5. THE NEW REALITY OF PROTECTION
Protection itself is assuming new meanings. Roberts (1998) identifies a dichotomy which spans over on the one hand legal protection, i.e. state protection and refugee status and on the other hand physical protection. Under the previous asylum regime no noticeable discrepancy separated the two. Protection then also used to imply the quest for three possible solutions, permanent settlement in the country of exile (that was generally the case in industrialised countries), resettlement after a temporary stay in a transit country or repatriation from the later. While it generally used to involve a durable solution after the crossing of an international border its meaning has now shifted to include primarily in-country protection and repatriation from temporary solutions if a border was crossed. In the industrialised world some scholars have referred to a non-integration programme (Joly 1996). What has undoubtedly happened is that more restrictive asylum policies have been paired with less favourable reception/settlement policies. On the whole, quota for resettlement as a durable solution are very limited: ten states receive between 30 000 and 50 000 annually (Suhrke 1998) while the global burden-sharing and permanent settlement offers witnessed on the occasion of the Vietnamese refugee movement was replaced for Bosnians and Kosovans by temporary protection for limited numbers. A good amount of formulae stressing the search for solutions have been elaborated ‘protecting’ people in situ (hence the importance accorded to internally displaced persons), in the region of origin, under other statuses than the Geneva Convention status in reception countries including for the first time in Europe temporary protection. One theme, which is slow to emerge in agencies concerns and scholarly writings is the question of women refugees, despite their overwhelming numbers and specific situations.

However the main emphasis has been laid on repatriation, which has gained great credence among policy-makers and NGOs and is customarily clamoured as the optimal solution for refugees with a view to spare them the trauma of exile. This is why the terminology used by governments and agencies concerned focuses on solutions rather than protection. Repatriation has become a central concept: 10 Million returned to their countries of origin between January 1991 and early 1997 (Roberts 1998). In Central America a regional process of peace with international representation incorporated a plan for the return of refugees; in the region the refugees continue to play an active role in the peace process as they had in their paths to exile and countries of reception. In parallel to this development the US introduced stricter border enforcement’s through multilateral and bilateral agreements (two Acts in 1996) to return aliens to so-called third countries while Guatemala introduces severe sanctions for assistance to undocumented aliens (between five and eight years in prison) (Nezer 1999). Forcible returns have been numerous in different areas of the world: from Iran to Afghanistan and Azerbaijan, from Bangladesh to Burma, from Thailand to Burma and Cambodia, from Tanzania and the Congo to Rwanda, from Germany to Bosnia, from the US to Haiti and Cuba. Repatriation has sometimes been monitored by international agencies including UNHCR and may become one component of a development aid package to reconstruct a region formerly in conflict (as in Bosnia). Some industrialised countries have also offered return programmes to refugees settled on their territory (such as Norway).

In Europe the qualitative change which has taken place is noticeable in the general attitude of governments, media and populations which now tend to be hostile to refugees and asylum‑seekers; racism and xenophobia are rampant. Politicians' declarations, electoral results on asylum, and criminal acts against refugees testify to this (Joly with Nettleton and Poulton 1992). In the UK the months of February and March 2000 resonated with a particularly hostile media coverage of the refugee issue, in the newspapers, the television and the radio. All types of refugees are affected. In addition the de jure and de facto differential incorporation of different categories of refugees and the discrimination they suffer turn them into prime targets of exclusionary societal processes. Conditions of reception are often designed adversely with the clear purpose of deterring arrivals or applications. This may include detention, limitation in the freedom of movement, reduced or no welfare benefits, limited rights to education or to work. Each country tries to outbid the next in the exercise of 'humane deterrence' to ensure that they do not 'attract' too many asylum‑seekers.

Asylum‑seekers suffer from a negative presumption. One could almost say that they are considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent (of 'frauding') and this is their responsibility. A non‑integration programme is also implicit in the measures applying to non‑Convention refugees in most of the European countries. There are no early programmes or facilities towards integration available to them, their authorisation to stay is limited in time and they generally do not enjoy social rights on a par with nationals: social benefits, right to work, right to family reunion. The quality of protection is inferior. They have to fend for themselves and may achieve a satisfactory settlement almost against and despite the host society, if and when they eventually obtain some form of authorisation to stay. Moreover, even after obtaining the latter, they are not always provided with identity /travel documents. This results into the creation of a marginalised group in a semi legal situation.

Temporary protected refugees are a case in point which even demonstrate the existence of programmes precluding integration into the majority society; TP does not include measures towards integration; on the contrary, reception facilities sometimes evidence a policy to deter integration: as in Denmark where TP persons were kept in a camp where they were not taught the host country's language and where children were educated according to the curriculum of their country of origin (Brochman 1995). Temporary protection generally did not provide the same level of rights as Convention refugees and in particular did not award family reunion or identity papers. Even UNHCR initially requested a minimum standard of treatment much more limited than that to which Convention refugees are entitled (UNHCR 1992). Moreover the length of stay is limited by the very status which stipulates return as the main objective and durable solution associated with TP status. This tends to disempower those groups and hamper their contribution to reception societies, thus exacerbating hostile perceptions of them among the majority society.

The reduction of entitlements is confirmed by two Council directives. Convention status refugees are to be granted a three year residence permit while those under subsidiary protection are granted a residence permit for one year (Council Directive 2004/83/EC on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country national or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted; Article 24). This stands in contrast with current practice up until the 80s whereby Convention refugees generally enjoyed an unlimited residence permit as long as the 1951 Geneva Convention cessation clause was not implemented. Moreover, the directive concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents excludes Convention and subsidiary protection status refugees from benefits such as the right to move and work in any EU country until they have stayed 5 years in their reception country (Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents).

Parallel to a non-integration approaches, return has become the buzz-word where refugees are concerned. Re-integration in the country of origin is praised by all and sundry in official circles as the optimum solution causing least trauma for refugees and return packages are sometimes offered. With regards to temporary protected persons from Yugoslavia, return is stipulated as the only outcome envisaged. Other aspects of policy give a clear indication on the negative turn taken towards refugees; on the one hand the European Union discusses burden-sharing (a telling term) to no avail so far, on the other hand rejected asylum-seekers are clearly signified that they must leave (EU Resolutions on expulsion, London 30.11 and 1.12.1992 and Copenhagen 1 and 2.6.1993).

back