JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

New feature Personalise your news, save articles to read later and customise settings View Demo

Hi there! Beta version

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

National Times

Sixty years on, refugee convention comes second to politics

Christopher Stokes
December 8, 2011

Opinion

Somali boys in the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya fetch water from a puddle formed after rain. The camp was formed more than 20 years ago.

Somali boys in the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya fetch water from a puddle formed after rain. The camp was formed more than 20 years ago. Photo: AFP

This week, world leaders gathered in Geneva to commemorate 60 years of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Yet it is an anniversary that the world's 15.1 million refugees have little reason to celebrate. Today, states are increasingly shutting their borders and restricting the help they give to refugees and people seeking asylum.

Ministers and heads of state may speak of their steadfast commitment to the convention, but this is disingenuous. Too often, national governments circumvent or simply ignore their responsibilities to refugees, with serious medical and humanitarian consequences for those they have committed to protect.

At the core of the Refugee Convention lies the idea of asylum. The increasingly restrictive policies of governments – while not necessarily in contravention of international, regional or national legislation – violate the spirit of the convention and the meaning of asylum. In turning their back on refugees, states end up playing a repressive rather than a protective role.

In South Africa, Médecins Sans Frontières has witnessed Zimbabweans without passports being barred entry at the main border post, denying them the possibility of applying for asylum. As a result, many seek an unofficial route into South Africa, exposing them to myriad dangers, from drowning in the Limpopo river, to attack by crocodiles, to falling victim to violent criminal gangs who roam the borderlands. In the first six months of 2011, our staff treated 42 people who had been raped by gang members while trying to cross the border. We fear there are many more victims who did not seek our help.

Europe, which was the focus of the Refugee Convention at its inception in 1951, performs no better in its treatment of asylum seekers. This year, the popular uprisings in North Africa pushed some 57,000 refugees, asylum seekers and migrants to flee across the Mediterranean to Italy and Malta. Perhaps as many as 2000 people perished at sea. Those who survived the journey found themselves detained in reception centres in appalling conditions. In March this year, 3000 new arrivals were forced to sleep on the docks on the island of Lampedusa for several days, sharing 16 toilets and surviving on just 1.5 litres of water per day.

Aiming to curb the landings on its coasts, the Italian government quickly moved to sign bilateral agreements with the new Tunisian interim government and the Libyan Transitional Council, despite the ongoing war in Libya. These agreements amounted to pushing back potential asylum seekers from Europe's shores to North Africa. Italy, along with several other European countries, was party to the Libyan conflict, and thus bore an even greater responsibility to ensure that people fleeing the war were given decent reception conditions and access to an efficient and fair asylum procedure.

Even for those who are successful in their applications for asylum, refugee status is often not enough to survive. Shunned and deprived of assistance, many refugees are condemned to migrate further, in search of a way to provide for themselves and their families. Today this is more true than ever as – unlike 60 years ago – developing countries now host the vast majority of the world's refugee population.

Almost half a million Somalis now live – if that is the right word – in Dadaab, the world's largest refugee settlement. The first refugees' shelters were put up in Dadaab, in northern Kenya, more than two decades ago. Now the Dadaab camps make up Kenya's fourth largest city. This year we conducted medical surveys in an area of the overcrowded camp where new arrivals were settling, only to find that malnutrition rates among the under-fives actually increased. Children who had fled hunger and violence in Somalia, and survived the gruelling journey to Kenya, were now in worse health than when they first arrived. Somali refugees, it seems, have no safe place to go.

Medical and humanitarian activities have a tangible, but ultimately limited, impact on the welfare of refugees, asylum seekers and all those fleeing violence or economic collapse in their home country. Wider questions of assistance, protection and long term solutions urgently need to be addressed. People are increasingly mobile, and their motivations to cross borders are diverse. Governments need to come up with solutions that do not see migration management working at cross-purposes with refugee protection.

In the meantime, the Refugee Convention remains the most important tool for refugee protection and assistance. When all states actively demonstrate their commitment to refugees through policies that are in line with the spirit of the convention, then world leaders and refugees alike will really have something to celebrate.

Christopher Stokes is the general director of the Belgian section of Médecins Sans Frontières.

twitter Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU

42 comments

  • It sounds to me like the Refugee Convention should just be ripped up. It is obviously out of date and no longer relevant to the world today.

    Commenter
    liklik
    Location
    sydney
    Date and time
    December 09, 2011, 7:39AM
  • This is an excellent article.

    Here, refugees are also used as funding fodder for a bloated, unaccountable and profligate sector. The poorest people in the world being used to support the lifestyle of greedy bureaucrats/ public servants, opportunists and their fellow travellers is sickening. They are responsible for the loss of confidence in the refugee program, harming all refugees. If funding had been used for the benefit of the refugees' education and settlement (not for the grandstanding of bureaucrats and their mates on the gravy train), refugees would have benefited immeasurably and been able to contribute so much more to Australia, enhancing public perceptions and creating welcome for more.

    Bad management of the scheme has done damage on every level.

    Commenter
    et
    Date and time
    December 09, 2011, 9:47AM
  • "Somali boys in the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya fetch water from a puddle formed after rain"
    Never mind, we helped cashed up "refugees" who had enough to pay people smugglers.

    "The increasingly restrictive policies of governments violate the spirit of the convention and the meaning of asylum."
    Wrong! It's those cashed up "refugees" who have violated the SPIRIT of the convention and the meaning of asylum so that those boys have to fetch water from the puddle.

    Commenter
    fixer
    Location
    adelaide
    Date and time
    December 09, 2011, 9:56AM
  • Fixer - if you have no compassion for the refugees who manage to get to our shores, who are mostly just as genuine as those in the camps, why should we take you seriously when you claim to have compassion for others in Dadaab?

    Those in Dadaab are unlikely to personally request our help. The least we can do is assess those who do and give them asylum if they are genuine.

    Commenter
    Ross
    Location
    MALLABULA
    Date and time
    December 09, 2011, 10:26AM
  • The Gillard government justifies its Malaysian solution by stating that boat people coming to Australia in rickety boats are risking their lives and should therefore be discouraged from doing so.

    This is absurd. Asylum seekers know what they are risking (Stokes points to a possible 2,000 perishing in the Mediterranean this year.) but they consider this risk worthwhile.

    Refugee camps provide existence but in terrible conditions; there is no hope for the future for themselves and more importantly, for their children.

    I agree wholeheartedly that all nations should act in genuine accordance with the Refugee Convention. This is not enough, though.

    We need a gloal solution to the refugee problem, one that shows our respect for refugees as fellow human beings who have the same needs as we do.

    Commenter
    Hmm...
    Date and time
    December 09, 2011, 10:32AM
  • @Fixer and @Lady,
    You seem to have a misinformed definition of what a refugee is. According to the refugee convention, a refugee is someone who: "...owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable to, or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."

    Nowhere in that definition does it say that you must be living in poverty. A refugee is ANYONE, it could even be someone like YOU, who for reasons out of their control are at risk of harm in their own country. So, if you do a little research on the kinds of people who arrive here by boat, most of them are either Tamil (persecuted by the Sri Lankan gov), or Afghan (we are actively at war in that country, so use your imagination at the risks they face).

    There is no such thing as a 'real refugee' as opposed to whatever it is you think the refugees who arrive at our shores are. It's simple, you're wrong.

    Commenter
    Mr Sydney
    Date and time
    December 09, 2011, 11:52AM
  • * Arthur Baker | Sydney - December 09, 2011, 9:49AM, I would leave it up to each sovereign nation to make their own rules on how they deal with asylum seekers, as it should always have been.
    * Ross | MALLABULA - December 09, 2011, 9:58AM, I can see that you heeded your own advice, as your post contains no reason. For your information, I do not profess that , "They are only economic migrants," at all. The majority of those who arrive by boat do not carry identification, so until they are assessed, neither you nor I, know who they are.

    Commenter
    liklik
    Location
    sydney
    Date and time
    December 09, 2011, 12:18PM
  • * Ross | MALLABULA - December 09, 2011, 9:58AM, I can see that you heeded your own advice, as your post contains no reason. For your information, I do not profess that , "They are only economic migrants," at all. The majority of those who arrive by boat do not carry identification, so until they are assessed, neither you nor I, know who they are.

    liklik | sydney - December 09, 2011, 12:18PM

    Yet they have passports to enable them to fly to and enter Malaysia and Indonesia. They rip them up so we can't verify where they originally came from. The onus should be on them to prove who they are or be senrtstraight back to Malaysia or Indonesia

    Commenter
    Lady
    Location
    Melbourne
    Date and time
    December 09, 2011, 12:35PM
  • Many moral judgments being made here about asylum seekers. Fixer says they are "cashed up" and have "violated the SPIRIT of the convention" (Fixer's emphasis). Fixer, find me the clause in the '51 Convention or the '67 Protocol where it says that in order for your asylum claim to be assessed, you have to queue up for years in some miserable camp, in conditions which no Australian would tolerate for more than about two days. What we signed up to is that if they get here, we assess them. If we as a nation have decided that's no longer what we want, we should withdraw from the Convention - and, critically, accept whatever international consequences flow from that. If we haven't got the balls to do what we say, one way or the other, then we don't deserve a place in the international community. Instead, we prefer to use our alleged reliablity and trustworthiness in a campaign slogan for a leadership position in the very organisation whose treaties we dishonour.

    We should either remain a signatory and do it properly, or withdraw and face whatever consequences ensue. Any other course of action, including the current offshore-processing stances of both our major political parties, is utter hypocrisy.

    Commenter
    Arthur Baker
    Location
    Sydney
    Date and time
    December 09, 2011, 1:26PM
  • @Arthur Baker, the US and Italy are both signatories to the Refugee Convention but the US tries (or certainly did in recent memory try) to stop Cuban asylum seekers landing by firing water cannon on them and forcing them back out to sea. They also promptly deport Mexicans and other illegal aliens who make it across the border, presumably because they view them as economic migrants. Italy has also deported Africans who make it to Lampedusa or Sicily, but I don't see those countries copping criticism - Why should we be the soft touch ?

    Commenter
    Lady
    Location
    Melbourne
    Date and time
    December 09, 2011, 1:34PM

More comments

Comments are now closed