We need to protect Abdullah
INTERNATIONAL I
Samantha Hill argues that the Geneva Convention should be re-written
Abdullah, an illiterate 13-year-old boy, recounts his story. His mother was stabbed to death, his three sisters were raped, his father shot and his two brothers kidnapped. Abdullah is now head of household, and resorts to stealing. He is seen and chased through the streets, bullets firing at his head. His family are on the run.
Fifty seven days later he is in the UK. He found a way out of his country to escape the hardship; six weeks hiding in containers of vegetable oil and household waste in the hope of finding an end to the nightmare. His family are counting on him.
Abdullah only wants one thing: for my community to recognise he is in need of protection and help him and his family, who are desperate to flee from systematic abuse.
My answer to Abdullah is ‘no’. He is labelled as a failed asylum seeker, a burden on the state, and someone liable for removal. Abdullah leaves my office, only to disappear underground. He is forced to work illegally, his employer exploiting his vulnerability.
What is it that stops me from helping Abdullah? It’s the Geneva Convention, binding on 147 countries across the world which defines who a refugee is and the rights and assistance he or she can expect from the states that have signed up to it. The definition of a refugee is:
‘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 his country of nationality…’
I agree that such a document must exist; we accept that we live in privileged circumstances, where if we did face a problem, we would certainly expect the police or government agencies to protect us. We can also turn not only to our European neighbours to show solidarity on our behalf, but also to the European Union agencies who sit above us and ensure our protection. Abdullah doesn’t have these options, and he would not come within the definition because his persecution is not for one of the reasons listed above.
What I really want to talk about is whether the Convention has outgrown its own remit, and whether we need to openly admit that the world is changing, and seek to move the boundaries, to help those genuinely in need.
The Convention was written in 1951 just as Europe was recovering from its Second World War and the extermination of six million Jews under the Nazi regime. After the shockwaves had settled, the United Nations put together a package of legal measures to ensure that such an act of indiscriminate genocide would not happen again. It was, therefore, originally designed only to protect European refugees, and did not foresee the types of conflict in the world today.
In 1967 an additional protocol was added which extended the text to refugees from around the world, not just Europe, and thus the spatial boundaries were lifted. That said, the definitions of a refugee were left unchanged and anyone seeking international protection had to fit themselves within a series of words that were originally intended for post-war European refugees.
Fast-forward 30 years, and the world has changed and produced new crises and conflicts. The number of internally displaced persons (IDPs), that is those people who have been forced from their villages and towns because of conflict, is estimated to have risen globally from one million in 1982 to 15 million in 1990. But the Convention doesn’t recognise internally displaced people. It is only those who manage to smuggle themselves into the UK, or embark on equally dangerous journeys, who can be considered.
What does this indicate? A huge number of people who need our help, with only a small proportion of them actually receiving help.
So we have seen how the Convention does not apply to internally displaced people, or people who have fled to other neighbouring countries who cannot help them and how the UK public and media moans about taking on a fraction of the number. Another problem with the Convention is the inability to recognise groups who need protection, and I think that further categories of person in need of protection should be incorporated in the definition. This point can be demonstrated by the current Zimbabwean crisis.
The Zimbabwean regime has displaced 700,000 internally, with an estimated one to three million fleeing to South Africa alone, and one million in the UK. Until very recently, a Zimbabwean asylum seeker had to prove that he or she was an active supporter of the opposition to the ruling party, and in addition, that he or she was known to the ruling authorities. In a situation of serious economic hardship, cholera epidemics and indiscriminate violence, only a small percentage of Zimbabweans were granted asylum.
There has been a solution to the problem – our national courts have taken the decision to interpret the legislation in a unique way, and to set a precedent which has reversed the conditions in which Zimbabweans can be granted. This has led to an 80% grant rate.
But should it really be for our national courts to decide? I believe that where an international framework exists, it should be fit for purpose. By leaving it to each country to determine the remit according to its own jurisprudence, we risk an inconsistent approach to international protection, with some states favouring a more strict approach.
The result for those in need: instead of seeking protection in the first safe country, their journeys become more arduous as they are forced to head to where they know their chances of being granted asylum are highest. You cannot blame these people for that choice. I think we would do the same to save ourselves and families.
THE REALITY
CHECK
Life for Michael Martin’s constituents
I.
SILENCE OF THE SPEAKERS
Kenneth Roy in Springburn
[click here]
II.
A DIFFERENT WORLD
Islay McLeod’s photo essay
[click here]
SORRY!
Politics and the Media:
Nicholas Jones on the cult of apology
[click here]
THE FORGOTTEN SCOTS
Culture:
Michael Elcock on the Scottish diaspora
[click here]
A TWO-STATE SOLUTION?
International:
Alan Fisher on the Middle East
[click here]
The Scottish Review
is published on
Tuesday and Thursday
Missed the
last edition?
[click here]
The Scottish Review is proud
to be associated with the
Young
Thinker
of the
Year
This award is given annually to the author of the winning paper in the Young UK and Ireland Programme
Scottish-born Mairi Clare Rodgers, winner of the title last year, is now Director of Media Relations at the civil liberties charity, Liberty