that
for 300 years to our native population and in the process slaughtered about
18 million of them as we built the nation we now have. Hitler, in fact, used
what we did as a model for his own plan to exterminate the Jews and other
undesirables he wanted eliminated.
We also used black Africans as slaves over the same period we
eliminated our native population and then after freeing them held them in
the bondage of Jim Crow laws and racist attitudes that exist to this day
despite the landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s. We never
accepted black people or any others of color as co-equals even though we
piously say we do and enacted laws that codify it.
The current immigration legislation now being debated is only the
latest chapter in white America's attempt to put its oppressive boot on the
neck of people of color we see as inferior or now label
"terrorists." And we created a new public enemy number one after
9/11, Muslims, and have persecuted them with a vengeance. Just like the
saying that "history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes",
attributed to Mark Twain, what the US has practiced in recent years is not
like Nazi Germany at its worst, but there's similarity enough to be very
disturbing and we're heading in the wrong direction.
Hitler, too, began slowly and moderately after being named German
Chancellor in January, 1933 (about one month before Franklin Roosevelt
became our 32nd President). He needed time to consolidate power and at first
didn't want to scare the voters before they lost their franchise or moderate
politicians before they no longer had any say. What began modestly gradually
became more extreme and isn't too dissimilar to what's happening here now.
Bill Clinton's signing into law the 1996 immigration reform act (IIRAIRA)
and anti-terrorism act (AEDPA) discussed earlier can be seen as the first
shot across the bow in the current war against immigrants. Then after 9/11
the gloves came off, and it was off to the races with the infamous Patriot
Act, mass witch-hunt roundups of those labeled potential terrorists and now
an extreme and hostile attempted crackdown on those immigrant groups we've
targeted - those of color, especially Latinos and Muslims. What's next?
Unless the current mass public protest uproar contines, gets stronger and
makes the lawmakers nervous enough to believe we really mean business and
won't stand for this, you can bet it will only get worse until we're all
targeted and become potential victims. That's about how Hitler did it, and
we seem headed in the same dangerous direction. Good Germans back then
didn't complain as long as it happened to others until one day many
discovered it could happen to them too. By then it was too late. That's how
tyranny works.
Mass Outrange in The Streets
Nationwide in Protest-A New Civil Rights Struggle
In recent weeks millions of people have gone to the streets in cities
nationwide to protest en masse against the current immigration legislation
in the Congress. These protests have the potential to spread and grow enough
to become the new civil rights struggle of our time. Hostile and denigrating
legislation in the Congress has lit the fuse, and all the immigrant rights
movement may need to combat it is a few Martin Luther King type figures to
lead the effort for real justice against a government intent on denying it
to them.
The protests are continuing, and at least 60 cities are scheduling
more events and demonstrations that include candlelight vigils in Los
Angeles, a mass rally at the Washington monument and a "day without
Hispanics" in Telluride, CO intended as a work stoppage. In addition,
immigration rights activists are planning a national action, student walkout
and boycott they call The Great American Boycott of 2006 on May 1 of no
work, no school, no shopping and a demand for amnesty and full and equal
rights for all working people. Adding overall impact to these mass protests
is the presence of Hispanics from Mexico and almost every Central and South
American country including Venezuela whose twice democratically elected
President, Hugo Chavez, is also a target of US hostility and possible future
illegal aggression to oust him. But other immigrant ethnic groups are well
represented as well - especially large numbers from the Korean and Chinese
communities.
Joshua Hoyt, Executive Director of the Illinois Coalition for
Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a 120-member coalition of organizations, said:
"There has never been this kind of mobilization in the immigrant
community ever. They have kicked the sleeping giant. It's the beginning of a
massive immigrant civil rights struggle." And it's gone beyond just the
rights of legal and illegal immigrants to include working people of all
races who've seen their jobs exported, unions weakened or destroyed, wages
stagnated and essential benefits reduced, lost or never gotten. It's seen
permanent high-paying jobs replaced by temporary ones at much lower pay and
often no benefits. It's seen the oppressive power of big corporations aided
by their allies in government wreak havoc over ordinary working people
including legal immigrants and the undocumented in a vicious downward cycle
of exploitation and repression. The voices in the streets are saying
"no mas/no more." I make no bones where I stand - four-square with
all thse in the streets, and I was born here and am one of the privileged.
That could never have happened if my ancestors had been denied entry or had
been deported after they arrived.
Look at the impressive numbers in cities around the country. In my
city of Chicago alone, from 300,000 - 500,000 protested downtown near where
I live in the largest ever protest in the city's history for any reason. In
Los Angeles it was the same thing with somewhere between 1 - 1.5 million in
the streets, again historic. In New York, tens of thousands marched across
the Brooklyn Bridge carrying the flags of their native countries. And those
in the streets included more than immigrants - the unions brought out their
members, there were young people and students who walked out of class in
defiance of school authorities to join in (40,000 alone in Los Angeles).
It's hard to tell where this will lead or what effect it will have, but
never underestimate the power of organized people. When enough of them speak
out, politicians listen, especially when those people are voters or in the
case of young people when they have parents who are. Famed Chicago community
organizer Sol Linowitz understood it when he oce said "the way to beat
organized money is with organized people." Social activist Arundhati
Roy also understands and she's said "we are many and they are
few." And I suggest we all together do a good imitation of Howard
Beale, the news anchor from the 1976 movie Network, who one day got fed up
yelled out "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this
anymore." Any Howards out there? Come on, let me hear you. I start you
off and say what I said before - I'm past made as hell, I won't take it
anymore, and I intend to fight back to save my civil liberties and the
republic and to help the disadvantaged and oppressed achieve the justice
they deserve. But I can't do it alone. I need a lot of you with me.
Today’s War on Immigrants and
“Terrorists” will be Tomorrow’s war Against Us All-It’s Already
Begun
I've written now a number of times before that I believe the country
is approaching a dangerous watershed. The scenario I paint is a gloomy one
in which the situation is grave, the stakes are immense and the time is
short. It's a battle to save the republic and our sacred Constitutional
rights. I'm desperately trying to sound the alarm against an out-of-control
imperial state engaged in a permanent war abroad for empire along with a
"second front" at home against all working people (that's most
everyone) and especially the ones most easily targeted who comprise the
subject of this essay - vulnerable legal and undocumented immigrants. It's a
life and death struggle to save us from descending into the hell of tyranny,
the repressive police state being created to control it and an endless war
on the world. That's not a world I want to live in or pass on to my children
or grandchildren. I hope you feel as I do and are willing to do something
about it. Unless you do and together we can find a way to revese course and
do it quickly, we'll awaken one day sooner than we may think and find out
it's already too late, we've crossed "The Rubicon", and there's no
way back. The sad lesson of history will have been repeated again, but this
time to us. It can happen here, make no mistake. Will you now head out to
the mall complacently with what's at stake? Will you let this happen without
a fight? I won't. Are you with me?
[I've never before dedicated one of my
articles to anyone, but this time feel I must. I wish to dedicate this one
to the wonderful and redoubtable staff at US based Pacifica Radio KPFA's
Flashpoints Radio in Berkeley, CA for their courageous, tireless and
unrelenting efforts on behalf of the immigrant communities of my country and
for their overall work and commitment in the unending fight for humanity and
equal justice for all. They inspired me to write this article and several
others as well. I'm deeply grateful to them.]
The Bar Dancer and The Trafficked Migrant: Globalisation and
Subaltern Existance
by Flavia Agnes(* Jurist, Majlis, Mumbai)
An important feature of a rally organized by bar owners against police
raids in Mumbai on 20th August 2004 was the emergence of the bar
dancer. A large number of girls with their faces covered were at the
forefront of the rally holding up placards with blown up pictures of semi clad
Bollywood stars. It was a statement
questioning the hypocritical moralilty of the state and civil society.
This image became the motif for the media for the following year when the
controversy around the bar dancer was raging.
The media reported that there are around 75,000 bar dancers in the city
of Mumbai and its suburbs and they have organized themselves into a union to
resist police raids.
The
mushrooming of an entire industry called the ‘dance bars’ had escaped the
notice of the women’s movement in the city.
Every one in Mumbai was aware that there are some exclusive ‘ladies
bars’. But usually women, especially those unaccompanied by men, are stopped
at the entrance. So many of us did
not have any inside information regarding the bar dancers.
Except within the for the closed doors of the doors during late hours of
the night, they led an invisible life. But
the 20th August rally changed all that.
Soon
after the rally, Ms. Varsha Kale, the President of the Bar Girls Union
approached us (the legal center of Majlis) to represent them through an
‘Intervener Application’ in the Writ Petition filed by the bar owners.
During the discussion with the bar dancers, it emerged that while for the
bar owners it was a question of business losses, for the bar girls it was an
issue of human dignity and right to livelihood. When the bars are raided, it is the girls who are arrested,
but the owners are let off. During
the raids the police molest them, tear their clothes, and abuse them in filthy
language. At times, the girls are retained in the police station for the whole
night and subjected to further indignities. But in the litigation, their
concerns were not reflected. It is
essential that they be heard and they become part of the negotiations with the
State regarding the code of conduct to be followed during the raids.
As far
as the abuse of power by the police was concerned, we were clear.
But what about the vulgar and obscene display of the female body for the
pleasure of drunken male customers, which was promoted by the bar owners with
the sole intention of jacking up their profits?
It is here that there was a lack of clarity. I had been part of the
women’s movement that has protested against fashion parades and beauty
contests and semi-nude depiction of women in Hindi films. But the younger
lawyers within Majlis had a different perspective. They belonged to a later
generation, which had come to terms with fashion parades, female sexuality and
erotica.
Finally
after much discussion, we decided to take on the challenge and represent the bar
girls’ union in the litigation. In
order to understand the issue we spoke to many bar dancers and also visited
dance bars. Though I was
uncomfortable in an environment of palpable erotica, I realized that there is a
substantial difference between a bar and a brothel. An NGO, Prerana, which works
on anti-trafficking issues, had filed an intervener application, alleging the
contrary – that bars are in fact brothels and that they are dens of
prostitution where minors are trafficked. While the police had raided the bars
on the ground of obscenity, the Prerana intervention added a new twist to the
litigation because they submitted that regular police raids are essential for
controlling trafficking and for rescuing minors. The fact that the police had
not abided by the strict guidelines in anti-trafficking laws and had molested
the women did not seem to matter to them. At
times, after the court proceedings, we ended up being extremely confrontational
and emotionally charged, with Prerana representatives accusing us of
legitimizing trafficking by bar owners and us retaliating by accusing them of
acting at the behest of the police.
Sometime in March 2005, when the arguments were going on in the High
Court, the first announcement on the closure of dance bars was made by the
Deputy Chief Minister Shri R.R. Patil. The
announcement was followed by unprecedented media glare and we found ourselves in
the centre of the controversy as lawyers representing the bar girls’ union.
The controversy had all the right ingredients - titillating sexuality, a hint of
the underworld, and polarized positions among social activists.
Ironically, the entire controversy and the media glare helped to bring
the bar girl out of her closeted existence. It made the dance bars more
transparent and accessible to women activists.
Some women’s groups came out openly in support of the dancers.
But an equal or even greater number of NGOs and social activists issued
statements supporting the ban. Among
them were child-right and anti-trafficking groups led by Prerana. The women
members of the NCP came on the street brandishing the banner of depraved
morality.Paid advertisements appeared in newspapers and signature campaigns were
held at railway stations. ‘Sweety
and Savithri - who will you choose?’ goaded the leaflets distributed door to
door, along with the morning newspaper. The term Savithri, denoted the
traditional pativrata, an ideal for Indian womanhood, while Sweety
denoted the woman of easy virtue, the wrecker of middle class homes.
Suddenly the dancer from the city’s
sleazy bars and shadowy existence had spilled over into the public domain. Her
photographs were splashed across the tabloids and television screens.
She had become the topic of conversation at street corners and market
places; in ladies compartments of local trains and at dinner tables in middle
class homes. Every one had an opinion and a strong one at that.
In her favour, or, more likely, against her.
Saint or sinner … worker or whore … spinner of easy money and wrecker
of homes or victim of patriarchal structures and market economy? The debate on
sexual morality and debasement of metropolitan Mumbai seemed to be revolving
around her existence (or non-existence). The anti-trafficking groups who had
been working in the red light districts had not succeeded in making a dent in
child trafficking in brothels that continue to thrive.
But in this controversy, brothel prostitution and trafficking of minors
had been relegated to the sidelines. The brothel prostitute was viewed with more
compassion than the bar dancer, who may or may not resort to sex work.
The
bar dancer was made out to be the cause of all social evils and depravity.
Even the blame for the Telgi scam was laid at her door; the news story
that Telgi spent Rs.9, 300,000 on a bar dancer in one night was cited as an
example of their pernicious influence. The criminal means through which Telgi
amassed wealth faded into oblivion in the fury of the controversy.
Was it her earning capacity, the legitimacy awarded to her profession,
and the higher status she enjoyed in comparison to a sex worker that invited the
fury from the middle class Maharashtrian moralists?
While
the proposed ban adversely impacted the bar owners and bar dancers from the
lower economic rungs, the state proposed an exemption to hotels which hold three
or more “stars”, or clubs and gymkhanas.
Those of us who opposed the ban raised some uncomfortable questions:
“Could the State impose arbitrary and varying standards of vulgarity,
indecency and obscenity for different sections of society or classes of people?
If an ‘item number’ of a Hindi film can be screened in public
theatres, then how can an imitation of the same be termed as ‘vulgar’? The
bar dancers imitate what they see in Indian films, television serials, fashion
shows and advertisements. All these industries use women’s bodies for
commercial gain. There is sexual exploitation of women in these and many other
industries. But no one has ever suggested that you close down an entire industry
because there is sexual exploitation of women! Bars employ women, as waitresses
and the proposed ban would not affect this category. Waitresses mingle with the
customers more than the dancers who are confined to the dance floor. If the
anti-trafficking laws had not succeeded in preventing trafficking, how could the
ban on bar dancing prevent trafficking? And
if certain bars were functioning as brothels, why were the licenses issued to
them not revoked?”
Since
the efforts of the Deputy Chief Minister to get an Ordinance signed by the
Governor failed, the government drafted a bill and presented it to the State
Assembly. It was an amendment to the Bombay Police Act, 1951 by inserting
certain additional sections. On July 21, 2005, the Bill was passed at the end of
a, ‘marathon debate’. Since the
demand for the ban was shrouded with the mantle of sexual morality, it was
passed unanimously. The debate was
marathon not because there was opposition, but every legislature wanted to prove
his moral credentials. No legislator would risk sticking his neck out to defend
a lowly bar dancer and tarnish his own image. In the visitor’s gallery, we
were far outnumbered by the pro-ban lobby, the ‘Dance Bar Virodhi Manch’,
who had submitted 150,000 signatures to the Maharashtra state assembly insisting
on the closure of dance bars.
It was
a sad day for some of us, a paltry group of women activists, who had supported
the bar dancers and opposed the ban. We were sad, not because we were
outnumbered, not even because the Bill was passed unanimously, But because of
the manner in which an important issue relating to women’s livelihood, which
would render thousands of
women destitute, was discussed. We
were shocked at the derogatory comments that were passed on the floor of the
House, by our elected representatives, who are under the constitutional mandate
to protect the dignity of women! Not
just the bar dancers but even those who spoke out in their defense became the
butt of ridicule during the Assembly discussions.
The comments by the legislatures while debating the bill protecting the
dignity of women were frivolous at best and down right bawdy and vulgar at its
degenerated worst.
One
member stated: ‘we are not Taliban but somewhere we have to put a stop.
The moral policing we do, it is a good thing, but it is not enough … we
need to do even more of this moral policing..’
Suddenly the term ‘moral policing’ had been turned into a hallowed
phrase!
These
comments were not from the ruling party members who had tabled the bill.
They were from the opposition. Their
traditional role is to criticize the bill, to puncture holes in it, to counter
the argument, to present a counter viewpoint.
But on that day, the House was united, across party lines and all were
playing to the gallery with their moral one-upmanship.
No one wanted to be left out. Not
even the Shiv Sena whose party high commandis linked to a couple of dance brs in
the city, supported the ban on ‘moral’ grounds. And the Marxists were one
with the Shiv Sainiks. The speech by the CPI (M) member was more scathing, than
the rest.
It was
a moral victory to the Deputy Chief Minister (DCM), Shri R. R.Patil.
In his first announcement in the last week of March 2005, he had said
that only bars outside Mumbai would be banned.
A week later, came the next announcement. The state shall not
discriminate! All bars, including the ones in Mumbai, would be banned. What had
transpired in the intervening period one does not know?
But what was deemed as moral, legal and legitimate, suddenly a week
later, came to be regarded as immoral, vulgar and obscene.
The
‘morality’ issue had won. The
‘livelihood’ issue had lost. It
was indeed shocking that in this era of
liberalization and globalization dominated by market forces, morality had
superseded all other concerns, even of revenue for the cash-strapped state.
The
demand for the ban was grounded on two premises, which were contradictory to
each other. The first - that the
bar dancers are evil and immoral, they corrupt the youth and wreck middle class
homes; they hanker after easy money and amass a fortune each night by goading
innocent and gullible young men into sex and sleaze. The second - that bars in
fact are brothels and bar owners are traffickers who sexually exploit the girls
for commercial gains. This premise refused to grant an agency to the women
dancers. Rather unfortunately, both
these populist premises appealed to the parochial, middle class Maharashtrian
sense of morality. What was even
worse, the demand for a ban was framed within the language of ‘women’s
liberation’ and the economic disempowerment of this vulnerable class of women
came to be projected as a plank which would liberate them from sexual bondage.
On
August 14th, 2005, at the midnight hour, as the music blared in bars
packed to capacity in and around the city of Mumbai, the disco lights were
turned off and the dancers took their final bow and faded into oblivion. As the
State celebrated the Independence Day, an estimated 75,000 girls, mainly from
the lower economic strata, lost their means of livelihood.
Some
left the city in search of options, others fell by the wayside.
Some became homeless. Some let their ailing parents die.
Some pulled their children out of school.
Some were battered and bruised by drunken husbands, as they could not
bring in the money to make ends meet. Some
put their pre-teen daughters
out for sale in the flesh market. And
some committed suicides … just
names in police diaries … Meena Raju … Bilquis Shahu
... Kajol … In the
intervening months there were more to follow.
A few stuck on and begged for work as waitresses in the same bars.
The
exit of the dancer brought the dance bar industry to a grinding halt. Devoid of
glamour and fanfare, the profit margins plummeted and many bars closed down.
Few others braved the storm and worked around the ban by transforming
themselves into ‘silent bars’ or ‘pick up points’ - slang used for the
sex trade industry. Left with few options, women accepted the paltry sums thrown
at them by customers, to make ends meet. Groups working for prevention of
HIV/AIDS rang a warning bell at the increasing number of girls turning up for
STD check ups.
Soon thereafter, Petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court
challenging the constitutionality of the Act by three different segments - the
bar owners associations, the bargirls union and social organizations.
After
months of legal battle, finally, the High Court struck down the ban as
unconstitutional The judgement was pronounced on 12th April, 2006 to
a packed court room by a Division Bench comprising of Justices F.I. Rebello and
Mrs. Roshan Dalvi and made national headlines.
The ban was struck down on the following
two grounds:
·
the exemption (given
to certain categories of hotels as
well as clubs etc.)
has no reasonable nexus to the aims and objects which the statute
is supposed to achieve and hence it is arbitrary and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India
(the clause of equality and non-discrimination);
·
it violates the fundamental freedom of the bar owners and the bar dancers to practice a
occupation or profession and is
violative of Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution.
The
Court held that the dance bar ban violates fundamental freedom guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This is a significant development and
nearly half the pages of the extensive 257 page judgment deals with this
concern. “Are our fundamental
rights so fickle that a citizen has to dance to the State’s tune”, was
the caustic comment.[i]
Further
the court held: “The State does
not find it offensive to the morals or dignity of women and / or their presence
in the place of public entertainment being derogatory, as long as they do not
dance. The State’s case for
prohibiting dance in dance bars is, that it is dancing which arouses the
physical lust amongst the customers present.
There is no arousing of lust when women serve the customer’s liquor or
beer in the eating house, but that happens only when the women start dancing.
…. The right to dance has
been recognized by the Apex Court as part of the fundamental right of speech and
expression. If that be so, it will be open to a citizen to commercially benefit
from the exercise of the fundamental right.
This could be by a bar owner having dance performance or by bar dancers
themselves using their creative talent to carry on an occupation or profession.
In other words, using their skills to make a living….”[ii]
A
glaring discrepancy in the arguments advanced by the State was in the realm of
the agency of this sexual woman. At
one level the State and the pro-ban lobby advanced an argument that the dancers
are evil women, who come to the bars to earn ‘easy money’ and corrupt the
morals of the society by luring and enticing young and gullible men.
This argument granted an agency to women dancers. But after the ban, the
government tried to justify the ban on the ground of trafficking and argued that
these women lack an agency and need State intervention to free them from this
world of sexual depravity in which they are trapped.
Refuting
the argument of trafficking, the Court commented:
“no material has been brought on record from those cases that the women
working in the bars were forced or lured into working in the bars. The statement
of Objects and Reasons does not so indicate this. … To support the charge of
trafficking in order to prohibit or restrict the exercise of a fundamental
right, the State had to place reliable material, which was available when the
amending Act was enacted or even thereafter to justify it. A Constitutional
Court in considering an act directly affecting the fundamental rights of
citizens, has to look beyond narrow confines to ensure protection of those
rights. In answer to the call attention Motion, an admission was made by the
Home Minister and it is also stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that
young girls were going to the dance bars because of the easy money they earned
and that resulted also in immoral activities. There was no mention of
trafficking.”[iii]
Rather
ironically the anti-ban lobby also framed its arguments within this accepted
‘victim’ mould. Single
mothers, traditional dancers with no other options. Further, it was important
for the anti-ban lobby to make a clear distinction between the dancer
/ entertainer and the streetwalker and base the arguments squarely upon
the fundamental right to dancing. The sexual erotic inherent in dancing had to
be carefully crafted and squarely located within ‘Indian traditions’ and the
accepted norm of ‘Bollywood gyrations’ and not slip beyond into sexual
advances. The emphasis had to be
for a right to livelihood only through dancing and not beyond.
During
the entire campaign, the world of the bar dancer beyond these confines lay
hidden from the feminist activists who campaigning their cause and was carefully
guarded by the bar dancer. Only now
and then would it spill over more as a defiant statement. So
while we were exposed to one aspect of their lives which had all the problems
– of parenting, poverty, pain and police harassment, we must admit that this
was only a partial projection, an incomplete picture.
We could not enter the other world in which they are constantly
negotiating their sexuality, the dizzy heights they scale while they dance
draped in gorgeous chiffons studded with sequences, oozing out female erotica
and enticing their patrons to part with a generous tip.
The Trafficked
Woman
Prior to the ban, the state administration initiated some discussion
about the possible rehabilitation of the bar dancers. However, when they
realised the enormity of the proposition, they hastily modified their stand.
According to the Deputy Chief Minister, Shri R. R. Patil it was neither feasible
nor desirable to rehabilitate the dancers.
Showing little or no consideration towards the 'cause and effect' of its
policies and actions, the Maharashtra government absolved itself of its
responsibility, citing statistics of the larger proportion of women who come to
Mumbai from ‘outside’, as an excuse for its indifference.
Finally,
by the time the ban was implemented, the rehabilitation proposal was abandoned
all together. This was justified by the baseless allegation that the dancers
were earning easy money and that they had amassed huge amounts of unaccounted
wealth. This assertion was completely untrue for the overwhelming majority of
the dancers. Based on this myth, the government contended that there was no need
for any rehabilitation measure.
Faced
with the almost negligible employment options and the destitution of their
families, some dancers negotiated with the bar owners and a via media solution
was reached to employ the former dancers as waitresses in ladies service bars.
Given the fact that the majority were illiterate, this was the best option for
them to ‘rehabilitate’ themselves at a lower rung within the familiar
environment of the bars, where there is no stigma attached to the former bar
girls.
Waitressing
is a perfectly valid legal option as per all the exiting legislations including
the latest Amendment to the Bombay Police Act. However, women employed as
waitresses continued to face harassment. The Police continued to hound these
women and harass them on various pretexts. They were abused and taunted to and
from work and the Police continued to demand their haftas from the women, now
earning negligible amounts, barely sufficient to meet their basic needs.
The
state continued to hound women in other ways too. In fact, no avenues were left
out in the witch-hunt that followed and it still continues to this day. The
D.C.M. Shri. R. R. Patil, went to
the extent of announcing to the press that the witch-hunt could be public now
– a licence and an invitation. The news that one or two
bar dancers (e.g. Taranum)
have been discovered to have large amounts of unaccounted wealth was blown out
of proportion to suggest that all bar girls have unaccounted wealth. Shri
R. R. Patil went to the extent of making a public announcement
that people could now go out and hound the bar dancers. Whoever was
successful would be rewarded with 20% of the moolah. This was not a general
announcement, but a specific one targeted at bar dancers.
In the
midst of this increasing public vilification of bar girls, on 26th
August 2005, around 85 bar dancers who were working as waitresses were arrested. While the bar owners, managers and male staff who were
arrested were released on bail the very next day, the women driven to penury
could not pay the huge amount of Rs.15, 000 and were languishing in prison
cells. We met these women along
with social workers from Tata Institute of Social Work. Later interveneed with
the bar owners association and after months of negotiations finally the girls
were released on bail.
It is
during our prison visits that we came across yet another layer of bar dancers.
These were recent migrants and were the poorest of the poor and hence
they were still in custody as they lacked even the basic support structure in
the city. They did not have any
friends or relatives in Bombay. The
also did not have any indetification like ration card or voter cards and it was
obvious that they were recent migrants. Most
girls spoke Bengalis and some admitted to being Bangladeshis while others
denied. In the study conducted by
S.N.D.T. University along with women’s groups where 500 girls were
interviewed, there were a significant number of Bengali girls but all of them
stated that they hail from Kolkota and most had Hindu names. (It is not uncommon for bar dancers to change their names
when they come to the bars and the names they take on
are usually of famous stars from Bollywood
or television serials. Whne we
asked them their names, they would respond, ‘which name should I give - the family name or the bar name?’. We would be taken aback by this response.
For these girls the usuals markers like name and address also did not
have much significance and these were not markers of their existence in the
city. So their lives had been truly invisible prior to the bar girls controversy
raging in the public domain.)
Through
our interviews we were able to detect a certain migration pattern and also probe
into issues of trafficking. The
girls claimed that they came to Bombay thrugh some networks and initially were
brought to work as domestic maids but were later introduced to bars where they
worked as waitresses or dancers. There was no
coercion or force in getting the women to work at the bar.
Though
the women did not come to Bombay intending to work at the bars, and they may not
have been initially apprehensive about the work, however, now most say that this
work is the best option for them in their present circumstances since they were
earning far more than they would as domestic workers and they enjoyed a certain
degree of. Economic freedom. During
our interviews when asked whether they would go back to the bars after their
release, initially they denied and stated vehementaly that
they would never work in a bar again.
They stated that the work was indignified and humililating.
There was also the fear that they might get arrested.
But on further probing they admitted that it was their best option and
that if the ban were lifted then they would go back to working at the bar.
One
could surmise that the women were ‘duped’ as they did not know that they
were coming to Bombay to work in bars. They
came to Bombay to seek better employment opportunities as domestic workers.
But it is also possible that the so called ‘friend’ who brought them
to Bombay did so with the intention of introducing them to the bars and one can
surmise that there are certain chains through which women migrate to metro
cities which can be termed as trafficking.
However, while there may be some sort of cheating/deception on the part
of the friend, there does not appear to be any organized trafficking links
operating to bring these girls and lure them into sex work.
There
was no compulsion, other than their own economic compulsion, that made them
become bar dancers. The women
arrive at some sort of arrangement with the friend who had got them the bar
work. Most paid the friend a daily amount, generally Rs 100/- for food and
lodgings. The women were not in any manner controlled by the bar owners. They
lived separately, got daily payments, traveled to and from their rooms.
As
regards the accommodation, the system of daily rent of Rs 100/- is the norm. We
might not have come across it earlier as we generally deal with a slightly more
prosperous stratum of bar dancers. These women were from a poorer
strata than most e dancers we had
interacted with so far. Initially, in our minds we linked this to
prostitution. But later we realsed
that among this strata, it is common to have shared accommodations on daily
rental basis with an average of about four to six girls sharing a room.
If the girl changed her bar she would also change her accommodation.
It was very simple. Thus,
our initial suspicion that the daily room rent was an indication of prostitution
was not true.
Just when we had surmounted the hurdle of getting these girlsreleased on
bail through negotiations with bar
owners, there was yet another incident, this
time far more lethal and its implications far more
grave. In October, 2005,
while the bar dancer issue still
had a lot of news value, and the
High Court case was still pending, this incident
made news headlines and shattered the lives of
many former bar dancers. A
television channel splashed a sensational story of
the rape of a former bar
dancer in the satellite town of
Nerul in Navi Mumbai.
The case as it unfolded had all the ingredients of a cheap thriller –
the string operations carried out by a reporter of a
television channel and her ‘source’, then the filing of the case and
the media hype that followed, the detention of the victim in police custody for
two days, followed by the news of her retraction before a magistrate, the
questioning by the police of the journalist which ended in a dramatic suicide
bid by the alleged ‘source’, who named the police and the reporter in his
suicide note. In the murky events, it had become extremely difficult to gauge
who is the victim and who the culprit, as the situation kept changing each day,
and finally the cop emerging as the gullible victim of this sordid story.
Entangled
amidst the twists and turns of this high profile sexual thriller were two
powerful players - the state and
the media. Whose career was
intended to be boosted up through the string operations and whose tarnished
image had to be salvaged through the retraction are questions, which have easy
and straightforward answers. The
starkness of the plight of the former bar dancer, estranged from her husband,
who has been the butt of the state’s moral purging, strikes you in the face
and blinds you.
But
what has not been so easily discernible is the vicious retaliation by the state
on the entire local community of bar dancers in Nerul and surrounding areas.
The day the retraction was reported, the papers also carried reports of
the police crack down, in what was termed as
“flushing out operations”.
They arrested around 91 people, of whom 65 were former bar dancers -
impoverished and illiterate, mostly Muslim, predominantly Bengali speaking.
Damned as “illegal immigrants” they would be languishing in prison cells,
until they are able to produce papers to prove their claim to Indian
citizenship.
Meeting
the family members of these ill-fated women was a harrowing experience. That was
when we confronted the naked strength of the “state” in peacetime
“operation”. Forlorn
teenaged boys sobbed while asking for news about their detainee mothers.
Elderly women came with infants in arms asking what they ought to be
doing with these mother-less toddlers. Young girls reported that fearing the
midnight knocks; they are spending nights in deserted and dilapidated buildings,
in the outskirt of the township. Others confided that they lock their houses
from the outside and hurdle together in a corner the whole night, so that they
are rendered invisible. Several girls, Bengali and non-Bengali, Hindu and
Muslim, complained about daily police harassments and extortions.
The raids were no longer
carried out in the bars, now they
are on the streets … in the
market place … into their homes
… there were no safe spaces left.
The
unspoken question in everyone’s eyes
was just one: what
had gone wrong? Nothing
much really. Just that a lowly bar dancer living on the edge of life, had been goaded
on and under a false sense of
security, had dared to pose a
challenge to the might of the state. The incident
of rape of a
former bar dancer, which would have otherwise gone unnoticed was scaled
to the peak by the media and it would have had grave implications to the state
in the case pending before the High Court. So the entire community had to pay the price.
This time the state machinery was wiser.
The firls were not arrested under the newly amended Bombay Police Act but
under the Foreigners’ Act with no avenues open for bail or release.
The only option ahead was deportation.
The situation had become even worse due to certain extraneous
political and legal incidents. One
was the serial Bomb blast that occurred in Delhi markets on 27th
October 2005. The newspapers reported that the terrorists had entered the
country not fromPakistan but through porous borders between India and Bangaldesh.
The second was the Supreme Court decision regarding the Assam Foreign
National Act were deportation could occur even without due process of law.
The seal was secured firmly on the former
bar dancers and they were guilty and
could be held captive and later deported unless they could
place before the court the necessary documents to prove their identity as
Indian nationals. The requirements
of proving nationality were far beyond this motely group of poverty stricken
women who had come to Mumbai to seek bare survival.
As one
under nourished teenager who admitted that she was a Bangladeshi metniioend to
uspoignantly, ‘didi, I had not eaten for a week, there was no milk in my
breast and my three month old child was starving.
If we had not crossed the border, we would have all died.
After into India, I have left my baby with my mother in a village in West
Bengal and have come here six months ago so I can earn some money to keep
mymother, my child and myself alive. You
may do anything, but I can never return to my country.
If I do I will die.’ How
does one respond to this desperate pleading for a mere survival, particularly
when countered on the other side with grave questions like terrorism and
national security?
It is
not that there weren’t such “push
back” operations in the past. But
that was years ago, during the BJP-Shiv Sena rule.
In those days, the “illegal migrant labour” was predominantly male.
And the voices of the secular forces protesting against them were loud
and clear, and high-pitched. Several
citizens’ reports had condemned the inhuman manner in which the deportations
were carried out. The left-government in West Bengal had protested against the
treatment of Bengali Muslims and raised a voice against the deportations.
But
times had changed. Now it is the
secular and Left-supported UPA government at the center. A Congress-NCP alliance
in the state. Those who are
arrested are not the male migrant labour but the morally debased former bar
dancers. Hence the voices of
protest are weak and feeble, just a motley group of women activists. And no one else really cared.
You
might wonder how the entire incident ended.
We talked to lawyers, human rights activists, members of national and
West Bengal women’s copmmissions groups in Bangladesh. We had the option
‘exposing’ the story to the media, filing a writ petition in the High Court
and gaining even greater visibility and thus a name for ourselves and our
organizations. But as we were
thinking and planning the desperate voices of the women and girls kept haunting
us, “Didi please leaves us alone. Let
us get deported rather than languishing in this prison cells.
Let them take us to the border and we will find our way back.”
It is this plea that paralysed us into inaction and gradually as the High
Court case regarding the ban progressed, we heeded their advice and retracted.
In fact I can safely surmise that this was the first time I had retracted
from a challenging situation. But I
think our strength lay in not taking on the challenge but in quietly withdrawing
accepting our own limitations and their vulnerability.
It is then that I began to question the entire issue of visibility and
invisibility. Were all the girls managing their lives better before the media
glare came upon them? Did all of
us, do gooders, the good Samaritans, including the people who formed
associations or the bar owners who brought the out of the clset for the 20th
August rally did more disservice to them than help their cause. Their concern
was only one that they should be allowed to live and earn in the city. And it is this very concern that eventually got jeopardized
despite all the gains for every other segment that was involved.
For
the media there were stories each day of eoritc dance and the thowing of the
money scenes which the audience loved. So
no matter what the issue, more than half the scree would be filled with thess
erotic images which served arouse the middle class Maharashtria moral sense.
For the bar owners, their money making motive could be couched under the
human rights concers. For the dance
bar union people ther was the constant media publicity which made them leaders
overnight. For women rights activists, it gave a new cause and newer insights
and a feminist awakening regarding the bar girls and their concerns.
At the end of the entire episode I wonder what exactly did the bar girl
gain from this. And mopre
importantly, where have they all vanished. How
and where are they living and how are they making their ends meet.
We do not knw and frankly many of the
segments do not even care. While
the case is pending in the Supreme Court for years on end, we all have goen back
to our other concerns. Perhaps this
invisible existence is far better to suit their own ends than the high level of
publicity all of us collectively gave them.
I come now to the final section of the paper in which I will attempt to
situate this entire experience within a theoretical framework of
female migration and concerns of trafficking within the sex trade.
The
combination of the moral cultural panics lack of data and a general confusion in
conceptual approaches to migration and trafficking has led to not only
questionable responses from states but also to harmful interventions by
non-governmental organization (NGOs) human rights and social justice groups at
both the national and international level.
The
need is to critically examine the intersections of migration trafficking, labour,
exploitation, security and terrorism, women’s rights, sexuality and human
rights. Any analysis of the
complexities of the transational female migrant must extend beyond the confining
parameters of the current conceptual and operational work on cross-border
movements. To this end, diverse conceptual frameworks that could be employed to
understand and redress the vulnerabilities of the migrant woman in the causes,
process and end conditions of her migration in order to evolve alternative
approaches to migration and trafficking.
While
both male and female migration is driven by economic reasons, female migration
is impacted much more by value-driven policies that are those policies that
contain gender-biased and other assumptions about the proper role of women.
There is also a difference in the kind of work available to male and
female migrants in destination countries. Males expect to work as labourers,
whereas women find work in the entertainment industry or the domestic work
sector. Women are in demand as well for professional work of specific kinds such
as nursing.
We
need to accept that migration does not take place only between the developed
First world and the under-developed Third World and that there is greater
cross-border migration within regions than from the Global South North. This is
particularly true with respect to the Asian region. For example there is
considerable migration from Bangladesh to India with numbers varying from 13 to
20 million.
The
cross-border movement of the transnational migrant female subject is
inadequately addressed in law and policy. This inadequacy owes in part to two
conflations: the tendency to address women’s cross border movements primarily
within the framework of trafficking and the conflation of trafficking with
prostitution. In order to make migration policies (both international and
national) conducive to women’s rights, we need to consider the nuances in the
relationship between trafficking and migration and de-link trafficking from
prostitution.
Innumerable
conceptual clarity exercises in every region have made the consideration of
these conceptual distinctions the focus of their objective. And yet either due
to ideological baggage and positions of the various stakeholders or due to the
vested interest of states, trafficking is often used as a façade to deter the
entry of certain categories of migrants or to clean up establishments within the
sex industry.
In
view of these states or unstated agendas and positions , a human rights approach
to trafficking cannot merely be confined to achieving conceptual clarity. It
must develop specific and contextualised strategies and arguments to extricate
the genuine concerns related to trafficking of persons from the unstated or
moralistic concerns with migration, prostitution or national security.
Migration
is not trafficking; irregular migration is not trafficking and even smuggling is
not trafficking. And yet, there is an overwhelming tendency to address
cross-border movements of women primarily through the framework of trafficking.
Trafficking is the harm that may occur in the process migration. The singular
attention on trafficking turns the attention away from the larger context of
migration and distorts the broader picture of women’s movement. It also
enables governments to focus their attention on the protection of an
increasingly limited few, who are deemed to be “trafficked victims”. States
and other stakeholders seem prepared to leave the sex industry and willing to
press charges against their traffickers. In this way the trafficking framework
is used in an exclusionary manner to deny assistance to all those trafficked
persons who manage to escape a trafficking situation through their own means,
and who do not comply with the conditions for securing assistance and support.
To
some extent anti-trafficking NGOs need to accept responsibility for the
propagation of this image of the trafficked person as a victim. When faced with
the problem of trying to attract government attention to anti-trafficking
initiatives, NGOs may have resorted to this simplistic image to garner support
for their activities. It is not abundantly clear that this victim-image does not
capture the complexities of women’s own migratory experiences and agendas and
that the image of the trafficked person needs to be conceptually reworked. For
example, one conceptual move may be to shift away from the notion of a
vulnerable subject to that the risk-taking subject.
It
needs to be recognized that migrants and trafficked persons, including those in
prostitution exercise agency and demonstrate decision-making abilities, which
seek to maximize their own as well as the survival of their families. For
example, many women negotiate the terms of their own movement and utilize
technological network to plan their migration and keep in contact with those in
their country of origin. Women’s perceptions of themselves and of their
‘exploiters’ provide a further challenge to the traditional and
stereotypical images of victim and perpetrator. For example while the dominant
image of women in the sex industry is that of subjugated dominated objectified
and abused persons who are preyed upon by conniving men, but studies of women in
the sex tourism industry in various countries reveal that women view it as an
arena of negotiations to improve their own economic situation.
In
tandem with the propagation of female ‘ victim-hood,’ the trafficking agenda
has come to be increasingly influenced by a conservative sexual morality that
has gripped some nation states. Women have been cast in terms of modesty,
chastity and innocence. Women are also seen as the hallmark of the cultural and
social fabric of society such that challenges to ‘traditional’ gender
constructions are seen as posing a dual threat- to women and to the security of
society. The first threat forms the basis for a protectionist approach towards
women. Within the protectionist agenda, no distinction is drawn between
consensual and coerced movement resulting in the treatment of all movement of
women as coerced and reinforcing assumptions of third world women as victims,
infantile and incapable of decision-making.
The
combination of sexual conservatism and the construction of a woman as the symbol
of national and cultural authenticity are seen to lead to the stigmatism and
ostracism of a migrant woman who is portrayed as an aberrant female.
If the
dominant anti-trafficking approach has blurred the portrayal of the female
migrant, then one way to counteract this is to view migration within the broader
context of global reality of the transnational female migrant. Migration must
take its rightful place within the context of globalisation. If the flow of
capital and goods encounters no borders. Why should the human participants of
globalisation be treated any differently? If a juridicial person can be granted
a transnational/multinational identity. Which enables the crossing of borders
largely unimpeded why is it that a natural person is being denied her identity
as a global citizen? These questions must be brought to the forefront of the
debate and thoroughly examined.
Boundaries,
Borders and Bodies
by Hameeda
Hossain
(*Founder
member of Ain O Salish Kendra (ASK))
Thank you for inviting me to your Winter Course. I always welcome an
opportunity to visit Kolkotta. It is a friendly city because it seems to
welcomes outsiders, or at least doesn’t point a curious finger at them. People don’t ask where you are from; they allow you to
become absorbed in the city on your own terms, without having to prove your
identity.
I have
been told that in the last fifteen days you have been studying issues relating
to migration and displacement. I presume therefore that you are familiar with
the complex nuances of movements across geographical divides, cultural divides
and political divides -- as you may well be with changing patterns of
migration.
I was
asked to speak on “forced migration and trafficking” terms which have now
become major international law concerns. Recent debates in international
agencies have sensationalized migration by linking it to trafficking in arms and
drug smuggling and terrorism, to AIDS/HIV.
The migrant, whose labour has served to build the wealth of other
countries, has been reduced to a carrier of crimes and disease.
The
use of the word “forced” is, of course, susceptible to many complex nuances
of interpretation, that serve different interests or reflect different
perspectives. It is indeed a contentious issue between countries of origin and
destination, and government responses have been both contradictory and
hypocritical. While countries of origin welcome foreign remittances from
workers, they do little to facilitate their terms and conditions of employment.
In receiving countries, much of the infrastructural development in cities and
much of the service sector owes to the labour of migrants. Dubai or Kuala Lumpur
would not have been architectural show cases without the contribution of
engineers, contractors and workers from South Asian countries.
The concerns of governments are more than regulatory; they seek to
control borders, and to restrict movements across boundaries. Many governments
have been prompted to seal borders, to reinforce border controls or other
restrictions on people’s movements.
Across land borders, the push back techniques have kept people in a de-nationalised
limbo. The more powerful countries such as the US have gone to the extent of
using trade sanctions against the country of origin. At the same time the US has
tempted migration through the sale of lotteries.
On the
other hand, for ordinary citizens, freedom of movement is a choice for survival.
Migration can be forced by political and economic circumstances in the
country of origin, but administrative controls in the country of destination
also force migrants into exploitative relations.
People move unwillingly from their own habitats, and may often be
compelled by conflicts and wars, by oppression and violence, by discrimination
and poverty. While migration may be seen as a strategy for survival by families
or an escape route for individuals, or even as presenting new opportunities,
the human rights of migrants and their security fall at risk from state
controls, exploitation of the market and social exclusion.
In my
talk today I would like to focus on how borders and boundaries are used as
controls over bodies.
Let us look at what propels people in South Asia to move from their
habitats, and how States have accommodated these movements. South Asia
represents diverse languages and cultures, which have been formed historically
by the entry of traders, warriors or even religious mendicants. Its boundaries
have been cast and recast to cut across identities of family, clan and
ethnicity. A further typography of migration suggests that in the last century
movements have resulted from conflicts – communal or ethnic violence, in which
families were divided and sub-divided. Conflicts
or political oppression have led to refugees seeking political asylum and a safe
shelter. South Asia has witnessed
massive movements of population across newly created borders. In 1947 and 1971
people were compelled to flee on account of religious riots or military
violence. Later, as states have continued to exist in a state of suspended
animosity, minorities faced with political intimidation, legal discrimination or
social exclusion, have had to flee their homes. Demographic changes have divided families and communities,
and these divisions have induced waves of movements across borders. Recognition
to political “migrants’ was given by the Nehru Pact in 1952 and the Simla
Pact in 1974. The first recognized
the status of refugees following partition, and the second approved the transfer
of Pakistani citizens from Bangladesh to Pakistan after the war of liberation.
We have also known of cases of individuals escaping from repressive
regimes – particularly writers, reporters, intellectuals, political activists.
They too have been forced to move. A
famous scientist had to leave Pakistan because he was an Ahmadiya, a religious
sect whose citizenship rights were taken away by the State. Fortunately he found
sanctuary in a leading institution in Trieste and could contribute to scientific
knowledge. Poets and writers have
had to leave Bangladesh and India, under social censure or administrative
oppression. The loss has been that
of the host country.
In recent years, patterns of global migration have shifted significantly,
and economic necessity has become a prime cause.
Globalization has contributed to a phenomenal number of people seeking
livelihoods across borders. Migratory
flows are an outcome of sharpening imbalances within countries and between
countries, and they pursue global capital. While states are entitled to regulate
their borders, it is important to
realize that demand in growth led societies will inevitably induce the movement
of supply from stagnant economies or resource poor countries.
New conceptual categories have been attached to migration: contract or
temporary migration, long term settlement migration, documented or regular
migration, and irregular or undocumented migration. Forced migration or
trafficking implies use of force or fraud that is used to deceive men, women and
children into moving away from a familiar habitat.
Each
process involves an element of force and compulsion, each is susceptible to a
degree of victimization. Even though demand acts as a pull factor, these
movements are susceptible to controls that enmesh them in circles of insecurity,
deny their right to livelihood, to cultural identity and to bodily integrity.
The
new world they enter is not hospitable. Documented workers from Bangladesh have
been ghettoized into low paid work in many countries of the Middle East and
South East Asia. Even when they have entered legally they are subject to
numerous forms of exploitation by their employers and law enforcement agencies.
While states are entitled to regulate borders they cannot be totally oblivious
of their obligations to the rights to life and liberty. Yet, countries of origin have so far been unable to protect
their own citizens, and the bilateral treaties they have signed with labour
importing countries have sadly omitted any guarantees for workers.
Thus the worker loses his/her rights of stay.
For an
example of this let us look at the boom period in Malaysia’s development in
the nineties. Cases were reported, in the media, of workers of Indonesian and
Bangladeshi origin, who were kept forcibly in detention centres. Tanaganita, a
Malaysian human rights organization published an investigative report on the use
of torture and other human rights abuses in detention centres.
Evidence from workers showed that they had been made “illegal” by
commercial practices that were intended to control their labour. For example, it
was a common practice for employers to retain workers’ passports, which
curtailed their freedom of movement. If they dared to venture out they were
arrested by the police, because they had no papers on them, which was a
requirement of the law. The end
result was that that they found themselves in detention or were returned
summarily to their home country without their savings, salaries or compensation
for loss of jobs.
Women,
currently make up about one half of the world’s current migrant population.
It is only in recent years that a growing number of women from Bangladesh
have taken overseas jobs. The
demand has come mainly from the Middle East. But the conditions of work have not
been particularly salutary and Bangladeshi embassies have had to cope with many
complaints from women workers. Rather
than negotiate on behalf of the workers the government saw fit, in 1997, to ban
the overseas employment of women for domestic work. This restriction was lifted
subsequently, but women’s decisions to work overseas were subordinated to
family approval, etc.
Last
year the government itself decided to recruit women from the ranks of Ansars (or
village police) for employment as domestic workers in the Middle East. But their
experiences of exploitation and even violence has again brought to surface the
contradictions between state policies that promote migration as a means for
absorbing surplus labour and earning foreign exchange but without ensuring
security to their citizens. Many of the Ansar women complained of sexual
harassment and assaults, and the government response was to bring them back home
without registering any complaints. They
came back home without their salaries, but this did not stop others from seeking
work outside. Some moved through
legal channels, enduring loans for the high cost of overseas employment. Others
passed through invisible paths, which emphasized the insecurities that induced
women to move into vulnerable work situations.
There is sufficient evidence to show that bans are not likely to be
absolutely effective and the result of any prohibitive policy has encouraged
movements to be illegalised. The costs for migrants becomes even higher.
Bangladesh
is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of Migrants and their
Families, but the Convention itself is without teeth since none of the receiving
countries has agreed to its ratification. Bilateral
agreements with Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and other states have generally been
limited to numbers and period of stay of workers, but not to ensure protection
of workers. State policies and other institutional arrangements seem inadequate
to ensure their security during their stay overseas.
In a large number of cases, private traders have made overseas employment
a profitable business at the cost of workers.
Even where migration takes place willingly, force and compulsion often
determine conditions of stay and employment. The power of capital has been
superimposed on the rights of migrant workers.
Under
bilateral treaties migrants find little protection, as they are subject to the
laws of the receiving country. Emigration
from Bangladesh is governed by the 1982 Emigration Ordinance. The latter deals
with the process of recruitment,
licensing of recruiting agents, emigration procedures, minimum standards for
wages and service condition, charges for recruitment, malpractice, enforcement
machinery etc. None of these
address violations of rights that may take place in receiving countries nor have
they protected the right to freedom of movement. Successive governments in
Bangladesh have tried to circumvent these rights by banning their employment
overseas or demanding guardian approval. In other words, women migrants are
treated as dependents. Restrictions and bans on their employment without the
capacity for implementation have resulted in undocumented flows of women
workers. The Ministry of Labour and
Employment has held consultations for formulations of a policy but this has not
yet been approved or submitted to Parliament.
Movements within South Asia are even more problematic.
Even though borders have historically been flexible and open, boundaries
have been cast and recast to cut across identities of family, clan and
ethnicity. Given the intimate kinship connections that transcend boundaries,
South Asian states could have facilitated travel within the region.
But inter-state relations are steeped in protectionism, so that tourist
visas are difficult to obtain and work permits are non-existent.
The conventional response of states in South Asia has been to guard its
borders and criminalize movements under the Foreigners’ Act.
There has been little legislative intervention on behalf of the victim of
migration, whether the act was voluntary or forced.
Border
movements within South Asia deny individuals the right to livelihood, to
cultural identity and to bodily integrity. This is what makes them vulnerable to
a trade in bodies, sometimes to expulsion, and often to exploitation.
A migrant, whether documented or undocumented, seeks a space for survival
in an unfriendly environment. Often people crossing borders are not even aware
of their trespass across borderlines.
Migration
from Bangladesh to West Bengal and other parts of India has been prompted by a
wide range of reasons. The war of
independence inspired a large-scale migration.
Fear and intimidation have often led to a quiet exchange of minorities
along borders and across borders. The
search for livelihood has been compelling factor. Women have also seen in this
an escape from oppressive relations in marriage or to escape social stigmas in
their own village. Seasonal
migration for work or trade has become a regular practice along some
borderlines.
When migrants move from citizenship without freedom or choice to
residence without citizenship they pass through such circles of insecurity. They
do so by taking risks of social isolation, accepting unknown terms of employment
or trusting agents.
There
are many anecdotal examples to illustrate this journey from one circle of
insecurity to another. From oral
histories of women victims of trafficking we know that they left their homes
when economic deprivation, social discrimination and violence made their lives
intolerable. In many cases they were tempted by offers of marriage or paid work
by a family member or a friend. Or the move became a family’s strategy for
survival. Social factors that
reinforce gender hierarchies, such as inequality in marriage rights, dowry
demands, polygamous marriages, domestic violence were common reasons for leaving
their villages. A study of several
border villages in Rajshahi found that young girls were lured with promises of
marriage, but found themselves as bonded labour in glass factories in Uttar
Pradesh in India.
There
are also stories of women from Bangladesh engaged in sex work in Sonagachi and
Kolkotta. While their conditions are known to be oppressive, some of them at
least were able to invest their savings in real estate in their hometowns and
move back into anonymity. They thus evaded both official controls and social
stigmas.
Demand
for seasonal labour provides an incentive for temporary movements. Case studies
have documented how young women and children move across the river from Rajshahi
to Maldah to harvest beetle nuts or wheat in the chars or marshlands of West Bengal. Their daily movements are visible to the naked eye, and most
of them are not hindered from working. Their labour is organized by informal
agents. When some of them don’t return home, it is assumed that they were
egged on by promises of work or marriage further west.
But
the rationale of the market is not evident to state forces and the policing of
borders makes them into sources of extortion or oppression.
For example, you must all have heard about the snake charmers or bedays,
who, two years ago, were pushed back and forth into No Man’s Land by border
police on both sides, without a care for
their physical survival. The bedays
are a gypsy community in
Bangladesh, and they live and travel in boats. In certain seasons they travel
over land and cross the border into India where fairs and melas
offer a demand for their medication
or other skills. The border guards who have strict orders to
preserve the inviolability of national borders, allow for no in between
arrangements. In South Asia we have
not come to accept the particular gypsy culture as in Europe, where the Romanis
are free to move from one country to another, they have even earned the right to
vote. In South Asia, the bedays, snake
charmers by profession and boat
people by habitat can do neither one nor the other.
Oblivious of this they seek
customers on both sides of the border. The
BSF commanders had as little compassion
in pushing back the bedays into
Bangladesh as the BDR commanders in keeping them out. This happened two or three
years ago, when a few Beday families
found themselves suspended in No Man’s Land, with no water and no food, until
some private organization came to their help and international publicity made it
possible for them to go back to their village.
Movements
across Bangladesh’s land borders have inspired the creation of numerous
services on both sides of the border. Guides,
rest houses, moneychangers have become profitable businesses and sources of
extortion. In addition borders and
boundaries stimulate corruption of border guards or local officials.
Hostility of local residents is a source of isolation.
Discovery does not lead to their protection but rather to more trials of
repatriation, rejection by their families and community, and alienation.
Inspite of these obstructions, for people living in poverty, migration is
often equated with the pursuit of a mythical golden deer.
Since the eighties diverse women’s movements have drawn upon their
experiences of gendered violence to identify the implications of undocumented
migration and trafficking for human rights of women.
One of the outcomes has been a near universal acceptance of the Palermo
Protocol[i]
which redefined concepts of trafficking as forcible or coercive movements, and
as a denial of freedom and choice. The
definition delinked the act of trafficking from prostitution.
This new approach has of course sparked off a debate within the women’s
movements between the concept that links trafficking to prostitution and
criminalizes all forms of sex work as forced, and the other concept of
distinguishing between the exploitation of trafficking from the exploitation
implicit in sex work. It is now
acknowledged that trafficking itself leads to different kinds of oppression not
only in prostitution or sex work.
In raising these debates women have campaigned for policies that address
the root causes of why women, children and men are lured into trafficking and
migration – such as economic poverty, political oppression and family
violence. They have succeeded in
transferring the focus of international law on the mode of movement,
criminalizing the use of force and accepting the need to create conditions that
prevent trafficking and protect the victims of trafficking.
In the
international arena human trafficking has moved from the margins to the
mainstream of international political discourse. Human rights are recognized as
central to the causes and vulnerability factors that contribute to trafficking.
Responses from regional and international institutions have shown a better
understanding of the phenomenon. Thus the 1949 Convention on Suppression of
Trafficking for prostitution found it “incompatible with human dignity and a
threat to the welfare of the individual, family and community.”
Article
6 of CEDAW gave a broad direction to “suppress all forms of trafficking in
exploitation of the prostitution of women.”
It thus did not depart from the conventional link between trafficking and
prostitution and its application was left vague. While the Treaty did not allude specifically to violence
against women, the General
Recommendation of 1992 argued that Article 1 of CEDAW included gender based
violence which made specific reference to trafficking as a form of
violence.
The
Declaration on Violence against Women (1993) which was adopted at Vienna (1993)
and the Beijing Platform of Action (1995) took the demands of the women’s
movements further by including all forms of gender based violence in the family,
community and violence perpetrated by the State. The appointment of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against
Women led to her reports that clarified the concept of trafficking to the act of
“force, fraud, deception in the movement of persons”.
The adoption of the supplementary to the Palermo Protocol, titled
“Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially
Women and Children (2003)” aimed to prevent and combat trafficking in persons,
particularly women and children; protect and assist the victims of trafficking,
with respect for their human rights; and promote cooperation between state
parties to meet these goals. This has considerably widened the scope of the
issue of violence beyond its sexual connotations.
More recently the appointment of a UN Rapporteur on Trafficking has
enlarged the scope for registering complaints and documenting the incidence of
trafficking.
These advances in the international arena thus have called upon states to :
1.
criminalise trafficking
2.
quickly and accurately identify
victims of trafficking
3.
investigate and prosecute trafficking
cases with due diligence
4.
provide victims with support and
protection
5.
provide special protection for child
victims
6.
cooperate internationally and
regionally in preventing, investigating and prosecuting the perpetrator of
trafficking.
Some
of these international concerns have found their way into regional conventions
such as in Europe.[ii]
Within the South Asian region, the outcome of several years of debate has
resulted in the “SAARC Convention on Combating Trafficking in Women and
Children for Prostitution”. Unfortunately
the title and definition continue to link trafficking to prostitution, although
experience has shown that women moving from one country to another are subjected
to different forms of oppression, in different occupations – not always sexual
–. However, its provisions for social care of victims mark an advance for
rehabilitation of victims through job location, legal assistance and health care
and to accord minimum standard humanitarian treatment to trafficked persons,
consistent with human rights standards.
But
SAARC member states have made
little progress in protocols and legislation to endorse these commitments into
national legislation and move towards their implementation. The provision of
repatriation is a problematic one since it does not necessarily take into
account the choice of the victim. If she is discovered years after she left the
country it is possible that she may not want to go back to her original home.
But the Convention does not make allowance for a person’s option to stay on in
the country of destination.
An
experience of a legal aid organization in a case of repatriation demonstrated
the difficulties of this condition. A married woman who had been kidnapped from
Dhaka, was discovered in a shelter home in Karachi. When she expressed her wish
to go back to her husband, efforts were made to locate him, and it was found
that he had remarried. Both husband
and the wife in Karachi agreed that she should return back to her husband.
She found herself alienated after staying away for a few years in a
foreign country, and repatriation brought its own sorrows of rehabilitation and
adjustment. It would have suited
her best if she could have been given a work permit and allowed to travel back
with confidence to her own country rather than as a dependent upon an unwilling
husband.
Rescue
operations also tend to leave women and children in protection homes or
correction homes which confine inmates rather than become means of exit. The UN
Rapporteur on Violence against Women found the conditions in corrective homes as
barely habitable.[iii] Rehabilitation itself
becomes temporary and the reforms intended do not
deal with rights. On the contrary they treat women as dependents in need
of protection. In most South
Asian countries the judiciary too has taken a protectionist approach towards
trafficking, confining women to protection of their guardians or a public
shelter.
Activism
by several women’s groups in each country and their networking across borders
has helped in the rescue and repatriation of women victims of trafficking to
their home country but it is not certain whether their rehabilitation and
reintegration has been in deference to women’s rights and choice.
National regimes on people’s movements have been punitive rather than
protective. Even though the demand from global capital for low cost migrant
labour is on the increase, controls have been reinforced at the cost of human
rights.
In
South Asia, regulatory legislation such as the Foreigners’ Act has restricted
entry. Penalties provided in Penal Codes drafted 200 years ago for kidnapping,
abduction, slavery etc., seem outdated today. These laws have often been used
for expulsion or even to obtain court orders. They have tended to act against
the victim rather than to support her. Penal codes have provided penalties for
kidnapping, abduction, slavery etc., but national policies have ignored the
needs of the victims. Human rights
have therefore been absent in addressing the issue of forced migration and
trafficking.
Recent
legislation has not been very progressive. It has tended to victimize the victim
of trafficking and has deflected attention from the main concern with use of
force or fraud implicit in the crime of trafficking. An Indian legal analyst has
argued that the “Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act 1956 does little to
tackle the principle concern with trafficking of persons into situations of
exploitation”. It is also argued that limiting the definition of trafficking
in persons only to the purpose of prostitution deflects from the violations
inherent in the act of trafficking. Further conflating women and children as
victims tends to digress from the specifics of the act. [iv]
In
Bangladesh too, legislation on Violence against Women and Children (1955) which
has undergone several amendments in 2000 and 2003 has authorized capital
punishment for traffickers, which according to legal experts makes convictions
more difficult. [v]
In
terms of policies and programs, governments in South Asia have set up a few
shelters but they offer few facilities for women to opt out into independence.
Governments lack the capabilities and have relied upon NGOs and women’s
organization to ensure humanitarian support to victims in rescuing,
rehabilitation and reintegration of victims.
Punitive
legislation in many European countries has been directed to controlling
movements from East Europe. Perhaps Netherlands is the only country which offers
some protection. The US has adopted
the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 with adverse
consequences for women’s rights. The act authorizes the suspension of
non-humanitarian, non-trade related ssistance to any country that does not meet
minimum standards for elimination of trafficking. The State Department
Trafficking Investigation Report (TIP)[vi]
judges countries according to the degree of their compliance with minimum
standards prescribed by the US, rather than with humanitarian standards.
This Act has had adverse effects with governments rushing into enacting
punitive laws, policies and law enforcement mechanisms, that may violate
women’s rights. While the
enactment of harsh laws in countries such as India and Bangladesh may have
raised them in the TIP list, the concern for human rights of trafficked persons
has been overlooked.
How far does international law reach across to support women at the
grassroots? The Adviser on Trafficking from the Office of the High Commissioner
on Human Rights in Geneva underscored the need to acknowledge that trafficking
is both a cause and consequence of the violations of human rights, and that
guiding principles of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights place
protection of human rights at the center of any measures taken to prevent
trafficking. Special care has to be taken to ensure that anti-trafficking
measures do not adversely affect the human rights and dignity of persons, and in
particular the rights of those who have been trafficked or those who are
vulnerable to trafficking. States thus have a responsibility to act with due
diligence to prevent trafficking, investigate and prosecute trafficking and to
assist and protect trafficked persons.”[vii]
It is
clear that grass roots experiences of women have influenced international
awareness of the need to move beyond legal sanctions and legal punishments
towards addressing the root causes that perpetuate gender discrimination,
economic disparities and imbalances in power.
Effective
mechanisms need to be introduced to monitor the impact of anti-trafficking laws,
to provide meaningful education and
awareness, to widen employment opportunities, to make rescue, rehabilitation and
reintegration sensitive to women’s concerns and to ensure that victims of
trafficking are treated as victims of human rights abuses and not as irregular
migrants.
National
policies therefore
need to focus on changes in social and economic relations, to support a
woman’s rights so that she can make informed and independent choices. An
imperative is that such policies
offer:
1.
viable livelihoods
2.
equality within the family and at the
workplace
3.
recognition within the community
4.
education and facilities for personal
advancement
Human
rights abuses in cross border trafficking within South Asia
can be minimised if movements are rationalized allowing for work permits
and temporary stays, so that women’s work is not criminalized. To attract global capital, countries are rushing in to
proclaim their prosperity. India is
now projected in publicity posters as India Shining or Incredible India. This is
also the case in Bangladesh, where Dhaka becomes more developed than the rest of
the country. It is inevitable
that not all of India or all of Bangladesh will shine and the disparities will
induce movements from “Suffering India” and “Suffering Bangladesh” to
steal a bit of the shine for themselves. This
will inevitably lead to a trafficking trap.
A more balanced development for a gender and social just world may be the
answer. I leave it to you to
consider whether we can take steps towards a more equitable development that
will respect human rights and human security.
Notes
[i] UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (2000)
[ii] Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in
Human Beings and its Explanatory Report, Warsaw, 16.5.2005. http://www.coe.int/trafficking.
[iii] Radhika
Coomeraswamy, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence
against Women, its Causes and Consequences: Mission to Bangladesh, Nepal and
India on the Issue of Trafficking of Women and Girls (28 October – 15
November, 2000) United Nations (E/CN.4/2001/73/Add.2, 2001)
[iv] “Trafficking Reform: An Analyses of the Protection of the
Rights of Positive People, Children, and Sex Workers”,
Feminist Legal Research Centre, New Delhi January 2006..
[v] The Control of oppression on Women and Children (Special
Provision) Act, (Act No 18 of 1995), Suppression of Violence against Women
and Children Act 2000 (Nari Nirjaton Daman Ain) and Amendments to
Suppression of Violence against Women and Children 2003.
[vi] The TIP report for 2005 is available on http://www.state/gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2005/46610.htm
[vii] OHCHR, Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and
Human Trafficking, (E/2002/68/Add.1) Principles 1 and 2.
The Dynamics of Refugee Protection and Humanitarian Assistance in Nigeria
by
Shambhavi V. Murthy Gopalkrishna
(* Lecturer in the Department of Political Science,
University of Lagos, Nigeria & is Founder of the Movement for African
Refugees in Nigeria (MAREN))
Introduction
Nigeria has always had humanitarian concerns, dating from the civil
war (1967-70) to the present. It allowed international organisations to
enter and work in the country (during the war) and has also allowed them in,
during health and other emergencies.
The
refugee protection and humanitarian assistance system in Nigeria has two
dimensions-the governmental structure for refugee protection and
humanitarian assistance and that of the international organisations working
for refugee protection and humanitarian assistance. The UNHCR, International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC) and the Nigerian Red Cross are at the apex of international
organisations/ non-governmental intervention, while the National Commission
for Refugees (NCFR) and the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) is
at the apex of 'coordination' on behalf of Government. Unfortunately, today
all the key implementers/actors of refugee protection are not effective
coordinators or effective players in ensuring refugee protection and
humanitarian assistance.
Refugee
settlement practices in Nigeria have changed substantially over the last
one-decade. The increasing use of refugee camps as places to confine
refugees, rather than help them become self-supporting has led to an
increased burden being placed on the international community. Many of these
settlements have become little more than basic feeding centers for refugees.
In many cases, these organized settlements provide officials with an easily
identifiable target population for repatriation exercises.
The
refugee assistance practices in Nigeria raise several questions such as the
voluntariness of repatriation, the reflection of refugee assistance
in the national/international organisation’s budget and extent of
governmental/international organisation’ support. Besides, in this paper, an attempt will be made to attempt to map
new territory, bring together diverse perspectives, challenge conventional
wisdom, and begin to cumulate research to address these questions and
contradictions. This paper aims not to only to introduce a new implementable
theory of refugee protection in Nigeria, but also to identify generalizable
patterns from diverse developments in a comparative manner by reflecting on
general global trends of refugee protection and assistance and how these are
in common with the current and emerging global practices. Some of the
situations may well not be peculiar to Nigeria but may have a global
consonance.
This
paper, which is segregated into three aspects as the title suggests, will
attempt to seek answers to these questions-
Ø
“Is
repatriation in Nigeria (and in other parts of the world,) as the UN and OAU
Conventions would dictate, a free choice? Or is repatriation increasingly
being impelled or
forced upon refugees? The international law regarding refugees provides a
standard against which nations that deal with refugees can be
compared. From the basic theoretical framework of African refugees, the
focus turns to the specific question of
how and why refugees in Nigeria decide to return home.
Is this also the case in other parts of the world?
Ø
Why is
there declining if not negligible support to the refugee issue in
Africa/Nigeria (a comparative analysis)
by all the implementing agencies-governmental and
international. What role does UNHCR play in this process especially in this
age of “donor fatigue”?
Ø
Is the
refugee assistance and protection in Nigeria turning into a façade
and a myth? Is this part of the state centric theory of international
relations?
Against
this background, the present paper challenges the present mechanisms for
refugee and protection in
general in all parts of the world, in Africa, particularly in Nigeria.
Infact,
the interest in the evaluation of humanitarian activities has never been
higher and its time that international humanitarian organisations should be
asked some fundamental questions-are the victims being reached? Does
assistance and protection make a difference? Is learning occurring? Is
performance improving? What are the impacts? How effective is such
assistance? How do these organisations know that their aid ‘got through’
and that their actions were beneficial? How do they learn from their
experiences so that they can improve their responses to the next
post-conflict picking up the rubbles or to the next mass movement of
refugees?
This
paper which ‘opens up’ a process that has for too long remained hidden, is an effort to take a preliminary
step in rethinking the above issues and to seek comparisons with other
regions in the world especially in Africa so as to understand as to whether
this is a common trend or a specific one to Nigeria and also to understand
the impact it is bound to have to refugee assistance and protection in
Nigeria/Africa in the coming decade. By no means comprehensive, this paper
posits the urgent centrality of mass migration, and its articulation with
gender, ethnic violence, and the production of refugees, and the erosion of
humanitarian dimensions and concerns of the refugee issue and the emphasis
on the political dimensions of the refugee issue both as a subject of
investigation and a technology for rethinking the production of particular
areas, regions, and transnational cultural public spheres, as communities.
Towards this end, this paper will explore some of the thematics whose
linkages to suggest directions, spaces and sites of investigation.
The
idea of this paper emerged during the present author’s own researches,
encountering ground realities and concerns on the refugee issues in
Nigeria/Africa whilst trying to address the challenge of concern for the
displaced populace in Nigeria/Africa at the ground level.
This
paper is based mostly on primary sources/ground realities and
fieldwork/empirical evidence as well as secondary sources. The data
collection for this paper has been a long and tedious process with often
non-committal or half - hearted responses from the inter/national
humanitarian assistance agencies. To dissect and share the experiences by
the author of this paper has required the author of this paper to reflect
carefully and critically on the roles of the various stakeholders. In all,
it has been a demanding process involving a measure of courage and
self-discovery.
The hardships of Refugees in
Nigeria have remained almost invisible to the rest of the world. Perhaps,
because it has not seemed to be as politically glamorous especially for the
western world as the Sudanese or the Somalian or the Rwandese refugee
crisis.
It
is an accepted fact as in other parts of the world, not all the refugees in
Nigeria will be able to return to their homeland for a long time maybe even
never. Their pride in their
independence and ability to shelter and provide for their family is gone.
The Oru Refugee Camp in Ogun State in Nigeria to help the refugees
may well be temporary as are all refugee camps in different parts of the
world. While the Federal Government in
Nigeria led by General Olusegun Obasanjo is the first government in
Nigeria's history to evolve a specific policy to work for the protection of
the interest of refugees in Nigeria by setting up the National Commission
for Refugees, but then implementation of well-defined policies for refugee
protection is an area which warrants immediate attention of the policy
makers both from the African region as well as from international
organisations. Moreso, as the challenge to help all the
refugees get back on their feet is growing more difficult each day.
With
this background, we shall attempt an understanding regarding the
relationship between state, nation and territory in Africa and the African
Refugee Theory in order to have a better understanding of the erosion of
refugee assistance in Nigeria.
The Relationship Between State, Nation and Territory in Africa
In order to understand the shifting attitudes and changing policies
regarding (forced) migrants in Nigeria, we need to examine the triangular
relationship between state, nation and territory in Africa. This
relationship is clearly not simply given or fixed but open to negotiation
and change. Within classical modernist perceptions, the nation is a clearly
bounded community living in a demarcated territory and represented by a
state, which reconciles the rights of the individual with the community of
which he is a member. The sovereignty of the state is limited to the
physical borders of the territory inhabited by the nation. In reality this
‘ideal-type’ obviously does not exist. However, it remains a model,
which continues to inspire policy. As a reminder, it is useful to note that
the now ‘common’ concept of the refugee is in fact a modern construct.
Mobility and migration have always been normal patterns of life. Doubt, an analysis of these issues
is pertinent. However, an alternative and more critical perspective, one
that allows for various questions to be raised (beyond humanitarian issues)
will hopefully be more instructive concerning the changing place of the
(forced) migrant in Tanzanian society.
The
twentieth century became the century of the refugees, not because it was
extraordinary in forcing people to flee, but because of the division of the
globe into nation-states in which states where assigned the role of
protectors of rights, but also that of exclusive protectors of their own
citizens, including the role of gatekeeper to determine who could become new
citizens.
The Impact of Global Refugee Management Trends & Practices
Lets look at the global realities as these are having a profound
impact on the refugee protection and humanitarian assistance system in
Nigeria.
The
turn of the Millennium marked the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of
the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and
the adoption of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The
Convention sets out the basic principles on which international refugee
protection is built: non-refoulement, which emphasizes that the refugees
should not be returned to any place where they could face persecution; and
impartiality, whereby all refugees have come under increasing threat.
In
a world, which has grown increasingly hostile to asylum and refugees, the
very relevance of the Convention needs to be questioned. Besides, the
refugee protection regime is being confronted by other developments with the
potential to constrain refugee protection. These include states’ greater
emphasis on the economic costs of offering asylum, concerns about the
‘security’ in the context of the global war of terror, fears regarding
complex ‘mixed migration’ movements and more restrictive asylum
policies.
States
that once had generous refugee policies now see the costs of asylum as
outweighing its benefits. Admittedly, it was easier to welcome refugees who
were culturally similar, fulfilled labour needs, arrived in manageable
numbers and reinforced ideological or strategic objectives. However, with
the end of the cold war, many states saw refugees as a burden than an asset.
As
concerns about the costs of asylum, state security and “uncontrolled
migration” have led to a reshaping of asylum policies in many countries, two
parallel trends have emerged. Both have had a negative impact on the
access to asylum and the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. The first
is an overtly restrictive application of the Convention and its 1967
Protocol, which has led to an increase in detention and exclusion, besides
lack of due process. The second is a proliferation of alternative
protection mechanisms that guarantee fewer rights than those contained in
the Convention. In some states there has been a gradual movement away from a
rights –based approach towards more discretionary forms of refugee
protection. Such mechanisms have included the notions of ‘safe country
of origin’, ‘internal
flight alternative’, ’effective protection elsewhere ‘ and ‘safe
third country’ which are the reality of Refugeeism today in many
countries. Needless to say these trends are bound to have an impact on
refugeeism in the African Continent.
African Refugee Theory
The complex interplay of socio-economic factors, which can lead to
refugee migrations, does not affect each refugee in the same manner. The
varieties of different refugee migrations are as complex as the situations,
which can create them. People have different perceptions of exactly what
they consider is a threat to them. In some situations the mere rumour of
instability can be enough to impel people to move. In other situations,
people do not flee until they have been overtaken by violent conflict.
Because in the African context, the line between political and economic
repression has become blurred, many refugees could (and are) classified as
economic migrants. In other cases, ecological change can be the cause of
mass migrations. This latter variation of migration is usually ignored by
contemporary definitions.
Another
new phenomenon of century twenty-one is the trend of internally displaced
becoming refugees. Nigeria has received some of these internally displaced
persons turned refugees. Probably this merits a new conceptualisation and
definition in Africa.
The African State as a Refugee
According to UNHCR’s year-end statistics for 2004, released ahead
of World Refugee Day 2005,Africa today
has a refugee population of over 7 million, in addition to some 15-18
million internally displaced.
Civil
strife and armed conflicts have taken a heavy toll on African countries
during the last few decades Aside from massive loss of lives, the region has
witnessed the destruction of its physical, economic and social
infrastructures, the collapse of civil societies, the breakdown of family
units and the displacement of its people in unprecedented numbers.
In
some places, hunger alone has caused refugees. These refugees fled their home countries that were overtaken by
violence and ravaged by famine. The refugees have been forced to settle
where they are generally unwanted and have often been left to fend for
themselves.
The
African continent is not unusual in the fact that there are so many
refugees. Large-scale refugee migrations have occurred elsewhere in the
world and these have lasted for decades without hope of solutions. However,
Africa does hold the dubious distinction that almost every country on the
continent has at some time been either a producer or a destination for
refugees, or both.
The
existence of so many refugees and refugee flows, seems to point to some
systemic failure in modern African society. At the same time, the fact that
so many African refugees seem to adapt to their situation and survive the
experience of being in exile, also indicates some unseen ability that is
incongruent with the common perception of what a refugee is.
African
states shares characteristics with the refugees it helps to create/grant
asylum to. Most African states are artificial and both the states and the
refugees are fundamentally without roots. The rootlessness and the
artificiality of the African state are attributable to its colonial origins
and its artificial boundaries. The rootlessness of individual refugees is
based on the postcolonial political traumas of displacement and disruption.
One
issue that faces both African states and refugees is that alienation. Both
the African state and individual refugees are often alienated from the
societies in which they find themselves. This alienation can be morally
unsettling and can distort the ethics and the standards of behaviour of the
refugees and of those in control of the state. What is right and what is
wrong, what is bad and what is good, can undergo disconcerting mutations
under the pressure of “refugee flows”.
In
global terms, African state has become increasingly marginalised and has
been pushed into the ghetto of the world system often due to situations
beyond its control or, not of its own creation. Like Africa’s refugees,
many African states were already living, atleast partly, on handouts before
the 1990s. But, the international community has become weary of appeals of
charity. Further, the end of the cold war has diverted western aid and
investment towards the former members of the Warsaw Pact and the newly
liberalizing economies of China, Vietnam and India. The new priorities of
the post-cold war era are to some extent bad news for disabled African
states and displaced African people.
The
metaphor of the African State as a refugee continues with the reality of
institutional collapse, psychic bewilderment and human dislocation.
Individual refugees can cross borders and seek asylum in other lands. If a
government created by a rebel army replaces a failed state, it is
theoretically possible for a failed state to also seek asylum and go into
exile.
The Ideology of Humanitarianism:
Implications for The Refugee Protection Mechanism in Nigeria
There are few words more frequently used in the contemporary
discourse of international politics as ‘humanitarian’. There is talk of
humanitarian issues, humanitarian action, humanitarian assistance,
humanitarian community, humanitarian standards, humanitarian intervention,
humanitarian war and so on. The word ‘humanitarian’, according to the New
Oxford Dictionary of English, means ‘concerned with or seeking to
promote human welfare’. Its association with all that is humane and
positive perhaps explains the irresistible urge to use it to qualify a range
of practices (Warner 1998b: 1).
A
second reason is that the word ‘humanitarian’ is omnifarious and lacks
rigid conceptual boundaries. It has not been defined in international law,
that is to say, ‘delineated with the precision accorded such concepts as
“human rights” or “refugee”’(Minear and Weiss 1993: 7). It is
therefore not captive to any specialised legal vocabulary and tends to
transcend the differences between human rights law, refugee law and
humanitarian law. A wide range of acts can therefore be classified as
‘humanitarian’. Its extendibility facilitates
ambiguous and manipulative uses and allows the practices thus classified to
escape critique through shifting the ground of justification from legal
rules to the logic of situations.
While
humanitarianism has always had a presence in international politics it has
never had the salience it possesses today. It has therefore appropriately
been asked ‘why has it attained such prominence at this particular moment
in history’ (Refugee Survey Quarterly 1998: vi). The author of this
paper would like to suggest in the course of this paper that the reason is that
‘humanitarianism’ is the ideology of hegemonic states in the era
of globalisation marked by the end of the Cold War and a growing North-South
divide.
By
‘ideology’ we can understand here ‘meaning in the service of power’
(Thompson 1990:8). It refers to those practices whose effects are directed
toward a group’s legitimacy and authority (McCarthy 1996:30). In other
words, the author of this paper wants to argue that the ideology of
humanitarianism is, among other things, facilitating the erosion of the
fundamental principles of refugee protection (as refugees no longer possess
ideological or geopolitical value).
The
inclusive and indeterminate character of so - called humanitarian practices
has led to the blurring of legal categories, principles, and institutional
roles. These practices are threatening legitimate boundaries between
international refugee law, human rights law and humanitarian law. Their
distinctive and separate spaces are increasingly being transgressed in a bid
to exclude and incarcerate those who seek to escape the consequences of a
brutal globalisation process. The universal and protective label
‘refugee’ has, as a result, fragmented and translated into the
curtailment of rights. Those who now seek refuge find that they represent
security threats to states and regions and that all roads lead quickly home.
On the other hand, reintegration is no easy task as a strange intimacy
characterises the causes and solutions of refugee flows. Such is the
humanitarianism of our times. This has impacted and governed refugee
assistance in Africa and Nigeria.
Refugee Concerns in Nigeria: An Evaluation
Nigeria
houses the ECOWAS Headquarters and is co-founder of NEPAD. UNHCR Opened its
office in Nigeria in 1982 and it became a full - fledged branch office in
1992. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
ECOWAS and UNHCR has been accepted as the basis for cooperation between the
two organisations. Basically, the responsibility for refugee activities in
Nigeria is shared between UNHCR and National Commission for Refugees (NCFR). Concretely, UNHCR was asked to
extend its mandate to also cover internal displacement in Nigeria and NCFR
was recommended to establish a country program in the country.
At
the outbreak of the Liberian Civil War, a government institution
was set up to deal exclusively with refugee issues. The promulgation of
decree 52 of 1989 brought the Nigerian Government into active involvement in
refugee activities. The Liberian crisis led to the establishment of a
refugee camp in Nigeria which we shall discuss as we move further.
In
1989, Nigeria established a National Commission for Refugees, Etc. by
decree. Section 20 of the decree 52 of 1989 defines a refugee, which is
closely modeled on the AU’s definition of refugees. This decree prohibits the
expulsion of any person who is a refugee within the meaning of this decree
(which covers threats to life, to physical integrity, or to freedom through
various means) unless that refugee is a threat to the security of Nigeria or
is convicted of a serious crime. The
decree further establishes the functions of the National Commission for
Refugees and calls for the appointment and sets out the duties of a Federal
Commissioner for Refugees. An Eligibility Committee and an Appeals Board
have also been established, and the procedures for seeking refugee status
are spelled out. Family members of a refugee are allowed to enter Nigeria
and remain in the country as long as said refugee is allowed to remain. The
final part of the decree lists the rights and duties of refugees.
Broadly
speaking, the Nigerian definition of refugees has three clauses-the inclusion
clause, the exclusion clause and the cessation
clauses. The inclusion clause added to the UN and the AU Convention
of refugee.” Unbearable and dangerous conditions prevalent in the country
of origin.” The exclusion clause lists the circumstances, which can
exclude asylum seekers from the grant of refugee status. The cessation
clauses list the conditions under which a person ceases to be a refugee in
Nigeria.
In
general, the asylum policy of the Nigerian government is very liberal and
upto 90%-95% of the cases are accepted; every asylum seeker is
pre-interviewed upon arrival and subsequently interviewed by the Eligibility
Committee. Asylum seekers rejected are given the right to appeal and are
allowed to remain in the country while their case is being processed.
Although
no limitations are imposed on refugees seeking employment or to engage in
economic activities, the opportunities for both are very limited even for
nationals. The chances for durable local integration are very limited if not
negligible.
There
are two major departments that deal directly with refugees within the
National Commission for Refugees (NCFR), these are the protection
and counselling departments. Whereas the protection department deals
with the refugee protection/security, grant of refugee status, passages
etc., the counselling department deals with the provision of basic needs,
guidance, counselling etc. Other areas of refugee operation Nigeria (are
supposed to) include medicare and feeding.
As
a member of the United Nations and a leading contributor to the budget of
the African Union, Nigeria has donated large sums of money towards providing
solutions to refugee problems to other countries in the African Region. However,
its own contribution internally to the Refugee issue in Nigeria was last
seen in 2001 and after that in the past five years it has been zero.
The
refugee policy in Nigeria mainly consists of responding to crisis as they
happen rather than trying to prevent them. Moreover sadly so, refugees are
treated and considered as the pawns to be played in the game of political
chess. Moreso, as only piecemeal efforts have been made towards making
them self reliant while they are here in Nigeria and to integrate into the
host community (which is the Oru –Ijebu Community in particular and
Nigeria as a whole) both economically and socially.
The Oru Refugee Camp: Listening to The Refugee Voices
Presently there are around 10000 recognized refugees [1] in the
country, comprising of refugees from Cameroon,
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan,
Ethiopia, Ghana, Chad and Eritrea and other nationals out of which 5700 refugees reside at Oru camp
located in Oru-Ijebu town in South West Nigeria's Ogun State, a two hour
drive from Lagos.[i]
Liberians comprise majority of the refugees in Nigeria.
The
camp was originally set up by the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) in 1990 to receive hundreds of Liberians who were trooping
into Nigeria at the height of a civil war, which killed more than 150,000
people in that country. But as conflicts and disaster also engulfed Sierra
Leone, DRC, Rwanda and Sudan, the population swelled to more than 3,000. The
majority of refugees have lived in the country for many years and support
themselves. A few thousand, however, received partial assistance from the UN
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The majority of the refugees
comprise of women and children and adolescent boys and girls.
The
Oru Refugee Camp is managed by the National Commission for Refugees (NCFR)
in collaboration with UNHCR. Projects on the camp are implemented by Members
of Implementing Partner Committee (IPC) which is made up of the NCFR (i.e.
the camp administration), UNHCRBO, the representative of the military
administrator of Ogun state, the Nigerian Red Cross Society, the Ogun State
Emergency Relief Agency, the representative of the Commissioner for Police,
the Ijebu –North Local Government (INLG), The Liberian Refugee Council (LRWC)
and the Justice, Development and Peace Commission (JDPC). The Committee is
supposed to meet once every month to deliberate on the camp management.
The Refugee Welfare Council, comprising the refugees themselves run the camp
affairs. Out of this, Liberian Welfare Council has eight members, Sierra
Leone has seven members. The other nationals such as the refugees from
Sudan, Rwanda and Congo DRC also find representation on the Refugee Welfare
Council.
Oru
refugee camp, unlike most refugee camps has permanent structures. The Camp
site (which used to be the former Muslim Teachers Training College) is made
up of eight blocks of residential accommodation, vast arable land (the land
has since be donated by the host community for farming purposes),
recreational and sporting facilities, block of classrooms, a community hall.
Official residential quarters, an administrative block, a mosque, refugee
self-help housing project and other basics amenities. Most of the refugees are with their family thus each family has a
room.
Running
inside the camp is a canal, which is almost dry but overgrown with weeds.
But there are small patches of mini- farms here and there, otherwise the
expanse of land is covered with grasses. Most residents of the camp, (which
lacks infrastructure such as piped water and electricity) are Liberians
and Sierra Leoneans.
Conditions in the camp are poor.
There is no drinking water or electricity.
Food shortages breed malnutrition.
Some refugees use petty trading and manual labor outside the camp as
an extra source of income. Those
not in camps take shelter in school buildings and police compounds where
they barely survive on generosity and luck.
The Former Chairman of the (Liberian) Refugees Welfare Council, Mr.
Fred Lamadaine informed the author of this paper that the location of the
camp is a hindrance towards getting a good job or coming up with a means of
livelihood is difficult as the town is isolated from the major economic
areas in the country. Also, integration and repatriation of educated
refugees is a problem even though some of them have now been absorbed in the
tertiary sector in Nigeria but then the percentage, about ten, is very
small. He also noted that the
resettlement program is very slow in Nigeria. During a recent visit, camp
officials intimated us with the administration of the camp and the
challenges they face in meeting the needs of the inmates.
There is only
one doctor who visits thrice a week and one camp nurse who is always
supposed to be there for the entire refugee population of 5700 refugees.
There are no specialists such as gynaecologists or paedriaticians visiting
the camp even though women and children form majority. There are several
cases of ill-health in the camp as the lack of quality foods also contribute
to ill health in the camp. There are two known cases of death due to HIV
/AIDS. There is also
an unconfirmed allegation that some of the ladies in camp veered into
prostitution. But we were told that if we "come to the camp in the
night you will see cars driving in, some men will come to pick their
girlfriends"
Evelyn
Johnson a Liberian Refugee, is a mother of two children aged six and two
years. She said her husband died in the Liberian war. She says that her
major headache in the camp is economic empowerment. She says "I do
garri, sell rice and palm oil but these are still not enough, sometimes I go
out to beg to make ends meet.”
Apart
from the financial difficulties in camp, there is concern about several
youths in camp who loiter around as they cannot go to school or find some
meaningful vocations.
As the world's attention drifts to new conflicts and famines, the African
refugees in the Oru Refugee camp and outside the camp in some parts of
Nigeria, have learned that they must fend for themselves as the agencies
which are involved in their protection and assistance in Nigeria are often
into tokenism and jargonisms rather than seriously carrying out their roles
and incorporating refugee voices in their refugee assistance programs. This is a pointer towards the wider
debate of restructuring and reframing refugee and human rights law in
Nigeria.
Repatriation or Refoulement?
As countries continue to favor voluntary repatriation as the
preferred solution to refugee situations, debate about the conditions under
which refugees return has become one of the most controversial issues in
refugee policy in Nigeria today.
The
standard of voluntariness had been held up as the cornerstone of
international refugee protection and the most important safeguard against
the imposed return of refugees to countries where they could face
persecution. In practice,
however, there were a series of incidents wherein refugees were forced to
return to conditions of extreme insecurity where respect for their
fundamental rights could not be guaranteed.
Unfortunately,
UNHCR has more often than not been a party to the involuntary return of
refugees and has failed to provide refugees with adequate protection
according to its own principles and guidelines. The case to point is that of
the Liberian refugees in Nigeria who are being compelled to return. The line
of argument given by the senior officials involved in the refugee assistance
programs in Nigeria (both Governmental and from international humanitarian
assistance agencies) is that peace has now returned to Liberia and that the
Liberian refugees have suddenly become a problem in the past six months,
which is rather surprising as they have been in Nigeria for past sixteen
years now. This pressure seems to have become so acute that even food
supplies and other basic assistance to the Liberian refugees has been
stopped and teams are now being constituted to come over to Nigeria2
even from Monrovia to get the Liberian refugees to go back home. The raison
de’etre for this trend is the western aid pouring into Liberia at the
moment.
As
all the involved stakeholders of the refugee assistance system adhere less
and less frequently to the principle of voluntariness, there is an urgent
need to re-examine standards to ensure that refugees are not forcibly
returned to conditions where their basic rights and security are at risk and
to ensure that the fundamental principle of non-refoulement is always
upheld. Return should take place only to rights-respecting environments,
within a clear human rights framework and according to clearly defined
international human rights standards.
More than ever, human rights and international humanitarian law are
all too often flouted, however, undoubtedly out of ignorance, but also, and
this is of course much more serious, quite knowingly. Not only have the
civilian populations been the tragic victims of such events; the very people
who have brought them protection and assistance have been directly targeted
as well. Refugee law is
distinct from other areas of human rights law in that it involves many
questions related to immigration law, an area in which states are very
careful about guarding their sovereignty. These refugee rights would be
conceptually incoherent if there were no borders. It addresses questions or
problems such as the following: What rights do we give to these people in
need/people in difficult circumstances who are in our community? Do we give
them the rights of permanent residence? Do we limit their access to the
kinds of rights that lead to integration?
In
essence, an appropriate overall approach should be twofold: development of
fair interventionist principles and,
in case their application fails, preservation of the possibility for
cross-border flight and external refuge. However, humanitarian intervention
and asylum are two distinct areas that deserve to be clearly distinguished.
The Political as Humanitarian
The present practices in refugeeism in Nigeria demonstrate the very
political move to confuse the ‘political’ with the ‘humanitarian’
with the emphasis that humanitarian action is essentially a political
act of abstention. In other words, it occludes a debate on the relationship
of means to ends. This rhetorical question invites an affirmative response.
Offcourse, the leadership of Northern states has had no hesitation in
stating that it would go to any length to prevent gross violation of human
rights because only a humanitarian discourse can justify a freedom of means
(Blair 1999). Needless to say, the refugee system in Nigeria especially that
of the international agencies such as the UNHCR has fallen in line with
this. What is more, it uses the
language of rights to justify a range of questionable practices. It is time
therefore that the humanitarian community pondered over the essence of new
humanitarianism and the role of humanitarian interventions in Africa/Nigeria
in refugee protection.
Vocational Training and Self -
Reliance Strategies for Refugees in Nigeria
The vocational skills training for the refugees in Nigeria has been
imparted by the Justice and Peace Development Commission (JDPC). These
vocational skills include barbing and hairdressing, tailoring and
confectionary making. But, in reality these trainings haven’t had much
impact, as the refugees have not been able to translate these trainings into
income-generation activities. Moreover, the trainings have been imparted to
selected few rather than to the majority of the refugees. This is no doubt
governed by factors such as funding considerations but these are also
determined by the political nature of humanitarian assistance in Nigeria.
Also,
integration hasn’t really happened for the refugees in Nigeria and they
are restricted in their activities (and not movements) to pockets in and
around the Refugee Settlement (Refugee Camp).
The Proliferation of Labels from
The North into Nigeria
In other words, ‘new labels are being used such as -- instruments
of control, restrictionism and disengagement’. These include: asylum
seekers, spontaneous arrivals, quota refugees, people in refugee-like
situations, stayees, asylum seekers with Exceptional Leave to Remain or
Indefinite Leave to Remain and the ‘white list of safe countries’. The
labels institutionalise, not just a status, but, as has been pointed out,
‘certain assumptions and expectations about humanitarian treatment and
responses’. To put it differently, the present dynamics of the rights of
refugees in Nigeria has deep roots in the dilution of refugee law globally
as was discussed in the beginning of this paper.
The Impact on UNHCR
The ideology of humanitarianism has also had a profound impact on
UNHCR in Nigeria, the principal agency concerned with the protection of
refugees.
First, the fact that refugees are now a
matter of high politics has considerably reduced the autonomy of UNHCR.
UNHCR’s financial dependence is today being used to prevent it from
protesting too much against the reduction of basic protection principles
(violation of the principle of non-refoulement, regressive
interpretation of the definition of ‘refugee’, etc.) or taking the
initiative to adopt creative measures to implement its mandate for
supervision.
Second, as the tasks of UNHCR are being
redefined in the matrix of the policy of containment and the accompanying
language of security, the ‘non-political and humanitarian’ clause in its
mandate is being diluted.
Third, UNHCR is being transformed from
an independent international humanitarian organisation to a national
organisation as well as refugee in Nigeria.
Conclusion:
Towards Just Refugeeism and Humanitarianism in Nigeria
Nigeria’s refugee and humanitarian assistance regime is in need of
urgent revamping. In Nigeria, since 2004, the way in which refugees are
treated has altered.
In
Nigeria, given the fragmentation of authority, we see several actors compete
over the right to have access to the refugees. Here, displacement is not
just a result of conflict but also a tool in conflict.
The
refugee issue in Nigeria has become a ‘black jack’ which is used in
regional diplomatic power plays instead of paying attention on the
humanitarian aspects such as their instant impoverishment and the relative
lack of services provided for refugees, there have been changes (mostly for
the worse) in the conditions to which contemporary refugees in Nigeria are
subjected.
These changing
attitudes have attracted significant attention, particularly considering
Nigeria has always perceived as a particularly safe haven for refugees from
the different parts of African region. However, the present attitude of the refugee
administration system in Nigeria towards the refugee community in Nigeria
should be seen in its proper context.
It
is should be borne in mind that refugees represent both a threat and an
opportunity for statecraft at the same time. On several occasions, state
officials manipulate the refugee issue in order to paint a picture of a
state as a victim of the international community and as a morally superior
nation of peace-loving, hospitable citizens. Less effort is put into
reinforcing the state institutionally, while more, or at least continued,
emphasis is directed towards maintaining the symbol of the nation-state
among the population. Despite the liberalisation of the political market and
a continued de-institutionalisation of government practices, the symbol and
values of the nation-state remain as yet largely uncontested. Hence,
understandably so, in the current context, the question is for how long the
discursive state can continue to be effective in refugee and humanitarian
assistance.
In
general terms, the refugee is pictured as a threat to human security because
s/he challenges the sovereign state and places a burden on receiving
societies. The refugee has been singled out as a specific category even for
the purpose of modern statecraft. The problematic of the refugee in a
discourse depicting the refugee as threat to the normal functioning of
states and societies (disrupting democracy, development, etc.) eventually
serves to underline the state in its role as savior and protector of those
values. This is true for Nigeria as well.
At
the governmental levels, refugee assistance programs are being implemented
by generalist and political appointees rather than specialists. It is thus
natural that these political appointees and implementers are going to be
under tremendous pressure to carry out the wishes of the government of the
day in order to retain their positions. This works to the detriment of the
refugee assistance program in Nigeria.
When
discussing the idea of returning ‘home’ (in the sense of
repatriation of refugees after conflict has ended), it becomes clear that
‘home’ remains a problematic concept. One can return to a specific place
but one cannot go back in time and un-think the horrible events that have
forced displacement in the first case. Identities are transformed through
displacement. Moreover, repatriation is often nothing more than a new form
of displacement. Also, bowing down to political arm-twisting isn’t exactly going
to help the refugee/humanitarian assistance framework.
The
shift of emphasis from long-term organised settlement to short-term
emergency relief in Nigeria has serious implications for the process of
voluntary repatriation. Refugees who are without hope in relief camps are
increasingly taking risks, or are forced into taking risks and are returning
home. The voluntary nature of some of these return migrations thus becomes
very questionable. Today, it is the Liberian Refugees on whom the pressure is being
put to return back home due to the changed political dynamics, tomorrow it
is definitely going to be another set of refugees who are going to be
pressured to return back to their countries of origin due to political
reasons3.
One needs to bear in mind that refugees are not commodities and goods who
can be moved at one’s whims and fancies but, human entities.
One
change that has had a profound effect on refugees in Nigeria is the apparent
demise of the ‘traditional hospitality’ that was shown by locals
to the refugees that settled among them. Today, refugees who attempt
spontaneous settlement in Africa find themselves in an unwelcome competition
for land, jobs and food. Where land is unavailable or where governments want
to restrict refugee settlement, they find themselves confined to refugee
camps that provide little more than basic services.
A
multilateral organisation such as UNHCR is in a more delicate position,
since it has to liase between host governments and governments of countries
of origin, and should not ignore that the refugee issue is more than a
humanitarian one. UNHCR in Nigeria is therefore an organisation often
blowing hot and cold. And clearly, being dictated by informed citizens,
specialists or the UNHCR, is not to the liking of most government officials
in Nigeria. All advices for postponing repartriation fall on deaf ears due
to the political nature of the issue that it is assuming to be.
There
is no reason why, as we enter the new millennium, a vast part of humankind
should continue to be deprived of the basic necessities of life or be
encircled by violence or be deprived of the right to seek asylum. All this
needs to change.
The
agenda for the refugee protection and humanitarian assistance needs to be
therefore spelt out.
A new Nigeria needs to re-look at its refugee assistance
initiatives along with the other stakeholders involved in this such as the
UNHCR, ICRC, and NCFR etc.
It
is essential that national and international humanitarian actors should be
enabled access to refugees and displaced people in Nigeria, and should be
encouraged to implement operational activities in favor of Refugees.
Government authorities should facilitate systematic and effective
reintegration of Refugees either when returning to their original places of
residence or when voluntarily resettling in another part of Nigeria. This
should be undertaken with the active involvement of all stakeholders. This is particularly true for the
National Commission for Refugees, which has yet to live up to the
expectations placed on it.
The
National Commission for Refugees and the UNHCR should work hard to actualize
the objective of not only rehabilitating and resettlement of the displaced,
but should work in collaboration with other related agencies in proper and
genuine reconciliation of the victims. In this regard, the local government
authorities, the traditional rulers, the community leaders and well-meaning
Nigerians have greater role to play in the maintenance of peace and
stability in their domains.
It
is not enough to distribute blankets and a few bags of rice, there is need
to strengthen structures to cope with problems and encourage NGOs to
participate. More importantly, the focus should be on empowerment of
refugees. It is not enough only to grant asylum to these people in
need/people in difficult circumstances but, to ensure that they get a
position of dignity in the country. Moreover, the camps are a short-term
resolution for refugees and a long-term resolution to end the violence and
empower the displaced populations is needed at the African regional levels.
Probably, those in the refugee management system in Nigeria need to look at
the value of quick impact projects (QIPs) and seek to learn from other parts
of the world where such QIPs have been successful such as the Rwandan
Woman’ Initiative (RWI) or the Bosnian Woman Initiative (BWI).
Since
the refugee problem is an important aspect of human rights protection, human
rights groups, humanitarian organisations, the UNHCR, Governments and UN
human rights agencies should take a hard look at their respective roles and
make coordinated efforts for elimination of human rights abuses and
protection of the rights of refugees. To get access to the refugees and such
“people in need/people in difficult circumstances”, the Nigerian
humanitarian assistance system must remain scrupulously independent of
politics, government, as well as religious and economic powers. This
particularly true as a matter of immense challenge especially in Nigeria
where there is an outrageous abuse of power and malfunctioning of the state
apparatus.
Also,
international institutions need to be made responsible for acts of omission
and commission, which lead to the violation of human rights. Thus, UNHCR
should be held responsible if it ‘incorrectly declares that a source state
is safe for return, closes a camp and permits or facilitates the
repatriation of the refugee population who suffer persecution on return’.
In
the area of protection and security, there is a need to build new types of
partnership to guarantee the required protection of displaced persons and
humanitarian assistance.
More
importantly, those providing emergency assistance should also be conscious
of their exit strategies, to ensure that refugees are not left in the lurch.
They should not leave abruptly in a way that leaves a sour taste in the
mouths of those they are trying to help.
The
lack of a well-developed community of local activists to intervene in
situations where local governments and UNHCR have been ineffective in
protecting refugees has also had a detrimental effect on refugees. While
international organisations can exert their influence on behalf of refugees,
their capacity to gather information and respond rapidly is severely
constrained. Local advocates on the front lines need to be able to respond
quickly and effectively to emerging crises. A coordinated and system-wide response will always be the most
effective way of dealing with emergencies. These are the policy challenges
of the refugee administration system in Nigeria.
References
Annan,
Kofi. ‘The Causes of Conflict and the Promotion of Durable Peace and
Sustainable Development in Africa’, New York: United Nations, (1998)
Bayart, F. 1993. The State in Africa, The Politics of the Belly.
London and New York: Longman.
Chimni, B.S. (1991) ‘Perspectives on Voluntary Repatriation: A Critical
Note’, International Journal of Refugee Law 3: 541-47.
—
(1998a)
‘The Geopolitics of Refugee Studies: A View from the South’, Journal
of Refugee Studies 11: 350-374.
—
(1998b) ‘The
Global Refugee Problem in the 21st Century and the Emerging Security
Paradigm’, pp.283-299 in A. Anghie and G. Sturgess eds., Legal
Visions of the
21st Century: Essays in Honor of Judge Christopher Weeramantry,
The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
—
(1999a)
‘From Resettlement to Involuntary Repatriation: Towards a Critical History
of Durable Solutions to Refugee Problems’, UNHCR Working Paper No.2,
Geneva: Centre for Documentation and Research 1-21.
Collinson, S. 1999. ‘Globalisation and the dynamics of international
migration: implications for the refugee regime’, UNHCR Working Papers, New
Issues in Refugee Research, No.1, Geneva: UNHCR.
Crisp, J. 1999. ‘Policy challenges of the new diasporas: migrant networks
and their impact on asylum flows and regimes’, UNHCR Working Papers, New
Issues in Refugee Research, No.7, Geneva: UNHCR.
De Waal, A. 1997. Famine Crimes. Politics and the Disaster Relief
Industry in Africa, Oxford: James Currey.
Guardian Newspaper, Nigeria, 20 June 2005 ‘Refugees in a mixed grill on
World Refugee Day” by Pius Odiaka.
Guardian Newspaper, Nigeria, 5July 2005 ‘Refugees….as United Nations
turns 60…” by Pius Odiaka,
Gopalkrishna V. Murthy Shambhavi, 9 January 2005, Guardian Nigeria ‘Refugee
Problem in Africa’
Gopalkrishna V. Murthy Shambhavi, Reframing the Challenge of Protection and
Assistance for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in a New Nigeria, Being a Paper Presented at the
Department of Political Science, University of Lagos & Ford
Foundation Workshop on “An Agenda for a New Nigeria: The Imperative of
Transformation” June 29-30, 2005,Excellence Hotels, Ogba-Ikeja, Lagos.
(Forthcoming-in the press now as part of a book by the name of
the Workshop’s main theme on “An Agenda for a New Nigeria: The
Imperative of Transformation”)
Gopalkrishna V. Murthy Shambhavi, “Evaluating International Humanitarian Action and Humanitarian
Governance: Reflections for Nigeria” being a Paper presented at the
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lagos Workshop on “Democracy,
Good Governance and Corruption in Nigeria, 1999-2005:The Journey So Far”
on December 14, 2005 at Airport Hotel, Lagos, Nigeria
Gopalkrishna V. Murthy Shambhavi, (forthcoming) “Evaluating International
Humanitarian Action and Humanitarian Governance as a new field of Academic
Enquiry for African Social Sciences” being a Paper to be presented at
the 2006 Social Sciences Conference on “South African Social Sciences in an African Context” at
Burgers Park
Hotel, Tshwane, South Africa, 27-29 September 2006.
Gil Loescher, ‘Refugee Issues in International Relations’, in Gil
Loescher and Laila Monahan, (eds.) Refugees and International Relations
(Oxford, 1989), pp. 1-2.
Gorman, R. and Kibreab, G. (1997) ‘Repatriation Aid and Development
Assistance’, pp.35- 83 in James C. Hathaway ed., Reconceiving
International Refugee Law, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Kibreab, G. 1999. Revisiting the Debate on People, Place, Identity and
Displacement. Journal of Refugee Studies 12, No. 4: 384-410.
Mathews K., Paper on ‘The OAU and Human Rights in Africa: An Analysis
of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights’ (Africa Today,
Vol34, Nos.1&2,1987,pp 85-104)
Mbembe, A. 2000c. At the Edge of the World. Boundaries, Territoriality, and
Sovereignty in Africa. Public Culture 12, No.1: 259-284.
Rutinwa, B. 1999. ‘The end of asylum? The changing nature of refugee
politics in Africa’, UNHCR Working Papers, New Issues in Refuge
Research, No. 5, Geneva: UNHCR.
Soguk, N. 1999. States and Strangers. Refugees and Displacements of
Statecraft. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Vanguard, Nigeria, 12 January 2005, “Spreading Cheer During the
Festival Season-Visit to the Oru Refugee Camp” By Mike Egbenwa
Vedantam Shambhavi, ‘Refugee Problem in Africa’, (Refugee Watch,
March 2001,No.13, SAFHR, Kathmandu, Nepal)
Warner,D. 1994. Voluntary Repatriation and the Meaning of Return to Home: A
Critique of Liberal Mathematics, Journal of Refugees Studies 7, No.
2/3: 160-174.
Weiss, L. 1997. Globalization and the Myth of the Powerless State. New
Left Review, No. 225: 3-27.
Williams, P. (1997) ‘Religion, Violence and Displacement in Nigeria’, Journal
of Asian and African Studies, 32 (1 and 2) (June).
The 1951 Refugee Convention (Art. 33(1)), UNHCR, Basic Legal Documents on
Refugees (1999), 8-37; Article 3, United Nations Declaration on Territorial
Asylum, Art. VIII of the Asian- African Legal Consultative Committee,
Bangkok Principles, Art.II (3), OAU Convention 1969, Article 22(8), American
Convention on Human Rights Convention, 1969. Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, UNHCR, Basic Legal documents, pp.43-47; See also Convention Against
Torture, Articles 2 and 6. Article 7 of the ICCPR (1966).
Zolberg, A. (1985) ‘The formation of new states as a refugee generating
process’, in E. Ferris (ed) Refugees and World Politics, NY: Preager.
Africa Policy E-Journal-
http://www.africapolicy.org
http://www.refugees.org/news/press_releases/2001/100301.cfm
Africa at Crossroads: Complex Political Emergencies in the 21st Century,http://www.unesco.org/most/crossroadsibea.htm
Harrell-Bond, Barbara and Kagan, Mike.
“Protecting the Rights of Refugees in Africa: Beginning with the UN
Gatekeeper” November 11, 2004. “Estimated Number of Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Others of
Concern to UNHCR – 1st Jan 2004 (table)” United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Basic facts. http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/basics.
13 November 2004
Notes
[i]The recent repartriation exercise
is changing this figure on a weekly basis and no new figures were
released till the time this paper was written.
2 The author of this paper has initiated the “Movement for
Challenge of Concern for Refugees and the Displaced in Nigeria” The
author of this paper speaks from first hand experiences and interactions
has been involved with providing various forms of humanitarian
assistance to refugees in Nigeria, including scholarships, initiatives
in skills trainings and through corporate donations etc., for the past
two years.
3 Source: Deutsch
Welles TV, Nigeria& BBC Nigeria
How to Balance Rights and Responsibilities on Asylum at The EU's Solution Border of Italy and Libya
by
Rutvaca Andrijasevic
(ESRC
Postdoctoral Fellow, Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS),
University of Oxford)
During the last year the temporary holding center for irregular migrants
in Lampedusa, Italy’s southernmost island, has been repeatedly denounced for
instances of procedural irregularities and alleged human rights violations.
Lampedusa ‘temporary stay and assistance centre’ (CPTA) came to a larger
public attention in the Fall of 2004 when Italian authorities expelled more than
thousand undocumented migrants to Libya on military and civil airplanes.
Numerous and consistent allegations of degrading treatment of third-country
nationals in detention in the holding centre, the difficulty in gaining access
to the asylum determination process and the large scale expulsions to Libya,
brought Lampedusa to the attention of European and international institutions.
The European Parliament (EP), the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the
United Nations’ Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) all called on Italy to respect
asylum seekers and refugees’ right to international protection and to refrain
from collective expulsions1 of asylum seekers and irregular migrants to Libya, a
country that has no asylum system and has not a signed the Geneva Convention on
Refugees.
Positioned
some two hundred kilometres south of Sicily and three hundred kilometres north
of Libya, the island of Lampedusa became in 2004 the main point of arrival for
boats carrying undocumented migrants and asylum seekers from Libya to Italy. A
total of 10 497 migrants, 412 of whom were minors and 309 women, transited
through the Lampedusa CPTA in 2004.2 Migrants commonly depart from Libya in
overcrowded makeshift boats and undertake a perilous sea journey which can last
up to several weeks. Once in the Italian waters near Lampdesa, the boats are
intercepted by Italian border guards and migrants transferred to the Lampedusa
holding centre.
After
staying in the holding centre for a period that varies usually between five and
forty-five days, the majority of migrants are transferred to CPTAs in Sicily or
southern Italy and others are expelled to Libya. No official data is available
on the countries of origin or reasons for migrating for migrants detained in the
CPTA of Lampedusa. The UNHCR points to the presence of refugees and asylum
seekers among those detained in the CPTA as well as among those expelled to
Libya. The authorities of Lampedusa CPTA refer to all third-country nationals
held in the centre as ‘illegal migrants’ and claim that there are nearly no
asylum seekers present among migrants who depart from Libya. The authorities
assert also that the majority of third-country nationals are economic migrants
of Egyptian nationality.3 The data gathered in Lampedusa by the Italian NGO ARCI
and the Médecins sans Frontières identify instead Middle East (Iraq and
Palestine), Maghreb, Horn of Africa (including Sudan) and Sub-Saharan Africa as
migrants’ regions of origin.4 More consistent data on migrants’ countries of
origin and the nature of their journeys remain however unavailable in spite of
the continuity of migratory flows from north Africa to the south of Italy since
the end of the 1990s.
The
CPTA in Lampedusa is one of eleven existing holding centres, most of which are
located in the south of Italy. CPTAs are instruments for the detention of
undocumented migrants pending expulsion and their function is to ensure
effective functioning of expulsion procedures. Identified as complementary,
detention and expulsion of undocumented migrants are crucial pillars of
Italy’s politics towards irregular migration. In the effort to control
undocumented migratory flows from Africa into its territory, Italy established a
collaboration on illegal migration with Libya, its southern Mediterranean
neighbour. Initially signed in 2000 as a general agreement to fight terrorism,
organized crime and illegal migration, in 2003 and 2004 Italian-Libyan
partnership extended to include a readmission agreement, training for Libyan
police officers and border guards, and Italy-funded detention and repatriation
programmes for irregular migrants in Libya. The aim of these schemes is to deter
irregular migration and to prevent further migrants’ deaths at sea by
combating smuggling networks.
This
paper presents an overview of events and policies implemented in Lampedusa and
Libya respectively and outlines the contentions surrounding these policies.
Using the material provided by the Italian authorities, European institutions
and the NGOs, the paper further examines the schemes developed by the Italian
and Libyan Governments, the European Union and the International Organization
for Migration (IOM) as main actors involved in implementing immigration-related
programmes and polices in Lampedusa and Libya. A methodological note is
necessary here. The data available on measures regarding detention and
deportations of irregular migrants and asylum seekers in Lampedusa and Libya are
often contradictory and incomplete. In the case of Lampedusa, scarce information
provided by Italian authorities was lately supplemented by data gathered by the
European Parliament, the NGOs and journalists. When it comes to Libya, the
content of agreements, whether between the Italian and Libyan Governments or
between the latter and the IOM, remain undisclosed. Hence, rather than offering
an exhaustive description of legislative acts the first two sections of the
paper make use of the legislative framework as a way of contextualizing the main
procedures and policies carried out in Lampedusa and Libya.
Having
examined, in the first two sections of the paper, the contentions surrounding
Italy’s alleged violation of the right to asylum, the non-refoulment principle
and the prohibition of collective expulsions, the following two sections bring
into focus the data on migratory patterns into and from Libya that put into
question a number of assumptions that inform Italian Government’s detention
and deportation policies. The third section engages the images of emergency and
mass-influx of undocumented migrants commonly summoned by the Governments and
the media to portray migratory flows from Africa and show that these images
produce an erroneous representation of contemporary Mediterranean migration and
conceal Italy’s reluctance to assume its share of asylum responsibilities
within the European Union (EU).
Italy’s
policies of detention and deportation and Libya’s enhancement of border
control in particular towards its Sub-Saharan neighbours are examined in section
four in relation to their function in deterring irregular migration and
combating smuggling networks. The analysis undertaken in this section suggests
that these policies might yield paradoxical effects such as ‘illegalizing’
the movement of certain groups of migrants and increasing rather than decreasing
the involvement of smuggling networks.
Italy’s
implementation of policies and schemes that increase migrants’ and asylum
seekers’ vulnerability and hamper the right of the latter group to access the
asylum procedure raises the issue of the European Commission’s (EC)
responsibility and the EU’s commitment to the protection of refugees. The
return of undocumented migrants from the EU Member states and the collaboration
with Libya on matters of irregular migration will soon be regulated by the EU
Return Directive and the Libya-EU Joint Action Plan. These instruments set out
to provide a minimum set of procedural and legal safeguards for the return,
removal and custody of third-county nationals residing illegally in EU Member
States and limit the EU’s involvement in the detention facilities in Libya to
the provision of heath care and services rather than support of return schemes.
The analysis in section five of the Return Directive and the Action Plan, as
well as of the EC-funded IOM programmes in Libya raise the issue of whether or
not the Commission is contracting out of its responsibilities over migration and
asylum matters and whether the Return Directive and the Action Plan leave too
large a space for the Member states to circumvent the EU framework and apply
restrictive exceptions.
Since
the EU return directive and the joint Action Plan are new instruments and still
to be finalized, the last section of this paper outlines a number of policy
recommendations that would strengthen the Commission’s credibility regarding
its monitoring responsibility and the EU’s commitment to refugee protection.
Given the current lack of safeguards and control mechanisms on return, and on EU
cooperation with Libya, the recommendations point to the role of the European
Parliament in promoting a credible and effective framework for the protection of
asylum seekers. This paper recommends that transparency, accountability and
legitimacy are key principles that should guide the European Union’s
partnership with its neighbour states in the field of asylum, borders and
immigration.
Lampedusa Holding Centre
Detention
and the right to asylum Lampedusa holding centre is located on the airport of
Lampedusa next to the runway to which it has direct access.5 Surrounded by
barbed wire and metal grilles, the centre is composed of four prefabricated
containers designated to host 186 people.6 In the words of Italian officials the
centre is a ‘temporary stay and assistance centre’ functioning as a
‘clearing station’ and an ‘initial assistance’ centre for undocumented
migrants after they have disembarked on the island.7 Its function as a
‘clearing station’ consists in redirecting migrants and asylum seekers
within the shortest necessary time to other CPTAs in Italy or returning them to
the country of last transit, usually Libya. The ‘initial assistance’ stands
for the emergency health care, clothing and food that undocumented migrants and
asylum seekers are provided with during the period they are held in the CPTA
awaiting transfer/removal. The CPTA is mainly active between April and October,
when the weather conditions permit sea travel from Libya to the south of
Italy.
As
instruments for the detention of irregular migrants and asylum seekers, CPTAs
were established under ‘Turco-Napoletano’ law with the purpose of
administrative detention of third country nationals pending expulsion from
Italy.8 Asylum seekers, as well as migrants who have been served an expulsion
order, are detained in CPTAs if they present an asylum application after having
received an expulsion or refusal of entry order and/or if their appeal is at the
final stage and they are awaiting the court’s decision on the appeal. The
maximum period of detention for both groups is sixty days.9 The CPTAs however do
not cater primarily to asylum seekers. The so-called ‘Bossi-Fini’ law
amended the detention regulations set by ‘Turco-Napoletano’ law and
established ‘identification centres’ as specific centres for the detention
of asylum seekers.10 While detention of asylum seekers cannot be carried out
with the sole purpose of examining their application, it is nevertheless
mandatory in cases when asylum seekers present their application after being
arrested for entering or attempting to enter the country illegally, and/or
residing in Italy in an irregular situation.11 An asylum seeker can be held in
an identification centre for a maximum of 30 days.12 The Italian Government is
currently in the process of establishing ‘polifunctional’ immigration
centres to carry out administrative and juridical functions of both CPTAs and
identification centres.
Throughout
2004 and 2005, the holding centre of Lampedusa was denounced for the lack of
access to the asylum procedure. European NGOs13 have drawn attention to the
failure of the centre’s authorities to provide information about the
possibility of claiming asylum and to guarantee individual examination of asylum
through in-depth interviews that assess asylum seeker’s individual
circumstance. Migrants and asylum seekers, the NGOs remark, have no effective
access to an interpreter, are often identified by staff not qualified as
interpreters14 by the use of improvised identification procedures in which the
migrant’s nationality is determined on the basis of their skin colour and
facial characteristics.15 Since migrants and asylum seekers are deprived of the
freedom of movement, are allocated phone-cards only on a sporadic basis, and
whose lawyers reside in Sicily, some 200km north of Lampedusa, the NGOs have
argued that migrants have no effective access to legal aid.16 The lack of proper
interpretation and legal services, the difficulty experienced by MPs, UNHCR17
and NGOs in obtaining the permission to access the CPTA,18 and the withdrawal of
information explaining the reasons for detention, leave migrants and asylum
seekers with little possibility to defend themselves and/or appeal. The
difficulty of accessing the asylum procedure puts asylum seekers in a legally
extremely vulnerable position since they can be served the refusal of entry
order. This in turn constitutes the legal basis for their expulsion from Italy
or for subsequent detention in a CPTA, as they have already received a refusal
of entry order prior to presenting their asylum application. Lack of in-depth
individual assessment, serving of refusal orders to potential asylum seekers and
their subsequent collective expulsion to Libya are reasons which had NGOs to
argue that Italy is in breach of the Geneva Convention’s non-refoulement
principle.
The
NGOs also gathered evidence of the arbitrary detention and degrading treatment
of third country nationals in the Lampedusa centre. ARCI, an Italian NGO that
between June and October 2005 undertook independent monitoring on Lampedusa
maintains that a very small number of migrants and asylum seekers are served an
expulsion or refusal of entry order. This puts into question the legal basis of
detention since migrants and asylum seekers are nevertheless detained in the
CPTA for a period between 25 and 45/50 days awaiting their transfer to another
CPTA or removal to Libya (ARCI 2005).19 The amount of time that migrants and
asylum seekers spend in the CPTA of Lampedusa is not officially recorded as
detention meaning that, once they have been moved to another CPTA, migrants and
asylum seekers can still be detained for the maximum period allowed. Minors and
pregnant women are held, as ARCI reports, with male adults and no special
assistance is provided to them.20 The centre is permanently overcrowded21 and
the detention conditions degrading: there is for example, no access to the
proper health assistance22 and the hygienic conditions are substandard.23 In
addition to the denunciation of the use of force during the removal operations,
recent journalistic sources have also disclosed the abuse of migrants while in
detention by law enforcement officers.24 These removals are often carried out by
use of force, especially when migrants are reluctant to board the plane and
attempt to run away, and by coercive methods such as the use of plastic
handcuffs.25
On the
basis of gathered data ten European NGOs have taken legal actions against the
Italian Government, filed a complaint with the European Commission26 and called
the Commission to sanction Italy for: Violation of the right of defence and of
all parties to be heard27 and hence the right to asylum as recognised by the
Amsterdam Treaty Violation of the prohibition of torture and inhuman or
degrading treatment, provided for in article 4 of the European Charter of
fundamental rights and article 3 of the European Convention for the protection
of human rights and fundamental freedoms28 In the complaint of the 20 January
2005 as well as in successive open letters to the Council and the Commission,29
Amnesty International urged the Commission to publicly distance itself from the
actions of the Italian authorities and to carry out an independent investigation
regarding Italy’s compliance with international legal obligations as part of
the EU acquis.30
Italian
authorities confirm the NGOs’ data on the 350-400 daily average presence in
the Lampedusa CPTA, the case of overcrowding of up to 1000 people during the
summer months and the presence in the CPTA of women and minors. Their position
diverges though on other points raised by NGOs. Even though there are cases when
the third-country nationals are detained up to 60 days, the Italian authorities
maintain that in most cases migrants’ stay at the CPTA does not exceed four to
five days. They state that the majority of detained migrants are Egyptian
nationals and that nationality is determined on the basis of their physical
characteristics and accent, as well as by a short individual interview, to which
everyone is entitled. As explained by the Italian authorities, if migrants do
not come forward to request asylum they are immediately repatriated to Libya or
to their country of origin.31 Those who however do request asylum are moved to
the Crotone CPTA, on the Italian mainland. The authorities state also that the
majority of third-country nationals arriving from Libya are not asylum seekers
but rather economic migrants.
Despite
the denial by the Italian government that human rights violations take place in
Lampedusa holding centre,32 the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee
expressed concern about the conditions of detention and procedures in Lampedusa
CPTA, calling on Italy to keep the Committee closely informed about the ongoing
administrative and judicial inquiries on matters of detention conditions,
procedural irregularities and collective deportations to Libya.33 Given the
seriousness of the numerous allegations raised by NGOs, a delegation of twelve
MEPs, part of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home
Affairs (LIBE) of the European Parliament, arrived to the island of Lampedusa on
15th and 16th September 2005 in order to assess the identification and removal
procedures, the treatment of the detainees and the running of the CPTA. This
visit was preceded by the EP’s Resolution on Lampedusa in April of the same
year, in which the EP called on Italy to guarantee the individual examination of
the requests for asylum and grant UNHCR free access to the Lampedusa CPTA. As
for the European NGOs, the EP called on the European Commission to ensure that
the Member States comply with their obligations under the EU law and that the
right of asylum is respected in the EU.34
Between
October 2004 and March 2005, Italian authorities returned more than 1500
irregular migrants and asylum seekers to Libya from Lampedusa holding centre.
The biggest operation took place between the 1st and 7th of October 2004, four
days before the EU lifted its eight-year-long arms embargo on Libya on 11th
October 2004. During those six days, a total of 1153 irregular migrants and
asylum seekers were expelled to Libya. The operations continued throughout
Spring and Summer with expulsions of another 494 people in March, 150 in May, 45
in June and 65 in August 2005. No information is available concerning the
whereabouts of migrants and asylum seekers expelled to Libya.35 Human Rights
Watch believes that the majority has been detained in Libyan detention
camps.36
The
expulsions from the Lampedusa CPTA to Libya are part of Italian-Libyan
collaboration on matters of irregular migration regulated though a bilateral
agreement signed in Tripoli in August 2004. While the content of the agreement
is still undisclosed despite solicitations from the European Parliament, UN
Human Rights Committee and various European NGOs, the EP believes that the
agreement requires Libyan authorities to supervise irregular migration within
and into its territory and commits them to readmit migrants returned by Italy.37
Next to the bilateral agreement signed in 2004, Italy and Libya also signed in
2000 in Rome an agreement to fight terrorism, organized crime, drugs traffic and
illegal migration. In September 2002 in Tripoli an operational agreement also
led in July 2003 to the establishment of a permanent liaison on organized crime
and illegal migration between Italian police officers and Libyan Security
General Directorate.38 The collaboration between Italy and Libya extends beyond
expulsions from Lampedusa holding centre and includes the construction of
detention centres and the development of return schemes in Libya. In 2003 Italy
financed the construction of a camp for illegal migrants in the north of the
country (Gharyan) close to Tripoli. For the 2004-2005 period Italy allocated
funds for the realization of two more camps: one in the city of Kufra located in
the south-east close to the border with Egypt and Sudan, and the other in city
of Sebha in the south-west of Libya.39 In 2003 and 2004 Italy also financed a
programme of charter flights for the repatriation of irregular migrants from
Libya. A total of 5688 migrants were repatriated on 47 charter flights to Egypt,
Ghana and Nigeria as main destinations.40
Future
detention and expulsion schemes are being developed in collaboration with IOM, a
key partner for both Italian and Libyan governments.41 Italy was scheduled to
fund an IOM pilot project in Libya starting in August 2005.42 As far as Libya is
concerned, following the agreement signed on the 9th August 2005 for opening of
an IOM office in Tripoli,43 IOM and Libya defined a programme of activities with
the 37 EP, P6_TA(2005)0138. Moreover, journalistic sources specify that the
agreement requires Libya to increase control over its borders in the Saharan
region. See Gatti, F., ibid., 2005b. aim of supporting the Libyan Government to
counter illegal migration and develop a long-term migration management approach.
Under the Programme for the Enhancement of Transit and Irregular Migration
Management (TRIM), IOM will be responsible for: The focus of the session was on
border and migration management and on assisted voluntary return for irregular
migrants in Libya. IOM, Dialogue 5+5. Newsletter, n. 1 issue, 2004.
.. Labour selection programmes for migrant workers in order to supply Libya’s
labour demand;
.. Information campaigns to warn potential migrants about the dangers of
irregular migration;
.. Improvement of services (such as heath care) and conditions of detention for
irregular migrants in detention centres in Libya;
.. Development of an Assisted Voluntary Return Programme (AVR) and Reinsertion
programme aiming to return irregular migrants in Libya to their countries of
origin;
.. Strengthening of cooperation on irregular migration between origin and
destination countries.44
NGOs
claim that the signing of the bilateral agreement between Libya and Italy in
August 2004 led to widespread arrests in Libya of individuals from sub-Saharan
Africa,45 and that 106 migrants lost their lives during subsequent repatriations
from Libya to Niger.46 NGOs point out that due to the improvised identification
practices in Lampedusa CPTA migrants and asylum seekers are at risk of being
expelled to a country with which they have no relationship. The improvised
identification of large numbers of migrants as Egyptians, NGOs claim, is at the
base of forced collective removals of migrants first to Libya and later to Egypt
with whom Libya collaborates in matters of illegal migration.47 The NGOs and
activists have hence pressured air carriers to refuse to expel migrants from the
Lampedusa holding centre to Libya.48
Evidence
gathered by Amnesty International (AI) points further to the risk that removed
asylum seekers and irregular migrants face in Libya. As AI documented, the
Libyan State practices incommunicado detention of suspected political opponents,
migrants and possible asylum seekers, torture while in detention, unfair trials
leading to long-term prison sentences or the death penalty, and
‘disappearance’ and death of political prisoners in custody. Migrants and
asylum seekers in particular are often victims of arbitrary detentions,
inexistent or unfair trials, killings, and disappearances and torture in the
detention camps.49 Once migrants and asylum seekers are detained in Libya there
is virtually no way for NGOs to assist them or verify the conditions of
detention and the relative expulsion procedure. The Libyan detention centres are
in fact almost inaccessible to international organizations or human rights
groups and UNHCR is unable to access people returned from Lampedusa to Libya
since it cannot operate its protection mandate in Libya.
In
light of gathered data on current removal practices, a coalition of 13 European
NGOs50 proposed to the Member States and the EU a number of core principles to
be applied during the repatriations in order to ensure that the policies fully
respect the needs and dignity of individuals.51 In the complaint filed with the
European Commission concerning the expulsions from Lampedusa holding centre to
Libya, the NGOs called onto the Commission to sanction Italy for:
.. Violation of the prohibition of collective expulsions provided for in article
4 of the 4th Protocol of the European Charter of Human Rights (ECHR) and
fundamental freedoms, and article II-19-1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
and article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
.. Violation of the non-refoulement principle52 prescribed in article 33 of the
1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees and Article 3 of the Convention against
Torture53
Italian
authorities have responded to the allegations of collective expulsions by
invoking article 10 of Law 189/2002 and in particular the procedures regarding
the refusal of entry (respingimento alla frontiera). The authorities claim that
removals from the Lampedusa CPTA are not expulsions but rather refusals of entry
on individual basis. An expulsion needs to be decided by the judge and prohibits
entry into Italy for ten years while a refusal of entry is an administrative
measure that does not ban the migrant from entering the Italian territory in the
future.54 Irregular migrants reaching Lampedusa are hence served refusals of
entry and returned to Libya as they have transited Libya prior to reaching
Italy. Italian authorities insist that the refusals of entry take place on a
case by case basis and that since the majority of migrants reaching Lampedusa
are economic migrants rather than refugees, Italy is in no violation of the
refoulement principle or in breach of the Geneva Convention.55
The
Italian Government has explained its refusal to disclose the content of the
bilateral agreement with Libya by saying that making the agreement public would
diminish the success of countering smuggling and trafficking networks
responsible for organizing and profiting from irregular migration from Libya
into Italy. In its observations on Italy during its 85th Session in Geneva in
November 200556, the UN Human Rights Committee, raised the issue of the right to
international protection and recalled the right of each person not to be
expelled to a country where he/she might face torture or ill-treatment. Along
similar lines, in its Resolution on Lampedusa the European Parliament called on
Italy to refrain from collective expulsions to Libya and took the view that
these expulsions constitute a violation of the principle of non-refoulement. EP
also called on Libya to allow access to international observers, halt the
expulsions and arbitrary arrests of migrants, ratify the Geneva Convention and
recognize the mandate of the UNHCR.
Misrepresentation
of migratory flows to Italy The Italian Government considers the detentions in
the Lampedusa CPTA and the successive expulsions to Libya to be indispensable
measures for countering the emergency caused by the mass-influx of people from
Libya and deterring ‘a million illegal migrants’ from waiting on Libyan
shores and crossing over to Italy.57 At a first glance, the image of ‘a
million illegal migrants’ might express the Italian State’s difficulty in
managing large-scale migration from the South. The expression, however, merits a
more serious consideration because it brings together a number of misconceptions
that inform Italy’s migratory policies: it inflates the numbers so as to
produce the imagery of invasion, assumes that the entries via the Italian
southern border constitute the majority of Italy’s undocumented migrants and
conveys the image that the bulk of migratory flows in and through Libya is of
clandestine nature and geared towards Europe.
As for
the migration from Eastern Europe during the 1990s –to which the scholars now
refer as ‘the invasion that never took place’58— so for the current
migration to Italy via Libya. The reference to the magnitude of migratory flows
invokes the fantasy of invasion from the South. The existing data offer however
a different image of migratory flows towards Italy. The recent report from the
Italian Ministry of Internal Affairs indicates that the majority of third
country nationals residing illegally in the country have reached Italy neither
via sea nor having crossed its borders undocumented. They have on the contrary,
entered the county at its land borders with a valid entry clearance and have
become undocumented either once their visa expired or after they overstayed
their permit of residence. According to the same source, only 10% of
undocumented migrants currently residing in Italy entered the country
‘illegally’ via its sea borders.59
The
arrival of circa 10500 migrants and asylum seekers to the island of Lampedusa in
2004 certainly represents a heavy load for a small island of 20km² with a
population of 5500. Yet, if we exaggerate the numbers and assume for analytical
purposes only that all of 10500 migrants are asylum seekers, this would
certainly provoke a sharp increase in numbers of asylum seekers and refugees in
Italy from 901960 to more than its double. What might appear at a first glance
as a worrisome perspective needs to be viewed in proportion to the national
population size. The 9019 applications filed in 2004 translate roughly to Italy
receiving 16 asylum seekers per 100,000 inhabitants.61 Even if doubled, the
total number of requests for asylum in Italy would be of 34 per 100,000 and
hence still remain below the EU average of 60 asylum seekers per 100,000
inhabitants.62 While this increase is a hypothetical one, it is nevertheless
useful as to illustrate the gap between asylum trends in Italy and other EU
countries and to point to Italy’s reluctance in taking on its share of asylum
responsibilities within the EU.
An
example of this reluctance is the earlier discussed fact that the Italian
authorities maintain that migrants arriving from Libya to Lampedusa are economic
migrants rather than asylum seekers and refer to all of them as illegal
migrants. Since the Libyan government does not recognize the category of asylum
seekers and since the authorities of Lampedusa CPTA allegedly fail to
investigate migrants’ nationality and classify the majority as Egyptians,
there is no record which would permit a systematic identification of migrants’
countries of origin. If such a record was available, it would indicate that
refugees are indeed part of migratory flows that transit Libya. This can be seen
clearly in the case of Malta where the majority of new arrivals in 2004 were
from the conflict affected countries of Eritrea, Ivory Coast, Sudan and
Somalia.63 Libya’s migratory reality is far from being, as suggested by the
image of ‘a million illegal migrants’ on Libyan shores, a country of
emigration or a transit route for clandestine migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa
to Italy. On the contrary, Libya is in first place a destination country and the
major country of immigration in the Maghreb. Foreign nationals constitute
approximately 25 to 30% of Libya’s total population. Large-scale economic and
social development schemes in the 1970s, launched thanks to the revenues from
the petroleum industry, relied in the first instance on migrant labourers from
Egypt. Egyptian nationals, employed mainly in the agriculture industry and
education, constitute today the largest migrant group in Libya.64 Libya is home
also to a large Maghrebi community (Morocco, Tunis and Alger) 65 and the
country’s economic development relies on the cheap and seasonal labour from
the neighbouring countries of Niger, Chad and Sudan.66 Since the 1990s, labour
migrants from neighbouring African countries have been a key factor in Libya’s
economic growth.
The
influx of migrant workers from sub-Saharan states is prompted by Libya’s
reorientation from pan-Arab to pro-African policy67 and its active role in the
foundation of the Community of Sahel-Saharan states (CEN-SAD) which, as an
economic project grounded in the free circulation of people and goods between
its member states, is oriented towards regional cooperation and integration.68
Migrant workers from Sudan, Chad and Niger are generally present in the Libyan
Saharan. These labour migrations,
facilitated by the open border policy towards sub-Saharan Africa are of
temporary and pendular character rather than, as commonly assumed, the source of
irregular migratory movement to Europe.69
Inflating
the numbers relative to the migratory flows to Italy from Libya, as some
politicians and mass-media have done, results in an erroneous and misleading
representation of Libya’s migratory history and of the contemporary migration
in the Mediterranean area. Images such as a ‘million illegal migrants’
produce and manipulate the fear of invasion through a distorted account of
migratory patters in Libya and conceal Italy’s reluctance to admit asylum
seekers and refugees to its territory and, atypically for an EU state, its
failure to pass an organic law on the right to asylum that has been under
discussion since the 2002.
Much
attention has been given to collective expulsion of third country nationals from
Lampedusa CPTA to
Libya in terms of the ‘externalisation’ of asylum. Externalisation stands
for the propensity of several EU Member States to establish centres for
processing asylum applications outside the EU’s external borders. In fact, the
expulsions to Libya occurred in a highly charged political atmosphere
surrounding the proposal to set up refugee processing centres in North Africa.70
Initially put forward by the UK and rejected during the 19-20 June 2003
Thessaloniki European Council, the proposal envisioned the establishment of
‘Regional Processing Areas’ (RPAs) and ‘Transit Processing Centres’ (TPCs)
located outside the external borders of the EU.71 Under this proposal, promoted
some months earlier by Denmark,72 RPAs were to be located in the zones of origin
of refugees as a means of strengthening reception capacities close to the areas
of crisis. On the other hand, the location of TPCs closer to EU borders was
envisioned as centres where asylum seekers and refugees were to submit their
asylum claims and await the result of their applications for asylum in the EU.
France, Spain and Sweden rejected the proposal for refugee processing centres.
Nevertheless, in October 2004, the month of the largest collective expulsions
from Lampedusa CPTA to Libya, the informal EU Justice and Home Affairs Council
considered the implementation of five pilot projects with the aim of upgrading
the existing detention facilities and developing asylum laws in North-West Africa. Proposed by
the EC and co-funded by the Netherlands, the pilot projects targeted Algeria,
Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia.73
On the
basis of this chronology of events, it is tempting to identify the collective
expulsions from Lampedusa to Libya in terms of the externalisation of asylum.
The fact that third-country nationals are precluded from presenting asylum
claims, removed from Lampedusa to Libya and then most likely placed in the
detention facilities financed by the Italian Government, might indeed seem to
constitute the externalisation of asylum. The idea of externalisation
presupposes however that asylum seekers and refugees are relocated to facilities
where they are granted protection and where they can access the asylum
determination procedure. Since the external processing centres do not yet exist
and since Libya in practice has no refugee policy, Italy’s expulsion of
third-country nationals to Libya constitutes a retraction of the right to asylum
rather than its externalisation.74 As such, the policy of expulsions carries the
risk of turning out to be counterproductive. Whereas the expulsions are carried
out as a deterrent for undocumented migration, the obstacles to filing an asylum
request are likely to increase irregular migration. In fact, those who would
otherwise seek asylum might become irregular migrants due to the effective
impossibility in accessing the asylum procedure.75
The
deterrence of unwanted migration from Africa, the core element of Italian-Libyan
cooperation on irregular migration, extends further to border guard training and
the supply of devices and equipment requested by the Libyan authorities to
achieve a better control of the country’s sea and land borders, in particular
those with Sub-Saharan Africa.76 These measures are inter alia geared towards
combating the smuggling of migrants and preventing further loss of lives at sea
due to boats’ overcrowding and smugglers’ negligence. While well intended,
the idea of strengthening border controls in order to prevent smuggling and
trafficking in migrants can yield paradoxical consequences. Libya’s open
border policy towards sub-Saharan Africa and in particular towards Chad, Niger
and Sudan is a key point in the regional integration of Sahelian Africa.
Following the EC’s technical mission to Libya, experts confirmed that many
migrants from Chad, Niger and Sudan settled in the southern cities of the Libyan
desert without intention to transit further to Europe.77
Strengthening
the control at the border between Libya and its sub-Saharan African neighbours
is likely to create obstacles to the free movement of people and illegalise the
seasonal labour migration in the region.78
The
case of the EU’s enlargement eastward showed that tightening of border and
visa controls enhances migrants’ vulnerability and feeds into smuggling
networks. As research on the demand for the labour of trafficked migrants’ has
shown, if arranging a visa is not cheap and easy migrants will not be able to
access (even when available) the formal governmental channels for migration.79
Instead, they will resort to irregular channels that in turn take advantage of
migrants’ legal vulnerability, whether by charging higher costs for travel and
documents or profiting from their labour at various points of the journey.80
Stricter immigration controls aimed at preventing trafficking do not necessarily
protect migrants from abuse but might foster migrants’ vulnerability to
violence during travel, increase the costs of ‘doing business’ for
traffickers81 and leave ample space for third parties’ profiteering and abuse.
The little data available from Libya confirms these findings. Following the
signing of the bilateral agreement between Italy and Libya in August 2004,
journalistic sources reported that Libyan authorities targeted sub-Saharan
Africans with arrests, detentions and deportations.82 These allegations were
confirmed by the EC’s technical mission to Libya during which experts verified
that recent arrests and detentions were often of arbitrary nature and affected
migrants from Niger, Ghana and Mali who have been working in Libya for more than
a decade.83 The operations of repatriation, currently the main focus of Libyan
authorities especially in the south of the country, are organized by the state
or at times requested by migrants who prefer to pay for their own return rather
than remain detained for an indeterminate period of time. Italian journalist
Fabrizio Gatti who travelled with returnees on a lorry from Libya to Niger via
the desert, reported that these returns expose migrants to various type of
abuse.
These
vary from financial profiteering (following the increase in arrests and
expulsions third parties who organize travel have allegedly tripled the price of
the journey out of Libya), theft (third parties steal migrants’ belongings and
leave them in the desert), labour exploitation (migrants who run out of money
during the journey get stuck in various settlements in the desert they their
work under harsh conditions in exchange for food and shelter), and death (caused
by overcrowding in lorries or lack of water).84 While more substantial figures
on the impact of current immigration policies on migrants’ lives in Libya are
still missing, the data gathered so far suggest that the measures geared towards
curbing irregular migration are likely to increase migrants’ vulnerability and
the involvement of third parties due to the rise in profit to be made from
smuggling activities.85
The
conditions of ‘illegality’ are however not produced only as a result of
expulsions to or tightening of immigration control in Libya. While most of the
attention so far has been paid to the implications of collective removals from
Lampedusa to Libya, the fact that the majority of the irregular migrants and
asylum seekers are transferred from Lampedusa CPTA to other Italian CPTAs went
overlooked. This continuous detention follows the logic intrinsic to CPTAs’
constitution, namely that detention is indispensable to ensure an effective
removal policy. The data that appeared in the report from Italy’s Audit Court
undermine the argumentation that CPTAs are a key means for effective functioning
of expulsions. The report shows in fact that out of 11883 irregular migrants
detained in Italian CPTAs in 2004, less than half were deported while the rest
escaped or were released after the expiration of the maximum detention period.86
Since the majority of migrants are actually released from the CPTAs after they
have been served a removal order, scholars have suggested we view detention
camps not as institutions geared towards deportations but rather as sites that
on the one hand, function as a filter mechanism for the selective inclusion of
certain groups of migrants and on the other, produce ‘illegality’ and hence
the condition of ‘deportability’.87 This reasoning is of great relevance in
particular for the asylum seekers transferred from Lampedusa CPTA to another
Italian CPTA: asylum seekers’ detention becomes in fact mandatory only after
they have been served a refusal of entry order in Lampedusa.88 Moreover, once
released from a CPTA with the order to leave Italy, asylum seekers find
themselves in an irregular situation: if they overstay the period of five days
within which they must leave the country, they are susceptible to incarceration
on the basis of having committed an offence by failing to observe the expulsion
order.89
As
research has shown in several instances, border controls, detentions and
expulsion practices do not prevent people from moving from their countries of
origin, nor from reaching Europe, but rather they raise the costs and dangers of
migration. The alarmist portrayals that invoke the image of a massive influx of
undocumented entries from Libya to Italy hinder a correct understanding of
existing migratory patterns and the responsibility of the states in reducing
legal channels of migration and impeding access to asylum so that in
contemporary times illegality has become a structural characteristic of
migratory flows.90
As
well as being matters for Italy’s national legislation and initiative, the
return of illegal third-country nationals from Lampedusa holding centre and the
collaboration with Libya on migration issues are also regulated by the EU
framework. The EU Directive on Return and the Action Plan on Libya, both still
to be finalized, are part of the agenda to establish a comprehensive Community
policy on immigration and asylum. The EU Return Directive provides a minimum set
of procedural and legal safeguards for third-county nationals residing illegally
in EU Member States concerning their return, removal and custody.91 Once in
force, by prioritising voluntary return over forced removal, by providing for a
right to an effective judicial remedy with suspensive effect against return
decisions and removal orders, and by limiting the use of temporary custody to
the cases that present the risk of absconding, the Directive would legally
oblige the authorities of the Lampedusa holding centre to revisit their removal
practices in accordance with the standards set by the EU.
However,
it is very likely that the Directive will not affect the situation and
procedures in Lampedusa given the fact that the Lampedusa holding centre has a
special status, namely, that of a clearing station.92 In fact, according to the
Article 2.2. of the Return Directive, the Member States are not obliged to apply
the directive to the third-country nationals who have been refused entry in a
transit zone of a Member State. Classifying Lampedusa holding centre as a
clearing station therefore circumvents the Return Directive and relieves Italian
authorities of the obligation to bring removal practices in Lampedusa in line
with common EU standards.93
The
discussions between the European Union and Libya regarding migration management
have intensified throughout 2005 and are currently directed towards drawing a
Joint Action Plan.94 Developed under the framework of the external.
The Joint Action Plan that is currently being drafted outlines inter alia
the enhancement of border control at Libya’s sea, southern land and air
borders, training of Libyan law enforcement officers including a thematic
programme on asylum, refurbishment of detention camps and dialogue with main
countries of origin as the main components of the EU-Libyan partnership.95 Given
the fact that Libya does not have a functioning asylum system in place and that
it is not party to the Geneva Convention, the Action Plan proposes to limit the
EU’s intervention as far as detention centres are concerned to the provision
of health care and advice and to postpone assistance for return operations until
conditionality requirements ensuring adequate protection of refugees are met by
Libya.96
Despite the
evidence of grave human rights violations in Libya, suggesting that Libya falls
short of conditionality requirements, and prior to the EU’s outlining of the
conditions for the formalised cooperation in the field of return, Italy financed
construction of detention camps in Libya and a program of charter flights for
the repatriation of illegal migrants from Libya. In funding the construction of
detention camps and carrying out repatriation flights in Libya, Italy
circumventing of EU’s framework on immigration and asylum. This however does
not exempt the EU from its responsibilities on the matter. The EU Return
Directive and the Action Plan on Libya are both new instruments and both need to
be finalized. Despite ample evidence of procedural irregularities and
allegations of collective expulsions from Lampedusa holding centre, the
Commission’s Proposal for a Return Directive gives Member States the
possibility of not applying the Directive in transit zones. In a similar manner,
the EU also went ahead to develop cooperation on irregular migration with Libya
despite evidence of grave human rights violations in Libya, no guarantee of
refugee rights in Libya and no official recognition of UNHCR protection mandate.
|
Moreover,
while the draft of the Action Plan specifies that no EU funding will be provided
for return until the conditionality requirements are met, it does not mention
any limitations to be imposed on bilateral agreements on return such as the one
between Italy and Libya.
The EU
Return Directive and the Action Plan both strengthen Member States’ discretion
and leave ample space for the states, in this case Italy, to apply the
exception.97 The wide discretion available for the application of restrictive
exceptions, and the Commission’s position on the case of Lampedusa that
Italy’s compliance with its international obligations is a matter not to be
decided by the Commission but by Italy itself under its national law, undermines
the credibility of the Commissions’ monitoring responsibility and the EU’s
commitment to protect refugees.
The
issue of the Commissions’ responsibility as far as the right of asylum is
concerned is further raised by its co-financing of the TRIM programme in
Libya.98 Under the TRIM Programme, developed and implemented by the IOM, the
Commission is funding IOM to improve the services and conditions of detention
for irregular migrants in detention centres in Libya,99 to develop a so-called
Assisted Voluntary Return Programme (AVR) and Reinsertion programme to support
irregular migrants in Libya in returning to their countries of origin, and to
strengthen cooperation on irregular migration between origin and destination
countries.100
Contrary
to its commitment not to assist Libya financially with repatriations, the
Commission is de facto funding a return scheme for the repatriation of irregular
migrants and asylum seekers from Libya via its collaboration with the IOM.
Similar to Italy’s expulsion of irregular migrants and asylum seekers to Libya
and Libya’s delegation of detention and repatriations matter to IOM, the
Commission also contracts out to IOM its responsibility over migration and
asylum matters. Yet, contracting out the responsibility for detention conditions
and repatriations to IOM does not relieve either the EU, Italy or Libya from
their international legal obligations under norms prohibiting refoulement and
norms protecting human rights.101
Contracting
out also raises the question of responsibility as regards IOM’s interventions.
In the case of the repatriations of those irregular migrant and asylum seekers
who have initially been expelled from Lampedusa holding centre, IOM makes itself
complicit in obstructing asylum seekers’ right to asylum. Moreover, the fact
that irregular migrants and asylum seekers are deported from Lampedusa without
knowing that they are being transferred to Libya, that the removals are executed
by force and that once in Libya migrants are again detained in police-guarded
structures, raises serious doubts that the IOM-run repatriations from Libya can
be identified as voluntary. When the decisions to return are made under duress
or as an alternative to state-run forced expulsions, ‘voluntary’ seems to
designate an absence of viable options rather than a deliberate choice. IOM
cannot be held responsible for the rule of law in the same way as sovereign
states. However, in deporting irregular migrants and asylum seekers from Libya
IOM is to be seen as assuming joint responsibility for any violation of
fundamental rights asylum seekers and irregular migrants might suffer.
In
the attempt to control the influx of ‘irregular’ migrants and asylum seekers
to Italy via Libya, the Italian government developed a number of schemes within
and beyond its state borders. In the holding center situated on the island of
Lampedusa, Italy’s southernmost island and the most frequent point of arrival
in 2004 for boats departing from Libya, Italian authorities implemented
detention and large-scale expulsion schemes that according to the NGOs affected
irregular migrants and asylum-seekers alike. In order to control the migratory
flows prior to migrants reaching its territory, Italy strengthened its
collaboration on illegal migration with Libya by signing a readmission
agreement, refurbishing several detention facilities and funding a repatriation
scheme for irregular migrants in Libya. Libya on its part increased internal
checks on specific groups of migrants, in particular those originating from
Sub-Saharan states, a practice resulting in arbitrary detentions and unsafe
repatriations in which more than one hundred people lost their lives.
Despite
the Italian Government’s denial that any human rights violations are taking
place in the Lampedusa holding center, the European Parliament and the United
Nations’ Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) expressed concern about the conditions
of detention in the centre. The EP’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and
Home Affairs (LIBE) visited the Lampedusa holding center in September 2005 and
assessed the detention conditions, the running of the CPTA and the treatment of
migrants. Both the European Parliament and the UNHRC called on Italy to
guarantee the individual examination of asylum and to refrain from collective
expulsions of undocumented migrants and asylum-seekers to Libya. The European
Parliament stated that these expulsions constitute a violation of the principle
of non-refoulement that prohibits the forcible return of anyone to a territory
where they might be at risk of serious human rights violations. To expel asylum
seekers from Italy to Libya implies returning them to a country which does not
recognize the mandate of the UNHCR, has no asylum system, is not a signatory of
the Geneva Convention and in which, as NGOs documented, irregular migrants and
asylum seekers are at risk of arbitrary detentions, unfair trails, disappearance
and torture while in detention.
The
procedural and legal safeguards for the return, removal and custody of
third-country nationals residing illegally in EU Member States and the
collaboration with Libya on matters of illegal migration are about to be
regulated through the EU Return Directive and by the Libya-EU Joint Action Plan.
The Directive prioritizes voluntary return over forced return, introduces the
suspension against a return decision and/or a removal order, and limits
temporary custody to those situations where there is a risk of absconding. The
Action Plan, on the other hand, proposes to postpone EU assistance for return
schemes for undocumented migrants in Libya until the Libyan Government
demonstrates full respect for human rights and democratic principles, and a
commitment to fulfil its international obligations toward refugees.
Potentially
instruments that would oblige Italian authorities to revisit their detention and
removal practices, the EU Return Directive and the Action Plan both still to be
finalized leave at this stage too ample a space for the Member States to apply
restrictive exceptions and to develop bilateral partnerships. Since the
directive exempts the Member States from applying the minimum procedural and
legal safeguards for the return, removal and custody to a transit zone, Italian
authorities do not hold the obligation to revisit their removal practices in the
Lampedusa holding center so as to bring them in line with the common EU
standards. Similarly, the scope of Member States’ interventions regarding
funding of return schemes for irregular migrants in Libya is not contemplated by
the Action Plan which hence imposes no limitations on repatriation programs for
irregular migrants in Libya, such as those funded by Italy in 2003 and 2004.
Wide powers are being left to the Member States to apply exception and develop
bilateral partnerships, which in combination with the funding allocated to the
IOM for a programme geared inter alia towards developing a repatriation scheme
in Libya, undermines EU efforts to achieve a common framework on asylum and
immigration, and thereby improve its credibility on refugee protection.
Scholars
and policy analyst have approached the issue of detention and repatriation
programmes outside EU borders in terms of the externalization of asylum. What
this paper suggests however is that the implementation of detention and
repatriation programs in Libya, especially when considered together with the
expulsions from Lampedusa, do not actually relocate the asylum procedures
outside the EU external borders but rather deprive asylum-seekers of the
possibility to access the asylum determination procedure. This violation of the
right to asylum is concealed by the imagery invoked by the politicians and the
media of an impending mass arrival of undocumented migrants from Libya to the
Italian shores. This imagery distorts the reality of migratory movements from
Sub-Saharan Africa into Libya, which is an established part of Libya’s
seasonal labour migration rather than a source of irregular migration into
Europe. While producing an erroneous representation of migratory flows in the
Mediterranean region, the imagery of impending mass arrival also conceals
Italy’s reluctance to admit asylum seekers into its territory and its
unwillingness to assume its share of asylum responsibility in the EU.
Current
Italian-Libyan partnership indicates a new reorientation of Libyan politics from
a pro-African to a pro-European stance. This change in political balances,
accompanied by Libya’s tightening of border controls towards its Sub-Saharan
neighbours is likely to clash with the principle of free movement of people that
is a cornerstone of regional cooperation and integration in the Sahel-Saharan
region. This shift could destabilize the current political balances between
Libya and its neighbouring states, and may consequently ‘illegalize’
movements of large groups of Sub-Saharan nationals. The implementation of
detention and expulsion schemes that illegalize migratory movements and impinge
upon migrants’ right to seek asylum brings into question the political
responsibility of all actors involved, whether they are Governments,
supranational bodies or agencies. The Italian and Libyan governments, the
European Union, and the International Organization for Migration all need to
assume their share of responsibility for the violations of rights that asylum
seekers and irregular migrants might suffer as a result of the measures and
programmes they implement inside the EU and outside its borders.
Policy
Recommendations
Given
the fact that data available on measures regarding detention and deportations of
irregular migrants and asylum seekers in Lampedusa and Libya are often
contradictory and incomplete, that bilateral agreements on irregular migration
remain undisclosed and that the European Union’s framework leaves large
discretion for the Member States to apply restrictive exceptions, this paper
recommends transparency, accountability and legitimacy as key principles to
guide Member States agenda and EU’s partnership with neighbouring states in
the field of asylum and immigration.
Transparency
Developing
a correct assessment of the situation regarding detention, expulsion and asylum
at the EU’s southern border is contingent upon gaining access to and rendering
transparent the information, programmes and agreements that regulate
repatriations of irregular migrants and asylum seekers in Lampedusa and Libya.
Whether carried out by the Italian and Libyan states or by the IOM, a lack of
transparency is common to the policies and schemes countering irregular
migration from and into Libya. Information regarding the number, frequency and
destinations of the return flights from Lampedusa CPTA, the content of the
bilateral agreements between Italy and Libya and between Libya and IOM, and the
content of the contract for the TRIM Programme co-funded by the EC must be made
public in order to achieve a transparent Community policy on asylum and
immigration.
Accountability
With
regards to the partnership with third countries in the area of migration and
asylum, the EU must provide leadership in terms of human rights protection. The
divergent interests between national and EU competencies over borders, asylum
and immigration should not leave member states with ample space to apply the
exception that, as in the case of the EU return directive, would result in the
disregard of even the minimum safeguards on return. In cases where either the EU
or states contract the IOM this does not exempt the EU, Italy or Libya from
their international legal obligations under norms prohibiting refoulement and
norms protecting human rights. Even though IOM cannot be held responsible for
the rule of law in the same way as sovereign states, it must assure that its
programmes do not impinge upon the right to seek asylum and must be held
accountable for any violations that might occur as result of its actions.
The
lack of safeguards and control mechanisms ensuring the right to seek asylum and
Italy’s tendency to circumvent its responsibilities on matters of asylum
require an intervention from the side of the European Parliament. With the
co-decision on asylum and immigration, the EP is directly involved in the
decision-making process and needs to propose amendments to the Return Directive
and the Action Plan on Libya with the objective of achieving observance of human
rights and international standards. In the absence of any EU monitoring
mechanism in Libya, the EP should urgently visit those detention centres in
Libya where implementation of detention and repatriation are funded by the EU
and Italy. The EP’s intervention would play a crucial role in achieving a
transparent and democratic procedure as regards to a common asylum policy and
would steer it towards a rights- rather than a control-based approach.
Legitimacy
Holding
centres are instruments aimed at facilitating an effective repatriation of
third-country nationals who have entered Italy illegally. Lampedusa holding
centre does not fulfil its main functions: it facilitates only a nominal amount
of expulsions and it perpetuates ill-treatment rather than offering assistance.
In order to ensure that detention procedures and practices are in conformity
with the existing domestic and international standards, a short-term objective
is to mandate an independent monitoring body to make regular, unrestricted and
unannounced visits to Lampedusa holding centre. The closure of Lampedusa holding
centre should constitute a long-term objective.102 Since Lampedusa holding
centre is classified as a clearing station, Italy is likely to disregard the set
of minimum procedural and legal safeguards on return, removal and custody
provided under the EU Return Directive. The closure of the Lampedusa holding
centre would prevent future violation of procedures and assure that migrants and
asylum seekers rights are not sidestepped by the Italian authorities.
[The views in this report are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect those of the Center for Policy Studies, Central European
University or the Open Society Institute.]
References
Amnesty
International, Italy: Temporary stay – Permanent rights: the treatment of
foreign nationals detained in ‘temporary stay and assistance centres’ (CPTAs),
2005.
Amnesty International, Libya: time to make human rights a reality, 2004, AI
INDEX MDE 19/002/2004.
AI EU Office, A letter to Franco Frattini, Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and
Security, Brussels, 21st March 2005, B456, www.amnesty-eu.org
AI EU Office, Amnesty International Appeal to the European Union Regarding
Expulsions from Italy to Libya, Brussels, 28th June 2005, B472,
www.amnesty-eu.org AI EU Office, Immigration Cooperation with Libya: the Human
rights perspective. AI briefing ahead of the Justice and Home Affairs Council,
14 April 2005. Brussels, http://www.amnestyeu.org/static/documents/2005/JHA_Libya_april12.pdf
Anderson, B. and O’Connell Davidson, J., Needs and Desires: Is there a Demand
for "Trafficked" Persons?, Geneva, IOM, 2003.
Andrijasevic, R, ‘Lampedusa in Focus: Migrants caught between the Libyan
desert and the deep sea’, Feminist Review no. 82:1, 2006, pp. 119-124.
Andrijasevic, R. ‘La traite des femmes d’Europe de l’Est en Italie’
Revue européenne des migrations internationals Vol 21(1), pp. 155-175,
2005.
ARCI, Il diario del presidio ARCI a Lampedusa, 2005a, http://www.tesseramento.it/immigrazione/documenti/index.php
ARCI, Lampedusa Watching, 2005b, http://www.tesseramento.it/immigrazione/documenti/index.php
Balzacq, T. and Carrera, S. Migration, Borders and Asylum. Trends and
Vulnerabilities in EU Policy. CEPS: Brussels, 2005.
Boubakri, H. ‘Transit Migration between Tunisia, Libya and Sub-Saharan Africa:
Study Based on Greater Tunis’, Regional Conference Migrants in Transit
Countries: Sharing Responsibility for Management and Protection, Istanbul 30
September – 1October 2004, Council of Europe: MG-RCONF (2004) 6e.
Caritas/Migrantes, Immigrazione. Dossier Statistico 2005. Edizioni IDOS, Roma,
2005.
Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a Directiove of the
European Parliament and of the Councic on common standards and procedures in
Member States for returning illegality staying third-country nationals.
Brussels.
Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament and the Council. Thematic programme for the cooperation with
thirds countries in the areas of migration and asylum. Brussels, 25th January
2006, COM(2006) 26 final.
Corte dei Conti, Programma controllo 2004. Gestione delle risorse previste in
connessione con il fenomeno dell’immigrazione, 2005 http://www.corteconti.it/Ricerca-e-1/Gli-Atti-d/Controllo-/Documenti/Sezione-ce1/Anno-2005/Adunanza-c/allegati-d3/Relazione.doc
Council of the European Union, Draft Council Conclusions on initiating dialogue
and cooperation with Libya on migration issues, Brussels, 27th May 2005,
9413/1/05 REV 1. Cuttitta, P. ‘Delocalization of migration controls to North
Africa’, paper presented at the workshop The Europeanisation of National
Immigration Policies – Varying Developments across Nations and Policy Areas,
European Academy, 1-3 September 2005, Berlin.
Doctors without Borders (MSF), Centri di permanenza temporanea e assistenza:
autonomia di un fallimento, Sinnos editrice, 2005.
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and Council. Thematic Programme for the cooperation with third
countries in the area of migration and asylum, COM(206) 26 final, Brussels, 25
January 2006.
European Commission, Report on the Technical Mission to Libya on Illegal
Immigration, Brussels, 2005.
European Parliament/LIBE, Report from the LIBE Committee Delegation on the Visit
to the Temporary Holding Centre in Lampedusa, EP/LIBE PV/581203EN.
European Parliament, European Parliament Resolution on Lampedusa, 14th April
2005, P6_TA(2005)0138.
Gatti, F. ‘Io, clandestino a Lampedusa’, L’espresso, 6th October
2005a.
Gatti, F. ‘Nel deserto fra Libia e Niger’, L’espresso, 24th March
2005b.
Hamood, S. African Transit Migration through Libya to Europe: the Human
Costs.
The American University on Cairo, Forced Migration and Refugee Studies. January
2006.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), World Report. Events of 2005. Http://hrw.org/wr2k5/
International Federation fir Human Rights (FIDH), Italy. Right of Asylum in
Italy: Access to procedures and treatment of asylum-seekers. Report.
International Fact-finding Mission. No. 419/2, June 2005.
International Organization for Migration (IOM), Dialogue. 5+5 Newsletter, N. 1
issue, 2004. |
Karakayali, S. and Tsianos, V. ‘Wilde Schafsjagd in Aigais und die
transnationalen “mujahideen”. Rastanski Lojia Über Grenzregime an der Südostgrenze
Europas’, Springerin n. 4, 2004.
Koslowski, R. Economic Globalization, Human Smuggling, and Global Governance, in
David Kyle and Rey Koslowski Éds., Global Human Smuggling. Comparative
Perspectives, Baltimore and London, The John Hopkins University Press, 2001, pp.
337-358.
Maccanico, Y. ‘The European Commission Technical Mission to Libya: Exporting
Fortress-Europe’, Statewatch bulletin, vol. 15 no. 2, March-April 2005.
Mezzadra, S. (ed), I confini della libertà. DeriveApprodi, Roma, 2004.
Mezzadra, S. Diritto di fuga. Migrazioni, cittadinanza, globalizzazione, Verona,
Ombre corte, 2001.
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Interministerial Committee of Human Rights, Reply
to List of Issues (CCPR/C/84/L/ITA) (Relating to CCPR/C/ITA/2004-5), U.N. Human
Rights Committee 85th Session, Geneva 17 October – 3 November 2005
Noll, G. ‘Visions of the Exceptional: Legal and Theoretical Issues Raised by
Transit
Processing Centres and Protection Zones’, in European Journal of Migration and
Law 5: 303-341, 2003
Pliez, O. ‘La troisième migratoire, les conséquences de la politique européenne
de lutte contre les migrations clandestines’, paper written for Asia-Europe
Foundation workshop The Management of Humanitarian Aids and of Transnational
Movements of Persons in the Euro-Mediterranean Area and in South-East Asia,
28-30 August 2005, Lampedusa.
Salt, J. and Stein, J. ‘Migration as a Business: The Case of Trafficking’.
International Migration, 35(4), 1997, pp. 467-491.
Simoncini, A. ‘Migranti, frontiere, spazi di confine. I lavoratori migranti
nell’ordine salariale’, altreragioni, pp. 29-45, 2000.
UNHCR, Asylum levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries 2004. Overview of
Asylum Applications longed in Europe and non-European industrialized countries
in 2004. Population data unit/PGDS, UNHCR Geneva, 2005 http://www.unhcr.ch/statistics
Notes
1 According to the
European Court of Human Rights, collective expulsions are defined as “any
measure by which foreigners are forced, due to their membership of a group, to
leave a country, apart from cases in which this measure is adopted following and
based on a reasonable and objective assessment of the specific situation of each
of the individuals composing the group”.
2 See European Parliament, Report from the LIBE Committee Delegation on the
Visit to the Temporary Holding Centre in Lampedusa, EP/LIBE PV/581203EN, p.2. 3
Ibid., p.3.
4 See ARCI, Il diario del presidio ARCI a Lampedusa, 2005a; ARCI, Lampedusa
Watching, 2005b.
5 CPTA has a direct access to the runaway. For a more detailed description see
Andrijasevic, R, ‘Lampedusa in Focus: Migrants caught between the Libyan
desert and the deep sea’, Feminist Review no. 82, 2006, pp. 119-124.
6 186 places are centre’s legal capacity. See Corte dei Conti, Programma
controllo 2004. Gestione delle risorse previste in connessione con il fenomeno
dell’immigrazione, 2005, p. 103.
7 Amnesty International, Italy: Temporary stay – Permanent rights: the
treatment of foreign nationals detained in ‘temporary stay and assistance
centres’ (CPTAs), 2005, p. 34.
8 Law 40/1998, later merged into Legislative Decree No 286 of July 1998. Decreto
Legislativo 25 luglio 1998, n. 286 – Testo unico delle disposizioni
concernenti la disciplina dell’immigrazione e norme sulla condizione dello
straniero.
9 The legal procedure for the asylum seekers detained in identification centres
and CPTAs is the same. In both cases asylum seekers fall under the fast-track
procedure. The fast-track or simplified procedure was set up by
‘Bossi’Fini’ law and it supplements the ordinary procedure, now reserved
only for those asylum seekers who have entered Italy legally.
10 The Bossi-Fini law (Law 189/2002 of July 2002) tightened significantly the
Italian immigration policy. It reduced from 15 to 5 the number of days irregular
migrants have at their disposal to leave Italy once they have been issued with
an expulsion order; increased from 30 to 60 the days irregular migrants can be
held in a detention centres; and doubled the number of years (from 5 to 10)
during which those issued with an expulsion order are banned from entering
Italy. The Law set out that those served with an expulsion order are to be
detained in the CPTAs prior to the forcible escort to the border instead of
receive the injunction to leave the county and being expected to leave the
country on their own without being detained in the CPTAs. It reinforced the
expulsion methods and introduced the mandatory removal via forcible escort that
prior to this law reform was optional and applied only when there was a concrete
risk of a third country national disobeying the expulsion order.
11 The Provincial Police Authority may however request detention in order to:
verify or determine asylum seeker’s nationality or identity if they have no
identification papers or travel documents or if they have produced false papers
on arrival; check the claims on which the asylum seeker’s application is
grounded; and bridge the gap for those asylum seekers awaiting the outcome of
the procedure for entry to the country.
12 The 30 days comprise 20 initial days with possible 10-day extension by the
judge. For the CPTAs the maximum period of detention of 60 days involves the
initial 30 days with a possible extension for other 30 with judicial
approval.
13 For the list of NGOs see footnote 26 and 50.
14 During their visit to the Lampedusa CPTA, the delegates of the European
Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE)
observed that the interpreters work from Arabic and English and not from French.
Since many migrants and asylum seekers in Lampedusa CPTA seem to originate from
Maghreb and sub-Saharan African countries and are French speaking, the lack of
adequate interpretation makes it difficult to access the right information
and/or state their circumstances. See European Parliament, EP/LIBE
PV/581203EN.
15 See ‘Complaint against the Italian government for violation of European
Community Law’, 20 January 2005. The complaint and the accompanying dossier
are available at http://www.gisti.org/doc/actions/2005/italie/complaint20-01-2005.pdf
16 An undercover journalistic inquiry found out that the difficulty of making
phone-calls is due to the fact that the phone-boot is regularly out of order and
that contrary to the Charter of the rights and obligations of detained
immigrants from 30 August 2000 stipulating that migrants should be given a
telephone card worth 5 euros every 10 days, the phone-cards are not distributed
but rather sold by the ‘dealers’ inside of the camp for the amount thee
times higher than cards original value. See Gatti, F. ‘Io, clandestino a
Lampedusa’, L’espresso 6 October 2005a.
17 Following the signing of the Asylum agreement between Italian Ministry and
the UNHCR, which comes into effect on the 1st March 2006, UNHCR will be able to
set its office on Lampedusa together with IOM and Italian Red Cross.
18 The listing of who can access the CPTAs is provided under the provisions of
the article 21 of DPR 394 of 31 august 1999. According to Italian legislation
the MPs have the right of entry to CPTAs and to all place of detention in Italy.
To UNHCR staff can, with the authorization of the Ministry of Interior, access
the CPTAs anytime and speak in private with the third country nationals who
request such encounter. However, in March 2005 while 180 undocumented migrants
and asylum seekers were being expelled to Libya on airplanes, the UNHCR
requested immediate access to the Lampedusa CPTA but its request got denied.
During the same period two Italian senators, Mrs. Chiara Acciarini and Mrs. Tana
de Zulueta were permitted to access the CTPA only the second day of their
arrival to the island and then only to the part of the CPTA with the offices and
could therefore not assess the conditions of detention not talk to the migrants.
19 ARCI compiled a dossier containing information as to numbers of migrants
arrived via sea, those removed to other CPTAs or to Libya, and the descriptions
of police practices towards migrants. Since little official data is available so
far, the dossier presented to the MEP delegation during their September visit,
is a unique source of these kind. See Arci, ibid., 2005b.
20 ARCI reports that many minors have been wrongly identified as adults. ARCI
also expressed concern that, after been held in detention for 5 days, between
9th and 18th August 2005 only a part of unaccompanied minors were transferred to
another CPTA while the rest was presumably expelled to Libya. ARCI’s data
called attention to an alarming irregularity: after having been released from
CPTA of Lampedusa, minors were reassigned to the reception centres of ‘Casa
Amica’ in Agrigento (Sicily) and/or ‘Association Three P’ in Licata. In
Licata, they stay for an extremely short period of time –at times only 24
hours—and from there they are all transferred to Milan following
Association’s declarations that they have contacted minors’ parents or
friend, all oddly residing in Milan. This operations occured, ARCI refers,
without authorization or knowledge of the competent juridical authorities. Arci,
ibid., 2005a.
21 The four prefabricated containers, each with 40 beds, are insufficient for
all the migrants. Made for 180, but accommodating commonly for 300 to 400
migrants between spring and autumn months, with occasional ‘peaks’ of over
1000 migrants in the summer, results in the majority sleeping on the sleeping
mats on the floor in the corridors or on the ground outside.
22 Only in case of urgent and life-threatening cases, migrants are brought to
the local health-centre; all others are treated by Médecins sans Frontières (MSF
– Doctors without borders) directly at the pier or in the camp by a doctor and
a nurse. The MSF, the Italian office of the well-known humanitarian medical aid
agency which assisted more than 10,000 people at the center of Lampedusa between
September 2002 and December 2003, was refused access to any CPTAs from 19 April
2004 onwards following the publication of their highly critical report on the
detention and health conditions in Italian CPTAs entitled Centri di permanenza
temporanea e assistenza: autonomia di un fallimento; Sinnos editrice,
2005.
23 The CPTA that accommodates on average 400 migrants has about 10 toilets and
as many showers and sinks, alimented exclusively by sea water. Since the centre
is not connected to the sewage, the toilets are frequently clogged and they
overspill to the floor and the outside.
24 This includes physical abuse, humiliation and racist remarks. See Gatti,
ibid., 2005a and the video from inside the camp by Italian undercover journalist
Mauro Parissone. Http://euobserver.com/22/20167 (consulted on 16/11/2005).
25 ARCI dossier demonstrates that police use physical force to carry out
deportations, especially when migrants resist deportation or attempt to run
away, and that the sign of physical injuries does not prevent the police from
carrying on the removal. The Sicilian Antiracist Network video-recorded and
circulated images of deportations at the Lampedusa camp. Since police prohibits
filming or photographing, this material represents one of the few visual
evidences of the deportations in Lampedusa. See Lampedusa Scoppia at http://www.ngvision.org/mediabase/487
26 ANAFE - Association nationale d'assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers
(France), Asociacion ‘Andalucía Acoge’ (Spain), APDHA - Asociación Pro
Derechos Humanos de Andalucía (Spain), ARCI - Associazione Ricreativa e Cultura
Italiana (Italy), Asociaciòn ‘Sevilla Acoge’ (Spain), ASGI - Associazione
per gli Studi Giuridici sull'Immigrazione (Italy), Cimade (France), Federación
des Asociaciones SOS Racismo del Estado Español (Spain), Gisti - Groupe
d'information et de soutien des immigrés (France), and ICS - Consorzio italiano
solidarietà. See footnote 15.
27 Given the short time elapsed between the arrival of the migrants and their
deportation (at times as little as 24 hours), NGOs claim that it is unlikely
that the CPTA authorities examined individually the cases of 1000 people.
Further, they have been deprived of the right to file an appeal due to the
decision by the Italian government to remove them.
28 Conditions of detention fall under the definition of ‘inhumane and
degrading treatment’.
29 AI letter to JFS Commissioner Franco Frattini, dated 21 March 2005 (B456);
and AI appeal to the EU regarding expulsions from Italy to Libya, dated 28 June
2005 (B472)
30 In particular with Italy’s obligation under articles 5 (information), 6
(documentation), 7 (residence and freedom of movement), 13 and 15 (material
reception and health care) of the directive 2003/9/EC laying down minimum
standards for the reception conditions of asylum seekers.
31 EP/LIBE PV/581203EN, p.3.
32 See Italian Ministry for Foreign Affairs’ written reply prepared for the
85th session of the UN Human Rights Committee. Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Interministerial Committee of Human Rights, Reply to List of Issues (CCPR/C/84/L/ITA)
(Relating to CCPR/C/ITA/2004-5), U.N. Human Rights Committee 85th Session,
Geneva 17 October – 3 November 2005.
33 CCPR/C/ITA/CO/5 dated 28th October 2005.
34 European Parliament, European Parliament Resolution on Lampedusa, 14th April
2005, P6_TA(2005)0138.
35 The data provided by the Italian authorities specify that 1153 migrants were
returned to Libya between 29th September and 8th October 2004 and another 494
between 13th and 21st of March 2005 (EP/LIBE PV/581203EN, p.2). Italian
authorities provide no data for later expulsions. The numbers reported here come
from NGO sources.
36 Human Rights Watch, World Report. Events of 2005, p. 373.
38 European Commission, Report on the Technical Mission to Libya on Illegal
Immigration, 2005, pp. 58-59.
39 In spite the fact that the Italian MPs requested detailed information about
the location of the camps in Libya and the amount of funding, the Italian
Government confirmed and disclosed the position of the camps only recently in
the report by the Italian Audit Court. The amount allocated for the construction
of the camps remains however still unknown but according to the EC report the
funding is classified as humanitarian support. EC, ibid., p. 59.
40 Other destinations were Mali, Pakistan, Niger, Eritrea, Bangladesh, Sudan and
Syria. EC, ibid., pp. 61-62.
41 Since July 2000, Italy and Tunisia have been running joint control activities
of Tunisian coastline. Italian police provides training courses for Tunisian
border guards. Tunis rejected the Italian funding for the establishment of
detention centres in Tunisia since the government feared Italy’s interference
into matters of domestic affairs. Cuttitta, P. ‘Delocalization of migration
controls to North Africa’, paper presented at the workshop The Europeanisation
of National Immigration Policies – Varying Developments across Nations and
Policy Areas, European Academy, 1-3 September 2005, Berlin.
42 While neither Italy nor IOM have disclosed the content of the project, the
reports from NGOs and individual experts that the deportation from Lampedusa to
Libya acquired nearly a weekly regularity after the signing of IOM-Libyan
agreement suggest the pilot project to be a repatriation project or a so-called
Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) Programme. These information where gathered by
the author in Lampedusa during the Asia-Europe Foundation workshop The
Management of Humanitarian Aids and of Transnational Movements of Persons in the
Euro-Mediterranean Area and in South-East Asia, 28-30 August 2005, Lampedusa.
43 The cooperation between IOM and Libyan Government was developed in the
framework of the 5+5 Regional Dialogue on Migration. As an informal dialogue on
migration, 5+5 Dialogue is a forum that bring together the Maghreb countries
(Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia) and the countries of the
‘arc Latin’ (France, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Spain) to promote the
prevention and fight against irregular migration and trafficking in countries of
origin, transit and destination. As a partner in the 5+5 Dialogue, as preceding
the regional seminar on irregular migration in the western Mediterranean in
Tripoli on 8 and 9 June 2004, IOM organized in cooperation with Libya’s
People’s Committee for Public Security a training session for 100 Libyan
officials and police representatives.
44 EC, ibid., p. 15.
45 AI, ‘Immigration Cooperation with Libya: the Human rights perspective. AI
briefing ahead of the JHA Council 14 April 2005’. Http://www.amnesty-eu.org/static/documents/2005/JHA_Libya_april12.pdf
46 For a description of these expulsions and the itineraries across the desert
see F. Gatti, ibid., 2005b.
47 Requested on several occasions, the Italian authorities have so far not
presented the list of expulsions orders from the Lampedusa CPTA. During their
visit to the CPTA, the LIBE committee could not view the records of arrivals and
departures since, the Italian Authorities claim, they are not held at the centre
but at the offices of the Agrigento (Sicily) police.
48 Alitalia, the Italian national air carrier, and AirAdriatic (AA), a private
Croatian air carrier, are currently the two main companies that are removing
migrants from Lampedusa CPTA to Libya or to other CPTAs in mainland Italy such
as the one in Crotone. Previously, also the Italian charter carrier Blue
Panorama was taking part in the removals and expulsions, but has retracted from
it following the pressure from the NGOs and the protest a number of activist
organized on 2nd of April 2005 --the European Day for Freedom of Movement-- in
front of company’s offices in Rome. In Croatia, Amnesty International Croatia
has urged AirAdriatic to cease the deportation flights to Libya and appealed to
AA to respect international human rights conventions.
49 Amnesty International’s report quotes testimonies of hundreds of Burkinabé
nationals as well as several Eritrean and Nigerian migrants who were expelled
from Libya to their country of origin after their documents and possessions were
confiscated. They testified to having been detained in inhumane conditions,
including lack of water, food and medical care. Amnesty International, Libya:
time to make human rights a reality, 2004, AI INDEX MDE 19/002/2004.
50 ‘Common Principles on removal of irregular migrants and rejected asylum
seekers’, August 2005 by Amnesty International, EU Office; Caritas Europa;
Churches’ Commission for Migrants on Europe (CCME); European Council for
Refugees and Exiles (ECRE); Human Rights Watch Jesuit Refugee Service –Europe
(JRS); Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM);
Quaker Council for European Affairs; Save the Children; Cimade (France); Iglesia
Evangelica Espanola; Federazione delle Chiese Evangeliche in Italia (FCEI); and
SENSOA (Belgium). The NGOs put these principles forward as the Commission
Director General for JHA visited Libya on 22 June 2005 in order to start the
cooperation on countering of illegal immigration and the Commission went ahead
to draft the EU return directive.
51 These core principles are to be applied also in so-called transit, border and
airport zones in the EU. They are: voluntary return should always be the
priority; vulnerable persons should be protected against removal (children,
seriously ill people, victims of trafficking and pregnant women); persons
subject to a removal order should always have access to effective remedies,
detention for the purpose of removal should be the last resort, family unit
should be strictly respected; independent monitoring and control bodies should
be created; use of force should comply with Council of Europe recommendations;
re-entry ban should be prohibited; and a legal status should be granted to
persons who cannot be removed.
52 The non-refoulement principle has been reaffirmed by the EU as the
cornerstone of refugee protection. It prohibits the forcible return of anyone to
a territory where they would be at risk of serious human rights violations:
"No contracting state shall expel or return (refouler), a refugee in any
manner to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be
threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group, or political opinion”. This principle makes reference
to the lack of individual assessments and to the removal of persons to countries
where there exists a serious risk to the physical integrity of those concerned
(mentioned in article 19§2 of the European Charter).
53 Migrants and asylum seekers are deported to Libya, the country lacking
minimum guarantees of protection. This is in contravention with the article
II-19-2 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, according to which
"No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a
serious risk that they may be subjected to the death penalty, torture or inhuman
or degrading treatment". Italy obligation to non-refouleur to a country
lacking minimum guarantees of protection is reinforced by the fact that Italy is
a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the UN Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
54 EP/LIBE PV/581203EN.
55 The response by Alessandro Pansa, the Director general of the immigration and
border police of the Italian Ministry of Interior delivered to the UN Human
Rights Committee during its 85th Session on the 20th October 2005. Notes taken
by Claire Rodier, GISTI. Http://www.migreurop.org/article909.html
56 See footnote 32.
57 This number was given by Italian Ministry of Interior G. Pisanu. See il
manifesto 22nd April 2005, p. 9. Http://www.ilmanifesto.it/Quotidiano-archivio/22-Aprile-2005/art74.html
(consulted on 25/04/2005)
58 Simoncini, A., ‘Migranti, frontiere, spazi di confine. I lavoratori
migranti nell’ordine salariale’, altreragioni, pp. 29-45, 2000.
59 See Caritas/Migrantes, Immigrazione. Dossier Statistico 2005. Edizioni IDOS,
Roma, 2005.
60 Data from Italian Ministry of Interior, Http://www.cir-onlus.org/Statisticheitalia.htm
(consulted 10 December 2005).
61 Asylum levels in Italy are in fact among the lowest in Europe and in 2004
reported a fall of 26%, which is 5% above the EU average. These numbers are
extrapolated from the UNHCR’s 2005 report on Asylum levels and Trends in
Industrialized Countries 2004. Overview of Asylum Applications longed in Europe
and non-European industrialized countries in 2004. Population data unit/PGDS:
UNHCR Geneva. http://www.unhcr.ch/statistics
62 This calculation does not take into consideration that out of 9019 requests
for asylum filed in 2004, only 781 were approved. The readers are hence asked to
bear in mind that a hypothetical increase calculated above concerns only
requests for asylum rather than the allocation of the asylum status.
63 Pliez, O. ‘La troisième migratoire, les conséquences de la politique
européenne de lutte contre les migrations clandestines’, paper written for
Asia-Europe Foundation workshop The Management of Humanitarian Aids and of
Transnational Movements of Persons in the Euro-Mediterranean Area and in
South-East Asia, 2005 border areas where they work in sectors such as
agriculture, tourism and local trade.
64 Hamood, S., African Transit Migration through Libya to Europe: the Human
Costs. The American University on Cairo, Forced Migration and Refugee Studies.
2006.
65 Boubakri estimates that 2 to 2.5 millions of foreigners live in Libya, namely
25 to 30% of the country’s total population. Out of this there are
approximately 200 000 Moroccans, 60 000 Tunisians and 20 000 – 30 000
Algerians. Boubakri, H. ‘Transit Migration between Tunisia, Libya and
Sub-Saharan Africa: Study Based on Greater Tunis’, Regional Conference
Migrants in Transit Countries: Sharing Responsibility for Management and
Protection, Council of Europe: MG-RCONF (2004)6e; p. 2.
66 Boubakri, H., ibid., and Pliez, O., ibid.
67 Disappointed by the lack of support from the Arab countries, the isolation
from the international community due to the bombings in 1998 of flights over
Lockerbie in Scotland and in 1989 over Niger, and the 1992 UN Security Council
arms embargo on Libya, Colonel Mu’ammar al-Qaddafi reoriented Libya’s
foreign policy from Arab towards its sub-Saharan neighbours, and hence from
pro-Arab to pro-African policy.
68 Libya is a key member of the Group of Sahel-Saharan States and of the African
Union. The Group also known as CEN-SAD (the Community of states bordering the
Sahara and the Sahel) was established in 1998 in Tripoli. It members are: Egypt,
Djibouti, Libya, Morocco, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Senegal, Eritrea, Chad,
Central Africa, Gambia, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Togo and Benin.
African Union was founded in 1999 by the Organisation of African Unity whose
main objectives were to ‘rid the continent of the remaining vestiges of
colonization and apartheid; to promote unity and solidarity among African
States; to coordinate and intensify cooperation for development; to safeguard
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States and to promote
international cooperation within the framework of the United Nations’. http://www.africa-union.org/
69 Pliez, O. ibid.
70 The countries proposed by the UK were: Albania, Croatia, Iran, Morocco,
northern Somalia, Romania, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine. British proposal was
influenced by the so-called ‘Pacific Solution’ implemented by Australia.
Having come to public attention in Europe following the MS Tampa incident in
2001, Australian model is based on systematic removal of boat arrivals to Nauru
and Papua New Guinea islands, both outside Australian territory and
jurisdiction. There migrants claims are processed under preclusion of ordinary
juridical control and await the outcome of their application in the detention
camp. For PM Tony Blair’s 10 March 2003 letter to the Greek Presidency, see http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/apr/blair-simitis-asile.pdf
71 The proposal, advanced by German Minister of Interior Otto Schily and Italian
Minister Giuseppe Pisanu, was supported by Germany, Italy and United Kingdom
(UK) and rejected by France and Spain.
72 During the Danish presidency during the second half of 2002, the ‘reception
in the region’ was identified as a priority in the area of asylum and
migration. In Noll, G. ‘Visions of the Exceptional: Legal and Theoretical
Issues Raised by Transit Processing Centres and Protection Zones’, in European
Journal of Migration and Law 5, 2003, 303-341.
73 The Commission denied that these pilot projects are directly linked to plans
to create EU reception centres in North Africa. Antonio Vitorino, Justice and
Home Affairs Commissioner, declared however that “in the short term the
Commission could envisage the possibility of setting up humanitarian reception
centres in the countries bordering the Mediterranean.” EUOBSERVER, 4th October
2004 .
74 The danger of this happening was foreseen by Gregor Noll in his brilliant
piece on legal and practical issues raised by the idea of external processing
where he argues that the proposal to establish processing and protection centres
outside the EU represents a serious threat to the existing institution of asylum
and that these are likely to result in ending of legal and factual protection
for certain groups of people. See footnote 73.
75 Current research on migration on Libya confirms these claims. See Hamood, S.
ibid., pp. 33-46.
76 Libya is often characterized as lacking a comprehensive strategy on migration
and border management and the migration into and via Libya is outlined as a
negative effect of Libya’s open-border policy towards sub-Saharan Africa.
Within this framework, the recent deportations from Libya to Maghreb countries
and sub-Saharan Africa funded by the Italian Government have been seen as a step
forward in establishing a migration management system in Libya. What these
practices disregard however is that in Libya deportations as state policy have
been in place since 1966 and hence well before Lampedusa became the main point
of entry into Italy for migrants departing from Libya. See Pleiez, O.,
ibid.
77 EC, ibid., p. 39.
78 See Maccanico, Y. ‘The European Commission Technical Mission to Libya:
Exporting Fortress-Europe’, Statewatch bulletin, vol. 15 no. 2, March-April
2005.
79 Anderson, B. and J. O’Connell Davidson, Needs and Desires: Is there a
Demand for "Trafficked" Persons?, Geneva, IOM, 2003
80 See for example the research on trafficking in women in Europe Andrijasevic,
R. ‘La traite des femmes d’Europe de l’Est en Italie’ Revue européenne
des migrations internationals Vol 21(1), 2005, pp. 155-175.
81 Salt, J. and J. Stein, ‘Migration as a Business: The Case of
Trafficking’. International Migration, 35(4), 1997, pp. 467-491.
82 Gatti, F. ibid., 2005b.
83 In their report, the EC experts state that the reasons for arrests and
repatriations carried out by Libyan authorities are unclear and arbitrary.
Although migrants were in an irregular legal situation they were holding regular
jobs and some were holders of identity cards issued by private Libyan companies.
See EC, ibid., p. 31-35.
84 Libyan authorities confirmed that 106 migrants died during an expulsion
operation in 2004. Basing his inquiry on the data from Red Crescent, Gatti
claims that at least another 70 men and women died in the desert as result of
unsafe conditions. Gatti, F. ibid., 2005b.
85 On this topic see Koslowski, R. ‘Economic Globalization, Human Smuggling,
and Global Governance’, in D. Kyle and R. Koslowski’ (eds.), Global Human
Smuggling. Comparative Perspectives, Baltimore and London, The John Hopkins
University Press, 2001, pp. 337-358.
86 The exact percentage is 48,1. Quoted in the 2005 report by Corte dei Conti. http://www.corteconti.it/Ricerca-e-1/Gli-Atti-d/Controllo-/Documenti/Sezione-ce1/Anno-2005/Adunanza-c/allegati-d3/Relazione.doc
87 Karakayali, S. and V. Tsianos,‘Wilde Schafsjagd in Aigais und die
transnationalen “mujahideen”. Rastanski Lojia Über Grenzregime an der Südostgrenze
Europas’, Springerin n. 4, 2005; and Mezzadra, S. (ed), I confini della libertà.
DeriveApprodi, Roma, 2004.
88 A deportation order is served to those applicants whose application has been
rejected. The applicant can appeal within 15 days but this does not suspend the
deportation order even though the Prefetto might authorize the applicant to
remain in Italy until the outcome in the appeal. In case, the applicant is
deported before presenting the appeal, he/she has the right of appeal from
abroad via Italian diplomatic representations.
89 See International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Italy. Right of Asylum
in Italy: Access to procedures and treatment of asylum-seekers. Report.
International Fact-finding Mission. No. 419/2, June 2005, p. 19
90 Mezzadra, S. Diritto di fuga. Migrazioni, cittadinanza, globalizzazione,
Verona, Ombre corte, 2001,dimension of the common European asylum and
immigration policy laid out by the Hague programme with the aim of integrating
asylum into EU’s external relations with third countries, the cooperation
between the EU and Libya is geared towards defining operational measures to
counter illegal migration.
91 European Commissions, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and
of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning
illegally staying third-country nationals.
92 AI, Temporary stay – permanent rights. Ibid., Appendix 2.
93 I thank Daphné Bouteillet-Paquet, JHA Executive Officer from Amnesty
International EU Office for bringing this point to my attention.
94 The history of discussion between EU and Libya goes as fellows: in November
2002, the Council considered it essential to initiate cooperation with Libya on
migration. In May 2003, the Commission organized an exploratory mission to Libya
to assess the interest of Libyan government in developing a cooperation. The
Council decided, on 16 June 2003, to organize a follow up technical mission.
Postponed until the Council agreed on 11 October 2004 to embark upon a policy of
engagement with Libya, the technical mission was carried out between 28 November
and 6 December 2004. On the basis of the recommendations contained in the report
of the technical mission released in April 2005, draft operational Council
conclusions were drawn and later discussed by the High Level Group on Asylum and
Migration in 20 May, by the JHA Counsellors on 23 May, and by the Permanent
Representatives Committee on 26 May 2005. The outcome of this process is the
draft Council conclusions on initiating dialogue and cooperation with Libya on
migration issues (9413/1/05 REV 1). Many of the measures outlined in the Annex
are taken up by the Libya-EU Joint Action Plan that at this point is still being
drafted and therefore not public.
95 The Joint Action Plan is still in it draft form. Nevertheless, the combined
information for the Action Plan (draft as at September 2005) and the Draft
Council Conclusions on initiating dialogue and cooperation with Libya on
migration issues (9413/1/05 REV 1) offer an outline of the main points and
suggest the priorities likely to be included in the final Action Plan.
96 In accordance with the Council conclusions in November 2004, any cooperation
is conditional upon full respect for human rights, respect for democratic
principles, the rule of law and the demonstration by those countries of a
genuine commitment to fulfil international obligations towards refugees.
97 Thierry Balzacq and Sergio Carrera identify large margin of exception as one
of the reasons for low convergence of Communitarian policies on migration,
borders and asylum. In Balzacq, T. and S. Carrera. Migration, Borders and
Asylum. Trends and Vulnerabilities in EU Policy. CEPS: Brussels, 2005.
98 A sum of 2.000.000,00 EUR has been allocated by the Commission under the 2004
budget for the AENEAS Programme. See Annex 1 of the Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament and Council. Thematic Programme for the
cooperation with third countries in the area of migration and asylum. COM(206)
26 final dated 25 January 2006.
99 The degree of IOM’s involvement with detention camps in Libya remains to be
seen. IOM’s involvement with the matter of reception centres in the north
Africa dates back to 2002 when IOM, UNHCR, the European Commission, the
Netherlands and Denmark met in an informal meeting to discuss the UK proposal
for ‘in the region and off-shore processing’ and drafted a memorandum that
set a number of practical, legal and financial issues concerning the external
processing. IOM has already managed off-shore processing detention centres, such
as the one set by the Australian authorities on Nauru island, for which it came
under attack by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and urged to stop
arbitrary detention and impingement of migrants’ right to seek asylum. IOM is
currently also responsible for realization of two large new camps for irregular
migrants in Ukraine, one of the potential countries to host EU’s Regional
Protection Programme.
100 EC, ibid., p. 15.
101 Even though Libya is not a signatory of 1951 Geneva Convention, Libya has
ratified the respective 1969 OAU Convention on protection on refugees.
102 The majority of Italy’s Regions stand for the closure of the holding
centres. In summer 2005, fourteen Provincial Governors and their representatives
met at the forum Mare Aperto in Bari and drafted a document in which they commit
to launching a political-institutional dialogue geared towards changing current
Italian immigration law, closing the CPTAs, creating a comprehensive law on
asylum, and doing away with the administrative detention. The final document is
available at http://www.meltingpot.org/articolo5676.html
Refugee
Protection and Mixed Migration: A 10-Point Plan of Action- Discussion Paper I
Introduction
While refugees and asylum seekers account for a relatively small
portion of the global movement of people, they increasingly move from one
country or continent to another alongside other people whose reasons for
moving are different and not protection-related.
More
often than not such movements are irregular, in the sense that they take
place without the requisite documentation and frequently involve human
smugglers and traffickers. The people who move in this manner often place
their lives at risk, are obliged to travel in inhumane conditions and may be
exposed to exploitation and abuse. States regard such movements as a threat
to their sovereignty and security.
It
has become imperative for the international community to address this
phenomenon in a more coherent and comprehensive manner. States have assumed
protection responsibilities for refugees under international instruments
which it is in their collective interest to honour.
More
specifically, steps must be taken to establish entry systems that are able
to identify new arrivals with international protection needs and which
provide appropriate and differentiated solutions for them, side by side with
such other solutions as need to be pursued for other groups involved in
mixed movements. UNHCR is especially mindful of the need to ensure that the
provision of protection and asylum to refugees and other people of concern
to the Office does not compound the difficulties that states experience in
controlling more generally the arrival and residence of foreign nationals
and in combating international crime.
This
paper sets out ten key areas in which UNHCR has an interest and a potential
role to play, and where the Office believe initiatives are called for and
could make a positive impact. The Plan of Action provided in the paper is
especially relevant to situations where refugees are at risk of refoulement,
human rights violations and hazardous onward movements.
The
paper does not purport to be comprehensive in relation to matters that are
beyond the competence and responsibility of UNHCR. Nor does it contain a
detailed blueprint for the implementation of each component of the Plan of
Action.
The
matrix in Annex I sets out the goals that the Plan of Action is intended to
achieve and contains suggestions for activities that might be undertaken
under each of the ten component parts. The Plan of Action is global in
nature and its implementation would evidently have to be adapted to specific
regional and national contexts.
1. Cooperation Among Key Partners
Effective approaches to the dilemmas of mixed movements will
inevitably depend upon full cooperation amongst the key actors concerned:
affected states, governmental bodies, regional and international
organizations with relevant mandates (e.g. UNHCR, OHCHR, UNICEF and IOM) as
well as local and international NGOs.
Hence,
a first step is to identify and convene such actors in an appropriate forum
so that they can exchange information and establish terms and conditions for
cooperation and coordination. The convenor of such a forum would preferably
be one or more of the affected states but an international organisation can
also play a ‘good offices’ role in this respect.
2. Data Collection and Analysis
A key to any coherent and comprehensive strategy is the collection,
analysis and exchange of data about the characteristics of the movement and
those groups which make it up. Such data should typically include
information relating to conditions in countries of origin, motivations for
movement, modes of transport, transit routes and entry points. An
international or regional organization may be well placed to offer support
for this function.
3. Protection-Sensitive Entry Systems
The establishment of a functioning entry system is an important
element in any strategy relating to mixed movements. Border control is
essential for the purposes of combating international crime, including
smuggling and trafficking, and averting security threats.
Practical
protection safeguards are required to ensure that such measures are not
applied in an indiscriminate or disproportionate manner and that they do not
lead to refoulement. In this respect, border guards and immigration
officials would benefit from training and clear instructions on how to
respond to asylum applications and how to handle the needs of separated
children, victims of trafficking and other groups with specific needs.
With
regard to irregular maritime migration, a particular range of considerations
arise, including safeguarding lives at sea, respecting the obligations of
maritime law, maintaining the integrity of the search and rescue regime and
ensuring the smooth flow of maritime traffic.
4. Reception Arrangements
Appropriate reception arrangements are needed to ensure that the
basic human needs of people involved in mixed movements can be met. Such
reception arrangements should also enable new arrivals to be registered and
provided with temporary documentation. Especially in situations where a high
percentage of the new arrivals are refugees or asylum-seekers, UNHCR could
facilitate the putting in place of appropriate arrangements, or be otherwise
involved on a temporary basis, together with the principally responsible
party.
5. Mechanisms for Profiling and Referral
Once new arrivals have been registered and provided with temporary
documentation, an initial determination will have to be made with regard to
who they are, why they have left their own country and where their intended
destination is. Counselling provides an opportunity to establish whether
they wish to seek asylum and to identify other options available to them,
including return, regularization or regular onward migration. This
channelling arrangement would not constitute a refugee status determination.
Rather its role is to give a good indication of a person’s motives for
departure and to ensure the person’s situation is met with the most
appropriate response. Annex II to this note provides a schematic
representation of how such a profiling and referral mechanism might work.
6. Differentiated Processes and Procedures
With respect to asylum claims, those which appear to be relatively
simple (because they are well founded or manifestly unfounded) could be
assessed in an expedited procedure. Other and more complex claims normally
will require a more detailed assessment. Different processes outside the
asylum arrangements should address the situation of people with specific
needs which are not refugee related, including victims of trafficking not in
need of international protection, as well as persons who are seeking to
migrate (see Chapter 9 below).
While
UNHCR is likely to be a principal partner for states in relation to refugee
status determination procedures, NGOs, lawyers and civil society
institutions should also have a role to play in this component of the Plan
of Action. In relation to other processes, UNHCR will only be minimally
involved, if at all. The likely partners will depend on the situation in the
specific country and on which organisations are present and willing to act
as partner.
7. Solutions for Refugees
People who are recognized as refugees or as otherwise being in need
of international protection require a protection-based response that
includes a durable solution, the nature of which will depend on the
opportunities and constraints inherent in each situation.
A
comprehensive approach involving a mix of solutions will often offer the
best chances for success. Beyond the classic durable solutions, legal
migration opportunities may open up a complementary avenue for some
refugees.
Refugee-receiving
countries may benefit from international assistance to strengthen national
protection capacities.
8. Addressing Secondary Movements
Addressing the situation of refugees and asylum seekers who have
moved on from countries where they had already found adequate protection
requires a more defined strategy. This strategy should take into account
both the legitimate concerns of states about irregular onward movement and
the rights and well-being of the people concerned. To date efforts to
articulate such a strategy have failed to muster international consensus.
UNHCR is committed to continuing the effort in this regard.
9. Return of Non-Refugees and Alternative Migration Options
For people who are found not to be refugees, and for those who do not
wish to seek asylum, expeditious return in safety and dignity is usually the
preferred response of states. UNHCR may, on a good offices basis, assist
states in the return of people who are not in need of international
protection where this is the most appropriate and agreed solution. The
manner in which UNHCR could be of assistance deserves closer examination by
all interested parties.
There
will be circumstances where people who do not meet the criteria for refugee
status may nevertheless be in a position to access alternative temporary
migration options. These could variously allow them to stay legally in the
country of arrival, or to move to a third country for humanitarian reasons,
or for the purposes of work, education or family reunion. Efforts to address
mixed population movements should also explore a place for regular migration
options, temporary or even longer term.
10. Information Strategy
All of the measures described above should be complemented by
information campaigns in countries of origin, transit and destination.
People need to be alerted to the dangers of irregular movement and the
difficulties they might face upon arrival, as well as to any alternatives to
irregular migration which might also meet their circumstances.
Such
information campaigns will likely not curb irregular movements entirely but,
if combined with the other action points and supported by longer term
measures to tackle the root causes of such movements, they may have a
positive impact.
While
information campaigns are primarily a task for agencies with a migration or
information related mandate such as IOM, UNHCR may also play a role in such
initiatives. UNHCR also has capacity and interest to initiate public
awareness activities about the plight of refugees, in order to promote
tolerance and to combat racism and xenophobia.
Annex I
Ten Point Plan of Action Check List for UNHCR
Goals
·
Government responses to mixed movements are comprehensive,
cooperative and protection sensitive.
·
Solutions are available which address differently and in
appropriate ways the situation of the respective groups.
·
Refugees are identified and protected, while the irregular
movement is reduced.
Objectives |
Activities |
1. Collaboration
among key partners |
1. Identify key
partners/stakeholders at national level to participate in a
collaborative response. |
2. Data collection and analysis |
On refugee flows within mixed
movements |
The Unrecognized Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon- Discussion
Paper II
((Ruwad
in Arabic), is a non-profit association based in Beirut, which promotes the
human rights of refugees and other migrants in Lebanon. Email:
frontierscenter@cyberia.net.lb)
No Recognition, No Identity, No
Rights: In Which UN Court should be The Bail?
An estimate small group of around 5000 Palestinian refugees lack
legal recognition in Lebanon. They
are not registered with UNRWA in Lebanon nor the Lebanese authorities.
This
group, commonly known as “Non-Ids”, do not benefit from the protection of
any State or international organization. The
majority of them entered Lebanon under the legal umbrella of the 1969 Cairo
Agreement ¹ they are treated as illegal migrants by the Lebanese authorities
and subsequently denied any human rights.
Most
of the Non-Ids live in the Palestinian camps Unrecognized Palestinian refugees
are unable to move inside the country and/or leave Lebanon and are not able to
enter any other country for lack of documentation or due to the refusal of other
countries to welcome them. They are
in continuous fear of being arrested, detained and deported, with no prospect of
another country accepting them. When
arrested, the Lebanese State maintains them in detention until it is convinced
that it cannot deport them to any country and releases them without any legal
basis, putting them again at risk of arrest and detention. Many
of them got married in Lebanon and their children were born in Lebanon but are
unable to register their marriages or their children’s birth certificates.
Furthermore, because they are not registered with UNRWA, they do not
receive any the regular socio-economic assistance from UNRWA.
The
majority of them fall under the following categories:
1. Palestinians holding valid or expired identification
documents issued by the
relevant official authorities in the Hashemite Kingdom
of Jordan and incapable of returning to the Kingdom.
2. Palestinians holding identification documents issued by the
relevant official authorities from the Arab Republic of Egypt – administration of the Gaza strip and hot having permission to
reside in Egypt and are incapable of returning to Gaza strip.
3. Palestinians holding Identification documents issued by the
relevant official authorities in Iraq and due to the violence and
oppression targeting them they are deprived from Iraqi protection.
4. Expelled Palestinians whose return to the Occupied Palestinian Territories is restricted by Israel.
Reasons for Non-Recognition
Frontiers’ groundbreaking legal study “Falling Through the
Cracks” (2006), involving field work, and legal and policy analysis,
identified the main reasons why thousands of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are
deprived of official recognition and registration by the Lebanese government and
the United Nations in Lebanon.
The
underlying problem is that Palestinian refugee status is defined today by rules
written mainly in the 1950s and 1960s. These
rules are unable to accommodate the complexity of such a large and long term
population displacement.
Although
most Palestinian refugees in the Middle East fled in 1948 or 1967, not all fit
this pattern. While conflicts
inside Arab states led to much of the non-recognition problem in Lebanon, the
Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories is also a major contributor:
–
Some refugees have voluntarily or
involuntarily moved on to new countries in a process of secondary migration.
The non-recognition problem in Lebanon has been frequently attributed to
the turmoil in Jordan in 1970 and the powerful role of the PLO in Lebanon in the
1970s, both of which brought new refugees to Lebanese soil.
–
Small numbers of
Palestinians left their homes in odd years, such as before 1948 or between the
1948 and 1967 wars. Some refugees
in Lebanon had been displaced from the Gaza Strip or the West Bank between 1968
and 1981. They are displaced from
their homes by the Arab-Israeli conflict, but lack recognition as Palestinian
refugees.
These rules require either amendment or at least flexible interpretation in
order to reflect the Palestinian refugee situation today.
Lack of Registration with The Lebanese Authorities
Since the 1960s, Lebanese authorities have de facto stopped
registering Palestinians in Lebanon in line with their refusal to augment the
official number of Palestinian refugees. Unrecognized
Palestinians are therefore facing difficulties to regularize their legal status
in Lebanon.
Lebanon
is also engaged in a gender discrimination policy that prevents women from
passing on their status to their children and husbands.
This practice increases the number of unrecognised people with each
generation, and also misses an important opportunity to reduce the problem.
In
2006, the Lebanese authorities established the Lebanese Working Group on
Palestinian Refugees, later renamed the Lebanese Palestinian Dialogue Committee,
to actively search for an adequate solution for the unrecognised Palestinians
through a dialogue with the recently reopened PLO office – that has been
closed since 1982. One of the
proposed solutions would be for the Lebanese government to recognize the
Palestinian Authority Passport and grant them a temporary residency in Lebanon.
Simultaneously, a network of NGOs is continuing its advocacy campaign
requesting the legal recognition of Undocumented Palestinians.
Lack of Registration with UNRWA
Looking specifically at the problem of non-registration by UNRWA,
there are four main challenges:
Limits of the ‘working definition:” UNRWA has progressively revised its “working definition” of
a Palestine refugee. The current
definition, in place since 1993, leaves out people who fled Palestine before
1948 or between 1949 and 1967. It
also leaves in limbo Palestinians who fled in 1967 or later, although the
General Assembly has asked UNRWA to assist such people. Post-1967 refugees have at best de facto assistance
from UNRWA, but do not carry registration cards.
Difficulty to Register for the First Time: Palestinians who initially fled in 1948 and for one reason or
another were not registered in UNRWA’s first census in Lebanon and or in any
of UNRWA’ operating countries may register for the first time now if they
fulfil the conditions. In order to
register an individual, UNRWA requires proof that the person or his or her
ancestors resided in Palestine between 1946 and 1948.
As it is difficult to produce such a proof after 60 years of
displacement, many Palestine Refugees are unable to register with UNRWA.
The refugees who succeed to obtain registration with UNRWA are not
automatically entitled to a legal status in Lebanon.
UNRWA registered between 40-50 new Palestine refugees who were also
registered with the Lebanese Ministry of Interior in the last five years.²
Secondary migration: The possibility to transfer UNRWA registration for Palestine
refugees who move from one UNRWA country of operation to another is restricted
by UNRWA Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions of January 2002
and of the June 2006. The
Instructions subject the transfer of legal residence to the approval of the
governmental authorities in the country to which the refugee wishes to be
transferred. In practice, UNRWA
transfers the registration allowing the individual to be eligible for services
(if s-he fulfils the conditions for services) but does not take any action with
the governmental authorities to obtain their approval for a transfer of
registration that would allow the refugee to obtain a legal status.
Gender discrimination: To date, UNRWA’s registration policy forces women to be
registered with a “head of household,” normally either a father or husband.
Women are not able to add spouses to their own UN files, and cannot pass
on status to their spouses and children. This
policy violates international human rights law, and exacerbates the problem of
non-recognition. UNRWA has
tentatively committed itself to consider changing this policy. It has recently decided to register the unregistered husband
and children of registered refugee woman but it will only register them as
“persons” and not as “refugees”. Hence,
the refugee status of a registered Palestine woman is not granted to her husband
and children who remain without legal status in Lebanon.
Lack of Registration with UNHCR
Adding to the complexity, there are in fact two relevant UN agencies for
Palestinian refugee: UNRWA and UNHCR. All
the unrecognised Palestinians in Lebanon are entitled to UN protection and/or
assistance. Yet, responsibility
appears today to be diffused between UNRWA and UNHCR so that some people are
left out.
In
2002, UNHCR considered that Palestinian refugees should enjoy a “continuity of
protection.” This principle
recognizes that Palestinian refugees were given a unique status in international
law, and should be guaranteed continuous protection or assistance from the
United Nations.
In
theory, the interpretation of Article 1-D of the 1951 Convention adopted by
UNHCR in 2002 ensures the continuity of protection for Palestinian Refugees,
allowing UNHCR to stretch its protection to Palestinians refugees who do not
receive protection or assistance from UNRWA. Yet, contrary to international
refugee law, UNHCR Offices in the Middle East have not implemented this
principle to fill the legal gaps in which the Unrecognized Palestinian refugees
have fallen.
Conclusion and Recommendations
It is Frontiers opinion that, as long as UNRWA is not able to provide
legal protection to undocumented Palestinians and as long as the Lebanese
authorities continue to treat them as illegal immigrants and deny them basic
human rights, Undocumented Palestinian automatically fall under the mandate of
UNHCR. The current UNHCR practice
in Lebanon and other UNRWA country of operations of entirely excluding
Palestinians is legally untenable and should be re-assessed. The need to solve
the situation of this category of refugees who suffer from double deprivation
– deprivation from citizenship in the country of origin and from recognition
in the current country of refuge – is becoming more pressing.
It is
Frontiers’ opinion that, unless UNHCR and UNRWA request from the United
Nations General Assembly to modify UNRWA working definition in order to cover
Palestinian refugees who do not fit the current definition, the implementation
of the principle of continuity of protection to Undocumented Palestinians in
Lebanon should be improved based on the following guidelines:
-
Undocumented Palestinians who are
Palestine Refugees or Displaced Persons and are not registered with UNRWA should
be considered ipso facto as refugees under the 1951 Convention or UNHCR
Mandate.
-
Undocumented Palestinians in Lebanon
who are registered with UNRWA in an area of operation other than Lebanon should
be considered ipso facto as refugees under the 1951 Convention or UNHCR
Mandate. Although some of them are
eligible for UNRWA services under certain conditions, their registration with
UNRWA in another area does not provide them with legal protection in Lebanon.
-
Undocumented Palestinians who are
neither Palestine Refugee nor Displaced Persons should be recognized as refugees
under Article 1-A of the 1951 Convention.
Since these refugees live in hard and severe circumstances and
are deprived legal protection and since endeavouring to solve their case has
become an urgent matter, Frontiers recommends the following:
-
UNHCR should recognize its
responsibility to provide protection for Palestinian refugees in the region that
do not fall under UNRWA current working definition of a Palestine Refugee.
-
UNHCR offices should open their doors
for the registration and adjudication of the claim of Palestinian refugees in
the region that do not fall under UNRWA current working definition of a
Palestine Refugee.
Notes
1. The 1969 Cairo agreement concluded between the Palestinian
Liberation Organization and the Lebanese authorities recognized the Palestinian
presence in Lebanon but was abrogated unilaterally by the Lebanese State in 1987
leaving those who were recognized on its basis in legal non-existence.
Lebanese authorities are often faced with the inability to deport
unrecognised Palestinian refugees to any countries as they are stateless.
2. Interviews with UNRWA, 7 February 2007.
The Lack of International Protection of Iraqi Refugees in
Lebanon- Discussion Paper III ((Ruwad
in Arabic), is a non-profit association based in Beirut, which promotes the
human rights of refugees and other migrants in Lebanon. Email:
frontierscenter@cyberia.net.lb)
The arrest, detention and refoulement of Iraqi refugees and asylum
seekers in Lebanon is a growing concern in the context of the deteriorating
security situation in Iraq. Humanitarian
assistance by itself will not protect the Iraqis from being arrested, detained
and deported UNHCR’s focus must not only be on humanitarian assistance to the
Iraqi refugees in the region, but also on establishing a full protection regime.
Lebanon
is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and does not have an effective
legislation regulating asylum. Therefore,
the majority of refugees in Lebanon lack legal status and are treated as illegal
migrants.
There
are no official statistics but there may be more than 40,000 Iraqi refugees in
Lebanon. Restrictive measures by
Lebanon and other Arab country hinder Iraqis from seeking safer haven in
neighboring countries. As a result,
Iraqi refugees find it next to impossible to obtain an entry visa to Lebanon so
they enter Lebanon illegally, often assisted by smugglers.
While
the international community was reluctant to acknowledge that many Iraqis fled
their country before and during the first years of the US led Coalition’s
invasion of Iraq, it was forced to admit the magnitude of the refugee influx
after the bombing of the holy Shiite shrine in Samarra on 22 February 2006 that
marked the rise of sectarian violence inside Iraq. The “Temporary Protection” regime implemented by UNHCR
since 2003 whereby Iraqis should have been protected against refoulement has
been replaced in January 2007 by the recognition of Iraqi refugees on a prima
facie basis. Yet, both regimes
have not been effective in providing protection for Iraqi refugees.
The
magnitude of the Iraqi refugee influx in the region raises fears of
‘Palestinisation’ of their plight. The
international community is focusing almost solely on humanitarian assistance,
rather than the search for durable solutions.
Lebanon – like other Arab states – is reluctant to improve the legal
status and living conditions of Iraqi refugees for fear they will once again
have to carry a hosting burden which will carry on for decade after decade.
As a
result, their illegal status denies them any form of socio-economic protection
from the Lebanese authorities. The
options for a regularization of their status are not adapted to their
conditions. With no adequate
assistance from UNHCR and NGOs to cover their basic needs, they are forced to
work illegally and can readily be exploited.
Further, access to education and health care are extremely limited and
child labor is increasing.
More
alarming, Lebanese arresting authorities, judges, prosecutors, and General
Security (the authority responsible for the regulation of the entry and stay of
foreigners) are disregarding the refugee status granted by UNHCR to Iraqi
refugees. Faced with no immediate
durable solutions such as repatriation and/or resettlement, Iraqi refugees in
Lebanon are forced to bear the continuous risk of arrest, prolonged detention
and refoulement. The feeling of
being neglected by an international community engaged in the business of
humanitarian assistance and obliviate of protection concerns is growing stronger
and stronger among the Iraqi refugees communities in the region.
Arrest and Detention
In 2007, the number of arrests of Iraqi refugees has alarmingly
increased. By the end of August, it
is estimated that more than 400 Iraqis were detained in Lebanese detention
centers on grounds of illegal entry and/or stay.
In July alone, over 150 Iraqis were said to have been arrested and joined
the other Iraqis who have been in prolonged detention.
Considering that official statistics are not easily accessible by the
public, it is reasonable to state that the number of detained refugees is
underestimated.
It is
a common knowledge that detention conditions in Lebanon are worrying but they
are even more worrying when it comes to refugees.
There have been reported cases of ill-treatment and torture in police
stations and prisons. Refugees are
also often reported to go on humer strike requesting that their arbitrary
detention is brought to an end. Further,
detainees in Lebanon are strongly dependent on their families in order to be
provided with basic needs that are not provided by the Lebanese authorities such
as mattresses, covers, clothes and medications.
Yet, refugees are often denied this external support as some do not have
relatives in Lebanon while others are not visited by their relatives who are
also in an illegal status in Lebanon and afraid of being arrested if they do
visit.
Refoulement
In 2007, there have been at least three reported cases of deportation of
Iraqis refugees recognized by UNHCR. One
of these cases involved an Iraqi family with two teenagers.
The four members of the family were refouled to the Syrian border after
the father was detained for a week without trial although UNHCR had intervened
requesting their release. Frontiers
is concerned that similar cases will occur in the future and might become a
pattern of systematic refoulement by the Lebanese authorities.
“Voluntary Returns” Operations
Iraqi refugees are kept in detention after the expiry of their judicial
sentences as a coercive measure to force them to “agree” to return to Iraq.
The Iraqi Embassy in Lebanon, in coordination with IOM, organizes their
“voluntary return” to Iraq, as a measure to alleviate the Lebanese detention
centers overcrowded with Iraqi detainees. In
2006, approximately 60 Iraqis were returned to Iraq on a monthly basis.
Since early 2007, around 75 people were returned and approximately 250
Iraqis were on the list to be imminently “returned” to Iraq in August 2007.
Most
Iraqis, if not all, see their return to Iraq as the only way out of prison:
faced with indefinite imprisonment with no or little hope to be released by the
Lebanese authorities – despite of UNHCR’s intervention on behalf of
detainees known to them, they prefer to sign on their return with the hope to
leave Iraq again.
UNHCR
Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation considers that “voluntary” refers to the
“absence of any physical, psychological, or material pressure” and
that “[o]one of the most important elements in the verification of
voluntariness is the legal status of the refugees in the country of asylum.
If refugees are legally recognized as such, their rights are protected
and if they are allowed to settle, their choice to repatriate is likely to be
truly free and voluntary. If, however, their rights are not recognized, if they are
subjected to pressures and restrictions and confined to closed camps, they may
choose to return, but this is not an act of free will.”1
As
prolonged detention after the expiry of the sentence is considered a physical,
psychological and material pressure against refugees and as most refugees lack
legal status in Lebanon, the voluntariness to return to Iraq expressed by Iraqis
in detention is seriously flawed and cannot be considered as an act of free
will.
UNHCR’s
role in these operations is limited to counselling the detainees prior to their
return. Yet, it seems that in
reality UNHCR is viewed as approving such returns.
Upon receiving the list of Iraqi detainees from the Iraqi Embassy, UNHCR
conducts a counselling session stressing that it does not support the return to
Iraq, that as Iraqis, they are considered as refugee by UNHCR and that they have
the right to seek international protection in Lebanon.
In the course of counselling, refugees are asked whether or not they want
o seek asylum or maintain their refugee status.
In case of a refusal, UNHCR makes sure that the person does not wish to
seek asylum and intends to return to Iraq.
It is Frontiers’ opinion that by participating in the process of these
operations, UNHDCR is allowing other actors to undermine its protection role.
The
arrest and detention and threat of “deportation” under the cover of
“voluntary return” is a flagrant violation of the right to seek asylum, the
international customary principle of non-refoulement and UNHCR Return Advisory
on Iraqis.
It is
therefore Frontiers opinion that the return of Iraqis from Lebanese detention
centers is not in reality “voluntary” but rather amounts to refoulement.
Frontiers
is therefore concerned that IOM and the Lebanese authorities, are participating
in the refoulement of Iraqi refugees contrary to the principle of non-refoulement
and to the UN position on non-returnability of the Iraqi refugees.
Frontiers
is more concerned that IOM and the Lebanese authorities are putting the lives of
Iraqi refugees in danger by returning them to war-torn Iraq without monitoring
the situation of returnees inside Iraq.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Frontiers believes that the international community must address the root
causes of the plight of the Iraqi people inside and outside Iraq in order to
come out with substantial recommendations to end the occupation and the
escalating violence in Iraq.
Frontiers
believes that the international community must share the responsibility of the
humanitarian crisis suffered by the Iraqi people by softening the conditions for
admission of Iraqi refugees into their countries, increasing the assistance
provided to the disadvantaged Iraqi refugees and ensuring that available
resources are channelled directly to Iraqis rather than to operational costs.
Frontiers
also believes that no protection regime – whether it is individual status
determination, temporary protection or prima facie recognition – can be
effective when it is solely implemented by UNHCR without the involvement of the
national authorities, such as Lebanon, and in the absence of national legal
frameworks for the protection of refugees, especially in the Middle East.
In the meantime and in light of the serious protection concerns and risk of
refoulement, Frontiers recommends UNHCR and the international community to:
-
Remind the Lebanese government of its
obligation as a member of the international community to recognize and protect
the basic and fundamental human rights of refugees from Iraq during their stay
in the country.
-
Request from the Lebanese government
to acknowledge the UNHCR guidelines regarding the refugees from Iraq and to
establish a mechanism to receive and protect refugees from Iraq fleeing the
generalised violence in their country, by allowing their safe admission to the
country and granting them temporary residencies on humanitarian grounds.
-
Ensure that the arrest of refugees
from Iraq is limited to identification of identity and for security reasons or
other criminal charges.
-
Request from IOM to halt assistance
to current and future return convoys and adhere to UNHCR guidelines and advisory
concerning the non-returnability to Iraq of refugees from Iraq.
Assist the Lebanese government and national NGOs in order to grant the refugees
from Iraq access to basic services such as health and education, and allow
self-reliance opportunities.
Book Review
by
Ksenia
Glebova
(Project
manager, Finnish Ministry of Health)
Kothari, Rita (2007) The Burden of Refuge:
The Sindhi Hindus of Gujarat, Chennai: Orient Longman
Rita Kothari’s new book is a personal quest in search of Sindhi Hindu
identity in Gujarat. A Gujarati Sindhi herself, Kothari sets out to make a
contribution to identity politics in contemporary India by presenting a case of
the stigmatised Hindu Sindhi minority that moved from the Sindh area in modern
day Pakistan to the Indian state of Gujarat. Kothari’s own imbibed discomfort
with her identity, mirrored in other Sindhi Hindus, led her “to a larger
historical pursuit”.
Myths
and popular perceptions surrounding the Sindhis in Gujarat are many and complex.
Kothari sets out to map the journey of Sindhi Hindus from the Sindh to India
after Partition attempting to ‘recreate’ Sindhi history in independent India
along the way. The Sindhi identity
has developed under turbulent circumstances in the frontier province of British
India, which has traditionally been an area of immigrants and mixed population.
The Hindus, in turn, were simultaneously a religious minority in a province with
four centuries of unbroken Muslim rule and the most prosperous section of
society. Moreover, the unique religious practice of the Sindhi Hindus
“bewilders anyone with a well-defined notion of Sanskritic Hinduism” as they
propagate a form of Hinduism influenced by Sikhism and Sufism. The Sindhis’
loose interpretation of caste and an apparent workable harmony between Hindus
and Muslims did not help their integration in the host Gujarati community
either, and the integration process has been slow. As the British left India in
the flames of Partition, so were the Sindhi Hindus forced to leave their native
Sindh settling in the neighbouring Indian states including Gujarat.
Kothari
draws an interesting comparison between the Sindhis of Gujarat and European
Jewry especially prior to the Second Wold War. Both communities have a
reputation for shrewdness in business and money lending; both evoked distrust
and dislike despite their remarkable success as a minority community. Both were
displaced on religious grounds although their experiences of displacement and in
the new homelands could not have been more different. “The Burden of Refuge”
suggests that the Sindhi experience of Partition is rather unusual in the sense
that, as a community, they escaped mass slaughter and violence that accompanied
the population movement across the new border.
Ritu
Kothari’s primary interest in “The Burden of Refuge” stems again from
personal experiences – most of the Hindu Sindhis of Gujarat seem to have
“disposed of a religio-cultural pluralism and their mother tongue in order to
erase their Sindhiness for the sake of more mainstream identities”.
The
stigma associated with being a Sindhi in Gujarat is thus another leitmotif of
the book. The nature of Sindhi stereotypes is unremitting, uncompensated by any
positive feedback from any quarter. For Gujaratis, Sindhis are “dirty” and
even educated Sindhis themselves internalisee this stigmatising perception. In
the process of her research Kothari encounters Sindhis of different generations,
social class and professions but, almost without fail, their all share a sense
of identity discomfort, although they may deal with it in their own different
ways. Kothari unveils the process of shedding not only language but also sense
of identity and shows that every generation of Hindu Sindhis in Gujarat
contributed to the dilution of the identity that she is in search of.
The
book tells a story of three generations encompassing those who fled Partition
and their descendents in today’s Gujarat. According to Kothari, the first
generation, the so-called midnight’s children, was too busy piecing their
lives together in a new place and thus adopted a very pragmatic approach to
survival in the new setting. The second generation lived in a “cultural
vacuum” thriving for acceptance and integration into the mainstream Gujarati
community. Kothari’s own students in Ahmedabad provide a sample of younger
generation and she shows that once educated they are no longer in prison of
negative perceptions. However, others have opted for complete circle of
integration shedding the language and assuming the new Gujarati Hindu identity.
Yet others have gone further in this search for acceptance and desire to become
mainstream Hindus – by supporting Hindu fundamentalist organisations and by
proxy forgetting that their exclusion came from Hindus and not Muslims.
Kothari
lets her subjects speak for themselves. The book is rich in first-person
accounts especially by members of the first generation migrants to India. The
author herself grew up in Gujarat in the 1970s and 1980s amid the social stigma
and marginalisation experienced by the local Sindhi Hindu community. In the
book, she revisits her childhood and adolescence while interviewing young Sindhi
Hindus living in Gujarat today. Some of the interviewees are Kothari’s
personal acquaintances, neighbours or even family members, others she randomly
encounters on her journey through the past and present. Kothari also interweaves
the account with her own stories of growing up as a Sindhi Hindu in Ahmedabad
thus creating “a version of the Sindhi story of migration, told through
memory”. Kothari collects and presents interviews – or, rather, disjointed
narratives by strong and often opinionated characters with which “neither an
interview nor a conversation was possible”; and rambling accounts of their
lives that do not necessarily answer the author’s questions but perhaps create
more questions in the process.
In
“The Burden of Refuge” Kothari seeks to construct a coherent sense of Sindhi
identity. She does it with a pinch of nostalgia, as a desire to stop the
linearity of time. Her personalised account brings to life and eases off the
burden of refuge as borne by one marginalised community in modern India. Kothari
strives for her ultimate goal of promoting self-critical attitude among the
Sindhis and creating a sense of self-awareness as a group at the cost of
emotional bias and nostalgic longing for the past.
Book Review
by
Binod
Mishra
(Fellow Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian
Studies)
Bob, Currie (2000) Politics of Hunger in
India, Chennai, Macmillan India Ltd,
The undivided districts; Kalahandi, Bolangir and Koraput of Orissa have
been identified as the poorest zone of the country. This region attracted the
attention of the nation and the world in 1985 with the media reporting the sale
of a girl child for mere 40 rupees by a tribal woman. Since then the region
popularly known as KBK has been used as a synonym for poverty in the country.
Twenty years have passed and numerous agencies, both government and
non-government, have been engaged in alleviating poverty. But the ground
realities present no happy prognosis. Recurrent droughts, starvation deaths, and
seasonal migration are conspicuous. The region as a whole being highly deficient
in irrigation facilities, agriculture is mostly rain fed. The region receives an
annual rainfall of between 1378 to 1522 mms which is higher than the state
average (1489mms) but the rainfall is erratically distributed and recurrent
droughts are a feature of this region. Starvation deaths are not uncommon in
these districts though most of them get covered up under various other names.
But the most conspicuous manifestation of poverty in the region is seasonal
migration. Every year there is an exodus at a particular time of the year and
the same population returns to their villages spending some time outside the
district or the state. Every year, nearly two million people migrate from these
districts to the nearby states of Andhra Pradesh, Chattisgarh and even to
farther places such as Maharastra and Gujurat. A visit to the districts between
November to April would reveal the intensity of migration. Deserted households
and even deserted villages is a common feature.
Seasonal
distress migration in these districts is neither voluntary and was not habitual.
The origin of migration is traced to the severe draught in 1965-66. The author
discovers in the local folksongs of this period, the farmers’ lament on the
draught condition and the shift in their occupation from agriculture to metal
crushers on the road. The folksong further points to the fact that taking
advantage of the desperate situation of the tribal farmers the contractors took
them away from their homes for employment elsewhere. Since then seasonal
migration in search of work has become an annual reality. This annual phenomenon
is explained in terms of limited employment opportunity in these districts.
Along with land alienation, and usurious credit practices, the author identifies
three more reasons for this forced migration. First the quality of the
landholding of the tribal is of poor quality that fails to produce surplus for
the farmers. Second, lack of irrigation and erratic nature of rain limits the
agricultural activities to 4-5 months throughout the year leaving agricultural
wage earners jobless for the rest of the year. Thirdly the two districts under
study fair miserably in terms of industrial development. To use the author’s
statistics, 14 per cent of Nawapada and 16 per cent of Kalahandi’s main
workers are engaged in non-agricultural activities and Kalahandi ranked 14 in
terms of capital investment in new industries in the study year whereas Nawapada
ranked 25 among 30 districts of the state. The popular destination of these
migrants workers used to be Raipur in Chattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh and the
popular profession for these migrants are rickshaw pulling in Raipur and working
in the construction industries in Andhra Pradesh. This situation brings to the
forefront the question of why a large section of the population of a particular
area migrates every year. Politics of Hunger is a book in search of the causes.
The
book Politics of Hunger in India has
been divided into two parts. The first part deals with the theoretical questions
related to security and welfare of the citizens of a political community. In
the second part of the book, the author tests the theoretical concepts in the
light of the empirical data collected from two districts of Orissa, i.e.
Kalahandi and Nawapara. Delving
into the economic history of this region, Bob Currie has identified a process
that began during the colonial period and is still continuing causing increased
indebtedness among the tribals. He reveals that the region was not economically
vulnerable traditionally but it was made so by the political process both during
the colonial period as well as the post-colonial period. He discusses at length
how the rulers of this region, in order to extract more revenue, invited
outsiders to the area giving in their hands the control of land as well as
administration. The author argues that the exposure of the tribals to the
money-based economy made them victims of market fluctuations leading to their
increased indebtedness. He further reveals that recurrent drought caused food
shortage in the region. The author argues that the reason for the pauperisation
of the tribals of the region, despite it being the rice surplus region of the
state, is polarisation of productive resources. Alienation of land and other
productive assets from the tribals through unscrupulous means of credit,
mortgage, and encroachment resulted in irreversible impoverishment of the
tribals making them vulnerable to bonded labour and distress migration.
The
author concludes the study with some pertinent observations which advocate
greater political participation for development. He argues that greater
political participation does not guarantee poverty reduction or development and
to achieve these objectives, the form of political participation is important
and the author opens this as a further area of policy research on poverty and
hunger alleviation. The author favours that a political culture in which the
political authorities take upon themselves the responsibility to reduce hunger
and wherein exist political associates who bear antecedent responsibility of
assisting those in difficulty through direct means of political obligation and
indirectly by supporting the relief and welfare measures of the civil
authorities which unfortunately does not exist in western Orissa. He concludes
that the constitutional freedom and equality is ineffective unless the citizens
are equipped with necessary resources such as food, shelter, clothing, access to
information and physical security to make effective use of the constitutional
freedom and equality.
Being
based on the author’s primary research in two most underprivileged districts
of the country, the book presents firsthand information and explanation about
the causes of poverty, starvation and migration and explains their persistence
in a democratic country for fifty years after independence.