Blunkett, asylum and scapegoats

By Darren Guy

There is an old lefty argument, that goes something like this – when a country is in economic crisis, or when a government or ruling body wants to divert attention away from their failures or policies, they create scapegoats.

It is a fact that there is a refugee problem – in the world, not just the UK. There are people fleeing across borders in all the poorest continents of the world. According to Human Rights Watch, Asia takes most of the refugees (45%), Africa next (30%) then Europe (19%) and North America (5%) not to forget the millions displaced in Latin America, due to civil wars brought on by dictators largely funded by the USA. But on the whole the vast majority of people fleeing for their life take refuge in countries nearest to them. With only a small percentage making their way to Europe and an even tinier proportion into the UK – this is a fact.

Many charities working in this field suggest that the refugee crisis is the consequence of global economic and political policies which are causing poverty, hunger, starvation, human rights abuses, and war – and in turn creating refugees. And the main instigators and beneficiaries of these global polices are huge US or European owned multi-national corporations whose policies are supported by our very own Western governments. If this argument is accepted then why are our governments and the global corporations not accepting responsibility? Furthermore, why are the majority of the corporate controlled newspapers promoting hostility, myths and lies about refugees? Maybe their educated journalists and editors just don’t know, or maybe they are deliberately scapegoating refugees to take attention off not only global but local policies. While at the same time pushing their own political agenda. According to Alan Travis in the Guardian these corporate owned newspapers are also paramount in influencing the political agenda on refugees.

One of the most recent pieces of propaganda promoted by the mass media and believed by many people was the one about asylum seekers chasing across borders to reach this country, to claim the ‘lucrative’ benefit payment of £36.50 a week. The Sangatte refugee centre in France, it was claimed, was a haven for such people. But the only serious research that came out of Sangatte revealed that out of the hundreds of mainly Kurdish/Iraq and Afghan migrants interviewed over a six month period only a tiny minority were actually planning to come to the UK when they left their home country and an even smaller minority actually knew Sangatte existed before they reached Western Europe. Some had travelled for up to seventeen months before they arrived at Sangatte. The small number who wanted to come to the UK, did so because they had family and friends here. There are five times as many Afghans and eight times as many Iraqis who chose Germany instead of Britain. The vast majority of the skilled and educated young men thought only of the safety of Europe when they left their own country. The corporate owned newspapers did not report this. The Red Cross Sangatte centre was recently closed down.

The most recent report which the anti-refugee bandwagon attempted to manipulate, was released on February 28th. This report revealed that there were 110,000 applications for asylum last year – 20% up from the previous year. Yet when we look at the nationalities of the people who added to this increase, Zimbabweans (+264%), Iraqis (+123%), Congolese (+66%) and Chinese (+56%), we see they are all from countries that have been experiencing a sustained or massive increase in human rights violations. The Congo in particular, which has received the least publicity, has been experiencing a three-year civil war that has claimed the lives of some two million people. The countries where there has been a sharp decrease are Sri Lanka (-42%) Turkey (-22%) Iran (-21%) and Afghanistan (-18%). Another revelation was that the UK when analysed per 1000 of population, was 8th in the number of applicants, with Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Austria ahead of them. Can we presume that educated professional journalists know nothing of these facts? The same newspapers also forgot to mention that the UK took less than 2% of the world refugees, not 23% as the majority of people believed in a recent survey. In fact on a world scale the UK ranks 32nd in its intake of refugees. But it doesn’t end here.

According to a home office study, refugees contributed £2.5 billion towards taxes in the year ending 2000. Furthermore, nine out of ten UK businesses admitted they have a severe skill shortage, which was hindering their development. Austria, who are top of asylum intake could not afford to pay the pensions of its elderly if it were not for the taxes of refugees. Though one fact the anti-refugee press, the Telegraph, the Sun, and David Blunket was forced to concede on was the UK’s need for migrant labour to cover the skills shortage, and all evidence points to the fact that a large percentage of asylum seekers are arriving with skills, wanting to work, but are unable to due to asylum restrictions.
There were also outrageous claims by the right wing press that 90% of asylum claims are bogus. The Feb 28th report revealed that despite extremely stringent measures 40% of Asylum claims were proven. It is difficult to not presume when ripping to shreds myths with facts that the corporate media really are trying to make asylum seekers and refugees scapegoats. But despite these facts, the UK government are still bending under pressure and appeasing, not only the corporate media but the far right anti-refugee lobby. Not only are they attempting to withdraw from article three of the 1951 European convention of human rights (established after the Nuremberg Trials) which is supposed to offer everybody ‘Freedom from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment’, but they have introduced the biggest anti-refuge legislation since the end of the 2nd World War, Section 55.

On January 8th the Labour government under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 removed all support and benefits from new Asylum Seekers, unless they made a claim at their port of entry. The direct decision to withdraw this support (aside from the Home secretary) was taken by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) who made judgements solely on answers given on a form. The officials making the decision would not even see the claimant, and the asylum seeker has no right of appeal against the decision. They could not even talk face to face to explain their case. This meant when they were refused they could receive no assistance, no food, no housing and even the local authorities were banned from assisting them. Within a short period, refugee organisations estimated that hundreds of asylum seekers were left destitute, many after travelling for days or weeks in the back of trucks, with no food, confused, many arriving here after suffering traumas, such as torture and rape. Vulnerable in this country not only to the winter weather but to racist attacks.
There were only two places asylum seekers could apply for support, one was Croydon in East London the other was Reliance House in Liverpool. In reality that meant that asylum seekers finding themselves in the North of England, Scotland and Wales, were being sent to Liverpool, and after being refused assistance were walking out on the street, with nowhere to go – they were destitute. Local charities were reporting seeing many asylum seekers sleeping rough in train stations, tunnels and even phone boxes.

The case of one woman on Merseyside from Burundi in Africa was brought to media attention. Having fled after the murder of her husband, she found herself destitute on the streets of Liverpool. She spent three days without food, sleeping in phone boxes, until someone told her about Refugee Action. Even then she had to return to Reliance House and ask for directions.

On the 19th February a refugee Legal team managed to overturn section 55 in the high court, using article three of the European Convention on Human Rights. They were representing six Asylum Seekers fleeing regimes around the world including Iraq, Angola, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Iran. Mr Justice Collins was convinced by the arguments put forward by QC Keir Stammer, that this new legislation was forcing hundreds of refugees ‘to sleep rough on the streets’ and that they, ‘were so "cold, hungry, scared and sick" that in some cases they were mentally distressed. Justice Collins agreed that the government ruling had clashed with the Human Rights act and that "It is inhumane to subject someone to that sort of destitution’.

According to Home Secretary David Blunket this is not the end of the matter, the government are determined to force this legislation through, they are challenging it in the courts, if they fail the first time, they will try again.
If they succeed it sets precedence and releases them from any responsibility towards thousands of asylum seekers. Coupled with that they are determined to withdraw from article three, which means there will be no legal method available to challenge section 55. This seems like an horrendous scenario, and fits neatly into the far right and corporate agenda – that agenda, many argue, is to scour every corner of the earth, in search of profit, to do as they please, and take no responsibility for the consequences. Part of that consequence is the world refugee crisis. To escape from the consequences of their actions it suits them fine to shift blame onto the victim – and to create the scapegoat.

Get the facts:
www.ncadc.org.uk
www.hrw.org
www.refugees.org
www.unhcr.ch
www.refugeesinternational.org