Only recently a boat capsized in the Mediterranean drowning fourteen hundred would-be asylum seekers on their way to Europe. The actual reasons of the incident were equivocal, but it was speculated that the passengers on board had shifted towards one side of the boat, upon the sightings of a Portuguese vessel (in fears of detention and deportation). In another instance this week, a few hundred men and women tried to enter through the Eurotunnel to enter Britain from France. In Calais, a few of them died while holding on to the fast moving train. Unfortunately, these incidents are not isolated incidents in the world today. Rohingya Muslims risking their lives to enter South East Asia, Syrians refugees fleeing the oppressive regime of ISIS, are common reoccurring news stories on international channels. There is a real refugee crisis in the world, and the crisis has been worsened by the reluctance from industrialized nations to grant asylum to incoming refugees. As signatories of 1951 Status of Refugees Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, western nations should comply with the requirements of these treaties. As forefront advocates of international human rights, first world nations have not lived up to their expectations.
1951 Status of Refugees Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees are international treaties that guarantee protection abroad, from prosecution in the home countries of refugees. Refugee Convention was initially designed to deal with the European crisis of post-World War II refugees. However, it was later introduced as a worldwide convention and signed by a vast majority of countries including industrialized nations. Unmistakably, there have been some identifiable limitations with the conventions. For example, refugees are not guaranteed assistance unless they reach a signatory state. More specifically, the convention does not impose obligations (from expelling) on signatory countries who receive asylum seekers. Neither does the convention mention any obligations on burden sharing of worldwide refugees amongst the signatory states. These flaws combined with the change in how refugees are perceived (in the first world) has created more complications for refugees today. In 2001, Australia introduced Pacific Solution where refugees were expelled to Papua New Guinea and Nauru. These refugees were already facing the oppressive government of Taliban in Afghanistan, and had spent days on the sea where they were left stranded on the mercy of the Australian government. In the wake of September 11th attacks, the decision by the Australian government was seen as a smart move by many other first world nations. With a recent surge in right wing politics in Europe and US, refugees are increasingly seen as security threats. Furthermore, the reluctance by the west to intake more refugees has also been reinforced by the process of globalization. The advent of the internet and the free flow of information has encouraged migrants to search for better lives in western nations. This has been labelled as the prime reason for refugees to leave their home nations in search for a better life in the west.
Western news stories covering refugee crisis such as the one in Calais, often refer to would-be-refugees as ‘migrants’ who are trying to enter Britain. This idea of ‘economic migrants’ is used as a reason for the decline of many refugee applications. The idea is further strengthened when those refugees try to enter wealthier nations who have already been granted the status of a refugee in a third country. This idea operates as a self-fulfilling prophecy for western nations who prefer to label refugees as ‘economic migrants’. Such a hypothesis completely ignores the substandard living situations of these refugees in countries such as Sierra Leone, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kenya; where most of the world refugee population lives. The condition of refugees in camps there do not meet the standards of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) such as living with dignity and access to health facilities and proper sanitation, let alone the requirements set by Refugee Convention. Moreover, Western nations do not feel the need to take priority on burden sharing as this is not covered by the convention (as outlined in the article above). Undoubtedly, the west does contribute financially and accepts quota based applicants. However, this does not equate to the sheer amount of burden the third world faces in terms of numbers and resources. Evidently, the west preaches of good human rights yet it does not necessarily practice what it preaches.
It has been argued that the west is guilty of practicing dual implications of international human rights. On one hand, the west preaches of good human rights based on International Bill of Rights, and customary international law. Whereas on the other hand, the west breaches some of the major international treaties when it comes to the rights of refugees. In many western countries, refugees face compulsory detention upon arrival, and more often than not the asylum seekers are detained in prison styled detention centres. As signatories of Refugee Convention, western nations fail to practice Article 16 and Article 27 of the convention. These articles guarantee access to impartial courts and the guarantee of freedom of movability to refugees (in their host nations). Notably, Article 31 of Refugee Convention states it clearly that once an application is made for asylum, the stay becomes legal. In which case, asylum seekers should not be punished for an illegal entry, where they are detained to enter western nations without preapproved visas. Furthermore, the act of arbitrary detention breaches Article 9 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 14 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) where such acts are considered forms of oppression. These aspects of international law do not receive as much attention as they work against the advantages of western nations.
The west has not been able to meet the standards it has set for the rest of the world (especially in treatment of refugees). It is not the duty of states to stop refugees, and if they do stop them outside their jurisdictions (such as high seas) then it should be their responsibility to take care of those refugees. The west has been going out if its way to deter refugees from entering their jurisdictions. The framing of incoming refugees as ‘irregular economic migrants’ gives them a legal leeway to conduct it freely without apparently breaching any international law. Sovereignty takes precedence over amnesty, fueled by the current security environment in the world. Attentively, Refugee Convention has already been signed by the states in considerations of sovereignty. As discussed above, there has been an increase in economic migrants due to globalization, but not all asylum seekers risk their lives to become economic migrants; all for earning a better wage. The west has to find better alternatives in dealing with the refugee crisis, in tradition with their landmark human rights successes of the past. The alternatives can range from providing temporary visas, and to burden sharing with the third world. Prominently, these alternatives can attempt to save the lives of many stranded in Calais, in the Mediterranean, and in the Indian Ocean, waiting for help from the ‘ethical’ west.
Written by Fahad Sher Hussain
The Secular Tableeghi 