Joanne van Selm, Senior Policy Analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, introduced John Morrison, Head of Campaigns and Community Affairs for The Body Shop International and soon-to-be Human Rights Director for RespectEurope. His experience in human rights and refugee policy and as author of a UNHCR report on human smuggling and trafficking make him particularly well qualified to comment on changing attitudes toward the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in response to Europe's security concerns. Mr. Morrison's briefing at MPI was the first of a series of events sponsored by the European Commission's Washington, DC delegation entitled "Migration Policy, Politics and Processes in the EU."

Mr. Morrison opened his remarks by describing reasons for which the asylum system is under assault in Europe and why the 1951 Convention is viewed by some as outmoded. Economic downturns and feelings of insecurity lead to anti-immigrant sentiments and more restrictive legislation. The combination of post-September 11th security concerns, the arrest of asylum seekers in a terrorist plot in Britain, weakened economies, and the exposure of cracks in the asylum system itself makes this a defining moment in asylum policy in Europe and, in particular, the UK.

The 1951 Convention, Mr. Morrison indicated, may be limited by its Cold War origins. The case-by-case structure of the asylum system dealt well with individual political dissidents fleeing the Soviet Bloc, but is a poor tool for dealing with refugees today, when broad groups of people are fleeing persecution. Asylum also does not provide for "economic refugees," who may be fleeing conditions that constitute a very real violation of their human rights, if not persecution as such. The asylum system also fails to consider the growing numbers of internally displaced persons.

The system is also fraught with inconsistencies-the 1951 convention made no provisions for burden-sharing or enforcement, so countries can be overwhelmed with petitioners merely by virtue of being easily accessible or particularly attractive to refugees. Recognition rates vary wildly between host countries and according to the gender and origin of the petitioner. For example, 40% of Sri Lankans petitioning for asylum in France were recognized in 1999, versus 4% in the UK. In 2002, only 1% of Sri Lankan asylum-seekers were recognized in the UK, but more than 60% in Canada.

Asylum cases have grown in ways not envisioned in 1951. Asylum-seeking is now the primary channel of immigration into much of Europe. Meanwhile, returning rejected asylum seekers has become increasingly difficult. As a result, asylum is being used by "economic refugees" and immigrants-in reality and, even more so, in public perception. The result has been a backlash against asylum. Mr. Morrison cited the success of the anti-immigrant movement started by Pim Fortyn in the traditionally liberal Netherlands and quoted anti-asylum statements by several European leaders. This trend appears to be more than just a cyclical rise of the far right; the center-left is now demonstrating marked xenophobia.

As a result, stated Mr. Morrison, European countries have adopted practices that violate the principles of the 1951 convention. For example, the now-common practice of holding carriers responsible for the return of rejected petitioners violates the principle of non-refoulement. Other disturbing practices include prosecuting asylum seekers for illegal methods of entry, extending entry controls beyond national borders, and "white lists" of countries from which asylum petitions will not be considered. The movement to condition development aid on cooperation in reducing immigration flows also deserves careful examination

September 11th and the discovery of terrorist cells in Britain has intensified suspicion of asylum, said Mr. Morrison. Asylum seekers are now viewed as potential terrorists. The response to terrorism has reinforced non-entre policies and interest in non-territorial solutions. Meanwhile, xenophobic language and contempt for human rights law has become more acceptable in public discourse. A war with Iraq would cause further complications. Iraqis are currently the largest group of asylum seekers in Europe, and reduction of asylum entries could become part of wartime security strategy.

Mr. Morrison predicted that Europe will build on or around the 1951 Convention, rather than set a new standard. He observed that all of the signatory states, including all EU member states, recently recommitted to the Convention during the Global Consultations on International Protection. The political costs of abandoning the Convention are too high and governments have been going around it for years to meet their own needs.

Still, said Mr. Morrison, the status quo is unacceptable. He then proposed his own vision for progress toward a new asylum system. The situation demands an examination of European identity and how migration fits into that identity. The way ahead will be to articulate a set of principles that provide alternatives to a white Christian vision of Europe.

For Mr. Morrison, the best alternative would be to extend public awareness and definitions of human rights. In Europe, the concept of human rights is largely discussed only among an elite. Native Europeans outside of that elite, however, increasingly view immigrants as a threat to the social, cultural, and economic rights-such as the welfare state-that they enjoy as citizens. Reconciling the elite's view of human rights and the popular view of citizenship rights could provide a path forward. The answer may lie not in a new asylum policy, but a vigorous, holistic view of human rights for both immigrants and natives of host countries.

Dr. Van Selm then invited questions and comments.

Q: Much anxiety about immigration in Europe stems from fear of losing a national cultural identity. What role does this anxiety play in re-examination of the asylum system?

A: Mr. Morrison gave the backlash against immigration in the Netherlands as one example of a situation in which anxiety over cultural change fueled debate on asylum policy. There, liberals based their anti-immigration rhetoric on the perceived conservatism and misogyny of Islam. In the future, Europe will need to separate discussion of asylum from problems in the Islamic world and consider the more palatable realities of Islamic communities in Europe. The way forward, he said, is to find a balanced concept of "cultural rights." One example of progress toward this concept is the case of genital mutilation. Europe as a whole has universally outlawed the practice, but there is much variation in the extent to which the ban is enforced.

Q: What might a new concept of "rights of citizens" or "rights of natives" look like?

A: These rights, said Mr. Morrison, would include social, cultural, and economic aspects. An example is South Africa, where the courts, the public, and politicians are debating the right to health care and health education. Some of these rights appear in the European charter, but were never rolled out. Progress in this area will be particularly difficult in Northern Europe, where the need to defend generous entitlements provided by a large welfare state makes resentment of immigration particularly strong.

Q: Is there concern in Europe about the effects of potential European de-legitimization of the 1951 convention on policies in the rest of the world?

A: Mr. Morrison replied that there is little awareness in Europe of asylum policy in the rest of the world. Further, current European policy, while stopping short of official de-recognition of the 1951 treaty, is de facto lack of recognition of the treaty. Mr. Morrison also pointed out that the asylum system is not a real solution to refugee problems: although most resources that Europe dedicates to refugees go to asylees, they account for an extremely small percentage of refugees. Further, the 1951 convention only addresses civil and political persecution, while economic refugees are shut out. Dr. van Selm also pointed out that most of Asia has still not signed the 1951 Convention.

Q: What prospects are there for alternative pathways for migration into Europe?

A: Mr. Morrison observed that a few high-skill "green card" programs are being considered. Declining birth rates and aging populations will force renewed discussion of economic immigration in the long term. Dr. van Selm commented on the difficulty of integrating temporary labor into welfare-state governments. Germany, for example, had difficulty attracting high-skill laborers from India because temporary workers must pay hefty premiums to support welfare and pension programs yet are offered no hope of permanent residence.

Q: Is there still interest in establishing "safe countries" for refugees?

A: Mr. Morrison stated that there is growing impetus behind the concept of "safe countries" and observed that that Northern Iraq provides a successful model. The case of Turkey, where the possibility of EU membership has been related to Turkey's cooperation in setting up refugee camps, is another sign of growing interest in using "safe countries" as an alternative to asylum.