No to colonization of "new" Europe!
Ivo Skoric
ivo at reporters.net
Thu May 15 18:33:31 CEST 2003
Doesn't Britain have enough former colonies, protectorates, and
dominions? Weren't once more than a quarter of world's population
under her rule? Wasn't hers the empire on which the sun never
set? Why would she need to detain her asylum seekers in other
countries, particularly in countries that were never in her
possession?
Was that what the lofty title "new europe" was meant to convey
upon the countries recently liberated from the yarn of history of
dark dictatorial regimes? That they will be accepted to the
European Union as slaves and servants and hooded dungeon-
keepers?
Are dark, damp Enver Xoxha gulags to be used to house people
who seek political asylum in England? Can something be made
more distasteful?
And not to mention the logistics and security problems in these
times ridden with insecurity and threat! Are they going to fly
asylum seekers from the UK to Albania in shackles, like the US
flew suspected Al Qaeda members from Afghanistan to
Guantanamo Bay? Over France? Over Germany? I doubt either of
those countries would permit such overflights.
While giving rent-free housing to airplane hi-jackers is moronic, it is
equally deplorable to ship asylum seekers to another country. It
cannot be legal under international law to ship asylum seekers
from Albania back to a detention center in Albania "while their case
is solved". The UN should move to make illegal dehumanizing
practice of shipping asylum seekers to third countries. Because,
what is next? Shipping Haitians to Sierra Leone?
On top of that, Britain found another little paradise on Adriatic
coast for its unwanted immigrants: Croatia. That country really
doesn't have enough problems of its own, after the devastating war
in the last decade, so it should be burdened by the problems of the
UK, the fourth largest economy on the planet. Isn't that such a
splendid idea?
Racan, Croatian prime minister, should voice a decisive NO to that
proposal, as adamant as Tito was in 1948 refusing to let
Yugoslavia become yet another Stalin's satellite. It should be made
clear to British government that this practice is not permissible in
the interest of humanity.
ivo
> ***********************
>
> The Sunday Telegraph (London)
>
> Blunkett plans to send asylum seekers to Albania
> By Colin Brown and Francis Elliott
> (Filed: 09/March/2003), page 1
>
> All asylum seekers arriving in Britain will be sent to Albania,
under new Government plans to curb the flow of economic migrants
to this country.
>
> Ministers plan to fly incoming refugees to Albania, the poorest
nation in Europe, which will house them in specially built detention
centres while their claims are processed.
>
> Although the Home Office hopes to build the camps in
conjunction with other European Union nations, ministers are
determined to press ahead alone should they need to, in an effort
to stem the tide of asylum seekers arriving in Britain.
>
> Last month the Home Office revealed that a record 110,000
refugees had claimed asylum here in the past year. The
Government's attempts to stem the influx were dealt a sharp blow
last month when the High Court rejected new laws that would
sharply curtail the availability of state benefits to asylum seekers.
>
> Ministers now hope that the threat of being flown to Albania, the
> former hardline Stalinist state which has a per capita GDP of
£764 and an unemployment rate of around 16 per cent, will have
the desired effect.
>
> "We want to deter asylum seekers from coming to Britain and we
would like to set up a processing centre in Albania to help achieve
that," said a Whitehall official.
>
> If agreement is reached to pilot "designated centres" in Albania,
> other southern and eastern European countries will be
approached. Plans are already being drawn up for processing
camps in Croatia, which has struggled to restore its tourism
business after the years of fighting that followed the break-up of
Yugoslavia.
>
> It, too, has a relatively low GDP and might welcome the chance
to earn foreign exchange by hosting asylum seekers while their
claims are assessed.
>
> Proposals to pay eastern European countries to establish
processing centres for asylum seekers will be put to European
ministers at a meeting in Brussels on March 21.
>
> "We would prefer this to be an EU-wide scheme to which
everybody contributes, but we are prepared to go it alone should
we need to," the official added.
>
> Ministers believe that the scheme would be legal under Britain's
> international obligations, which do not require them to offer
asylum seekers a home or social security but do prohibit "inhuman
or degrading treatment" of refugees. Officials argue that as long as
they are sending claimants to somewhere where they will not be
persecuted and where they will be provided with food and clothing,
Britain will be fulfilling its legal duties.
>
> The deterrent effect of sending asylum claimants to Albania is
made clear on the Foreign Office's travel advisory website. "You
should bear in mind the widespread ownership of firearms," states
the warning, adding: "Driving can be very hazardous. We strongly
advise visitors who drive to avoid reacting to provocative behaviour
by other road users."
>
> Those hoping for access to the standards of healthcare available
in Britain also face a bitter disappointment. "We do not
recommend using the dental facilities," states the official guidance.
"Medical facilities are very poor."
>
> The plan could also help to stem the tide of asylum seekers and
> illegal immigrants into Britain from Albania, which is now
notorious for organised criminals dealing in drugs and people-
smuggling. There were officially 1,065 asylum cases from Albania
in 2001, but many more are thought to have gone undetected as
Albanians often pretend to be from other eastern European
countries when they arrive in Britain.
>
> Last month, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, added Albania
to a list of "safe" countries from which asylum applications will be
"presumed to be unfounded", as part of the Government's attempts
to get on top of the asylum crisis.
>
> John Reid, the chairman of the Labour Party, last week told
Labour MPs at a private briefing that asylum was the number one
issue for the voters in the
forthcoming local elections, according to the party's own polling. It came
ahead of concern over petty crime, with concern about a war on Iraq low down
the list, he said.
>
> Tony Blair, under fire for the chaos in Britain's asylum system, has ordered
the total number of asylum seekers to be halved by September.
However, the Prime Minister was accused last night of failing to
deliver on his Government's promises after it was revealed that
nine Afghan terrorists who hijacked an airliner before claiming
asylum were still in Britain - seven of them living on benefits.
>
> Instead of being removed, as promised three years ago by Jack
Straw, the then Home Secretary, the hijackers have been resettled
by the Home Office. Along with 26 relatives, including wives and
children, they have been given rent-free houses in the London area.
More information about the Syndicate
mailing list