Stephen Vasciannie LAST THURSDAY, The Gleaner published a letter from Ulrich May, a reader whose listed address is Norsa, Florida, concerning the refugee situation arising from the Haitian crisis. In essence, the letter argued that Jamaica should not be receiving Haitian refugees, for two reasons: (a) the United States, a wealthy country, is not accepting Haitians at this time, and (b) Haitian refugees will "only bring burdens on Jamaica, such as AIDS, voodoo, illiteracy and their comfort level of bad hygiene."
That letter has thankfully prompted a significant flow of letters to The Gleaner; the vast majority of these letters reject the basic approach reflected in Ulrich May's short letter. Thus, respondents have argued that refugees should be accepted by Jamaica on compassionate grounds, that Jamaicans have ourselves benefited from being received as migrants in other countries, and that though Jamaica is poor, we are in a position to assist our Caribbean neighbours at a time of great stress.
Mr. May's letter, and some of the responses to it, are written in strong terms: thus, for May, Haitians will visit only burdens on Jamaica, and in response, May's letter is classified as evil, he is described as callous, and Professor Clinton Hewan (a Visiting Lecturer at the UWI, Mona, a few years ago) has registered his anger and utter disgust at Mr. May's prescription.
UNITED STATES
The respondents are undoubtedly correct. Purely as a matter of humanitarianism, Jamaica is obliged to offer help to Haitians who have fled their country in fear. Jamaica cannot realistically argue that international relations should be based at least in part on principles of morality and righteousness, and then, when an opportunity arises for us to put those principles into practice, we turn and run towards the swamps of expediency and selfishness.
Nor can Jamaica rely on the refugee policy of the United States of America to justify its own perspective on the Haitian situation. The strongest critics of the American policy maintain that, in refugee matters, the United States has adopted a racist stance; such critics call into evidence the apparently disparate approaches taken by the United States to Cuban asylum seekers, on the one hand, and their Haitian counterparts on the other.
This line of criticism amounts, I believe, to the oversimplification of a difficult political problem for the United States. In general, the United States refugee policy in respect of Cubans has been prompted much more by ideological and strategic considerations than by race. Having regard to the concerns of the Cuban community in Florida, and with the issue of Cuba's political orientation in mind, the United States was prepared to treat all, or almost all, Cuban asylum seekers as persons deserving refugee status.
That has now changed, not least because of the response of President Castro to the American approach. These are matters of public knowledge; the point here is just that it is incorrect to argue that Cubans were being accepted by the United States because they were white, while Haitians were and are rejected because they are black.
But, in a sense, I digress. Jamaica should and does have its own, independent policy on refugees; if the Americans have a policy that is deserving of criticism, then we should be prepared to criticise them. If their policy is coherent, then we should also be prepared to say so. In either case, however, we need, first, to make up our own minds about what is right and just in the circumstances. It is right and just to offer accommodation to Haitians now facing persecution in their homeland.
INTERNATIONAL LAW
The attitude of the Jamaican authorities to Haitian refugees should also be consistent with the requirements of the law. International law sets out basic rules concerning the treatment of asylum seekers. Specifically, the 1951 Refugees Convention (as amended by the 1967 Protocol to the Convention) stipulates that where a person satisfies the definition of a "refugee" that person is entitled to remain in the receiving State as long as he or she continues to be a refugee (the principle of non-refoulement).
Jamaica is a party to the Refugees Convention (as amended), and is, therefore, legally bound to adhere to this approach. But, for this approach, who is to be treated as a refugee? Article 1(A)(2) of the Convention defines a refugee as a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, race, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside of his or her country, and who, for any of these reasons, is unwilling or unable to return to that country.
With reference to this definition, there is certainly a strong case to regard some of the Haitians who have arrived in Jamaica as "refugees". And, if they are, then they are entitled, as a matter of International Law, to remain in Jamaica. If Jamaica is to conform to International Law, however, there must be a refugee-determination process to separate genuine claims for refugee status from others. This process will take time; in the interim, it is appropriate that all the Haitian asylum seekers should be given temporary refuge on humanitarian grounds.
RESOURCES
So, Mr. May's approach is misguided both on moral and legal grounds. And yet, I wonder whether he has actually tapped into a strain of local public opinion that cannot be entirely ignored. For reasons that are not altogether clear, most of the Haitian boats have been arriving in one part of Jamaica; without careful monitoring and control, this could result in economic and other forms of pressure being placed on one small area.
Also, if the Haitian crisis persists, and the refugee flow increases, then there may be grounds for concern about the pressure on Jamaican resources. At that stage, Jamaica could make the case for significant financial assistance to help the asylum seekers, a case which would probably not fall on deaf ears in the international community. This approach which would acknowledge our well-known economic constraints is to be distinguished from the superstitious view built on xenophobia and misconceptions about Haitians.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law and Head of the Department of Government at the UWI, Mona. He is also a consultant in the Attorney General's Chambers.
