Keeping out the other

A bitter row has broken out between Britain and France over a refugee camp near the Channel Tunnel. Hasan Suroor reports.

THE POLITICAL discourse and media headlines in Britain this past week have been couched in distinctly militaristic terms - ``nightly assaults'', ``coordinated strategy'', ``internment camps'', ``border controls'' ``security concerns'' and much more in the same vein. Reason: a paralysing fear of refugees in a climate where anyone from the ``wrong'' part of the world is seen as an ugly foreigner - an outsider who must be kept out at any cost. And those who manage to get in through the net must be made to feel so unwelcome that others are deterred from following in their footsteps.

But unfortunately there are simply too many desperate people in the ``wrong'' part of the world who would do anything - stake their last penny, risk their lives, put up with humiliation - to seek a ``better'' life in the West. Britain continues to be a magnet for asylum seekers despite the widespread criticism of the way it treats refugees. Apart from being targets of racial abuse in the streets, they are villified by right- wing politicians and xenophobic sections of the media.

The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recently condemned British politicians and the media for contributing to the climate of hate against refugees. ``In some mass circulation newspapers, asylum seekers are continually branded a problem, statistics are being twisted and negative stories are being endlessly highlighted. This often deliberate attempt to tarnish the name of an entire group has been so successful that the words, `asylum seekers' and `refugees' have even become a term of abuse in school playgrounds,'' a UNHCR spokesman said.

Yet, Britain is the most favoured destination for refugees from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq and the Balkans. Over 75,000 applications for asylum were received last year alone and the backlog of those waiting for a verdict is a staggering 70,000-plus. After Germany, Britain is the most sought-after country by refugees with hundreds of people massed at various points of entry looking for an opportunity to sneak into what they believe is a land of opportunity.

Refugees from Asia and the Middle East are attracted to Britain partly because many already have friends or relatives here, and partly because English is the only foreign language they know. A third reason is that Britain, despite its harsh asylum regime, is still regarded the most hospitable nation in Europe. ``Go England. France no good. Money no. House no. Work no. England, international, good,'' is how a 22-year-old Kurd, stranded in a refugee camp in France, explained his fascination for Britain. He is among the 1,000-odd refugees in the controversial Sangatte camp in France which because of its proximity to the Channel Tunnel has become a springboard for entry into Britain.

Every night groups of refugees from the camp attempt to break into the Tunnel in a bid to get on to Britain-bound trains. In what has become a nightly cat-and-mouse game, they are routinely caught attempting to sneak into the tunnel and taken back to the camp. Most have paid their lives' earnings to ``agents'' to get them to Britain and find themselves stranded in France. A young Afghan refugee who arrived at Sangatte two weeks ago said he had already made seven attempts to jump on to a train or a lorry that would take him to Britain. Another said he had been badly hurt but would continue to try his luck until he succeeded. The place has become a haunt of professional smugglers of human cargo who charge thousands of dollars per person to guide refugees to the Tunnel entrance with no guarantee that they will be able to board a train.

A bitter row has broken out between Britain and France over the Sangatte camp which London wants closed down. The camp, according to Britain, is temptingly close to the mouth of the Channel Tunnel frustrating its efforts to check illegal immigration. Eurotunnel, the company which runs the Channel Tunnel, has gone to court demanding closure of the Sangatte camp after the British Government threatened to fine it œ2,000 for every refugee who arrived in Britain through the tunnel. The British Home Secretary, Mr. David Blunkett, is to meet his French counterpart, Mr. Daniel Vailant, on September 12 to sort out the issue, but France appears in no mood to shut down the camp. Indeed it is reported to be planning to set up another camp close to a Channel port in what is seen as ``proof'' of French insensitivity to Britain's difficulties on the issue.

There is a strong sense in Britain that France is not doing enough to discourage the Sangatte refugees from heading for Britain. The British media has been full of stories suggesting extremely lax security on the French side of the tunnel. The buzz is that France is ``waving'' the refugees on to Britain rather than making sure that they do not wander away from the camp. The Times, in a front-page splash, screamed: ``Through the wire and not a policeman in sight''. Its reporter claimed that he did not see a single French police officer during the 30 minutes he spent around the Tunnel fence.

France, however, denies this and blames the great rush for the ``El Dorado'' on Britain's soft policy. French officials say Britain must ask itself why refugees prefer it to any other country in Europe. The benefits - accommodation, subsistence allowance, health and education facilities - which Britain offers to asylum seekers are the most attractive in Europe, and inordinate delays in processing their applications mean that they can stay on in the country on Government handouts for months. Also, the rate of deportation of those whose claims are finally rejected is said to be much lower than in other European countries most of which dispose of the applications much more quickly and act more swiftly to see that no one stays on illegally. Besides, Britain's interpretation of who qualifies for a refugee status is more liberal than other European countries, making it a more attractive choice for ``asylum shoppers''.

Mr. Daniel Vaillant has suggested that Britain bring its asylum regime in line with the policies in other European countries. ``I say to my British friends and to the British Home Secretary... that they must also make an effort to harmonise legislation in order to make Britain less attractive.'' Meanwhile, there is a move by the European Commission to evolve a common European policy on asylum and Britain which has hitherto chosen to go it alone has suddenly discovered the virtues of going with the herd.

But while this might help individual countries keep out the ugly foreigner, what about the refugees themselves? With every country slamming its doors on them, where do they go? Those blessed with the long view argue that the only answer is a more equitable distribution of the world's resources so that everyone has enough and there will be no need to go looking for El Dorado. But the problem with the long view is that, like the bridge too far, it remains in the distance while corpses pile up. Any quick fixes, then, while the long view materialises?

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : From persecuted to persecutor?
Next     : Humanity denied