Political disconnect in Calais and Dunkirk

Screen Shot 2016-02-10 at 10.30.54It is not surprising that media reports focus on the appalling conditions in the Calais and Dunkirk camps. On a recent trip Lord Roberts’ team saw for themselves how men, women and children live in knee-high mud, and brave the winter weather with little more than flimsy tents to keep the wind and rain at bay. In response to accusations that the British government are neglecting their humanitarian responsibilities, the Prime Minister champions the fact that under the Dublin Regulations, the UK has to allow family members of British people to claim asylum in the UK.

Despite the Dublin Regulations, the reality is that virtually no one can access this legal route. Many asylum seekers do not fully understand the unnecessarily complex system, and are unaware of exactly what their rights are; there are even reports of British passport holders unable to enter the UK from the camps. Despite government claims that British officials are present in the camp, these visits are occasional at best and offer no means of beginning an asylum claim. So although many asylum seekers in Calais and Dunkirk (as well as across Europe) have a legitimate legal right to claim asylum in the UK, it is incredibly difficult to access in practice. 

The French government are also forcing asylum seekers to live in unsafe, unsanitary and punishing conditions. Life in the ‘Jungle’ is arguably more bearable than life in the rapidly expanding camp in Dunkirk, because since the summer communities have built a theatre, library, and numerous churches, mosques and shops. The majority of people in Calais live in solid structures provided by numerous grassroots groups, such as Help Refugees. Meanwhile in Grande-Synthe, French police prevent even the most basic of building materials from entering the camp because the mayor does not want the camp to expand. Thus, people are denied the opportunity to improve their living conditions, and are forced to live in knee-high mud with few hygiene facilities (many of which are often broken). There are numerous NGOs such as the French Red Cross and UNHCR which specialise in crisis management. These organisations could drastically improve living conditions in the camps at no cost to the government, but French authorities refuse in the vain hope of deterring other migrants from coming to Dunkirk.

Of course, dealing with the humanitarian crisis across the Channel is not the sole responsibility of French. As one French grassroots volunteer pointedly asked me: “Where are the British in all this?” The British government have admitted that “the management of the camp – both in terms of humanitarian aspects and maintaining law and order – is the responsibility of the French Government”. The government have effectively washed their hands with the humanitarian crisis, and hidden behind the Dublin Regulations which state that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach (which is usually Greece, Italy or Turkey). The reality is though, many people in the camps on the French coast (and, indeed, across Europe) want to come to the UK; this makes it, unequivocally, a British concern.

Additionally, there are numerous accounts of police brutally beating, gassing and intimidating peaceful asylum seekers without provocation. Reports of police using tear gas against areas of the camp used by children are particularly disturbing. Tear gas is banned during warfare through the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 and the Geneva Conventions. However, use of tear gas can be lawful if used for riot control. Alarmingly though, unprovoked attacks are becoming an almost nightly occurrence. This is treatment you’d perhaps expect to see in countries such as Syria or Libya – countries run by tyrannical dictators. This is not something you should expect to see in the country with the 6th largest economy in the world.

Perhaps equally disturbing is the fact that the international community has so far failed to address this. The British government has allowed this treatment to go unchecked. Whether or not the British government accept more refugees is a separate argument, but it is woefully clear that the UK is ignoring numerous obligations to intervene in the crisis under supranational law, including; the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – to name but a few.

It is not too late for the British government to intervene in the humanitarian crisis on the French coast. The UK possesses the political muscle to pressure French authorities. Both nations were able to work together swiftly and effectively to protect national interests by fortify the Channel Tunnel complex; there is no reason why the two governments cannot work equally as effectively to tackle the humanitarian emergency. Responsibility for preventing the prevalence of systematic violence, squalid living conditions and the non-existence of legal advice goes beyond moral obligation – it is a legal requirement. The UK’s response (or lack thereof) begs the question – what is the point of international treaties and agreements if they are brushed under the carpet when convenient?

As two of the richest and most powerful nations in Europe, the British and French governments do possess the economic capital and political weight to deal with this crisis. Both governments need to get their heads out of the sand, and work together to fulfil their legal and moral obligations.

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in Europe / International and Op-eds.
Advert

2 Comments

  • Under the help your neighbour principle of asylum and next safe country principle I am happy to help and take in all the refugees to this country when there is war or abuse in the country’s next to us, so that’s Spanish, French, Belgian, Dutch, German, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic or Flemish nationals, these are our neighbours and these people’s safe port of call would be us in the UK if they were in danger.

  • suzanne fletcher 20th Feb '16 - 12:26pm

    Thanks to you, Bradley, and others in your team, for going over there, seeing for yourself, and doing this write up

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarDavid Evershed 25th Feb - 12:26am
    On a development site with approval for 100 homes: - sometimes the approval is in phases governed by the planning conditions - builders can not...
  • User AvatarMichael 1 24th Feb - 10:58pm
    I am an Unionist albeit one that lives in England. But I'd suggest several things to preserve the union. 1. We and the other unionist...
  • User AvatarPaul Holmes 24th Feb - 10:12pm
    @TCO Council tenants are not allowed to sublet their premises. And no, many Councils do not have suitable smaller accomodation to offer for tenants to...
  • User AvatarMichael 1 24th Feb - 10:10pm
    My understanding is that councils can now borrow more for their own commercial undertakings and some (many ?) are doing that to fund their own...
  • User AvatarHywel 24th Feb - 8:59pm
    "Whoever you are, the Liberal Democrats will stand up for you" Homophobes, transphobes, racists, holocaust deniers, anti-vaxxers Are those in the 'whoever' the Lib Dems...
  • User AvatarDavid McDowall 24th Feb - 8:47pm
    I share Alexandrine's disgust at the conduct of Arab governments towards their Palestinian communities. They have little to be proud of. But why are these...