ASYLUM AND MIGRATION: 'HIGH LEVEL' GROUP COUNTRY REPORTS
DRAFT ACTION PLAN ON IRAQ
The report is unequivocal in its description of the political and human rights situation in Iraq. "Iraq is a dictatorship with no separation of powers.... Principals of the rule of law and fundamental rights are not observed". Saddam Hussein relies on "an omnipresent security regime". Security forces proceed "arbitrarily and brutally". By way of example the report mentions the 2,500 "summary, arbitrary, extra-judicial" executions carried out in 1997 alone.
As to the country's economy, the GDP "has shrunk to the level of the 1940s" since the UN Security Council imposed its sanctions in 1990. Due to its foreign debt, reparation demands and reconstruction needs resulting from the Gulf War, Iraq "will remain a developing country for a long time even if it were able to get rid of the sanctions". With respect to the supply situation of the population, "conditions continue to be depressing". The report notes that UN sanctions have affected schools and universities, and that a brain drain, mainly to Jordan and other Arab countries, serves to worsen an already disastrous situation. No wonder than that the report sees "the alarming human rights situation, the catastrophic humanitarian situation, lack of prospect of political change, isolation from the outside world, uncertainty as to when the [UN Security Council] sanctions regime will be eased or lifted and dismal economic prospects" as the root causes of migration and flight.
Polite reserve on political situation in Kurdish controlled areas
The report is somewhat less outspoken in its description of the situation in the Kurdish controlled area of Northern Iraq, established after the Gulf War by a UN Security Council Resolution. It carefully avoids an assessment of the character of the government of the two Kurdish factions which control the area, the Barzani clan's KDP and the Thalabani clan's PUK, neither of which are actually known for their particular attachment to democratic rule and human rights. This polite reserve is probably due to the fact that some EU countries (in particular Germany) are seeking an arrangement with the KDP and PUK leaderships with a view to enabling the repatriation of Iraqi Kurds to Northern Iraq.
The fact that 60-80 percent of Iraqis migrants and refugees to the EU are Kurds is explained by reference to the widespread uncertainty about the political future of the Kurdish area (autonomy from Iraq?) and doubts among the population about the success of the internal Kurdish reconciliation process. These doubts are not ungrounded, as a laconic remark in the report suggests: "Attempts by KDP and PUK to develop joint Kurdish administrative structures have failed so far".
No mention of the PKK
Mention is made of the "direct armed interventions of the Turkish army" in Northern Iraq (which have strongly contributed to the Kurdish mass-exodus) but the report somehow manages to avoid any reference to their impact on the civilian population. As for the Turkish-Kurdish PKK guerilla who are the reason for the Turkish army operations, they are not mentioned a single time in the whole report.
While the economic situation in the Kurdish controlled North is described as better than in the Baghdad controlled parts of Iraq, the report acknowledges that "large parts of the Kurdish population are living on subsistence economy, smuggling and food rations".
Northern Iraq an internal flight alternative?
The cautious and evasive assessment of the political and human rights situation in Northern Iraq reveals a strong concern of western target countries of Iraqi immigration to present the area as an "internal flight or relocation alternative" for Iraqi refugees. Consequently, referring to UNHCR statements, the report describes the area as an internal flight alternative for "those who fear persecution at the hands of the regime in Baghdad, except in the case of specified at-risk groups and after a case-by case assessment". This wording suggests that the area can be considered an internal flight alternative for most refugees, but that there are exceptions to this rule. However, what the UNHCR statement referred to in the report really says is that "UNHCR has recognised that there may be certain cases for which the possibility to remain in, or return to, northern Iraq cannot be ruled out" (our italics). This wording indicates that, in the view of the UNHCR, as a rule, northern Iraq can not be considered a safe area but that there may be exceptions to this rule. Among other points, the UNHCR notes that "[Kurdish?] factions or Iraqi Government agents operating in norther Iraq" pose a threat to refugees from central Iraq, that KDP supporters are not safe in PUK controlled areas (and vice versa), that Arab Iraqis are met with hostility by the Kurdish population, and that "the situation in northern Iraq continues to be volatile and may change at any time".
Leaving the country the only way out
Under the rubric "Assessment of State of Play" the report concludes that "a fundamental improvement in the situation of the Iraqi civilian population, including the Kurds, is not in sight. Under the prevailing conditions, leaving the country seems to many to be the only way out".
In preventing migration, Saddam Hussein seems to be the EU’s most faithful ally. Indeed, the report notes that the "regime tries to halt the exodus (....) by a range of restrictive measures (e.g. exit taxes, passport restrictions, prohibition to leave)".
The real target countries of Iraqi migration
It is evident from the report that the EU countries are by no means the most important target countries of Iraqi migrants and refugees. While there are some 45,000 Iraqis in Germany (the EU member state with the largest Iraqi community), there are an estimated half a million in Iran, and between 100,000 and 200,000 (most of them "illegal" immigrants) in little Jordan. Between 20,000 and 50,000 Iraqi refugees are known to live in Syria, but since there are no residence requirements for Iraqis in Syria, the report reckons their number is probably "considerably higher". The report notes that in Iran and the Middle Eastern Arab countries there is no effective protection for Iraqi refugees. They are, at best, tolerated and live under the constant threat of refoulement (forcible return to Iraq).
"Partnership" with Turkey
One could wonder why the HLWG was not tasked with drawing up a country report on Turkey, since Turkey is obviously a prime country both of origin and transit of refugees and migrants. And why is the report on "Iraq" - and not "Iraq and the neighbouring regions" - which would have matched the title of the EU Council's 1998 action plan against immigration from this area?
Quite obviously, not just the KDP and the PUK, but also the Turkish Government is being handled with kid-gloves because, Turkey, like the KDP and the PUK, is seen as a potential "partner" in preventing refugee and migrant flows to the EU.
The report, however, does note that "many" Iraqis use Turkey as a transit country on their way to Europe and it follows from the proposals made under the title "Action required by EC/EU" that Turkey is expected to play a lead role in preventing Iraqi migration to the EU. Thus, the report stresses the need to continue the dialogue with Turkey, in order to "give new impetus" to the implementation of six "action points" regarding immigration from Iraq and the neighbouring regions, set out by the K.4 Committee in March 1998:
- examine means of support to assist Turkey in the improvement of conditions for detaining illegal immigrants prior to removal;
- exchange of experience on removals to Bangladesh and Pakistan, consulting the International Organisation for Migration as appropriate;
- exchange of experience on formulation of laws on illegal immigration;
- examine scope for exchange of expertise on the detention of false documents, including possible technical assistance and Community funding;
- ensure feedback to Turkey on operational information involving illegal immigration, in particular where trafficking is involved;
- liaise with UNHCR in examining ways of ensuring the proper screening of asylum-seekers, and consider means of assistance for this purpose, in particular, by providing training to Turkish border police in the screening of asylum seekers.
In addition to this, proposals by the UNHCR to improve the reception of asylum seekers in "Turkey and the neighbouring countries" should be "adequately supported" by the EU.
All the above action aims to prevent entry onto EU territory of Iraqi refugees and migrants, mainly by exporting instruments of migration policing to Turkey and cooperating with the Turkish police which is notorious for its systematic violation of human rights.
Words, not action
While the report confirms generalised persecution in Iraq, nothing is proposed to facilitate the entry into the EU of people in genuine need of protection.
The report makes proposals for further "action" such as: "Continue to discuss the situation in Iraq and the possibility of EU initiatives" and "Encourage contacts with the Iraqi elites in the academic and cultural spheres..." The EC should continue its existing programmes of development and humanitarian assistance and Member States be invited to "look into further possibilities of providing humanitarian assistance". Further action on migration should aim to "update existing information on migratory movements from Iraq", and compile a report concerning the role of the neighbouring countries as transit countries for asylum seekers/migrants.
With respect to Kurdish controlled northern Iraq the report proposals include action such as:
- "Stimulation of democratic process" (Target date: "ongoing");
- "Encourage KDP/PUK to continue reconciliation and support for the implementation of UNSC [Security Council] Resolution 688" (Target date: "ongoing");
- "Negotiation of a transit agreement with Turkey which would allow EU Member States to reintroduce rejected Iraqi asylum seekers into Northern Iraq voluntarily as well as forcibly" (Target date: "ongoing", financial implications: "no").
INTERIM REPORT ON ALBANIA AND THE NEIGHBOURING REGIONS
This report could and should have dealt with the migrant and refugee problem in the entire former Yugoslavia. However, while parts of the report address the situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (including Kosovo) which is (and is likely to remain for a long time) an obvious country of origin of refugees and migrants, its accent is clearly on Albania which is widely considered a country of origin of migrants rather than of refugees in the meaning of the 1951 Refugee Convention. One could speculate that the report's particular interest in Albania is based on the assessment that this country, due to the current political context after the Kosovo war, is most likely to engage in "partnership" with the EU in preventing migrant and refugee flows to Western Europe.
The report is in two parts: one on Albania, and one on the FRY (including Kosovo).
Albania is described as the poorest country in Europe, with a third of its population living below the poverty line and 20 per cent unemployed. The country's economy relies heavily on remittances from Albanians abroad, which amount two 25 per cent of the country's GDP. In 1998 the total population was 3.3 million. Between 1990 and 1997 500,000 Albanians emigrated. Since 1997, the pace of emigration is at 5,000 people per month. The report notes that the policy of "containment" applied by the "international community" (i.e the "Multinational Protection Force", set up in 1997 under Italian leadership) contributed to a noticeable reduction of emigration.
The report names economic misery, continuing political instability and political strife as the main causes of emigration. "Albania remains marked by a lack of public order in large parts of the country and widespread crime and arms trafficking", it is noted. "The judiciary and the police operate generally under poor conditions. Against this background a right for seeking redress, a fair trial or protection against arbitrary arrest or detention, which legally exists, cannot apply in practice". Some areas "are controlled by armed gangs, as the Government has not been able to assure protection and the rule of law". Women are in particular need of protection as frequent victims of violence in this "traditional male-dominated society", where most abuses go unreported. Women and girls are regularly lured into prostitution rings, often in Western European countries and "rigid notions of family honour make it extremely difficult for such women and girls to return to their communities".
Albania is also a prime country of transit for migrants who try to reach Italy (mainly Kurds, Indians, Pakistani, Filipinos and Chinese). "The weakness of the Albanian Government, and its inability to assure acceptable security conditions, facilitate the flows" the report says. The port town of Vlore is regarded as the hub of migrant trafficking. Traffickers "have links with local authorities, and strong connections with Italian, Greek and Turkish rings".
Kosovo refugees in Albania
The report recalls that the influx of Kosovo-Albanians began in June 1998. By October of that year, the estimated number of Kosovars in Albania had reached 23,500. Their number rose suddenly and massively after the beginning of the NATO bombings. In spring 1999, the country hosted 450,000 Kosovars.
By mid-July, 400,000 Kosovars had returned to Kosovo under a repatriation plan drawn up by the Emergency Management Group (a coordinating body linking the Albanian government with the UNHCR, AFOR, OSCE etc) and the NGO community. By end of August, only 6,000 Kosovars were said to remain in Albania.
The report notes that during the Kosovo war, there was "no security for refugees" and that camp security, including the security risks related to the location of camps close to the border with the FRY, were a matter of "great concern" and led to calls jointly by UNHCR and the Albanian government for a swift relocation of the camps to the south.
EU political measures
The report lists ongoing EU activities pertaining to Albania, such as "promotion of stability", the re-establishment of "a viable police force", contribution to the collection and destruction of weapons, and the initiation of a new "stabilisation and association" process for south-eastern Europe, including Albania. More specifically the report points to the fact that the EU agreement on trade and commercial cooperation with Albania "does not contain a re-admission clause and no joint declaration on re-admission". However, Albania is on the EU list of countries whose nationals need a visa for entering EU territory.
"Action required by the EU"
Based on its analysis of the situation, the report concludes that immigration flows from and through Albania are likely to continued. The emphasis of the recommendations for action is clearly on policing. Among other things, the report stresses the need to re-establish a viable Albanian police in cooperation with the strengthened "police advisory mission" and the "Customs assistance mission" which, interestingly, have not been set up by the EU but within the framework of the Western European defence union, WEU. Moreover, the report recommends that the EU:
- "put pressure on the Albanian authorities to make every effort to prevent and combat the traffic in illegal immigration";
- "exercise pressure on the Albanian authorities to fully enforce existing readmission agreements", including clauses relating to the readmission of third-country nationals; and
- "conclude a general readmission agreement in the context of a future possible stabilisation and association agreement".
Furthermore, "Europol should increase its operational capacity to combat illegal trafficking in immigrants" (our italics) and "enhanced police cooperation" with Albania should be considered.
Under the telling heading "Containment measures" a July 7 draft report, says, among other things, that "to ease the difficulties which the Albanian authorities may be confronted to while caring for and supervising the journey home of third-country returnees", the EU could finance "transit camps" on Albanian territory where these people could be given temporary accommodation. The camps would "act as a deterrent for illegal immigrants seeking to cross into Europe". In the final version of the report, this last sentence and the term "transit camps" were removed, probably in an effort to appease human rights organisations. However, this changes in no way the fact that what the High Level Group is actually recommending is the setting up of EU-sponsored retention camps in countries of transit.
The situation in the FRY
The report notes that the GDP of the FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) has fallen to 1,000 EURO per capita per year and that industrial and infrastructural damage incurred through the NATO bombings is estimated at 18 billion EUROS.
The report also mentions, without further comment, that, as a consequence of the voluntary return of Kosovo-Albanians following the KFOR's entry in Kosovo, "Serbian and Roma civilians have fled in large numbers to Montenegro, Serbia and other countries. In the FRY there are already over half a million refugees from earlier wars". No mention is made of the fact that many boat-people attempting to cross the Otranto channel are Roma from the FRY.
As regards the continuing refugee crisis triggered by the Kosovo war, the report merely notes that the "crisis has had no adverse effect on the activity of human trafficking; on the contrary, the criminal organisations try to cash in on the situation".
Figures in the report are revealing as regards the effectiveness of Western European efforts to contain Kosovo refugees in their "region of origin". Thus, by the end of May 1999 (in the midst of the war), only 32,837 FRY refugees (mainly Kosovo-Albanians) applied for asylum in a EU Member State. An additional 53,000 Kosovars were evacuated from FYROM (Macedonia) and granted some form of temporary protection in a Member State within the framework of a programme coordinated by the UNHCR.
The report comments on EU refugee management during the Kosovo war. It refers to the "international consensus" that the Kosovo-Albanian refugees "should be received and cared for in the region".
As for JHA measures, the report deplores that bi-lateral readmission agreements are ineffective as long as the FRY accepts only the use of planes of its national carrier, JAT (under the sanctions regime JAT flights between Western Europe and the FRY are prohibited).
Push factors of emigration in the FRY
The report notes a growing willingness among Serbs, especially young and better trained people, to leave their country which seems to have no future.
Indeed there are reasons for concern about a possible mass exodus from Serbia. However, the report comes only with vague proposals for action. Among other suggestions, it says "ways should be urgently found to support the fulfilment of basic needs of the population and to activate the economy in the framework of the international sanctions regime ". The report does not indicate how these support activities could effectively be carried out, as long as the sanctions are maintained.
The report is more specific when it calls for the swift conclusion of transit agreements for FRY nationals with Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Albania. Such agreements would allow the forced repatriation of Serb and Roma FRY nationals by land. Further proposal include:
- exchange of information among the Member Sates on "methods to distinguish ethnic Albanians from Kosovo from Albanians from Albania";
- conclusion of a readmission agreement between the EU and the FRY, "as soon as conditions permit"; and,
- "putting pressure on the FRY authorities" (as soon as possible) to make every effort to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings.