BY SARAH PEART
& MATT PRESTON
GLASGOW — Joining Kylie Minogue and XXXX beer in the list of embarrassing
Australian exports to Britain is Canberra's racist policies towards asylum
seekers. Judging by the British Labour government's white paper on asylum,
migration and citizenship, Prime Minister Tony Blair's attempt to “take
personal control” of refugee policy will involve adopting the Australian
government's strategy of deterrence and detention.
The white paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, is the fourth attempt
in less than 10 years to “reform” the asylum seeker system in Britain.
In October, Home Secretary David Blunkett announced to the House of Commons
that government policy on asylum seekers and immigration would be overhauled.
The white paper was introduced on February 7, followed by the Nationality,
Immigration and Asylum Bill which was published on April 12. It is presently
being debated in the Commons.
The proposals pay lip service to the government's commitment to give
asylum to people fleeing persecution. Their real purpose is to reduce Britain's
“pull factor” and to speed the removal rate of asylum seekers who fail
to be granted refugee status. Labour's cynical attitude was summed up by
immigration minister Lord Rooker, who stated that “most asylum seekers
are single men who have deserted their families for economic gain”.
Labour's U-turn
During the 1997 election campaign, Labour opposed the 1996 Asylum and Immigration
Act introduced by the Conservative Party government. The 1996 act reduced
asylum seekers' right to appeal and introduced a “white list” of countries
from which asylum seekers' application for refugee status would be presumed
to be “clearly unfounded”.
The act was repealed within two years of Labour's 1997 election win.
In an all too familiar fashion, Labour is preparing to reintroduce these
same policies.
Most controversial is the proposal to reintroduce a policy similar to
the “white list” system. Asylum seekers whose claims are “clearly unfounded”
and who come from a list of countries judged to be “safe” will be sent
back. They can then lodge an appeal from there. If that is considered too
dangerous, the asylum seeker can be sent to a third country while the appeal
is being processed.
Blunkett has suggested that Afghanistan, a country still deeply unstable
and ruled by violent warlords, would be considered a “safe” country.
The proposal has been condemned by the Refugee Council, the Immigration
Advisory Service and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
The bill also includes plans to widen powers to interview unaccompanied
children seeking asylum, increase detention capacity and increase the use
of detention for families, build new accommodation centres and strengthen
border controls. An immigration hotline which members of the public can
phone to report suspected immigration offences may also be established.
Home Office memos leaked to the British Guardian in late May
show the extreme nature of the measures being considered. They include
deploying Royal Navy warships to intercept asylum seekers, using RAF transport
planes for bulk deportations, tying British overseas aid to the willingness
of governments to take back asylum seekers and adopting the Australian
government's initiative of offering refugees “return grants”.
Blair's tough line
As “illegal” immigration and refugee flows rise to the top of the European
political agenda, Blair is resolute on pushing a tough line. After meeting
Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in May, Blair stated that the European
Union should use “all the tools at its disposal”, including economic incentives
and penalties, to ensure that governments accept deportees.
Blair's tough talk on combating “illegal immigration” has been rejected
by the European Commission. On June 5, the development commissioner Poul
Neilson slammed Blair's proposal that the EU should make aid to developing
countries conditional on agreement to take back illegal migrants. Brussels
also expressed concern that governments are overreacting and neglecting
their duties to refugees under UN conventions.
Blair's attempt to force a deal with the French government to close
the controversial Sangrette Red Cross camp has also been criticised by
the UN High Commission for Refugees.
Situated near the entrance to the channel tunnel, the camp is used by
thousands of asylum seekers preparing to travel to Britain. It opened in
1999 as a response to the growing numbers of refugees sleeping rough on
the streets of nearby Calais. Closure of the camp will force extra hardship
on those whose lives are already in turmoil.
The immigration issue will come to a head at the June 21-22 EU summit
in Seville, where a common EU asylum and immigration policy will be debated.
The intention is to create a “fortress Europe” which denies access to the
world's poorest people.
Real picture
Politicians and the tabloid press have united to paint a grossly exaggerated
picture of a crisis. “Pseudo asylum seekers" are “swamping” Britain, they
declare.
The Guardian weekend magazine on June 8 reported that a Mori
survey on public attitudes towards refugees, carried out in November 2000,
found that after a year in which the tabloid Daily Mail had run
more than 200 stories about asylum seekers and refugees, 80% of adults
believed that refugees come to Britain because they regard it as a “soft
touch”, 66% thought they were too many immigrants in Britain and 63% felt
that “too much” is being done to help immigrants.
Respondents also believed that 20% of the population were refugees as
opposed to the actual figure of 4%. While asylum seekers receive £36.54
per week in benefits, respondents believed they received £113 per
week.
Contrary to Blunkett's claim that refugees are “swamping our schools”,
only a tiny percentage of the world's refugees make it to the richer countries:
5% to Europe and less than 1% to Britain. Of the 15 EU countries, Britain
ranks 10th in the proportion of asylum seekers in the population. Blunkett's
“pseudo asylum seekers” are people who are fleeing violence, torture, war,
environmental degradation or other forms of persecution.
Governments across Europe want to give the issues of immigration and
asylum a high priority because of mounting concern that the issue is being
exploited by right-wing and populist parties, as shown by the far right's
recent electoral successes in France and the Netherlands.
Contrary to British Labour's claims that a “tough stand” on “illegal”
immigration is essential to “tackle the growth of the far right”, it has
been the failure of the Labour government to depart from implementing racist
policies and seriously combat racism that has paved the way for the far
right to emerge. It has been left to parties and organisations, such as
the Scottish Socialist Party and the Socialist Alliance in England and
Wales, to provide the anti-racist alternative.
However, even as the Australian government's racist refugee policies
are being lapped up by the British Labour government, the spirit of anti-racist
resistance and solidarity that has emerged in Australia is also being emulated
by activists here.
As part of the National Refugee Week, anti-racist activists will converge
in London on June 22 to protest British Labour's anti-refugee proposals.
Activists will also be travelling to Seville to protest at the EU summit
to oppose a fortress Europe.
From Green Left Weekly, June 19, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.