Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Shelter from the StormAuthor(s): Colin HarveySource: Fortnight, No. 378 (May, 1999), pp. 17-18Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25559686 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 00:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.31 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:58:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I

Shelter from the storm

The events in Kosovo have focused the minds of Europeans on refugees. Europe is no stranger to forced displacement. It was in Europe following

WWII that the inter-n-ation-al legal regime which

protects refugees first emiier-ged. This expression of regional solidarity managed to become the universal legal regime for refugee protection. From the 1960s onwards mass ref'ugee movements shifted away from the region and many genuinely believed that mass forced displacement within Europe was a thing of the past. Such complacency has proved not to be justified. That we leave this century behind with massive displacement from Kosovo is dispiriting. This at times barbaric century has been scarred by the human rights abuses which underlie refugee flows. The expression of human solidarity evident in the people of Omagh's response to the refugee flows from Kosovo stands in sharp contrast to the reaction of developed states in the last decade. These states have adopted, and vigorously applied, a barrage of legal and policy tools designed to insulate them selves from refugee flows. In this instance the gener osity of people has embarrassed the states who act in our names and exposed the nature of their policy response. This points us to a more general trend evident wherever one cares to look at responses to human rights abuses. Today it is civil society that we often turn to for imaginative and energetic defences of rights. In the process new transnational political spaces have been constructed on which this struggle is continually waged.

On Kosovo the emerging response to the refugee movements is confused and piecemeal. To under stand this one needs to be clear about the dominant

themes in refugee law in the past decade or so. Codified refugee law consists primarily of the 1951 (Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. The law contains a concept of "refu gee" and significant protections for this group. The main international organisation tasked with pro tecting refugees is the United Nations High Com

missioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Developed states have mounted a concerted campaign against refu gee law and have consistently tried to erode the right to seek asylum whenever they have had the opportu nity to do so. In this process refugees and asylum seekers are mischievously labelled as "bogus seekers after better lives". We in Ireland should pause for reflection on a process that would have denied assistance to many of our ancestors. Without for

mally amending refugee law European states initi ated a marked change of direction in the 1980s towards what can be crudely described as either the "regionalisation" or "internalisation" of refugee

movements. The dominant logic in Europe is that asylum is to be downplayed with the focus on keep ing refugees as close to, if not actually in, the state of origin. Specific examples of this policy include the creation of both internal and external safe havens; carrier sanctions; visa policies; and welfare restric tion. The message that Europe has been sending to the refugees of the world is "stay away". The idea that

we could somehow insulate ourselves successfully from the injustice and inequality in the world is breathtakingly shortsighted. This has not, however, prevented developed states from having a go. It would be foolish to believe that other regions have not being listening to this message. In Kosovo the

COLIN HARVEY collects the human fall-out from

Kosovo

MAY 1999 FORTNIGHT 17

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.31 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:58:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I I

:'...-... E. . .'. , :... i . .

. . N... : . .. . E ..:

.... .........: j ., i : . : .::::,: :: . . ..: .. .. .sS ..i.i: .

ii Aiie .:.'x..' ''. i..S. ' ........S-D ss v . S .s ss.......

Where it all began-Croatian football fans burn a Red Star

Belgrade shirt at a football match in Zagreb in 1991

initial response was to stress the need to keep refugees close to Kosovo pending safe return.

While popular in the EU it has not proved so alluring to Macedonia and other first countries of asylum. These states are simply doing what they have watched their prosperous neighbours do for years. In the process UNHCR (which relies heavily on donations from western states) is stead ily being transformed into something it was never intended to be. Its masters have rewarded it by increasing funds for the task of keeping refugees out of their countries. What is worrying is the near total failure to mention refugee law. The language of legal duty and principle is thus subtly eroded. Some leading experts believe that refu gee law needs to be comprehensively reformu

lated if it is to remain relevant. On the present evidence they may very well have a point.

Of course, now that mass displacement has returned to Europe the "fortress mentality" is under serious scrutiny. The Treaty of Amster dam brings immigration and asylum under the First Pillar and it will be worth watching

whether a secure mechanism is put formally in place to deal with these types of mass influxes. The EU has the institutional capac ity to deal with it but lacks the political will at

present. There are in fact proposals from the Commission on measures to deal with pre cisely these type of situations but consensus is absent from the Council. It may be some time before the EU matures enough to recognise the advantages that might spring for states and refugees from collective re sponsibility sharing in cases such as Kosovo. From a human rights perspective, the jus tified fear is that these collective trends

may institutionalise the lowest common denominator response which is the dominant theme of collective action thus far. While developed states may want Kosovars to

remain as close to the conflict as possible pend ing safe return, the reality is that the root causes of flight are not being addressed. In this context we need to remind ourselves that refugees have a right to seek protection elsewhere and to benefit from the protection of refugee and human rights law. The people of Omagh have cut through the

manipulative methods of states in their clear expression of solidarity beyond borders. This defence of a much abused human right is to be applauded and should send an unequivocal mes sage to all those on the island of Ireland who claim to speak for us on this issue.

The left and the war

GARY KENT analyses the reaction from the left to the outbreak of

war in Europe

Left-wingers have opposed most wars this century but NATO's strikes against Serbia have deeply di vided the Left. Traditional critics like Tony Benn and Tariq Ali have parted company from significant voices such as Ken Livingstone and Vanessa Redgrave. These divisions may deepen as the reality of war in Kosovo becomes clearer and dearer. The war may soon be over or go on for much longer. The stakes are extremely high.

Anti-war arguments are powerful and can be sum marised thus. Concerns for human rights are incon sistent-look, for example, at the Kurds and Turkey. Bombing consolidates Milosevic and marginalises his opponents. NATO's action is illegal since it was not sanctioned by the UN Security Council. Russia is alienated and is in dangerous political turmoil. There is much validity in such points. Realpolitik, arms sales, impotence and hypocrisy often combine to sweep wrongs under the carpet. But does this mean that we don't act anywhere-if we cannot act every

where?

Many on the Left are uncomfortably allied with right-wingers who favour non-intervention. Pro

NATO left-wingers feel uncomfortable. They can't ignore mass rape and massacre but don't want to give NATO a blank cheque.

History, as ever, plays an enormous role in differ ing perceptions of NATO's action. Some remember

Nazi atrocities against the Serbs and Tito's support for workers' self-management and the non-aligned

movement. Others recall appeasement of the Nazis. For others a visceral anti-Americanism clouds their judgement.

Blair has been quite clear about the war's aims but one cannot quite shake the suspicion that many policy-makers just don't understand the Balkans.

It's also important to pin some blame on those financial institutions which did much to undermine

Yugoslavia. There has been a 100% cut in Serb living standards in the past decade. Hyper-inflation, debt and austerity created vengeful nationalist monsters

18 FO R T N I G H T MAY 1999

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.31 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:58:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions