BERLIN – on the occasion of the world refugee day on Monday 20 June 2005 the German Institute for Human Rights and UNHCR jointly convened the 5th refugee symposium in Berlin. Around 400 experts discussed current problems of refugee protection as human rights protection. A group of ten asylum, human rights, lawyer’s and charity organisations presented the „Memorandum II: today’s situation of the German asylum procedure” which has been discussed controversially.

Marie-Luise Beck (the Greens), the German Government Representative for Migration, Refugees and Integration, said that the debate on a possible ‚Ueberfremdung’, i.e. a threatening influence of foreigners, of the German society is a mere phantom debate because we are facing less and less people who come to Germany and Europe including aslyum seekers.

More over, Beck criticised the status of refugees from Bosnia. After cruelties as Srebrenica there has been a great readiness to accept refugees from these areas. But, instead of granting full refugee status, these refugees were facing limitations concerning family reunion, liberty to travel and access to the German labour market. Their protection against deportation was limited, too, wherefore these people were easily disposable for state-organized return measures. The Representative for Migration, Refugees and Integration thus pointed out that it generates great concern that the extent and the duration of protection of these refugees depends only on political motivations if protection seeking people are not recognized as refugees under the Geneva Refugee Convention (free download).

 

Professor Jochen A. Frowein from the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg argued that the large scale revocation procedures had to take into account the Geneva Refugee Convention (free download). There were taken some 18,000 decisions to revoke the refugee status whereof only 7,000 were related to people from Iraq. Prof. Frowein made clear that according to the Geneva Convention, this is possible only if the state of origin is able to protect effectively its inhabitants. Concerning Iraq and Afghanistan this was clearly not the case, he added. The representative of the UN refugee agency UNHCR in Germany, Stefan Berglund, confirmed that even the United States assess the situation in Iraq as very dangerous.

 

The Frankfurt lawyer Reinhard Marx presented the „Memorandum II: today’s situation of the German asylum procedure”. A group of ten asylum, human rights, lawyer’s and charity organisations has drafted this report on the current situation of refugee administration within the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF - Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge). Marx said that there was an actual crisis which almost is not perceived by the society. “The crisis is faceless, is soundless”, he said and titled his presentation “Of the loss of the good faith”. Marx stated that the current crisis was not primarily related to national or international legal norms. The critics concentrated on the administrative aspect of the asylum procedure. Already in the 1950ies the fundamental ‘fear of being prosecuted’ (Art. 1 A Nr.2 Geneva Convention) has been replaced by the rational, sober-minded third person. Via the decision of this objective third person taken by the officer in the refugee office, prejudices and reservations against asylum seekers influence the granting of asylum. In many cases there was a high level of distrust against people seeking for protection. Citing an issue paper of psychologists Marx said “in the asylum procedure the necessary effort to avoid abuse is combined with deep xenophobic fears, prejudices and political guidelines.” For granting asylum it is necessary that the officer beliefs what the refugees tells. That’s why the ‘Memorandum II’ urged to rebuild trust in refugees. This is a problem that concerns the whole society. Since Germany as most of the western European states considers asylum procedure as a procedure to fight terrorist, illegal and merely economic immigration, this attitude affects the mental posture of the refugee clerk who do not see themselves as “protection officers” for the refugees.

In addition, there is a fixed catalogue of 25 questions for people applying for asylum whereof only very few question aim at getting information about the refugee’s motivation to flee and leave the country. Most of the questions target at the travel itinerary of the migrant in order to get information of possible terrorist activity or in order to deny the right of asylum because the refugee did cross a safe third-country. This creates a very strange feeling for refugees who get the impression that the authorities are not at all interested in their personal story and motivation. There is a certain indifference vis-à-vis the destiny of these people, stated Marx. In this context he criticised the vast use of text modules. Optimizing the asylum procedure often is understood as optimizing the output and not the quality of the procedure. Stefan Berglund of UNHCR added that sometimes in a notification letter of 22 pages there are 21 pages of text modules. Both urged to rebuild good faith in people who seek for asylum and to strengthen transparency in the asylum procedure.

 

In the following panel discussion the head of division for asylum procedure at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, Hartmut Sprung rejected the critics on his office. The legal practice of the refugee agency was in complete conformity with national and international norms. The asylum officers were aiming at granting protection to the refugees as the refugee organisations do. Only in a working group session on late Monday afternoon Sprung accepted to start an external review process and to take the suggestions of the Memorandum II into consideration.

 

We all know that is very difficult to change the mind and the attitude of hundreds of officials and clerks. In the end it is an administration and the concrete mental posture is hard to survey. But, as Marx said, it is a problem that the European societiy has as a whole. In order to cope with this problem we have to rethink our prejudices. We have to reassess our attitude towards refugees and their destiny and we have to rebuild trust in what they tell us. Politicians in the electoral campaign, experts on public hearings, every single citizen when he or she talks with friends, in the underground and in university. We all have the responsibility and the power to change the attitude.

Let’s do it.

 

by Daniel Naujoks

 

 

Further information: