RIGHTS-GERMANY: Bonn May Cut Aid To Nations That Refuse Deportees

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Yojana Sharma

BERLIN, May 20 1998 (IPS) - Despite signs of government splits over the issue, there is life yet in German foreign minister Klaus Kinkel’s controversial proposal to stop development aid to countries that are slow to take back their deported citizens.

Germany is running out of patience with Third World nations that lay bureaucratic hurdles in the path of its efforts to eject migrants who fail to qualify for refugee status here. The aim is to ‘punish’ Third World governments that are slow to come up wi th the paperwork proving the deportees’ citizenship.

Around 70,000 Africans and Asians who have been refused refugee status are currently awaiting deportation from Germany. Around 9,000 of these are without passports or other documentation to prove their nationality.

Most of those genuinely without documentation are known to be Algerian or from the Balkans. But since the German authorities cannot deport people unless their nationality is proven, interior ministry officials suspect that many asylum seekers deliberatel y “lose” their documents on arrival.

Some fear that the authorities will resort to their own subjective methods of ‘confirming’ nationality in an attempt to speed up the process of deporting people who fail to qualify as refugees.

Recently politicians in the Southern German state of Bavaria proposed a ‘language test’ for deportees to ascertain the nationality of asylum seekers without papers. The suggestion triggered an outcry since borders, particularly in Africa, are not defined by languages, and because not enough linguistic experts were available in Germany.

And Wolfgang Grenz of the human rights group Amnesty International warns that Kinkel’s threat could lead to countries taking in deportees of other countries rather than run the risk of losing their aid. Amnesty has reports of such cases in Gambia.

Some 18 African and Asian countries are said to be on Kinkel’s list of countries under threat of sanctions, including Sudan, Cote D’Ivoire, Ghana, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Vietnam, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

But the government is far from united in how to deal with the issue. When Kinkel made his threat, in an interview with the mass-market daily Bild, Germany’s development minister Carl-Dieter Spranger later remarked that he had “not been told” of Kinkel’ s plans.

Spranger was irritated by Kinkel’s interference with development ministry policy. He returned the jibe in his own message to the media, warning the same uncooperative Third World nations that their diplomatic relations with Germany — Kinkel’s responsibi lity, not Spranger’s — were now “at risk”.

Threats to cut aid in these cases are not new. According to Kinkel’s aide’s similar threats made last year “achieved results in Hanoi”.

But though both coalition partners and opposition politicians have criticised Kinkel’s comments, Spranger did not rule out sanctions, reflecting the German government’s hard line in general over Third World asylum seekers.

The development minister has hinted that Germany may exercise even “greater restraint” in applying its already strict visa rules — a measure which could impact on genuine tourists and businesspeople travelling to Europe. Germany’s visa policies for many underdeveloped nations have already drawn criticism for their restrictiveness.

Spranger says Germany is now asking for a special clause to be inserted into the new Lome Convention agreement currently being negotiated between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries. Such a clause would link development aid to these countries to their acceptance of deported nationals.

The cutting off of development aid would be a last resort, he said. “I have to think of the effect of such sanctions on those targeted. Development aid should be used precisely to counter the conditions which cause people to flee,” Spranger said.

“Measures should not be taken simply to punish people for their government’s failure to carry out their duties,” he said in an interview with this week’s edition of the German weekly magazine Focus.

Whether or not Kinkel’s threat can be put into action in another matter. Government officials admitted there has so far been no case of a country systematically blocking the return of its citizens although several states erect bureaucratic hurdles agains t returns, particularly of those with criminal records.

Thus the authorities are dependent on the ‘goodwill’ of the various African and Asian countries for their cooperation in accepting deportees.

This is not always forthcoming. Frustrated German officials have noted for example that any kind of cooperation with the Ethiopian embassy in Bonn is “not possible”. According to the officials remittances from Ethiopian asylum seekers in Germany “helps t he country’s foreign exchange situation,” so it is hardly surprising the Ethiopian government is not in a hurry to accept them back.

And the threat is meaningless to some countries. The Nigerian military dictatorship receives no development aid from Germany.

The spat between Spranger and Kinkel has revealed that in any case the government has not yet decided what precise action to take.

What is clear is that with national elections coming up in late September and a population concerned about the number of foreigners receiving state benefits, the ruling CDU/CSU coalition is keen to be seen to be acting forcefully on the issue.

Opposition parties have accused Kinkel of pandering to right wing voters. Last month the extreme-right German People’s Union (DVU) party garnered 13 percent of the vote in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt on an overtly racist, anti-asylum seeker platfo rm.

At the same time Germany has been tightening up its asylum laws so that large numbers of asylum seekers are now in detention awaiting deportation.

According to the country’s law these people cannot be detained indefinitely, and most are set free within 18 months if they are not deported — hence Germany’s desire to see swift results in its negotiations with the countries of origin.