Views from the bar: The refugee crisis

KANISA GEORGE

The movement of people from one place to another is nothing new. Early human beings lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers moving about in small groups, searching for food and essential supplies to survive. Mobility was the number one survival strategy, and by constantly moving around, early man ensured their survival.

The Neolithic Revolution saw the rise of agricultural practices that ushered in a new way of life. Permanent settlements could now provide for more considerable population growth, resulting in a decline in the constant movement for survival.

Society has come a long way since our days as cavemen and agile hunter-gathers, but our need to move hasn't been satiated. We move for work, leisure and in some cases, merely to find ourselves, and just like with everything else, laws regulate how this can be done, for how long and who is allowed to do it.

However, a humanitarian issue arises when droves of people are forced to leave their homes, desperate to protect their lives and seek refuge in another country.

Moving from one neighbouring band to another was an option used by nomadic men to avoid brewing conflict or fleeing from starvation. Then, one merely needed to show they weren't a threat to the tribe and was strong enough to contribute. Today, to flee conflict, starvation, you must jump over the hurdle of immigration law.

The 19th century represented an era some might call modern mass migration. There was very little control, and eventually, countries could not manage the high influx of people. This sparked the need for an immigration control mechanism and the invention of border control. The First World War and the 1917 Russian Revolution created Europe's first refugee crisis, resulting in approximately five million refugees.

Today the refugee crisis sticks out like a sore thumb, and some countries feel strongly about protecting the most vulnerable. In contrast, others prefer to veer slightly away from long-standing conventions.

The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention, was created after World War II and legally recognised refugees in the region based on their experience of displacement rather than their country of origin. The convention has since developed into a global refugee rights system and is viewed as the centrepiece of international refugee protection. The convention legally binds signatories to recognise and protect people who flee their countries of nationality because of persecution or conflict.

Key features of the convention are a single universal definition of the term refugee as well as the principles of non-discrimination outlined in Article 3 and non-refoulement contained in Article 33. According to the convention, a refugee is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of nationality owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

Interestingly, about one-quarter of UN member states have not ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention. Some argue that the convention is pointless as these states are only informed by norms established by the convention and a desire to maintain diplomacy.

While TT is a signatory to the convention, there isn't a comprehensive scheme of legislations to address this issue. In fact, until the recent Venezuelan immigration crisis, an argument can be made that this issue wasn't at the forefront of our minds. A paper published by the Caribbean Centre for Human Rights reported several shortcomings in TT's approach to refugees. The report cited issues such as refoulement, deportations, and inhuman conditions in detention centres, such as overcrowding.

As well-intended as the convention might be, some states believe it must be updated to address the current state of affairs. One writer proffered, that refugee protection is a highly-politicised issue, and several states are now openly questioning whether or not the Refugee Convention is still relevant. For example, in 2018, the Australian Minister for Home Affairs proclaimed that "like-minded" states should come together and rethink the convention. He believed that it was outdated and failed to consider the current situation. Then there is the issue of legitimacy, which according to some, is partly because there are no courts or other similar bodies to ensure that states uphold their obligations under the convention.

The main challenge underscoring the refugee situation is the financial burden placed on the receiving country. It was once touted that refugees are the world's responsibility, yet the convention says nothing about how responsibility for the world's refugees should be shared.

An article published by the Independent in February 2022 showed that the UK government spent £4.7 million a day housing asylum seekers in hotels.

This figure is expected to grow because of the war in Ukraine and the increased number of persons seeking refugee status in 2021. But, sadly, in the midst of persons fleeing genuine hardships, some manage to manipulate the system.

To crack down on unauthorised migrants, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a plan to fly people seeking asylum in the UK to Rwanda. The initiative is a way to deal with human traffickers who exploit an already overburdened system.

In response, the UNHCR expressed that it does not support the externalisation of asylum states' obligations, as this could potentially lead to shifting rather than sharing responsibilities to protect refugees.

The refugee crisis is a complex and highly nuanced issue, and only a handful of countries manage to champion the cause. It is an issue that requires a more realistic approach to what was initially thought to be adequate and genuinely requires everyone's commitment. Wouldn't it all be simpler if we could go back to the days of traversing without restrictions?