§ 11.7 am
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)I am pleased that we are able to have a short debate on the position of Kurdish refugees, 1,000 of whom have arrived in this country since the beginning of May. They are asylum seekers who are at present being looked after by voluntary organisations, families and friends in the boroughs of Hackney, Islington and Haringey. I believe that it is high time that the House had the opportunity to debate and discuss the situation facing Kurdish people as a whole, as well as the specific demands that we wish to make concerning the asylum seekers, who have arrived in this country.
Kurdistan is, perhaps, the greatest unrecognised nation in the world, comprising 20 million people—4 million of whom live in Iraq, 5 million in Iran, 1 million in Syria, small numbers in the Soviet Union and the Lebanon and about half of them in total live in Turkey. It was only recognised as a nation briefly after the treaty of Sevres in the early part of the 1920s, and was carved up in the treaty of Lausanne. Ever since then the aspirations of the Kurdish people for their own homeland, and, indeed, within Turkey the ability to speak and write in their own language and promote their own culture has been a dominant feature of Kurdish politics.
A series of uprisings took place in 1922, 1925, 1928, with the longest one being from 1932–1938 at Dersin. After each of those uprisings internal banishments, deportations and imprisonment have followed. Similar stories are told of what happened in Iraq, following the uprising at Borzhani in 1961 to 1974, following which 600,000 Kurdish people fled to Iran. In Iran there was the great uprising of 1945–46, when the Kurdish Republic was declared. It was supressed at Mahbat and the leaders of it were executed.
We are talking about people who have come from Turkey. The problem that the Kurdish people face in Turkey is that which any other minority faces in Turkey, except that they are a large minority. The Kurdish language is banned and the Kurdish culture is suppressed. The continual repression of Kurdish people has been a feature of Turkey ever since the formation of modern Turkey in 1922. The aspirations of the Kurdish people live long within the minds of the community. That feature has never been recognised or understood by Western European or other countries in their dealings with Turkey. I hope that this short debate will give at least an opportnity to recognise those parts of history.
More recently, in 1977, there were elections in Turkey. At that time, the people who held public office were Kurdish speakers, and they promoted the Kurdish culture. At the time, the mayor of Diyabikir, Mehdi Zana, openly defied the Turkish national laws that promoted the oneness of the Turkish nation, language and culture. In 1978, there was a massacre at Kahramanmaras, which is normally pronounced Maras, in which 117 people were officially killed, although it is believed that many more were killed at the time. In the late 1970s, 19 cities were put under martial law. that was succeeded by the military coup in 1980, when all Kurdish groups were broken up, leaders were imprisoned and many people executed. Indeed, Mehdi Zana, the former mayor of Diyabikir, was imprisoned for 25 years as a result. Many of the Kurdish 1258 leaders were then put in Diyabikir prison. In the early 1980s, some hon. Members raised the matter many times. A Member of the European Parliament, Richard Balfe, visited Diyabikir prison. There was a long hunger strike there in 1984 to draw attention to the plight of the Kurdish people. Four people ignited themselves with petrol and other materials to draw attention to the plight of the Kurdish people.
We are dealing with a history of systematic torture and abuse of the Kurdish people. That is the background to the current problem that the Kurdish people face and their perfectly legitimate and understandable plea for help in the present situation.
After the military coup in 1980, 250,000 people were imprisoned by the Turkish authorities at least half of whom were Kurdish. Strong repression was meted out against anyone who sought to speak the Kurdish language or promote the Kurdish culture. I have a cassette tape by a famous Kurdish musician called Sivan. Merely for listening to that tape in their homes or playing it on their car radios people would be arrested and possibly imprisoned for promoting something other than the Turkish culture. It is important to understand that background.
Many of the Kurdish people who managed to leave Turkey applied for asylum in Europe or the middle east. They applied for asylum or fled because of the history of repression and because of the number of their friends or comrades who were imprisoned. They legitimately sought political asylum. In every country throughout Europe and the middle east, one finds large numbers of Kurdish people, either seeking political asylum, having achieved it or, in some cases, having exceptional leave to remain. In many cities one finds groups of Kurdish people, all of whom have suffered that kind of repression, not only in Turkey but in other countries. Today I am dealing with Turkey. On several occasions over the past few years it has been my privilege to attend the annual festival of nawroz of the Kurdish community in London. Again one sees the spirit of hope and of wanting to be able to express themselves in their own way.
Of the 1,000 people who have arrived in this country since 2 May, most, if not all, have come from the Maras area. They have come partly from fear of continuing repression and fear of local Fascist groups. In 1980, the leader of the local Fascists—it is the only way to describe him—Okkes Kengar, was imprisoned. He has now been elected to local office in the town of Maras on a fundamentalist platform that is opposed to and repressive of Kurdish people. It is called the party of prosperity. At the time of his election and since then, a large number of Kurdish people have suffered the most appalling torture and treatment. One third of those who have been interviewed by organisations that have been receiving Kurdish asylum seekers here—be they the Kurdistan Workers Association, Rights and Justice, or any of the other groups that have been helping with interviewing to prepare their case before it goes to the Home Office for application—have evidence of the application of torture. Bearing in mind that there are many interviews still to be done, 40 of those who have been interviewed have had their cases referred to the medical foundation for the care of torture victims.
Maras is a mixed area. Only a small number of Turkish people, as opposed to Kurdish people, have come here with the group of 1,000. Indeed, some have gone back. The 1259 interesting feature of many of their cases is that they had jobs, farming and so on, in the area. It appears that they are definitely fleeing from repression more than anything else. There is evidence also that those who have returned have been stopped at Izmir airport and have been extremely badly treated there, having voluntarily left this country, because they were deemed to have brought Turkey into disrepute. It is important that the British Government recognise that fact. When people voluntarily return to Turkey, the British Government should satisfy themselves that they are going back in safety. I am extremely worried about some of the reports that I have received.
There is also the problem of internal relocation of Kurdish people in western Turkey, which has been going on in the Maras area. Unilever has invested a great deal of money in the region. A tea plantation scheme has involved the relocation of Kurdish people away from there.
We are beginning to see a pattern of economic and physical repression and the torture of political activists by the Turkish Government. The problems have not arisen only in Turkey. Clearly, the treatment of Kurdish people in Iraq is indescribably awful. Chemical weaponry has been used against them on numerous occasions. Attacks have taken place against Kurdish people, and there is the horror of Halabja, which ranks alongside what happened in Vietnam or the bombing in Guernica, which is one of the horrors of this century. Some of those people have fled to Turkey. That is no reflection of the humanitarian instincts of the Turkish Government, but it is a reflection on the horror of Kurdish people living in Iraq. Perhaps the British Government should reconsider their relationship with the Government of Iraq, their trade with Iraq, and their support for the Baghdad arms fair which is to be held later this year.
Under the 1951 Geneva convention on the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, the British Government clearly have obligations to receive applications and to deal with people in a humanitarian way. I have met many of those people, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and others, and we well understand what has gone on. The 1,000 people who have arrived here have largely been supported by voluntary organisations. The Kurdistan Workers Association has the largest number under its care at the moment. Tribute should be paid to it and to Ihscen Qadir, its co-ordinator, and the other local organisations and voluntary groups in Hackney and Islington who have done a great deal to raise money and support for those people. The response of all the Churches—Catholic, Methodist, Baptist and Anglican—has been amazing. Cardinal Hume himself visited some of the people yesterday in Loyola Hall in Haringey. The local authorities have been helping as best they can. Representatives of the Department of Social Security, with whom I had a meeting last week, have been helpful by opening a special office to ensure that those people are paid whatever benefits they are entitled to receive.
Obviously local costs are incurred, and today I want the Government to say that they are prepared to do what they can to help the Kurdish people and that they are prepared to provide resources to the local authorities and to the voluntary organisations to assist them in the necessary humanitarian work of supporting those people. They should also be prepared to act politically and put all 1260 possible pressure on the Turkish Government concerning the treatment of Kurdish people within Turkey. That is the nub of the problem.
I understand that yesterday, some people were taken into detention—for all I know they still are. I find that awful and totally inappropriate. Those people who have fled from Turkey have fled from a horror, they have sought safety and have not fled to be put in prison again. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the voluntary organisations are more than willing to look after those people. They have mounted herculean efforts to provide the necessary support.
Earlier this week my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I met the Minister. We insisted that the British Government should be prepared to make resources available. I can only contrast their current contribution with the vast sums of money spent by the British Government on receiving General Evren last year and on promoting the interests of the Evren regime of Turkey. I understand that the Turkish Government have now retained the services of Saatchi and Saatchi to befuddle the British people as to the human rights record of the Turkish Government. I hope that the British Government will react accordingly to the demands that we have made.
I shall quote some individual cases of how people have been treated. This information has been given to me this morning by Mary Dines who is the organiser of Rights and Justice, a well-respected humanitarian organisation. Mary's own record of working for humanitarian causes and refugees for many years is well recognised and she is rightly well respected for it. Example one is a man who was held by the police on three occasions in 1987 and 1988; during which he was immersed in cold water for a whole day, suspended by his hands for a whole day and severely beaten. He was not a member of an illegal organisation.
Example two is a political activist:
Owing to persecution during martial law (1980 to 1985) he was forced to leave his village and go to Istanbul. He was arrested four times in Istanbul and detained for nine months for distributing leaflets. During detention he was tortured by falaka (trussed up like a chicken and beaten on the soles of his feet). He was given electricial shocks to his testicles, tongue and teeth, covered for long periods of time by cold water, hit with sacks of sand (which are supposed to leave no marks), hung upside down and hit with truncheons. He was last arrested in 1988. He has a damaged kidney.The case of example three is as follows:Arrested in 1981 for taking a wounded man to hospital in his taxi. Had seven stitches in his head after assault and still suffers from blurred vision and headaches. Arrested in 1988 with his seven months' pregnant wife. They were held in the army camp for four months. The baby was born in detention. After he left Turkey his wife was rearrested and is now in prison with the baby.Another example relates to a man who was a member of the Social Democratic party and also a member of an illegal Kurdish organisation. His story is as follows:Arrested in 1981—imprisoned for one month. Arrested in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. During detention he was forced to run kms over rough ground in bare feet, beaten with a bag of concrete, hot eggs were put in his armpits, he was beaten with sticks and batons and hit in the eyes. Since 1987 he has been in constant pain. His father was killed by the army in 1975. His mother was also beaten up and is still suffering from injuries to her head. One cousin has been imprisoned. One cousin is missing. Other family members have been imprisoned.1261 We are dealing with the systematic torture of Kurdish people by the Turkish Government. I understand that attempts are now being made to stop people leaving Turkey to seek political asylum elsewhere because it is believed that that damages the image of modern Turkey. Nothing damages the image of modern Turkey more than the factual, accurate accounts I have given, of the way in which people are treated by the Turkish army. We now look to the British Government to fulfil their obligations under the United Nations charter of 1951 to provide urgent humanitarian aid. That aid is necessary because the voluntary organisations are relying totally on voluntary donations and a little bit of assistance from local authorities.It is the responsibility of the British Government to provide the financial assistance and they should not throw the job on to the voluntary organisations and the local authorities. Willing as they are to help, those organisations and authorities have enormous problems of their own. The Kurdish people should be properly treated and the Government should give assistance to the suitable local organisations.
§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for bringing this subject to the attention of the House today, as well as for the moving and sensitive manner in which he presented his case.
I was talking to another hon. Member yesterday about this issue and he said that he believed that the Kurdish people were the victims of some of the worst atrocities perpetrated in the modern world. That hon. Member was not a Labour Member, but a Conservative who just happens to be a senior member of the Government.
I cannot help contrasting the way in which some spokesmen have talked about this issue to the media, including reports on television yesterday, with the visit of the Roman Catholic archbishop, Basil Hume, to the east and north of London yesterday. He brought with him not only sympathy, but money and moral support. I hope that his visit to our local region will help to persuade the Government to take some action.
If we consider the action of the various Government Departments it would be fair to say that the Department of Social Services has acted promptly and efficiently and it has been extremely helpful. My hon. Friends and I were grateful that the Minister of State, Home Office discussed this matter with us earlier this week. We had a civilised discussion, although there were some obvious differences between us. At that meeting, the Minister said—I hope that he will reaffirm that statement today—that he would consider giving money to help the British Refugee Council to set up a hostel at Tower house in Tower Hamlets. He also said that he would consider giving extra money to some of the voluntary agencies.
Yesterday I spoke to most of the voluntary agencies and they have simply run out of money—there is no more cash in the till. On the debit side, I am bound to say to the Minister that the idea of putting the Kurdish people in prisons in the south-west of England is deeply disturbing. On the credit side, some prison officers came up from the 1262 west country yesterday to talk to representatives of the Kurdistan Workers Association to see how they might best help if the threat to detain Kurdish people in prison was carried out. Underneath the cynicism and some of the meanness on the part of the Home Office there is a deep undercurrent of sympathy for the Kurdish workers.
The Department of the Environment is also concerned and it is likely to become deeply involved over possible rate support grant and the need to help local authorities regarding the temporary and the possible permanent rehousing of those people.
What has disturbed me about the public statements that have come from the Home Office is that various officials have said—I have no doubt with the concurrence of the Minister—that they believe that many of the Kurdish people who come here do so for simply economic reasons rather than through fear of persecution. That the Home Office should make such unattributable briefings is disturbing. That Department must consider in a judicious and judicial manner all the cases that come before it. It is extremely difficult to believe that it can do so fairly when spokesmen publicly say that they believe most of the people concerned are not valid refugees. The Home Office, in order not to make itself look silly, has therefore had to reject a lot of the cases for asylum and send people back. In other words, the public pronouncements by Home Office officials are liable to produce self-fulfilling prophecies.
I hope that the Home Office will get on with the business of dealing with each case in a humane and sympathetic manner. Its officials should stop making adverse public statements, which do not suggest to the public that they are dealing with the matter in a proper, judicial fashion. I hope that the Minister will relent a bit today and open his heart to the Kurdish people. I hope that he will offer some constructive suggestions to the House.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for giving us the opportunity to discuss the recent increase in the number of Turkish people, mainly of Kurdish origin, coming to this country, who have claimed asylum on arrival here. I am also grateful for the opportunity to talk, as the hon. Members for Islington, North and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) have asked me to, about the Government's response to that problem.
This debate was immediately preceded by a shameless piece of news manipulation by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who came to the Chamber and made a fuss about what the BBC had said in relation to Labour Members—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)Order. I must remind the House that when I dealt with that point of order, other hon. Members were trying to catch my eye to pursue the matter. Out of regard to private Members' time, I disregarded them and did not allow them to speak. It would be quite wrong for the Minister now to try to do what I did not allow earlier.
§ Mr. RentonI understand your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the hon. Member for Islington, North spoke movingly as a result of his experience—as he lists 1263 Turkey in the reference books as one of his special subjects of interest—for 10 minutes or so about the problems of Kurds in Turkey moving between Iraq and Turkey. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Gorton, having come to the Chamber to make his little fuss about the BBC and Labour Members, might have had the courtesy to remain in the Chamber to listen to the points which the hon. Member for Islington, North was making. That would have been the appropriate thing for the right hon. Member for Gorton to do rather than to engage in a little bit of shabby publicity-seeking, which is what we have come to expect from him.
I want to consider the serious subject of this Adjournment debate and I will begin by explaining the general context of the Government's policy towards people who claim asylum. As the hon. Member for Islington, North reminds us, the United Kingdom was one of the earliest signatories to the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. We take our responsibilities very seriously, despite what is sometimes said by organisations such as Amnesty International.
No one who does my job can fail to he affected daily by the plight of people who are fleeing from persecution in their own country. Each day, about half a dozen people arrive at our airports seeking political asylum. Another dozen or so apply from within the country. They are all dealt with without fuss. In every case, as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, a carefully organised series of actions takes place. An application for asylum, I fully realise, as do Home Office officials, is important, sensitive and under our law must be properly and exhaustively considered.
No one is refused asylum in the United Kingdom until full inquiries have been made, interviews conducted and the opportunity given for further information or representations to be submitted. In the great majority of ordinary cases, the claimant is allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. However, as the hon. Members for Islington, North and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch will be aware, as they both have a great deal of knowledge on this subject, the fundamental obligation that we accepted under the United Nations convention is that no one claiming asylum should be returned to a country where they have a well-founded fear of persecution. The practical effect of that is that unless the person has arrived from a third country which is safe for him to return to, he must be admitted to the United Kingdom either on a temporary basis, or held in detention while his claim is considered.
If the interests of people genuinely fleeing from persecution are to be safeguarded, it is vital that the system designed to protect them should not be exploited by people whose main motivation is economic migration.
I want now to consider the particular circumstances of the recent influx of Turkish asylum claimants. Over the past two years we have come to expect an average of one or two asylum claims each day from Turkish nationals. Some have been given refugee status and many others have been allowed to remain, exceptionally. Earlier this month, young Turkish men began to arrive at the rate of about 50 a day claiming asylum here. In one instance they almost filled an entire charter flight of over 100 passengers. On another weekend, more than 300 arrived on a variety of flights. In every case where asylum was claimed, they have 1264 been admitted while we examined their claims. We are now looking at more than 1,000 Turkish cases who have arrived in the past four weeks.
Some pattern is beginning to emerge which begins to explain this surge. It is clear that for a substantial number their real objective is to find work in the United Kingdom. Some have said so explicitly. There is evidence that middle-men selling air tickets have been exploiting the economic situation in Turkey, with stories of job opportunities in London, and briefing on how to claim asylum.
How do we know that? More than 80 people who initially claimed asylum have already gone back to Turkey of their own accord, realising that jobs and housing are not going to be so easy to obtain as they were led to believe. Many of them were, quite simply, led up the garden path in their own towns and villages. That is not the action of people who fear imminent persecution. We are seeing a gross and transparent abuse of the asylum procedures as a means of obtaining jobs, housing and perhaps social security benefits in the United Kingdom.
The tragedy is that we know that among the spurious claims there will certainly be some which are genuine. The hon. Member for Islington, North gave details of one case which sounded particularly horrific. We are well aware that the human rights standards in Turkey still fall somewhat short of those that we consider to be acceptable. I must look to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to respond on another occasion to the details referred to by the hon. Member for Islington, North.
We have already given exceptional leave to some Turks from the recent arrivals on those grounds. However, it takes time and detailed inquiry to assess each asylum application. It will now take us some months to sort out the genuine from the abusive claims which continue to come at the rate of 50 a day.
It cannot be in the interests of the genuine refugee that he has to remain in a state of uncertainty for some months. That is now inevitable, given the numbers involved. Hon. Members and the courts would justifiably criticise us if we were to cut short the process of considering claims. In those circumstances, I wish from time to time that Opposition Members would support us in criticising those who so clearly take advantage of the difficulties.
An immigration officer may either detain an asylum applicant while his claim is considered or grant him temporary admission. A very small percentage are detained. The vast majority of applicants for asylum are granted temporary admission pending a decision. They frequently have relatives or friends in this country who are willing to look after them but a large number of the recent arrivals from Turkey are young single men who know no one in this country. Various welfare organisations, including the British Refugee Council, have helped to find them temporary accommodation which understandably is frequently with members of their own community. There is a large resident Turkish community in north London, and many of those granted temporary admission are now in that area. A number of Turkish organisations have offered to look after them.
Those people have come here without any notice or invitation. In many cases they do not appear to be political refugees by any stretch of the definition. They are in an entirely different situation from the Ugandan Asians or the Vietnamese boat people where reception centres were set 1265 up in this country in advance. The Turks are here on a temporary basis until such time as decisions are reached on their applications. The Government have no special responsibility for those people who are not refugees coming here as part of a Government programme. However, we recognise that there is a human problem to be addressed.
Community organisations have helped and continue to provide, emergency shelter and food. I whole-heartedly thank them and commend them for their efforts. I have undertaken to consider reimbursing specific costs which they have had to incur.
I confirm that I have also said that we are willing to consider financial help towards the establishment of a short-term hostel in Tower Hamlets. My officials are in urgent discussions with the director of the British Refugee Council with a view to having this available for new arrivals at the earliest possible opportunity. More widely, my officials in the Home Office's voluntary services unit have been in touch with their usual contacts, and others, across Government Departments to let them know of the problems that these people may face while their claims are considered.
When I met a delegation from the Association of London Authorities and Hackney a few days ago, to which the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch referred, I agreed that my officials should set up a meeting between the ALA, Hackney and Government Departments to explore in more detail than was possible at that meeting—I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch that it was a courteous meeting, even if we did not agree on every objective—the problems that Hackney and other inner London boroughs are having to address as a result of the arrivals. I understand that that meeting has now been fixed for 5 June.
Meanwhile, we shall continue as quickly as we can to consider the individual claims and to reach decisions accordingly. This will be done on a case-by-case basis, as I have already said, against the criteria of the convention. There will certainly be some applicants where there are good and valid compassionate reasons for allowing them to remain here and they will be allowed entry on an exceptional basis. Where there are no compassionate features and where the applicant does not qualify for entry as a refugee or under any part of the immigration laws, refusal of entry and removal must follow. I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Islington, North had to say about the general situation of the Kurds in the middle east. However, we do not accept that all Turkish nationals of Kurdish origin, regardless of individual circumstances, qualify to remain here as refugees under the convention.
We have so far reached decisions on 26 applicants who arrived here at the beginning of the month. Ten have been given leave to enter. Sixteen have had their applications refused and, after their solicitors' representations had been considered, were returned to Turkey.
Additional immigration officials have been brought in to deal with a sudden increase. I can assure hon. Members 1266 that every effort is being made to resolve these applications as quickly and as fairly as possible. This process will be hampered, though, if applicants on temporary admission do not co-operate or attend for interviews at the times requested. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch referred to the remarks made by His Eminence Cardinal Hume yesterday and his visit to the area. Of course I understand that it is desirable to provide accommodation for all asylum seekers in the community rather than in prisons. The cardinal called for Government funding. Our resources are very limited.
We are considering giving help to increase the amount of accommodation within the community, but I warned the hon. Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and for Islington, North when they came to see me on Tuesday or Wednesday that I thought that it would be necessary in appropriate cases, where we were concerned about applicants on temporary asylum, to place them temporarily in prison. About 20 applicants are now detained in prison. A further 80 places have been made available in prison accommodation. That will be for those whom we think are unlikely to co-operate with interviewing officers. It will help in the speedy consideration of those cases. That can only be to the benefit of the genuine applicant.
In the past, as the hon. Member for Islington, North certainly knows, Opposition Members have repeatedly extolled the benefits of an appeals procedure for port asylum applicants within the United Kingdom, but I wonder whether they have really thought through the implications. We already normally refer all applicants, on a non-mandatory basis, to the United Kingdom immigration advisory service when we refuse their applications. I personally look at any refusal whenever there is a difference of view between UKIAS and Home Office officials. A formal appeals system would be hamstrung by delays, as is the appeals system which already exists for ordinary immigration cases.
The longer the delay, the more attractive it must become for some applicants to exploit it. The experience of our European partners who have full appeal systems is precisely that. In France, asylum applications are running at the rate of over 30,000 a year and in Germany at over 100,000. In both countries, the delays in hearing appeals are in the order of years. Meanwhile, the applicant is free to stay in the country, to work, to marry and to raise a family. Removal soon becomes impossible because of the ties that have been established. None of this would be of any benefit to the genuine refugee fleeing persecution. It could only be an invitation to exploit the system.
Members on both sides of the House are united in agreeing on the need for measures to protect the genuine refugee. I am deeply disheartened that, where we have circumstances that are clearly being exploited to the disadvantage of the genuine refugee, Opposition Members never join me in condemining the abuse. In the long run, their failure to do so, and the encouragement that that gives to people who abuse the system, can only threaten the proper working of the very machinery that has been so important a part of the protection of refugees since 1951.