Keep them safe! Nordic campaign launched today

Contrary to United Nations guidelines and recommendations, the Nordic governments return hundreds of asylum seekers to countries wrought with violence and conflict every year.

25.9.2007

Contrary to United Nations guidelines and recommendations, the Nordic governments return hundreds of asylum seekers to countries wrought with violence and conflict every year.

Currently there are roughly forty million people forcibly displaced around the world. This corresponds to the entire Nordic population plus another fifteen million. Of these 40 million only around 30 000 seek safety in the Nordic countries. Here their hopes for asylum and security are quashed after years wasting away waiting for the authorities’ decision, with the threat of return constantly looming on the horizon. In the worst cases, the Nordic authorities eventually decide to send people back, often forcibly, to the conflict and human right violations they seek shelter from.

Such returns are inhumane and degrading and violate international and European law in some instances. Therefore, non-governmental organizations in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden have joined forces in a regional campaign calling upon the Nordic governments to ensure that people fleeing violent conflict receive the protection they are entitled to.

There are a myriad of reasons why people seek asylum in the Nordic countries; a journalist wrote about corrupt politicians and now his life is in danger, a young man risks torture and death in his home country because of his sexual orientation, and one family managed to escape death at the hands of the local militia in the nick of time. Whether these people find safety and asylum depends on the country they flee to. It depends on the political atmosphere at any given time and first and foremost it depends on their reasons for fleeing. The fact is that some reasons are seen as more legitimate than others and people fleeing violent conflict fight an uphill battle to be granted asylum in the Nordic countries. Being labelled as ‘merely’ fleeing ‘generalized violence’ one is seldom granted protection and asylum in our part of the world.

The Refugee Convention, states that the term ‘refugee’ shall apply to any person who has fled his or her home country due to a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’. In recent years, authorities have increasingly adopted a narrow definition, or rather, a misinterpretation of the definition, demanding that asylum seekers to be recognized as a refugees prove concrete and individualized persecution. Accordingly, if the family fleeing violent conflict and human right violations at the hands of the militia cannot prove that the violence is aimed at them specifically, personally, they will generally not receive refugee protection in the North.

Most conflicts are caused by perceived differences rooted in one of the Convention grounds i.e. race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Accordingly, most people fleeing generalized violence could receive meaningful protection based on a more generous application of the Convention. Although Africa and Latin America have introduced an extended refugee definition, recognizing all people fleeing internal conflicts as refugees, which the UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR uses, this extended definition is not recognized in the Nordic countries. The legal rights and safeguards for persons fleeing generalized violence are thus vague in the North; much is open to interpretation and often asylum cases are decided ad hoc. Decisions depend on political currents and unfortunately the tide has turned for the worse in the Nordic countries.

Despite UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR, proclamations that these people are in need of international protection and that they should not be forced to return because of security or other concerns, Nordic countries fail to provide effective protection, including humane/decent treatment of those in need of shelter, care and legal representation.

In Sweden, three asylum-seekers from southern and central Iraq have been rejected contrary to UNHCR’s recommendations and risk deportation. According to the Swedish Migration Board and the Migration Court, the situation in Iraq does is not an ‘armed conflict’ and the asylum-seekers cannot be recognized as refugees because of their inability to prove an individualized fear of persecution. Asylum-seekers are also threatened with deportations to Eritrea, a country marred by violence and human rights violations, despite UNHCR’s recommendations to the contrary.

In Denmark, two out of three rejected asylum-seekers, the majority being Iraqis, are left in a legal limbo where they are neither granted asylum nor returned due to the situation in their home country. They spend months and years in uncertainty and fear, without any possibility to plan for themselves and their children’s future.

In Finland, seven out of ten asylum seekers are sent back to an uncertain fate in the first EU-countries they reached, often Greece, and Sri Lankans are rejected despite UNHCR guidelines.

In Iceland only one asylum seeker has been granted refugee status since 1984. Iceland applies the Dublin regulation very strictly; due to its geographical location Iceland is seldom the first country of arrival and Dublin returns are a rule. Iceland routinely rejects people fleeing generalized violence, i.e. asylum seekers from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.

In Norway, forcible returns to countries like Afghanistan and Somalia have been moderated. A practice of extending temporary residence for a year at a time to people fleeing armed conflict has evolved in their place. Instead of returns, uncertainty, fear and meaninglessness now eat at people on “deportation row”.

UNHCR was established by the General Assembly more than fifty years ago with the aim of protecting the rights of refugees. But what has happened to the right to asylum?

The obligation to offer protection under international law is linked to the right to seek protection from persecution (Art. 14, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and the principle of non-refoulement (Art. 33, Refugee Convention, Art. 3, the European Convention and Art. 3 in the Convention against Torture). Non-refoulement is a principle of international law that prohibits states from returning people in any manner whatsoever to countries or territories in which their lives or freedom may be threatened; no-refoulement is also customary law for all countries in the world.

It is inhumane to force people to return to areas of armed conflict or to places where they risk persecution or other threats to life and freedom. The Nordic countries are important donors to UNHCR but their responsibility does not end there. As rich welfare states Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland and Norway have a moral duty to set a shining example. Instead of limiting protection, the Nordic countries should promote respect for the right to asylum and focus on an individual’s vulnerability and need for international protection.

We therefore call on the Nordic governments to assume responsibility and show solidarity with people forced to flee violence and persecution in their home countries. We call on the Nordic governments to jointly work, regionally and internationally, towards strengthening international protection to give the right to asylum real value and substance. As a minimum we call upon the Nordic governments to act in accordance with recommendations and guidelines issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Senda grein