Britain criticised for Darfur deportations policy
|
By Daniel Nelson
For Anwar Bakar whose family was shot in front of his eyes in Darfur - it is simple: I would be murdered or killed if I went to Khartoum. Hundreds of Sudanese who fled Darfur to seek asylum in Britain have similar fears. At the very least, they expect harsh treatment or torture in an anonymous ghost house used by the security forces as informal prisons. Even if they escape death or torture and end up in one of the camps or resettlements for displaced people around Khartoum, their plight will be bleak: Conditions in the camps, says a British researcher who has investigated the fate of returnees, are worse than Darfur where war has displaced an estimated three million people. Yet Britains policy is generally to reject asylum applications by people who have managed to get out of Darfur and make their way to the UK (a tiny minority: most of the displaced seek protection elsewhere in the Darfur region or in neighbouring Chad). Britain admits there is a conflict in Darfur, so doesnt send them back there. Instead, it deports them to Khartoum, which it says is safe. The UN refugee agency says it is not safe. At yesterdays London launch of a report, Safe as Ghost Houses: Prospects for Darfur African Survivors Removed to Khartoum, (reported yesterday by OneWorld) former Overseas Development Minister Clare Short vowed to fight to overturn the governments policy, which she described as sad and shameful. She was backed up by Conservative MP John Bercow MP, a fellow member of the Genocide Prevention All Party Parliamentary Group. Britain was guilty either of knavery if it knew the danger of sending Darfurians to Khartoum or unspeakable folly, if it didnt know the danger. · Ghost Houses report, published by the Aegis Trust · Genocide Prevention All Party Parliamentary Group |
Printable version
top of the page