Killing me softly ? "Improving access to durable solutions" : doublespeak and the dismantling of refugee protection in the EU

Away from the European elections, enlargement and agreement on the EU constitution, it has been business as usual in the Commission’s justice and home affairs Directorate which has been churning out communications on a host of controversial issues. Its Communication on asylum, "Improving access to durable solutions" (released on 4 June 2004), is based on New Labour’s "new vision for refugees" which was informally proposed to EU member states in 2003.

Inspired by the Australian government’s "Pacific Solution" for refugees, the Blair government proposed the "external processing" of all asylum claims and "protection in the region" for the vast majority of the world’s refugees - in short, the creation or expansion of refugee camps in eastern Europe, Africa, Turkey and the Middle East. The proposals were roundly condemned by refugee legal groups and human rights organisations as incompatible with the refugee Convention and the (supposedly) fundamental right to seek asylum in the EU. Although the Commission has taken up the UK proposals, to read its communication you might be forgiven for thinking that the drafters of the text are actually calling for more refugees to be given asylum in the EU. The full title of the communication is:

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Managed Entry in the EU of Persons in Need of International Protection and the Enhancement of the Protection Capacity of the Regions of Origin: "Improving Access to Durable Solutions"

The first clue is in "regions of origin", which appears 22 times in the 21 page document. But where the UK government proposed "external processing centres" and "safe havens", the Commission uses even more abstract terms, referring to "determination procedures in a third country" and "regional protection programmes". The Commission proposals also build on the so-called "Convention Plus" initiative from the UNHCR (United Nations High Commission on Refugees) whose endorsement of the UK proposals subject to a few provisos has surprised and angered refugee groups in equal measure.