Inclusion of the Excluded

According to the 1951 Refugee Convention and other regional instruments a refugee is someone fleeing persecution or violence and is therefore entitled to protection in another country. Others fleeing for reasons not specified within the 1951 Convention, such as widespread conflict may be eligible for other forms of humanitarian or temporary protection. Threatened identity is not the greatest worry of the modern states, political refugees are in the first place a financial burden to the state, and consequently, to the taxpayers. Northern countries have developed extensive social security systems, under which many persons are eligible for benefits. The large majority of refugees do make use of these entitlements. Regardless of the actual cost of facilitation, this situation creates an enormous psychological impact. Immigrants are as contenders for state funds. Although, nominally, refugees do not normally represent a major strain on the state budget, they do receive much higher transfers than other groups of society on a per capita basis.

After September 11, however, refugees and immigrants are considered as a threat to the nation’s physical security. There is a widespread opinion that potential terrorists stem from the developing countries, and thus immigrants from these countries pose a danger to the recipient states. It is claimed that a permanent solution to the problem of high migration levels is only possible through eliminating their causes. No doubt, unless energetic measures are taken to stop armed conflicts, tyrannical governance, religious radicalism and lessen the damages from natural disasters on the one hand, and to ensure equitable economic growth, which translates into better living standards for all social groups, including the poorest ones, on the other, the influx of political and economic refugees will not diminish. According to UNHCR the numbers of refugees in the world rose from 2.4 million in 1975 to a peak of 18.2 million at the end of the cold war in 1993. By 2000, the numbers had declined to 12.1 million. Political rhetoric also suggests that there is a significant year on year rise in the number of asylum applications made in Europe.

Developed countries have undertaken further action in the field by promoting human rights and democracy, as well as stabilization and regional security, using financial incentives. In order to further the aims mentioned above, a number of projects have been initiated, such as the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), the MEDA Democracy Programme (implemented in the framework of EIDHR) for 12 countries in North Africa and the Middle East, or the Cotonou Agreement, pertaining to the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and the South Pacific. Separate programmes have been put into operation targeting the Balkans (CARDS Assistance Program to the Western Balkans, involving Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia & Montenegro and Macedonia) and the former Soviet republics (TACIS). Of special importance for Europe, for security reasons, is the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (in view of the large number of Muslim states in geographic proximity to Europe).

The harmonization of the immigration and asylum policies in the European
Union should be seen as an element of ever-deepening integration. Even though
the entry into force, as of May 1, 2004, of the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty might seem to bring this task to successful completion – at least with respect to determining the scope of competence and responsibilities – the unification process will go on. The Council of Europe was the only major organization on the continent to have addressed the problem of migration in the 1960s. The first document recommending the harmonization of immigration policies was issued in 1976, and a second one, entitled The Harmonization of National Procedure Related to Asylum, in 1981 (Joly 1996: 47).

In the mid-1980s, the European Economic Community decided to take then first short-term measures towards harmonizing the immigration policies of the member states. These were dictated by the following circumstances. First, as the integration of the EEC countries progressed, it was necessary to introduce common policies in various sectors and legal norms applying to the entire territory of the EEC, which inevitably entailed the transfer of diverse prerogatives of the national governments to the European institutions in Brussels. Given the trans-national and trans-territorial character of migrations, the EEC countries decided to begin harmonizing their immigration policies. An additional stimulus was provided by the prospect of internal borders being abolished, which would entail the freedom of movement within the entire territory of the Community. The abolition of borders was provided for by the Single European Act (1986). The first steps in this direction were taken by France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg, which signed the Schengen Agreement (1985). Second, the 1980s saw a reorientation of the immigration policy of Western European countries. As economic growth slowed down, the demand for additional labour shrank. The labour market had become saturated and unemployment was on the increase. Moreover, as a result of changes in communist countries, a significant ideological factor, which guaranteed nearly automatically a refugee status to defectors from the East, began to lose importance. At the same time the globalisation of migration processes boosted the numbers of asylum seekers. The harmonization of immigration policies thus became necessary in order to control and regulate the influx of migrants.

Subsequently, a Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum
(CIREA) was formed, along with a Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Frontiers and Immigration (CIREFI). Other structures were created as well, whose terms of reference included some aspects of immigration, including: a joint assistance group and a coordinator group for the freedom of movement of persons.

The most important decisions aiming to give momentum to the harmonization
and unification process were taken in 1990–93, as a result of the Maastricht Agreement (Treaty on European Union). Many suggestions were elaborated by the Ad-Hoc Group on Immigration. Before signing the Maastricht document, a number of declarations and conventions were prepared. In June 1990, the Dublin Convention was signed, which was intended to regulate the matters of responsibility for examining applications for refugee status. By precise designation of the country responsible for this procedure, this instrument was meant to eliminate the phenomenon of ‘refugees in orbit’, transferred from country to country without consideration being given to their application for asylum. Although the Convention did introduce some institutional order, it failed to solve the problem through the lack of specific executory provisions. Likewise drafted were the Convention on Crossing of External Borders and the Schengen Convention on the abolition of internal borders (1990).

Between 1990 and 1997, several resolutions, motions and joint declarations were adopted which called for the harmonization of immigration policies and formulated common guidelines for the member states of the Community on various policy aspects.

In London (1992), the definition was adopted of a ‘manifestly unfounded claim’ and a ‘third host country’, and the concept of a ‘safe country’ was worked out. A resolution on the harmonization of policies on the reunion of families was also passed (June 1993). Besides, a recommendation was formulated on policies towards countries substantially free from persecution and on matters of expulsion (December 1992), as well as one on illegal employment (June 1993). In 1994 and 1995, a procedural framework was created for the expulsion of candidates whose applications had been rejected. In 1993–6, solidarity principles in the event of a large influx of refugees were worked out. In June 1995, the Council of Ministers responsible for immigration adopted a resolution setting out the rights and responsibilities related to asylum procedures, and in March 1996, a common definition of refugees for procedural purposes was agreed upon.

The most important supranational document to govern the unification of immigration policies (including the policies on refugees) seems to be the Amsterdam Treaty. Signed on October 2, 1997, it entered into force on May 1, 1999. Its provisions on migration and asylum has become European law in May 2004.

Currently, matters of immigration policy, including asylum policy, are mainly
handled by the European Commission, whose proposals are consulted with the
Economic and Social Committee. In accordance with the Committee’s recommendations for the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, the common immigration policy will have to take into account the conclusions of the European summit at Tampere (1999), where it was decided that the common immigration policy should be based on the norms of the Geneva Convention and the principle of non-refoulement. (Besides, The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, adopted in December 2000, refers to matters of asylum in two articles: Art. 18 guarantees that the provisions of the Geneva Convention and the Additional Protocol will be respected; Art. 19 offers protection against arbitrary removal, expulsion or extradition.)

The stress is on the assurance of an equitable asylum procedure, based on common standards. Migration policy needs to be joined up with asylum, development, humanitarian, trade and foreign policies in order both to effectively address the root causes of migration, safeguard the legal obligations towards forced migrants and ensure the best and most equitable migration outcome for the individual, host and sending countries. There is a clear link between violent conflict and the flight of people to seek refuge in other countries. Recent research has shown that conflict and/or repression or discrimination of minorities is a common feature in the top ten countries of origin of asylum seekers to EU countries. It is widely assumed that poverty and underdevelopment somehow precipitate conflict and that aid can prevent conflict. Research by Oxfam International and Amnesty International into the global arms trade has drawn the vicious circle between poverty and conflict. As per capita income halves, the risk of civil war roughly doubles and a typical civil war leaves a country 15% poorer, with around 30% more people living in absolute poverty.

Oxfam’s analysis of the funding for the UN Consolidated Appeals for humanitarian emergencies in July 2003, highlighted a clear skewing of aid towards emergences in the political spotlight. Approximately $17 per capita of people in need was committed for DRC, in Chechnya $11 and in Indonesia $7, where as in Iraq it was $74. From 2002 to 2004, the EU has agreed to spend £49 million in Albania on border management, policing and judicial reform, but just £29 million on economic and social development in Albania. This disparity in aid does little to help Albanians make a decent living from their land. Many choose instead to migrate to other countries.

According to Oxfam: policies on development cooperation and humanitarian relief markedly at odds with other areas of policy that influence root causes of economic and forced migration – i.e. trade policy and arms policy respectively. In a linking of the two issues, a recent agreement between Italy and Libya on combating irregular migrants stipulates that Italy provide financial support to assist Libya in combating illegal migration. It has been reported that Italy is also urging EU partners to ease the restriction on the sale of military equipment to Libya so as to provide this country with more sophisticated materials to combat illegal immigration. Since the early 1990’s there have been calls at the EU level for coordinated policies in order to address the causes of forced migration. The cross-pillar High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration was an initial move towards this, but its ‘action plans’ have been widely criticised for their focus on migration control rather than human rights or refugee protection, a lack of consultation with countries concerned, and a failure to generate follow-up actions.

By Nasrin Azadeh, 14 August 2005


References:

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE INQUIRY ON MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT,
Oxfam Written Submission, Nov 2003
HAILBRONNER, K. (1993) ‘The Concept of ‘Safe Country’ and Expeditious Asylum Procedures: A Western European Perspective’, International Journal of Refugee Law
JOLY, D. (1996) Haven or Hell? Asylum Policies and Refugees in Europe, Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations, University of Warwick.
JOPPKE, Ch. (1998) ‘Asylum and State Sovereignty: A Comparison of the US, Germany and Britain, in Joppke, Ch. (ed.) Challenge to the Nation-State: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States, Oxford University Press.
LAMBERT, H. (1995) ‘Asylum-seekers, refugees and the European Union: case studies of France and the UK’ in Miles, R. et al. Migration and European Integration: The Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion, Pinter Publishers Ltd, London.
LANDGREN, K. (1995) ‘Safety Zones and International Protection’ A Dark Grey Area’, International Journal of Refugee Law
LAYTON-HENRY, Z. (1994) ‘Britain: The Would-be Zero-Immigration Country’ in Cornelius, W. et al. Controlling Immigration A Global Perspective, Stanford University Press.
MARTIN, P.L. (1994) ‘Germany: Reluctant Land of Immigration’ in Cornelius, W. et al. Controlling Immigration A Global Perspective, Stanford University Press.
NIESSEN, J. (1996) The Developing Immigration and Asylum Policies of the European Union: Adopted Conventions, Resolutions, Recommendations, Decisions and Conclusions. Kluwer Law International.
SHACKNOVE, A. (1993) ‘From Asylum to Containment’, International Journal of Refugee Law
SUHRKE, A. (1998a) ‘Burden-sharing during Refugee Emergencies: The Logic of Collective versus National Action’ Journal of Refugee Studies
Cards Assistance Programme to the Western Balkans: Regional Strategy Paper 2002 – 2006

Euro-Med Partnership – Regional Strategy Paper

European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights programming Documents 2002 – 2004
Final Report: Evaluation of the MEDA Democracy Programme 1996-1998

Guide to TACIS small project programmes and other support structures 2000

IND (2003) ‘Asylum Statistics, United Kingdom 2002’, United Kingdom’s Immigration and Nationality Directorate,
Treaty of Amsterdam
Treaty on European Union
UNHCR (1998) Refugees and Others of Concern to UNHCR – 1998 Statistical Overview,