Issue 256 of SOCIALIST REVIEW Published October 2001 Copyright © Socialist Review
Home secretary David Blunkett has called for Sangatte to be closed, claiming that huge numbers of asylum seekers are using it as a stopover point on their way to Britain. Ann Widdecombe even called it a 'departure lounge'. What's the truth of the matter?
Widdecombe must use totally different airports from me, because I've never been in a departure lounge which is ringed by wire fences, and in which hungry people have to pick berries to feed their kids.
The camp is in a huge prefabricated industrial warehouse on the outskirts of Sangatte village, which is a ten-minute drive from Calais. It's a Red Cross refugee camp, not a detention centre, but conditions are so bad that it's little better than one. The people in the camp belong to the sans papiers--people without identity papers--so the French state washes its hands of them. They receive no state benefits, and depend on charity and their own ingenuity to fill their stomachs.
Of course, many at the camp want to come to Britain, not because they think the country is a 'soft touch'--they know about the draconian asylum policies and racist newspapers--but because, like many of the Kurds, they speak English and have an established community in Britain. Contrary to the garbage in sections of the press about the French encouraging refugees across the English Channel, refugees at Sangatte told me that controls at Calais are tight, and their attempts to come to Britain are being thwarted.
How many people are in the camp, and what are conditions like inside?
There are about 1,600 people, mainly young men, but also women, older men, and some children. The Red Cross is extremely wary of journalists as, quite understandably, are many of the refugees themselves. So I never actually got inside the camp itself.
Talking to asylum seekers, however, it seems that people sleep in tents inside the centre. As you can imagine, facilities for cleaning and cooking are extremely basic, and privacy is impossible.
While I was in Sangatte village about 80 people lined up against a farmhouse wall, sheltering from the wind and rain. It turned out they were waiting for coaches to take them to what they call 'the commune', a municipal hostel in Calais.
One Kurdish man told me that people get one night in the hostel, and if they refuse to leave, the cops come and take them back to the refugee camp. With 80 out of 1,600 people getting a night in the commune, you would be lucky to get a bed there once every three weeks.
You mention the police returning refugees to the camp. Did you notice that there was a big police presence around Sangatte?
Regular police drove through the village every 15 minutes or so while I was there. More importantly, though, the special paramilitary police, the CRS, are permanently based on the outskirts of Sangatte. It seems unlikely that they were based there before the camp opened. If you stand at the gates of the camp for any length of time you will see CRS vehicles speeding up and down, to and from the camp. There is intense police activity around Sangatte.
You said there are children living in the camp. Don't the French authorities make special arrangements for people with kids?
As I say, these are the sans papiers, the non-people of French society as far as the authorities are concerned. That includes children. To give families with little ones proper accommodation would be to acknowledge their existence and make them, in the racist parlance, a 'French problem'. One of the most moving things I saw while I was in Sangatte was a family with two young children walking into the camp, utterly penniless and exhausted. The contrast with the massive wealth on display in the centres of Paris and London was absolutely enraging.
British politicians have called for the camp to be closed. Could that happen?
I think that's extremely unlikely. The beauty of Sangatte for the French authorities is that it takes asylum seekers out of the centre of Calais and puts them out of sight and mind. The French government is no different from the British state in this respect--tourism is a far higher priority than the rights of refugees. Of course, a Red Cross refugee camp is preferable to sleeping on the streets of Calais, but a country as wealthy as France can afford much better than the squalor at Sangatte.
A French court recently turned down the Eurostar train company's case for the closure of the Sangatte camp. How is the British Home Office dealing with the decision?
I think Blunkett realises that the camp won't close, so he's resorting to really disgusting methods in attempting to deter refugees from coming to Britain. It's a disgrace that the French Red Cross is allowing this, but officials from the Home Office are gaining access to the camp to show videos and distribute leaflets telling asylum seekers that Britain has vouchers and detention centres, and that their lives would be even harder over here.
You were in Sangatte two days after the attacks in the US. What effect did the events have among the refugees?
Two of the largest groups of asylum seekers at Sangatte are people from Iraq and Afghanistan. People were obviously appalled by the loss of life in the US, but they were also deeply worried that their families back home would become targets for Bush's retaliation.
One guy from Iraq said he was horrified by the attacks, but that he had never seen such concern in the west for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi victims of the US and Britain.
![]() |
| Desperate for work, food and shelter--these refugees face a daily battle to survive |
|
The Labour government has introduced a whole series of measures aimed at making life hard for asylum seekers. It has replaced normal support with vouchers and refused to allow them to work. It has dispersed them away from London. One of the largest groups of Iraqi Kurds in the country is now to be found in Grimsby. The new places have none of the facilities such as courses for learning English, medical facilities for dealing with torture victims, immigration lawyers. The government has increased the number of asylum seekers it detains both in special detention centres and prisons. Asylum seekers in high security prisons such as Belmarsh or High Down are treated under the same rules as convicted prisoners. The percentage of asylum seekers being detained continues to rise. A new type of reception centre at Oakington in deepest rural Cambridgeshire quickly processes claims, usually within seven days, and detains the asylum seekers while their claims are being processed. So draconian has the government become that it has found itself to the right of the courts. One issue on which they have clashed has been on the definition on who can be a refugee. British courts, alongside American, Canadian and other legal systems based on common law, have ruled that you can be a refugee if you are persecuted in your own country not only by the state, but also by non-state agents but the state ignores or turns a blind eye to it. In France, Germany and other European countries the courts there have a much narrower definition--you can only be a refugee if you are going to be attacked by the state. So the courts here have a more liberal interpretation. The government has hated this, and says that it wishes the courts to adopt the 'European interpretation'. This is what lies behind all the talk of 'harmonising Europe' in its treatment of asylum seekers. The government signed an agreement which wanted all Europe to be considered one area as far as refugees are concerned. The plan was for the asylum seeker to be dealt with in the first |
country that they came to in Europe. The government hoped it could ship asylum seekers back to the first European country, which would then decide on their refugee status. However, this has been blocked by the courts because of the differences in interpretation on refugees. If the refugee fears persecution from non-state agents then the courts have ruled that s/he cannot be sent to countries such as France and Germany. It is against this background that the government and press anger over the ruling that the Oakington reception centre is unlawful is to be understood--but it is important to understand what the ruling does not say. It does not say that asylum seekers cannot be detained. It declares that the government has the right to detain asylum seekers if it believes that they might disappear. But the Oakington centre was never claimed by the government to be a detention centre. It was a reception centre based on the German reception centres, except in Britain you can't leave Oakington, while in Germany you are free to come and go. In Germany few do disappear. It was ruled that it was unlawful just to detain a person for administrative convenience. The government has appealed and may win.
There is a sick, ironic twist to this case. When Oakington was opened it was thought that it would only deal with cases that had little chance of winning asylum. However, from May this year the government started to put Iraqi Kurds through the Oakington process. The stated reason for putting someone through the Oakington system is that these cases could be dealt with quickly and if they failed could be quickly returned to their own country. Iraqi Kurds cannot be returned to their country because of UN sanctions. The asylum seekers whose detention at Oakington was challenged (some later winning refugee status) were all Iraqi Kurds, on whose behalf the government claims to be bombing Saddam. When the same Kurds turn up here they are denied basic human rights. |