Memorandum submitted by the Refugee Studies
Centre, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford
THE EU AND
ASYLUM: TOWARDS
STRATEGIES TO
REDUCE CONFLICT
AND HUMAN
RIGHTS ABUSES
IN COUNTRIES
OF ORIGIN
Addressing:
Issue 1—Development, Poverty reduction and
Migration,
Issue 5—Conflict, Refugees and Migration
and Issues
Issue 7—Development Coherence and Policy
on Migration.
A recent report produced by the Refugee Studies
Centre and the Institute for Public Policy Research suggests that
rather than strengthening the borders of "Fortress Europe"
governments would do better to address the root causes of forced
migration: underdevelopment, conflict and impoverishment in countries
of origin. It warns that those in need of protection will continue
to seek sanctuary in Europe as long as violence and human rights
violations go unchecked.
During the 1990s, the top ten countries of origin
of asylum seekers were former Yugoslavia, Romania, Turkey, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sri Lanka, Iran, Somalia and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The report identifies
common "push factors" in all these states: ethnic/religious
discrimination, human rights abuses, civil war and a large proportion
of internally displaced people relative to the total population.
Europe's fight against illegal migration, has
diverted attention from addressing its root causes. Changes in
procedures and criteria for asylum determination, such as the
introduction of temporary protection regimes (used to ensure those
fleeing the Balkan wars went home) and declaring Central European
states as "safe third countries" to which asylum seekers
can be returned, have made it more difficult for those genuinely
in need of protection to get asylum, while encouraging smugglers
and traffickers.
The authors stress that:
— Flows of forced migrants to Europe
are comparatively small when considered against global displacement
movements: countries such as Guinea, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan and
Tanzania have much greater refugee populations.
— There is evidence that underdevelopment
and impoverishment are not direct push factors for forced migration.
Rather they create the conditions for weak states, human rights
abuse and conflict, which force people to flee.
— Even when fleeing violence or persecution
and in need of protection, some asylum seekers have a degree of
control over where they go and how they travel.
— Policy makers may aspire to make
clear distinctions between economic and forced migrants but the
migration-asylum nexus defies simplistic judgement: many migrants
have multiple motivations for moving.
— Once a migratory flow is established
it may be driven by social networks and chain migration patterns
even where policies in relation to asylum seekers change.
— Discrimination against Kurds is a
key factor behind the large number of Iranian, Iraqi and Turkish
nationals seeking asylum.
The report shows that EU policy makers have
been aware of such issues since the early 1990s but have failed
to achieve concerted measures by the relevant Directorates-General
of the European Commission, and the ministries for justice and
home affairs, foreign affairs, trade and international cooperation
within each state. There is an urgent need for common policies
to address the root causes of forced migration. Sustainable reduction
of migration flows requires:
— long-term joined-up policies to address
issues of conflict prevention and development
— ending arms exports to regimes with
poor human rights records and those engaged in internal oppression
or violence against their neighbours
— concerted action against illicit
trading in diamonds, coltan, cobalt and other commodities which
fuel conflicts
— ensuring that the EU's High Level
Working Group on Asylum and Migration operates more transparently,
values expertise from all policy areas and develops measurable
policies and programmes.
This is a summary of States of Conflict: Causes
and Patterns of Forced Migration to the EU and Policy Responses
by Stephen Castles, Heaven Crawley and Sean Loughna. A copy of
which has been submitted to the International Development Committee
by the Institute for Public Policy Research[123]
November 2003
123 Not printed. Back
|
