Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-03-Speech-3-124"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011003.4.3-124"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The two reports, one on the procedure for granting asylum to refugees and the other on ΕU immigration policy are in fact both an attempt to deal with the same problem. The problem of the influx into the Member States of the ΕU of people who have lost everything, of people who are in danger in their own country, either because they are being politically persecuted or for reasons of economic survival.
Reports and other EU documents on the matter always contain a paragraph referring to the need to combat the causes of asylum-seeking and immigration. Of course, what they fail to mention is the criminal responsibility of imperialism, which has exploited the natural and human resources of third world countries for centuries and which has no hesitation in setting up and bringing down what are usually authoritarian governments in order to serve its economic interests. The furious struggle of the imperialist forces to overturn Socialism, the war which they ignited in the Balkans and the recent tragic example of the war planned against their own Taliban and Bin Laden resulted and will continue to result in millions of unfortunate people hanging about in the countries of the ΕU and elsewhere, looking for a place in the sun. Consequently, we should have no delusions about the fact that, as long as imperialism prevails, asylum-seeking and immigration will live and rule.
So the question is, how can we manage the problem better? In this respect, the Evans report on granting asylum contains a number of positive points and proposals. However, it is still a wish list. For example, it quite rightly points out that the concept of ‘safe’ countries of origin or ‘safe’ third countries is very fluid and the danger here is that people will be deported to countries in which they are at risk, that is, they will literally be sent into the lion's den. A typical example is Turkey, a candidate country, which the ΕU considers has made steady progress in the field of human rights. In reality, as we all know, people are imprisoned in Turkey for their ideas, hunger strikers and other people fighting for democracy are murdered, parties which represent millions of Kurds or opponents of the regime (such as the Communist party) are banned, trade unionists are arrested and so on. And yet there are countries in the ΕU, including Greece, which deport opponents of the regime to this ‘safe’ country.
As far as the conditions of survival of refugees are concerned, a typical example is Greece, where thousands of Kurds live in shanty towns in Lavrio and Afghans and other refugees sleep in cardboard boxes on the beaches in Athens, deprived of even the basic necessities.
Likewise, the report quite rightly highlights the huge delay in processing asylum applications and the fact that the Member States are unwilling to grant asylum. In Greece, for example, an average of 5% a year are approved and only this year did this rise to 7%.
We shall vote in favour of the Evans report because it proposes improvements to the current system of protection for refugees. However, we feel that only solidarity and a united fight by both refugees and workers in the Member States of the ΕU in a bid to claim dignified living conditions for everyone and, more to the point, wipe out the reasons for refugees and poverty will provide a definitive solution to the problem."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples