"TEMPORARY PROTECTION": A SOLUTION TO THE REFUGEE PROBLEM?
In the context of the war in former Yugoslavia, a new instrument of refugee policies has for the first time been widely tested by western European states. It is the so-called concept of "temporary protection". While its introduction is being justified even by certain humanitarian organisations as a means of unbureaucratic and speedy reception of war refugees, it becomes ever more apparent that "temporary protection" is tantamount to permanent insecurity for the refugees concerned.
Confronted with the mass arrival of refugees from former Yugoslavia, most western European host states have resorted to the concept of "temporary protection". The legal grounds and procedures invoked have varied greatly from country to country, yet the essential feature of "temporary protection" is that for refugees who have been accepted under these conditions a fundamental element of the Geneva Convention is being denied, namely, the certainty of refuge for an unlimited time.
For the refugees concerned, "temporary protection" is tantamount to permanent insecurity.
To offer provisional toleration is to institutionalise insecurity by decree, without any rights for those affected. The granting of permission to remain in the receiving country is no longer the expression of a right to sanctuary, but an official act of grace that can be revoked at any time. Refugees who have been accepted under temporary protection are forced into an existence marked by permanent insecurity and the futility of planning for any future.
Official arguments in favour of temporary refuge
Officially the practice of temporary refuge is justified by the following arguments, among others:
- when there is a great mass of refugees, it relieves pressure on procedures and facilitates quick, unbureaucratic reception;
- as it is not aimed at integration, it provides better preconditions for the return of refugees to their countries of origin when the situation is calmer;
- it makes it possible to offer temporary protection to refugees even when restrictive practices of certain governments mean that the criteria for refugee status according to the Geneva Convention are not being fulfilled.
However, practice in the different European countries indicates that the motives for the rapid growth in the concept of "temporary protection" may be somewhat different. The EU aims to suppress, as far as possible, permanent immigration from third countries. In this context, refugee status as defined by the Geneva Convention is an obstacle. In reality, granting it should not - at least in theory - become subordinate to the priorities of the immigration policies of the recipient countries. For this reason the asylum procedure has become one of the last loopholes for legal immigration into "Fortress Europe". Once a refugee is granted asylum he/she enjoys to a great extent the same rights as the citizens of the recipient country.
Therefore if one replaces refugee status by various versions of "temporary protection", one prevents permanent immigration without the fear of being accused of inhumane or hostile attitudes towards refugees in need of protection.
At first glance, temporary admission might appear as a reasonable solution, even to many supporters of refugees: to be temporarily admitted is to be out of immediate danger. And in view of the mounting problems of integration within the various reception countries, which are marked by economic crisis and xenophobia, would not a return to the homeland, as soon as possible, be in the refugees' own interest?
To think like this is, of course, to forget certain basic points: the duration of any conflict that creates refugees is hardly predictable. For that reason, residence in conditions of "temporary protection" can easily last a long time: months and years, during which refugees can find themselves in limbo. This will not provide either the psychological or the material pre-conditions for refugees to prepare themselves for the future - whether in their home or their host country. Moreover, the artificial isolation of "temporary refugees" from the society which surrounds them (which is very consciously encouraged by the asylum authorities in certain countries) fosters a xenophobic atmosphere.
The decision as to whether the situation in a country of origin has calmed down enough for a return to be "acceptable" lies solely in the hands of the government of the host country, and cannot be influenced by any legal intervention by those affected.
Safe areas in unsafe countries?
In the last few years it has become customary for asylum authorities to produce maps of countries notorious for their records of persecution, on which are marked allegedly "safe" areas (right down to the level of small local administrations), to which return can be "recommended". This has brought about even greater insecurity.
The example of Yugoslavia makes this particularly plain. Conflict and persecution characterise almost the whole of the territory of former Yugoslavia, though the centres of conflict are frequently shifting, according to the fortunes of war. All the same, we are dealing with one and the same conflict, which emerged from the collapse of one country, Yugoslavia.
This does not prevent west European host countries from claiming, when discussing the Yugoslavian conflict, that it is really a large number of separate conflicts, limited to specific locations. Only in this way can one reach the absurd assertion that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) is no longer in a state of war, and can therefore be declared a "safe country", though this is in open contradiction to the UN sanctions against the FRY.
Since the theatre of war and the persecution associated with it are constantly shifting from area to area, what is talked about is no longer war in Yugoslavia, but "peace in Sarajevo".
Dividing the conflict into parcels in such a way helps to justify the speedy return of ex-Yugoslav refugees, who are in their turn divided up according to often dubious criteria of ethnicity and/or regional origin, into areas declared "safe" not by the people involved but by decision of West European governments.
Thus, western European policy towards refugees - not only from former Yugoslavia - has become totally incalculable and unpredictable.
Nicholas Busch