It is my great pleasure to welcome Mr. Ruud Lubbers, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, accompanied by a number of his colleagues, including Ambassador Mary Whelan, who is Ireland's ambassador to the UN in Geneva. I am pleased to have this opportunity to have this exchange with the High Commissioner, particularly so close to Ireland's Presidency of the EU. I extend the condolences of the committee to Mr. Lubbers on the tragic loss of Bettina Goislard, a UN refugee worker, last weekend. It shows us first-hand the importance of the dangerous work that is carried out by the UNHCR for which sometimes we do not show the appreciation we should. I am aware that the amount of time we have is short because Mr. Lubbers must meet with the Minister for Foreign Affairs at 4 p.m. I will not delay any further and call on Mr.Lubbers to address the committee.
Visit of UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
Mr. Ruud Lubbers
I thank the Chairman for inviting me to address the committee. I am in Dublin for one day with a triple mission. One aspect of the mission is to pay a visit to the Government which has given us hospitality for our work. We have good relations with the Government which increased funding for the UNHCR. This morning I signed an agreement on UN professional officers which will further this relationship. Second, it was considered a good idea to have the humanitarian global appeal here in Dublin as it is happening simultaneously in a number of other capitals.
My visit is also timely because the EU Presidency will be taken up by Ireland soon. One of the elements of Ireland's term of the Presidency is to follow up on the Tampere Summit conclusions with the ambition to have a set of directives ready by the end of the term. EU member states have problems handling incoming refugees. In Europe, there are mixed flows of those who are portrayed as refugees and those who actually are. I spoke earlier today of the specific example of Nigerian refugees in Ireland. I promised to work together with the Government to improve this situation as there are possibilities to do better with this challenge. For example, we have come out of a period where in all member states the pressures were such on the respective interior and justice ministers to start practices which may sometimes be contrary to the promises of the UN convention and refugee law. Each state is managing it, but it has become a difficult situation.
There are two directives that are important. One is the qualification of when one is a refugee. There is an agreement between the member states and the Commission. However, Germany sees things differently on this matter, particularly on the topic of non-state persecution. The main point is when people are victims of persecution and discrimination, not by a state, but de facto on the ground and the state allows it to happen. In most European countries it is the practice to consider those people as victims of persecution. However, the German Government has problems with this issue. It is basically an internal political question in Germany. The UNHCR does not have a big role to play in this matter. It is not a personal religious point for Otto Schily, the Federal Minister of the Interior. It is more the political context in Germany. However, it may be a challenge for the Irish EU Presidency
The other directive concerns procedures in handling refugees. This was drafted by EU Commissioner António Vitorino in his role to bring the initiative to the Commission. We worked with him and checked on the draft to produce a fair directive in practice. The negotiation process started with the EU member states. Each member state with a tense situation regarding refugees wanted to water down the draft directive. The main concern was with the concept of a safe country. As High Commissioner, I accept the model by which one says that if people come from certain countries, it is a reasonable assumption that many of them are not real refugees. We must practice a somewhat accelerated procedure. However, one must then keep the principle that we need a possibility to see that there may be exceptions to this rule. While I would say that Nigeria, in general, may not produce refugees, it also may. One needs a system with the safeguard that the real refugees are still detected. The safe countries concept became very popular but in a different way. The authorities can say a person comes from a safe country, so they can return them there. For example, it might be prevalent in a central European country.
We are now introducing the idea that if a country can be found that accepts people, then we have the right to push them there. This is a risky development. We have some obscure democracies in the former Soviet Union where one can put money and funding on the table so that they accept refugees but not give them protection. This is a dangerous development. One also may need special procedures at airports. However, it goes too far if one says, by definition, that a person has still not entered the country and they are pushed back to where they came from. There have to be minimum legal standards in this matter. The UNHCR fears that this agreement in draft form under the Italian EU Presidency of Berlusconi is not good enough. I brought this message to the Irish Government and to this committee. The UNHCR believes that this was not what was meant at the Tampere Summit. If we reread the text, we will see it was to be in accordance with the fair principles of the refugee convention. We now fell that this is no longer the case. This may cause problems for the Irish EU Presidency term. Matters have not been resolved with the Italian Government and we are stuck with the problem to do with this unresolved affair. I do not have an immediate solution. However, we must have fresh thinking on the issue.
At the UNHCR we have a strategy to get better governance of the refugee problem. We work with those who have good national systems. We believe that the refugee law in Ireland is okay. However, its practice can be improved. For example, I promised to work together with the Irish Government on the Nigerian challenge. UNHCR is in favour of a European Union approach to the refugee challenge. This does not only mean harmonising systems. In those countries that transit large numbers of economic migrants they have points where people turn up. We support those countries in capacity building with the European Union and Commission. However, there is also an understanding that when those people are checked and a limited number prove to be refugees, then they should not be a burden to that member state. We are advocating a burden sharing scheme among EU member states. We also encourage collective EU member state in refusing entry to those who are not genuine refugees. That is essentially the European prong.
The third dimension is solutions in the region. I have started on a long march to convince providers of development assistance that Ministers must reserve part of their refugee budget to find solutions for people in the region. Those are some of the projects. Those refugees are often in remote areas where they are considered a burden by the local population. If we can have some small development projects there such as a school, hospital or road, they are seen as more positive, meaning that we have a better chance of preventing them going to find solutions with the human traffickers. If we have post-conflict situations, we must invest some of the development assistance money in achieving a sustainable peace. We are practising that now in several countries in pilot projects. There are two in Africa - Sierra Leone and Eritrea. Afghanistan has been a tremendous success for repatriation and reintegration. In Sri Lanka we have a programme for refugees and internally displaced persons.
Better national systems, or running them better, a European approach in bordering countries, and doing more in the countries of origin, which would also be very good for north-south relationships, are the strategy. Implementation is central. We must cope with the directives of the European Commission. I have tried to update the committee a little about where we are currently.
I thank Mr. Lubbers for a very interesting contribution. Several members are offering questions, which I hope he will take. There are some time constraints.
I was delighted to hear Mr. Lubbers speak about development aid and assistance at source. Last year we appointed a committee under the chairmanship of the secretary general of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions with the former Taoiseach, Mr. Garret FitzGerald, a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. David Andrews, and others, to examine how, during our Presidency, we might make Third World development, HIV-AIDS and trade, a priority, better incorporating it into the multi-annual programme. I raised the matter with Commissioner Patten when he was here for another meeting this morning. We are very anxious about that, and the Government has promised to try to advance it.
It is estimated that €340 million was spent here on support services for asylum seekers and deportations in 2002. I understand that that compares with the High Commission's worldwide budget of $1 billion for the same year. For us it is a relatively new phenomenon. We were in the business of exporting people and suddenly we have an immigration problem. I will explain something of which my colleagues will be aware, having heard me say it here before. People who come to see us as Members of Parliament when they cannot get something for their community or individually will often say that if they were refugees, they would get it. Suddenly they see people with different languages, cultures and backgrounds on an island which up until relatively recently did not have many immigrants. They lump the immigrants and refugees in together. We have a long way to go in educating people. However, if that sort of money is available, I do not know the reason that we keep falling short in our overseas development aid budget. In the Union we have a long way to go and we have been pressing that for our Presidency.
I will raise one more point before opening the issue to debate. I am glad to see that Mr. Lubbers is assisting in the provision of ongoing comprehensive training to members of asylum agencies to enhance their capacity. Recently I heard of an asylum seeker from Cameroon who speaks only French and has two children in Ireland, one of them born here, as well as another two back in Cameroon. When she goes to meet officials, she meets someone relatively junior who cannot speak French. She is bewildered and is becoming depressed and withdrawn. That is an important issue and I am glad that Mr. Lubbers has raised it.
I was pleased to read the Dáil group report on the need for an international organisation for migration. It seems clear from any research that we have done that Europe needs immigrants and will continue to do so if we are to be able to support the entire population in the future and meet all society's needs as matters stand. Where does that proposal stand, what is Mr. Lubbers's view of it and how would it marry with his organisation's objectives? Deputies Harkin and Ó Snodaigh and Senator Quinn are offering questions.
I welcome the High Commissioner. I will be very brief because of the time constraints. I have just two questions.
I have been looking through the briefing that we received on the UNHCR 2004 process and the High Commissioner's meeting in Geneva on the refugee convention. The statement reads, "The declaration emphasised that the principle of the non-forcible return of asylum seekers (refoulement) was sacrosanct." Is that before their cases have been heard or at any time during the process? For example, if someone's case was heard and it was decided that he or she was not a genuine asylum seeker, does that provision still hold? What is the High Commissioner's view on people seeking refugee status who are in a country for two or three years, a reasonable time, and could make some contribution? Obviously, that is the situation in Ireland.
Our main concern in the area of asylum seeking and immigration is that the direction of the evolving common immigration policy is towards the building of a fortress Europe. Yesterday the Government passed a repressive measure without debate aiming at a common EU expulsion policy and the chartering of joint deportation flights. Human rights groups have voiced concerns that the human rights and refugee safeguards involved are inadequate. Perhaps the High Commissioner might comment on that. He mentioned a white list of countries to which refugees or asylum seekers can be summarily removed. They may be returned to dangerous situations. Is that not contrary to the international obligations of host countries?
The High Commissioner is very welcome. There seems to be great difficulty in distinguishing between genuine refugees from persecution and economic migrants. In seeking to tackle the root cause of such economic migration rather than simply helping with charitable works, a change in the Common Agricultural Policy, particularly regarding African producers, would surely be the perfect step to reduce economic migrants. Does the High Commission consider the encouragement of such changes part of its duties? If so, perhaps the High Commissioner might give us some idea of its achievements in that direction.
I welcome the High Commissioner. My question is similar to that of Deputy Ó Snodaigh, but perhaps from a Government Deputy's point of view. There was a high-profile joint deportation operation yesterday. Mr. Lubbers has expressed his satisfaction with the general statutory framework here. The Irish Refugee Council voiced concerns about the nature of deportation and the joint operations, particularly bringing people to a military airport in their country of origin. Will Mr. Lubbers also address that question?
Mr. Lubbers
Where shall I start? I will not respond to the questions in the sequence they were asked but in a more logical sequence from my perspective. The first and last questions are related. The non- refoulement role is sacrosanct but it is related to the assumption that at present, a person might be or is a refugee. If there has been a fair process to determine the application which has come to the conclusion the person is not a refugee then, of course, the person can be refused refugee status and then deported. Our position is that it is sometimes fair to deport persons. The question is whether it is justified. We are not in the business of raising the issue like NGOs who say, by definition, that every deportation is wrong. If there are concerns, everything has to be checked and we have to be sure that the process has been fair, which brings me to the tendency of the so-called expansion of the safe country concept. We think there is a tendency in Europe to apply this too easily. As I explained, if persons have come from what is a declared safe country, they are out or sent to a country to which they can be deported. There is a risk in that. The principle of sending people elsewhere or refoulement for that matter, not accepting the person, is part of our business. We cannot protect the refugees if we assume that everybody is a refugee.
I think I have handled the question of Europe as a fortress. I repeat from my short introduction two dimensions: we should not have a European system at too low a standard. In my discussions with the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I made the comparison with chairing the move towards a single currency. It was agreed that a single currency was a good idea but it had to have some quality so we defined criteria to join the single currency. This was to safeguard its quality. I refer to the Tampere European Council which does not say you unify your systems at any price in order to agree together on a fair system. My feeling is that we are lowering our criteria too far. Speaking about fortress Europe, there is the relation with migration. By my definition, migration is the non-forced movement of people. Forced migration is where those who leave have to do so because of violence or persecution, but others leave for different reasons
In the broader context it is true that if the world is to be fairer in terms of trade than it is today, the agricultural policy would be changed. It would contribute to fewer people who feel obliged to move as there would be more opportunity in developing countries if there were a fairer agricultural policy. We tried to promote that as a UN family, so the High Commissioner for Refugees is not going to make speeches on it. If he tries to support his colleagues on this, the Secretary General tries to influence the scene. The members of the committee may wonder if we are successful but we are not. Recently Rubens Ricupero made a very powerful speech on that issue which had some effect but we still have not succeeded. This is part of a world where there is sufficient development elsewhere. One of my colleagues wrote a report on migration and asylum. He raised the idea of a global commission on migration. The Secretary General - and I agree with him - came to the conclusion that it is better to be positive about the initiative but not to put forward a new initiative. We see now that a few member states of the UN, in particular Sweden, Switzerland, Brazil and the Philippines are exploring the possibility of such a global commission, independent of the UN. I do not know where this will go.
Accepting that the topic is important, agencies in Geneva and I started an organisation with IOM, an organisation for non-forced migration, the UNHCR deals with forced migration. We have many areas where we work together. We went to the High Commissioner for Human Rights and to Juan Somavia of the ILO and we sat around a table and formed the group. The principle of this organisation is to try to promote more managed migration. I have a stake as High Commissioner for Refugees because if we have managed migration in an orderly way, with no illegal streams of people, I have a better opportunity to reduce human trafficking - this is my interest.
The High Commissioner for Human Rights has a big interest too because it is a human rights matter when you do not have reasonable systems of managed migration. Then we invited - it was the idea of Sergio Vieira de Mello - the head of the agency in Vienna who is in charge of fighting crime - not just human trafficking but drugs et ceterato a meeting. He thinks there is a dimension in this which is important, so he also joined us. The UN world trade organisation has invited Mr. RubensRicupero, Secretary General UNCTAD, to come forward with a proposal which in this technical language is called, Trade People Mode 4 - the remittances of people who work as temporaries in other countries for a number of times during their lifetime and send the money home. This money stream is a multiple of the development assistance, so it is a very important social, economic phenomenon. We have formed from the heads of agencies the Geneva migration group. This is only the beginning, the whole idea is to check if it would be better to find a systematic way of managed migration with normative standards, while we are not only a world of limited numbers of immigrants but we see the flows of people and we will see in mature European economies with ageing populations circumstances that invite, as it were, immigration. This is not the core business of the High Commission for Refugees but it is important for my work.
Members have commented on what we are doing and I think I have dealt with the points raised.
We are delighted to have had this discussion with Mr. Lubbers. It is unfortunate that it has been such a short exchange, but the committee understands that he has another pressing engagement at 4 p.m. This interesting area needs to be addressed on a collective basis and with much more intensity because it is arising constantly. We are delighted to have had this debate with Mr. Lubbers because it has served to remind us of the importance of this matter. I hope Mr. Lubbers's visit to this country is worthwhile. The joint committee is delighted to have had this exchange.
Mr. Lubbers
Thank you so much.