UN condemns British policy on deportees
Jamie Doward:
Britain's policy of forcing failed asylum seekers to return to war-torn countries has drawn an unprecedented public attack from the United Nations.
Christian Mahr, the deputy representative in the Office of the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), told The Observer that sending people back to dangerous countries such as Somalia was a recipe for 'chaos' that would make problems worse.
Mahr said the UN had sought talks with the UK government in the hope of persuading it to overturn its hardline policy.
'We've brought this matter up at the highest levels,' he said. 'There have been many instances where people have been returned, despite the Foreign Office's own website indicating it is unsafe for someone to travel there.
'People sent back [to conflict areas] are vulnerable. They may be seen as ripe for kidnapping,' Mahr added.
'Our primary concern is to ask: on what basis are you going against UNHCR advice? Why is it safe to return these individuals? It's a question we find puzzling.' .
The UNHCR has published advisory notices raising concerns about a number of trouble spots including Burundi, Somalia, Ivory Coast and parts of Angola. Earlier this year it urged governments to suspend for three months the deportation of failed asylum seekers to areas affected by the tsunami.
A spokesman for the Home Office said removal was considered on a 'case by case' basis. 'We will only enforce the return of those we are satisfied are not in need of protection. We are committed to the protection of genuine refugees who seek asylum in the UK,' the spokesman said.
But Mahr said too many people were still being sent back to danger zones. 'Does it really make sense to send someone to a situation where they are going to have a difficult time settling down, something that will force them to leave the country again? This just creates a vicious cycle of movement which, in our view, is not good for anyone involved.'
Apparently, the UN would like to see Britain become a dumping ground for the "asylum seekers" of the world.
posted by Adam Lawson @ 2:47 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
"It's a question we find puzzling."
One can see the human side of this issue and concede that it is not right to return people to places where their safety is inordinately at risk, or the difficulty in providing essentials like food and housing and a semblance of order too great. Of course the problem is how you define and apply all of that. Hardened attitudes about this have their roots in what has become the massive abuse of asylum and refugee conventions by 'economic migrants', for which the receiving nations themselves are partly responsible.
You could also say the UN is nominally responsible for trying to restore enough order to enable refugees to return, but it actually has no power and resources apart from its member nations, and this task has proven too much for it, even in places where it would seem doable, e.g. Darfur.
So overall granting of asylum and refugee status has become, in the minds of most, equivalent to immigration. Certainly the support and assistance given to the migrants, as well as the usually better economic opportunities in the host nation, leads many of them to decide they don't want to go back, and forced repatriation is not a nice thing, whatever the circumstances.
What a mess.
The only real long-term solution is for the UN the resources it needs to setup safe and secure camps as near to the crisis area as possible, in order to greatly reduce the number of refugees seeking and reaching western nations. For example, some Europeans recently proposed setting up 'processing centers' in north Africa, wanting to short circuit the boat trips many now use to reach Europe. This will make it clear the intent is to provide temporary sanctuary until the situation at home improves.
The only "solution" is this:
The White nations of the world must grow up and realise that they have ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER, whether "moral", legal or actual to preserve the lives of non-Whites.
To the extent that people and nations try to help on their own when it appears help is needed, your comment is not all that sensible.
Most nations are signatories of international treaties that legally require them to consider applications from refugees and asylum seekers, including appeals. So once they reach a country, there is most definitely a legal obligation.
Sorry, I may be a bit behind the times, but happen to hold the quaint belief that in the final analysis, the only obligation a sovereign nation has is to itself.
Post a Comment
<< Home