The Middle East conflict


Current phase of the conflict a year old and little sign of an end

October 2024

There has been an exchange of letters in the Salisbury Journal concerning the conflict in the Middle East. Two letters have focused on the issue of Britain continuing to supply arms to Israel. Although a limited embargo is in place, we still for example supply components for the F35. These aircraft are being used to deadly effect in both Gaza and Lebanon. Over 42,000 are dead in Gaza and more than 2,000 in Lebanon.

The word ‘genocide’ has been used to describe Israel’s action in Gaza and South Africa has launched an action in the International Criminal Court. The allegations make grim reading. There are huge numbers of forced evacuations. A significant part of the population is being forcibly moved. The death toll, particularly among women and children, is rising. Medical aid is failing to reach the population. Tens of thousands are living in make-shift accommodation (the link provides a more detailed picture). In the past day or two, evidence has been put forward to the effect that the starvation of those remaining in north Gaza might be an act of deliberate policy. This is said to be the ‘Generals’ Plan’.

Are these actions genocidal? The problem for the ICJ will be the question of intent. Is the destruction however terrible, a justifiable answer to the atrocious actions of Hamas most particularly on October 7th last year? Is Israel justified in going after the terrorist organisations who continually lob salvos of rockets into their territory? Or is it way over the top and disproportionate? One of the problems the Israelis have made for themselves is not allowing foreign journalists or observers into the area. Last month, the offices of al Jazeera were closed down and done so aggressively. Israel justifies the destruction of buildings, including schools and hospitals. It claims these buildings are used by Hamas to fire rockets into Israel and to prepare for terrorist activities. It claims that the deaths are because Hamas are using the population as ‘human shields’. Very little evidence is provided to justify these claims. One might expect that a year into this conflict, we would see evidence of these alleged activities, evidence that outside observers could verify. Entire buildings have been demolished with massive 2000 pound ‘dumb’ bombs because it is alleged Hamas operatives are present within them.

One of the writers to the Salisbury Journal asserts that the Hamas Covenant of 1988 calls for the obliteration of Israel. A subsequent charter in 2017 distinguishes between Jews and Zionists confining its more violent actions towards the latter. He failed to mention the statement by the Israeli Minister Amichae Eliyahu suggesting a nuclear bomb be dropped on Gaza. Bezalel Smotrich suggested recently that it would be ‘justified and moral’ to starve the population of Gaza. Both have been disavowed. Israeli minister Ben Gvir has said that his right to move around the West bank is superior to freedom of movement for Palestinians. The point being that aggressive and bloodthirsty statements have been made by both parties.

It is largely forgotten that Netanyahu supported Hamas for a period of several years as a means to weaken the PLO. And this is close to the heart of the problem: the desire for a Palestinian state and Israel’s refusal to countenance this. The desire for a greater Israel and the violent actions by the Israelis (misleadingly called settlers) on the West bank are a key element in the conflict. Another misunderstanding is to claim that the violent actions of October 7th were the start of the current hostilities. The roots go back to 1948 nakba at least and elements can be traced back to the Balfour Agreement and further back still. October 7th is but the latest manifestation of long term hatreds.

What makes the conflict hard to unpick is that in effect there are two wars going on. Firstly, that between Israel and Palestine and the former’s resolute stance not to allow a two state solution. Secondly, Iran’s role. This has history going back to the Shah. They have supported Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen as proxies to attack Israel. But the seat of their aggression is again the Palestinian state and a belief that Israel has usurped Arab lands.

A key feature is the imbalance of power. Israel, with a largely unquestioning US support, is the regional superpower. It can project its power over the region. It can do this both militarily and with superior intelligence. This intelligence was seen with the spate of assassinations of Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon recently. None of the other states can match this. The US is sending manpower and more equipment this week. This makes it unwilling to compromise its position simply because it doesn’t need to. The world is waiting for Israel to respond to the rocket attacks from Iran of a few weeks ago. Israel has the capacity to inflict real damage on Iran’s military infrastructure. Iran by contrast, cannot do this. Despite the huge number of missiles hurled at Israel, the damage was minimal.

One major shift is the international attitude towards Israel. The world was shocked by the horrific attack on October 7th. The ensuing destruction of huge chunks of Gaza and the appalling death toll and squalor has seen sympathy for Israel drain away. Western media reporting was largely pro Israel arising partly from a fear of being labelled ‘antiSemitic’ for any criticisms. It has become more balanced and robust as time has gone by. Occasionally, commentators have mentioned the apartheid policy in the West bank. Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem have all published detailed reports on this and Israel has accused them of being anti-Israel. Reporting is hampered by a lack of access to the conflict zones. Claims and counter claims cannot be independently checked.

Conclusions

Should the UK stop sending arms to Israel? From the purely practical point of view, doing so will make little difference. We are a small supplier anyway and so ceasing supplies will not stop or help resolve the conflict. The political position is rather different. The UK is a member of the Security Council and still an influential force around the world. Other countries like Spain, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy have stopped their supplies. The moral case is rather more compelling. Are we content to see the destruction of a vast swathe of both Gaza and increasingly Lebanon? Are we content to see thousands of children die or receive terrible wounds. Can we stand by and accept the use of starvation as a weapon of war? The answer should be ‘no’. If genocide is pronounced, the UK will be obliged to stop all weapons sales.

The imbalance of power is a major factor in the continuation of this conflict and we are contributing to this. We also help Israel with overflights from Cyprus. Wars have to end sometime. Few have mentioned the economic cost of this conflict bearing mind Israel’s population is around 9.5 million 75% of whom are Jews. How long can they sustain this even allowing for massive US aid?

Yesterday’s killing of Yahya Sinwar (17 October), the leader of Hamas, has led the Americans and others to hope that this is some kind of ‘moment of justice’. They hope this is the opportunity for negotiations to begin. It is unlikely. Netanyahu is holding on in the hope that Donald Trump will win the election. Since the US is powerless to rein in Israel and Hamas and the other terrorist groups ignore them, the possibility of an outside force successfully engineering some kind of peace seems remote. Frequent efforts by Qatar came to nought.

An end

Wars end because exhaustion sets in. Another reason is the parties see no hope of gaining victory. Thirdly, the loss of treasure becomes too great to bear and a kind of armed truce takes place. The public may become tired and the initial euphoria turns to boredom or frustration. Unfortunately, in the case of this conflict, these factors which researchers* have identified in other conflicts, may not apply. As argued above, outside forces most particularly the USA, are the drivers here enabling Israel to continue for a long period. In many respects this is a proxy war both by USA and Iran. Israel’s losses are minimal and containable. But the greatest factor is the abiding hatred that seems to exist between the parties.

Being surrounded by enemies, some of whom are committed to its destruction, has a powerful effect on Israel. Nevertheless, it had agreed peace treaties with several countries such as Jordan and Egypt. The Abraham accords were also a positive step. It can be done. Trump’s ending of rapprochement with Iran was a backward step.

This stage of the conflict will come to some kind of an end, or should we say pause. The answer to the arms question is clear. Britain should suspend deliveries and use its diplomatic power to push for a two state solution. It would give Israel the security it needs and it would weaken the power and influence of the terrorist groups.

*MIT Research

Arms to Israel


UK continues to issue arms licences to Israel

June 2024

The conflict in Gaza continues and 36,700 Palestinians have died and well over 80,000 have been injured many seriously. In the last four months alone, 12,300 children have been killed. The death toll inflicted on Gaza is out of all proportion to the atrocity committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found that there is a plausible case for Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide. The response by the deputy foreign secretary Andrew Mitchell is to say that ‘the ICJ does not have jurisdiction [over Israel]’ (source, Government briefing, UK Arms Exports to Israel,’ May 2024). Lord Cameron, the foreign secretary, is quoted as saying that Israel ‘is committed to complying with International Humanitarian Law’ and hence did not recommend that licences be suspended. Today, 12 June 2024, the UN has issued two reports accusing both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity including the use of torture.

Meanwhile, over 100 licences for arms have been issued to Israel since October 7, 2023. Quite what is licensed is difficult to discern. Eight are ‘open’ licences and the statistics do not give the value of the exports. In 2022, the value of arms exports to Israel amounted to £42m. The UK is not a major supplier and the US sends around ten times as much including fighters and artillery.

The ICJ action raises serious questions for the government which may well be different after July 4th. Essentially, governments continuing to arm Israel risk being complicit in genocide which is a specific crime under the convention.

Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and a Palestinian human rights organisation al-Haq, have joined a legal action by Global Legal Action Network for a judicial review. The position of the Labour Party (who may be in government soon) is unclear but the party has had a difficult relationship with Israel and has had to weather many accusations of antisemitism which it is keen to dispel.

There are signs of movement and in March, over 100 MPs and a number of Peers signed an open letter to the government calling for and end of arm sales to Israel. Lord Cameron has been critical of them commenting on the blocking of aid and turning away entire lorries on spurious grounds such as shipments containing ‘dual use’ items (medical scissors).

The question is largely a moral one. Should we continue to supply arms to a state which is causing such damage, bombing entire blocks of apartments, almost destroyed all hospitals and killed so many men, women and children? By not allowing journalists entry, objective assessments of Israeli claims of targeting Hamas fighters is hard to verify and we simply have to rely on IDF statements.

However, the conflict shows no signs of coming to a satisfactory conclusion. A hard-line Israeli government – which has become even more so after the recent resignation of Benny Grantz – is determined to see the complete extinction of Hamas, an objective almost impossible to achieve. The violence in Gaza will be breeding the next generation Hamas fighters. Violence on the West Bank has grown markedly worse. A two-state solution looks impossible to achieve. The continued supply of weapons principally by the US but also by the UK, is simple adding fuel to the fire. More important perhaps than the actual supply of military materiel, is the implicit support that the the licences give to the Israeli government, a government which is disinclined to end the violence.

Sources: CAAT, Guardian, Amnesty,

Human Rights Watch on UK events


HRW comments on the extraordinary events yesterday in the UK

November 2023

This is a piece from today’s (16 November) from HRW.

A Welcome Decision in the UK Regular Daily Brief readers may recall our story on the UK government’s obsession with cruelty, shown by its intention to ship asylum seekers to Rwanda, a country with a terrible rights record. I’m happy to report a good-news update to this story: yesterday, the UK Supreme Court said Rwanda is not a safe country for the government’s plans.

As my UK colleague Emilie McDonnell writes, the decision was “a huge victory that will protect the rights of countless people who have come to the UK seeking safety.” In a unanimous judgment, the UK’s highest court drew attention to Rwanda’s poor human rights record, including threats to Rwandans living in the UK, alongside extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, torture, and restrictions on media and political freedoms.

The Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has responded by vowing to introduce emergency legislation “to confirm Rwanda is safe. ”Instead of arguing with reality, he would be wiser to ditch the government’s unlawful Rwanda deal.

Death penalty report: August, September


September 2023

We are pleased to attach the latest death penalty report produced by group member Lesley for the period mid August to mid September 2023. As ever there is good news and bad with some countries engaged in heavy use of the penalty. China – believed to be the world’s largest executioner of its citizens – is briefly mentioned but detailed statistics are not available because they are a state secret. It is depressing to note in the UK, that following the conviction of Lucy Letby of murdering new born infants and attempting to murder others, a national newspaper ran a poll showing a strong majority to bring the death penalty back for such crimes.

A change in the political climate for human rights


The post war human rights ideology is arguably now over and there is a need for new thinking

July 2023

The post war settlement and the introduction of a ‘rules based order’ for international affairs is arguably now in terminal decline. The creation of the United Nations and the introduction of the Universal Declaration seemed to usher in – many thought – a new way that governments would deal with each other and settle disputes through negotiation. The carnage of the Second World War in which millions of lives were lost was supposed to be a cathartic moment in world history, an event no one wanted to see repeated. Respect for human rights would be a core feature of how people lived around the world.

Recent history casts doubt on this idea and the rise of countries such as China, a post Stalinist Russia and the wealth of Saudi Arabia are beginning to show that the comforting idea of the rules based order is under considerable threat. More and more countries are showing that they can exist quite happily in the world by ignoring nearly all considerations of human rights and a democratic norms. China’s treatment of its Uighur minority has received wide coverage with nearly a million people being subject to so-called ‘re-education’ in an attempt to mould an entire population away from its beliefs and culture. They have almost eliminated any semblance of a free democracy in Hong Kong. Myanmar has brutalised its Rohingya minority forcing huge numbers out of the country. The treatment of Palestinians in Israel and the creation of what is effectively an apartheid state, shows that even a country with a powerful democratic system can behave badly towards those they wish to marginalise. We could quote other examples including Türkiye, Syria, Libya and more recently, Tunisia where in their different ways, human rights and the treatment of its citizens are a long way from the intentions of the Universal Declaration.

Sportswashing

We have discussed sportswashing in several previous posts and in particular, Saudi Arabia with its funding of Newcastle United football club for example, and hosting a Grand Prix, tennis and golf tournaments and other sporting investments. Since early 2021, they have invested at least £4.9bn ($6.3bn) in various sporting events and are currently seeking to purchase the footballer Kylian Mbappé from Paris St Germain for a reported €300m. For them it buys kudos. The sums are so large that a significant number of sports stars are willing to overlook any considerations of human rights and sign up for the various lucrative deals on offer. The extent of their denial of rights can be seen in a report by grant Liberty.

Commercial activity

It would be unfair to heap blame on sports stars alone. After a brief lull following the murder and dismemberment of Adnan Khashoggi, western firms are all too willing to get involved in the many deals and contracts on offer from the kingdom. Even architectural practices are lured to the many contracts of offer as part of the massive half a trillion dollar Neom development being proposed in south west Saudi. We have been happy to supply Saudi with a variety of weapons and personnel to enable it to carry on its war in Yemen creating what, according to the UN, is the worst humanitarian disaster in modern history. In addition to football clubs, the Saudi investment fund is being eagerly welcomed to Teesside.

The significance of the change has not really been taken on board. Saudi’s enormous wealth, China burgeoning power and the increasing post-colonial confidence of countries like South Africa, means there has been a shift away from the ‘Washington consensus’. Human rights have little if any role to play in most of the Gulf states. Opposition is banned, torture is widely practised, human rights activists harassed or arrested and media tightly controlled. A similar story exists in China which operates as a one party state and where human rights norms are largely ignored.

Countries like the UK seem almost to have given up on any pretence that human rights form part of their decision making and in our relations with these countries. In a sense, it is part of our national decline particularly economically. In a word, we can no longer afford to pick and choose. If we want investment in our country, especially in less popular areas (economically speaking) then if a country like Saudi has the money then so be it. If we want sell arms then we must hold our noses and sell to more or less anyone who needs them. Noises are made about export controls and end user certificates, but the pressure is to steer round them not to use them as a force to limit their sale. The recent loss of the court case concerning arms sales to Yemen is a case in point. It is not just the government’s failure to properly consider human rights issues and the terrible effects of bombing in Yemen, but the judges seemed also to push reason to one side in their judgement.

Post war consensus

Post war and in the half century or so which followed, was a period of hope and a belief that human rights could be encouraged around the world. It was not all plain sailing and it took a long time for oppressive states like East Germany to collapse along with other east European states to gain freedom from the Soviet Union. Many countries achieved independence from the colonial powers, France and the UK principally. The UN and its various agencies was able to pursue policies and programmes of benefit to millions of people, tackling polio for example.

In recent times, the leadership of US is coming under strain. Internally, it is struggling with the very concept of democracy. European states are far from united and although there has been some unity in the response to the invasion of Ukraine, they seem far from making the weather as far as human rights and the rule of law are concerned.

What is interesting about sport is the lack of conscience or morality among a significant number of sporting people. If the money is sufficient, they accept the gig, with seemingly no compunction. That women are treated as second class citizens, executions are carried on at an horrific rate, sometimes in public, torture is routine and LGBTQ people are punished or imprisoned, seems not to trouble them. The question is whether this reflects the zeitgeist of the population at large? Are people no longer interested in human rights considerations in our sporting and commercial actions? Have we reached a point in our history where we no longer believe in things which were always said to be a key part of the British character: decency, fair play and respect for the underdog? It would seem so. If the public is more concerned with entertainment and the success or otherwise of their team or sporting hero, who can blame the sportsmen and women taking the millions of riyals on offer?

There does need to be a rethink of our approach to human rights. The belief in largely state led approaches, through treaties, declarations, legal actions and the like, is no longer sustainable especially if the states concerned are more concerned with economic pressures than with the rights of people often far away. The centre of gravity has to a large degree shifted away from the West to countries like China, the Gulf states, Russia and non-aligned countries like Brazil. Some of these countries have a different concept of rights and see Western countries only too willing to turn a blind eye if contracts and sufficient money is on offer. It would seem a little foolish to continue pursuing the post-war ideology in a world which has substantially moved away from those ideas.

Sources include: Amnesty International; New Statesman; Guardian; CAAT, Grant Liberty

Refugee report – June


Refugees continue to generate considerable political tension in the UK

June 2023

We are pleased present our monthly refugee report thanks to group member Andrew for preparing it. Refugees, immigration and the boat people continue to generate a considerable degree of political and media heat in the country.

The latest immigration figures for 2022 give a total of 606,000 arrivals, but most of these are legal, and mainly students. There were 7,000 applications for asylum (by 91,000 people). In the first quarter this year 3,793 applications were received, compared to 4,548 last year. It is worth noting that the numbers are higher in France, Germany and Spain. Arrivals in the UK amount to just 7% of the European total.

Arrivals to the UK are just 7% of the European total

20,000 claimants were in detention in March, 20% fewer than last year, but the average period of detention was longer.

Few forced returns based on asylum claims have taken place, the majority of them being to Albania, where the new agreement has resulted in 90% of arrivals from Albania being returned there.

The Illegal Migration Bill is this week in committee stage in the House of Lords, and a vast number of amendments are being debated. The largest bone of contention currently is the lack of an economic impact assessment of the measures, which the government has said it will produce “in due course”. The BBC has claimed that the cost of the new rules will be up to £6 billion over the next two years. The Refugee Council have more precisely reckoned it at £8.7 to 9.5 billion over 3 years. The Home Office have admitted that numbers would have to be below 10,000 for the Act to be operational. On the plus side for the Government, former senior judge Lord Sumption has argued that justification for overruling their Rwanda plan by the ECHR would be “slender.” On this point, the Sun is reporting that the Home Office think they can make their first flight to Rwanda in September if the Court of Appeal rules in their favour.

The Prime Minister, on his visit to Dover this week, claimed that his policies were working, as the number of asylum seekers arriving in small boats was down 20% this year. Others have suggested this has had more to do with the weather in the English Channel, and the fact that most crossings take place between July and September.

It is reported that the two new vessels commissioned to house asylum seekers are cruise liners. Apart from the plan for a barge to be moored at Portland, other locations are presently unknown.

The Refugee Council has been protesting this week about the size of the accommodation made available to claimants. Operation Maximise is a deliberate initiative to cram as many claimants as possible into the available accommodation. The leader of Westminster Council has said it “defies common sense and basic decency.”

The UNHCR has produced an audit of the UK asylum system and declared it to be “flawed and inefficient.”  The report particularly points to a lack of training at the Home Office, inadequate information on claimants, lack of skill in interviewing, and an inability to assess children’s ages accurately.

An article in Coda Media has drawn attention to the EU’s International Centre for Migration Policy Development, a shady body based in Vienna that has been supplying Maghreb governments with material to aid disempowering boats aiming to cross the Mediterranean.

AH

UK government denies Apartheid operates in Israel


New British/Israeli agreement opposes use of the word ‘Apartheid’ to describe Israeli actions against the Palestinians

March 2023

On Tuesday, the UK government signed an agreement with the Israeli government part of which agreed to oppose the use of the word ‘Apartheid’ to describe Israeli’s actions in the occupied areas. Three substantial reports have been published describing the system in operation: one by Human Rights Watch, one by Amnesty and one by B’Tselem in Israel itself. We provided links to each in a previous post. Each is a closely argued and evidenced document and to our knowledge, has not received a detailed rebuttal from the Israeli government. Haaretz and other news organisations described Israel’s reaction to the Amnesty report as ‘hysterical’. The Israeli government described Amnesty as ‘anti-Semitic’.

The agreement says that it will also seek to confront anti-Israel bias in international relations including in the UN. The Palestinian Ambassador said it represented ‘an abdication of the UK’s responsibilities under international law and the UK’s unique responsibility to the Palestinian issue’.

President Netanyahu is on a visit to the UK this week and was met by a demonstration of Jewish people when he visited 10, Downing Street for a meeting with the prime minister. Banners and cries of ‘Dictator on the run’ greeted his arrival. There have been months of demonstrations in Israel itself over proposals to prevent Netanyahu being deprived of office if he is found guilty of corruption and other crimes (which he denies). The agreement’s description as a ‘freedom loving and thriving democracy’ seems extraordinary in view of these events.

The evidence of Israel’s mistreatment of its Arab population has been well documented. Many Israel politicians and writers have warned of the steady slide towards apartheid as has the Israeli group Yesh Din who gave a legal opinion that ‘the crime against humanity of apartheid is being committed on the West Bank’.

Israeli politicians have become increasingly worried that the unquestioning support the country received from the US is beginning to waver. More and more Americans are beginning to doubt Israeli actions and protestations of a desire for peace. The unquestioning and uncritical support by the UK government by contrast will be very welcome therefore. In addition to the Conservatives, Sir Keir Starmer is quoted as saying that ‘Israel is not an apartheid state’. Labour has experienced severe problems concerning alleged anti-Semitism and the party is keen to ‘root out’ the problem to use Starmer’s words. Neither party seems able to look at the evidence and they deny the facts, if for different reasons.

This is yet one more action by the UK government which seems to demonstrate an almost wilful neglect of human rights norms both within the UK and overseas. Its desire to get rid of the Human Rights Act as well as other legislation limiting the ability to protest or seek judicial review represent an increasingly authoritarian view. An official was quoted as saying that moral considerations now come a poor second to business and diplomacy.

Sources: International Centre for Justice for Palestine; Haaretz (English); Human Rights Watch; Amnesty International; Middle East Eye; Daily Mail; Guardian; Jewish Chronical.

Death penalty report


March 2023

We are pleased to attach the latest death penalty report for Mid February – March 2023 thanks to group member Lesley for the work in preparing it. The desire for the newly appointed deputy chair of the Conservative Party, Lee Anderson MP, for the reinstatement of the penalty in the UK is unwelcome.

Death penalty report


Monthly Death Penalty report for Dec 2021 to mid Jan 2022

We are pleased to attach the latest monthly death penalty report thanks to group member Lesley for compiling it. Note that China – which is believed to execute more of its citizens than the rest of the world combined – is not included since details are a state secret.

Refugee developments


Issues to do with refugees and immigrants continue to make waves in the UK

The main development post-Christmas 2021 on the UK refugee front has been the announcement of plans for the proposed Afghan Citizens’ Resettlement Scheme, originally promised in the Summer. Ministers confirmed that the resettlement scheme will open this month, providing up to 20,000 Afghan women, children, and others most at risk with a safe and legal route to resettle in the UK.

The ACRS will build upon the UK’s continuing efforts to support those at risk, alongside the relocation of British nationals, and those who supported our armed forces through the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP).

The ACRS will prioritise:

  • those who have assisted UK efforts in Afghanistan
  • extremely vulnerable people such as women and girls at risk and members of minority groups

Minister for Afghan Resettlement, Victoria Atkins, said:

“We are committed to supporting everyone we have evacuated from Afghanistan to make a success of their new life in the UK. I’m very grateful to everyone who has stepped forward to help. The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme provides a safe and legal way for the most vulnerable and at-risk people from Afghanistan to come to the United Kingdom and rebuild their lives, as part of the New Plan for Immigration. Operation Warm Welcome is a huge national effort which could not succeed without the compassion and determination of our partners in local government, the private sector, voluntary organisations and the great British public. “

Further details will be set out this month, but a row has immediately broken out about how many of the refugees are among those already in the UK and whether the “most vulnerable” will be able to be resettled before 2023.

In 2021 a total of 28,300 refugees and asylum seekers arrived in England by boat, three times the number for 2020. The largest number arrived in November, many of them from Afghanistan. The sharp increase in numbers is at least partly accounted for by the reduction in ferry crossings post-COVID and the tighter control of lorries using the Channel Tunnel.

Government figures show that only 1,171 refugees were granted protection through resettlement schemes in the year to September.

Border Force officers are threatening to strike in response to Home Secretary Priti Patel’s Channel “pushback” tactics. The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) said it was “totally opposed” to Patel’s tactics, which would see Border Force jet skis block and redirect migrant boats in the Channel back toward France. Both PCS and the Care4Calais charity have announced they’ll take the Home Office to court over the policy, while PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka said his members could go further by striking and refusing to implement it.

Home Office policy

The Independent revealed that the government has given more than £700,000 to a “migration behaviour change” company that runs communications campaigns targeting asylum seekers in their home countries.

The Home Secretary ‘s latest thinking on asylum seekers seems to be directed at keeping even tighter control of those awaiting decisions. Under the Home Office’s “new plan for immigration”, Patel is expected to announce early in the new year that small boat arrivals will be electronically tagged.

Ministers also hope tagging working-age people will make it harder for them to work illegally while their asylum claims are processed, and make it easier to remove those whose application for asylum has failed. The plan has been described as “desperate and draconian” by the chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.

New bill

The Nationalities and Borders bill continues its progress, having now had a second reading in the Lords. The government’s current emphasis was expressed by Home Office minister Tom Pursglove, who said that the government was reforming its approach to asylum through its new plan for immigration.

“Seeking asylum for protection should not involve people asylum shopping country to country, or risking their lives by lining the pockets of criminal gangs to cross the Channel,” he said. “The nationality and borders bill will make it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK illegally and introduce life sentences for those who facilitate illegal entry into the country. It will also strengthen the powers of Border Force to stop and redirect vessels, while introducing new powers to remove asylum seekers to have their claims processed outside the UK.”

Free Movement have concluded that the changes to the bill have made it worse, mainly in the area of making it more difficult for asylum seekers to get hearings: “This Bill will entrench existing problems: people with a legitimate basis to stay in the UK – and genuine grounds to fear removal – can be removed without effective access to justice. Making it legally easier to remove people from the UK in principle does nothing to make the system any more efficient in practice. Greater effort should be made to increase the quality and accuracy of Home Office decision-making in the first place.”

Bridget Chapman, a blogger and refugee charity worker has noted the Home Office’s claims about the ages of migrants – her comments follow (courtesy of Free Movement)

  1. The Home Office has suggested that over 1,100 adults have lied and pretended to be child asylum seekers over the past year
  2. The Home Office has weaponised this claim and has used it to undermine sympathy for young refugees, saying they are not genuine children but predatory adult men
  3. Actually the figures are misleading anyway because of the completely inappropriate and inadequate ways in which assessments are made after young people arrive
  4. They are also misleading because many of the age assessments which find them to be adults are subsequently overturned (those pesky activist lawyers again, damn them)
  5. The Home Office is now promising ‘scientific methods’ for accurately assessing young people’s ages
  6. These methods don’t exist
  7. Much of the media are reporting on these ‘scientific methods’ and uncritically regurgitating Home Office press releases
  8. We should all be really cross about that
  9. There is a real danger to the many asylum-seeking children who are wrongly assessed as adults and have their safeguarding put at risk as a result
  10. Those of us working on the ground with young refugees have serious and growing concerns about this.

However, the biggest attacks on the bill have been about Clause 9, the ability of the Home Secretary to remove British citizenship more easily than at present. It has been suggested that this leaves up to 6 million citizens in jeopardy of such an eventuality.

On campaigning, note that the organisers of Refugee Week will be holding their planning conference online on two dates:

Monday 7 February 1030am – 1245pm
Friday 11 February 1030am – 1215pm

Places are available.


Other bills which will have an effect on human rights were discussed in a previous post.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑