Special Assignment

2nd August 1998

Britain a haven for bogus asylum seekers

We do not designate foreign terrorist groups -Interview with British High Commissioner

Britain a haven for bogus asylum seekers

By Frederica Jansz

At least two out of 30 persons seeking asylum in Britain are Sri Lankans. Once asylum is granted, thus entitling them to be a voter, many form powerful lobbies for British MPs.

The extra ballot appears to be prompting the MPs to espouse the cause of the refugees no matter whether their claims are real or bogus, according to officials at the British Home office.

Despite their sympathetic approach to refugees, the Labour Government has tightened entry procedures for Sri Lankans.

According to 1983 regulations Sri Lankans will require transit visas to Britain, even if they intend only airside transit and will not pass through UK immigration. This restriction does not apply to any other nationality in the South Asian region. According to the British High Commission the requirement has been imposed due to the increasing number of Sri Lankans seeking political asylum.

The High Commission says many Lankans try to stay back in Britain even when transiting. Although this restriction has been imposed it has not solved the problem, it said.

Sri Lanka has been placed among 15 countries such as Iraq, Eritirea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Zaire and Somalia, as needing a transit visa to pass through Britain.

According to Home Office statistics for 1997, some 30,000 people sought asylum in Britain, of whom 1,830 were Sri Lankan. This puts Sri Lanka behind Somalia, former Yugoslavia, former USSR and China.

An investigation by The Sunday Times revealed that Sri Lankans of all communities have entered Britian on forged visas, while others have paid money to human traffickers, often hidden in container lorries as they make their way to England. Once they set foot in Brtain, they are confident they will not be deported. Stories of political and humanitarian persecution are then told to claim asylum.

Human smugglers in Sri Lanka and abroad have capitalized on the unstable political situation in Sri Lanka to smuggle at great cost desperate Sri Lankans leaving the country, for political, humanitarian and economic reasons.

British High Commissioner David Tatham told The Sunday Times that london was aware of the significant numbers of illegal immigrants from Sri Lanka be they Sinhalese, Tamil or Muslims.

He said Britian was aware that people who organize human smuggling whether from Sri Lanka or elsewhere often had close links with groups involved in crimes such as drug smuggling, prostitution and perhaps to terrorist groups. "Such criminals he added can go to elaborate lengths, such as chartering ships and aircraft, to convey their clients to their ultimate destination. Their clients have to pay thousands of pounds and are often treated appallingly," Mr. Tatham said. (See interview)

It is believed that more money could be made in human smuggling than in drug smuggling. An internal report by the Unit Human Smuggling of the Central Investigation Information Service (CRIS) in the Netherlands warns that smuggle routes of the ten largest groups of refugees arriving in the Netherlands in 1996 originate from Sri Lanka, via Singapore and the United Arab Emirates by plane to Italy, then by train, bus, car or truck via France and Belgium to the Netherlands. Sri Lankans for example pay as much as 15,500 guilders (Rs. 501, 580.00) a person to human smugglers.

The seriousness of the issue which appears to be aided by international criminal gangs, has compelled the British Home Office to set up an investigation team at London's Heathrow Airport to target unscrupulous solicitors and unofficial immigration advisors, who are helping bogus asylum seekers on how to create stories of political persecution and harassment back in their home countries.

Some 30,000 asylum seekers to Britain last week were granted the "Right to Stay" by Jack Straw, Home Secretary, in a bid to getting rid of the massive backlog of cases. Mr. Straw has complained however that asylum procedures in Britain are being violated and exploited as a blatant and dishonest means of evading immigration controls.

Mr. Straw in an attempt to modernize Britain's immigration and asylum system introduced a white paper recently, for a "fairer, faster and firmer" approach to Britain's immigration and asylum procedures.

He says the current system has simply become too complex, too slow and too cumbersome. Admitting that the cost to British taxpayers is substantial and increasing, Mr. Straw has described the arrangements for supporting asylum seekers as "a shambles" while proposing a new national body to plan and co-ordinate its provisions.

The present system in Britain is that if one claims asylum one immediately qualifies for legal protection. Until the case is heard a letter is given by British immigration authorities, entitling the refugee to housing benefit, income tax support, and council tax benefit. The rules allow for asylum seekers to alter their story as the case proceeds, on the grounds that initial testimonies could have been made under stress, and it can take anything from 10 to 18 months to do so. Meanwhile the refugee would perhaps have married and had a child. This will immediately qualify him or her for full residence and a British passport.

A London Sunday Times report based on unpublished Home Office statistics shows a 22% rise in asylum applications to almost 34,000 for the year ending this March.

The report, sent to the Home Office and the Lord Chancellors department, says the present immigration policy encourages exploitation by criminals, with criminal smugglers acting as the only arbiters of who can settle in Britain. It suggests the money would be better spent helping refugees in their own countries.

The problem is immense and getting worse. The international community has expressed concern that the cost with regard to housing, education, health and social security benefits is a massive burden on foreign governments. According to a British immigration official's report, Britain will bear the burden of 2.1 billion pounds in 1998 as cost for asylum seekers.

Abuse of the system in Britain has caused a backlog of cases that can take upto 10 years to process. The Home Office maintains that huge legal bills are being run up alongside the additional costs of housing for asylum-seekers and their families, educating their children and paying for healthcare.

While in theory a majority of those seeking asylum are turned down by foreign immigration authorities, in practice, European Union rules make it hard to repatriate those whose applications for refuge have been refused. For example refugees who are refused entry into a Scandinavian country will not be forcibly gathered and put on a plane back to Sri Lanka. Instead the moment they are informed that the grounds on which they seek asylum is not acceptable they just disappear, either by continuing to stay on illegally in the country where they have been refused entry, or by simply crossing the border to another Scandinavian country and reapplying afresh for political asylum.

It is wellknown that since 1983, Lankans, of whom a majority are believed to be Tamil have sought political asylum in Britain and other European countries. Fifteen years later, diplomatic sources reveal that the issue is now out of hand and growing. The system has been abused to such an extent that it has now been determined that many of these asylum seekers are bogus in that they are mostly seeking greener pastures, rather than for reasons of political or religious persecution in their own countries.

The Sunday Times investigated why Sri Lankans are practically persona non grata as far as British immigration authorities are concerned.

Is it that many Lankan asylum seekers, have now proved to be bogus? If so why? What is the real cause for concern as far as Lankans applying for entry into Britain is concerned?

There are many allegations that the LTTE is well organized in Britain and raise fund allegedly for humanitarian assistance in Sri Lanka. Whether such funds are channeled to assist Tamils in Sri Lanka for humanitarian purposes of if these funds contribute towards the LTTE's war coffer is yet to be determined by the relevant authorities both Sri Lankan and Britain.

When asked why the LTTE is allowed to operate in Britain in spite of appeals made by the Sri Lankan Government to curb their activities, Mr. Tatham said any organization might operate in Britain providing it obeyed the law. "Only if there is credible information that individuals are engaged in terrorism of any kind, can the British Government take any action."

The flip side of this coin is that, Britain has often reaffirmed its opposition to any form of terrorism. But what puzzles most, is the apparent lack of concrete action by British authorities to prevent these activities of the LTTE.

The Sunday Times found the Sri Lankan government has failed to competitively select officers for intelligence postings overseas. The intelligence machinery both overseas and in Sri Lanka has been politicized. Therefore, they have failed to produce high quality intelligence essential to fight the LTTE international organization and operations. The Government revamped the intelligence apparatus in May 1998 but the damage done by bringing in political appointees into the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) during the past two years has been enormous.

When The Sunday Times contacted a high ranking intelligence official and asked for verification of an allegation made against V. Manoharan, the head of the LTTE's international secretariat in London, we were asked to supply his birth date as only then could the relevant file be traced. The official sounded nonplussed when told that Manoharan is no ordinary LTTE cadre but heads its international secretariat.

A Lankan working for the Sri Lanka Foreign Service in London claims, that no investigation has been undertaken by the British Police into the activities of the LTTE. When investigating crimes the British Police have found weak connections to the LTTE, but British law is such, that they prosecute the person, rather than an organization to which there is a weak link, because of the difficulty in proving the case and getting a conviction, he said.

Despite the fact that Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar confirms there is credible evidence that the LTTE is raising money for its war chest through the guise of front organizations around the world, these activities seem to continue unabated. The Sunday Times has met members of the diplomatic community who assert that fund-raising on foreign soil for humanitarian assistance back in Sri Lanka is a common feature with Sri Lankan expatriates living abroad.

One diplomat who wished to remain anonymous, when asked why no measures can be adopted to investigate where such funds are in effect being channeled to, said that it is difficult to make a judgment of a conflict that exists in another country, as nothing is black or white, "it is grey," he said.

The British government is about to introduce legislation (the US has already done so) to curtail fund raising activity of terrorist organizations. The US ban and the intended British restrictions however seem a complete waste of time, and appears to be merely a propaganda coup, as no terrorist organization with offices in the West, has ever raised funds publicly stating that it is for terrorism.

They all raise funds saying that it is for rehabilitation work and humanitarian assistance for Lankan Tamils back home. They also maintain money is raised to sustain the Tamil struggle. This could be argued as political and not terrorist activity. Therefore, it is easy to see how ineffective the US and the expected British legislation is. Of course, as far as foreign policy is concerned, it has great propaganda value.

The diplomatic community in Sri Lanka maintains that unless Sri Lankan authorities can provide proof to foreign governments that funds raised for humanitarian assistance are being channeled to the LTTE to purchase weapons, there is little or nothing a foreign nation can do to curb the activities of a terrorist organization. Or such a group should commit a criminal offence in the host country.

Several diplomats told The Sunday Times Sri Lankans as a community abroad are among the best behaved and it was rare for a Sri Lankan to be arrested for breaking the law on foreign soil.

Sri Lanka and France were the first nations to sign the United Nations Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings in January this year. Canada soon followed suit. All the G-8 countries too have been a signatory to this convention. Many Ambassadors and Deputy heads of Missions, maintain that Europe and the Scandinavian countries have no legislative framework for curbing fund raising activities or banning organizations, even if they have been accused of terrorist bombings in other countries. A senior Sri Lankan diplomat however maintains that this is mere eyewash on the part of Western states which are turning a blind eye to the propagation of terrorism on foreign soil.

The embassies of Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, and Britain maintain that if any member of the LTTE were to seek political asylum their request would be considered. If proved that an LTTE cadre had suffered human torture or was afraid to live in Sri Lanka as he could be persecuted by either the LTTE or the Sri Lankan government, such cases are considered bona fide, and would qualify for asylum.

These countries all abide by the 1951 United Nations Convention. The Convention does stipulate that those responsible for serious non-political crimes outside the country of refuge should not benefit from its protection. Mr. Tatham told The Sunday Times that evidence of criminal activity alleged to have taken place abroad must be capable of satisfying a British court in the event of an appeal.

The United States, Canada, Malaysia, and India have joined with Sri Lanka in banning, proscribing and taking other actions against the LTTE and their activities. However allegations are being made that the United Kingdom, and other European countries still continue to turn a Nelsonian eye, to LTTE activity overseas, and now appear to be engaged in a no win situation attempting to curb the refugee flow.

The Sunday Times of London on 19th July carried an investigative report titled 'Rich Pickings as Lawyers Coach Bogus Asylum Seekers.'

This detailed article focused on a Sri Lankan lawyer Dr. Edmund Wickramapathirana, LLB Hons, (St. Petersburg). The article said that Dr. Wickramapathirana who describes himself as a Russian-speaking lawyer, works for Antons Solicitors at 551 High Road, Tottenham, Seven Sisters - London N17 6SB.

A Sunday Times undercover reporter who had visited the offices of Dr. Wickramapathirana had reportedly been told by an interpreter how to convince immigration officials that his claim for political asylum was genuine.

He was told that there are four reasons which can qualify an immigrant for asylum in the UK: political, nationality, religion or belonging to a social group like homosexuals.

When the reporter had said he was not being persecuted for his beliefs, he was reportedly told to 'make up a story.' Under the United Nations 1951 convention, an asylum-seeker must have a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

The Sunday Times report claims that Dr. Edmund had then produced a green legal aid form and asked the reporter to sign it without checking whether he qualified for state subsidy.

The initial meeting with Dr. Edmund and the longer session with his interpreter had lasted 40 minutes, for which Dr. Edmund could claim about £90 consultation fee, according to the Legal Aid Board.

Meanwhile The Sunday Times in Colombo independently contacted Dr. Wickramapathirana in London, who angrily denied the accusations made against him by the newspaper in London.

He accused the British reporter concerned of 'having lied,' adding that the reporter had pretended to speak a smattering of English, Polish, and a bit of Croatian. It is against this backdrop that the interpreter he said, had advised the reporter using a cocktail of languages.

"She never told him to make up a story," Dr. Wickramapathirana said, adding, his, is a reputed law firm which has many Russian clients seeking asylum to the UK. The Solicitor added that he would be seeking damages from The Sunday Times in London for defamation of character. The Sunday Times London say they stand by their story.

We do not designate foreign terrorist groups

Interview with British High Commissioner

David Tatham

Q: How many Sri Lankans have claimed political asylum in Britain?

A: Between 1991 and the present, about 17,000 Sri Lankans have applied for political asylum in Britain.

Q: Of this number how many are Sri Lankan Tamils?

A: Our Home Office does not keep statistics on the ethnic origin of Sri Lankan asylum applicants or of any nationality.

Q: On what grounds is political asylum granted to refugees trying to enter Britain?

A: We consider each application on its individual merit bearing in mind our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. Anyone who applies must show that he or she has a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.

Q: How much is the British Government spending on asylum seekers?

A: The Government currently spends around £500 million a year on the asylum process and supporting asylum seekers.

Q: How much of this money is paid by British tax payers?

A: All of it is paid by British tax payers.

Q: Is it true that the cost of asylum seekers arriving in Britain will reach 2.1 billion sterling pounds in 1998?

A: The £2.1 billion figure comes from a report commissioned by a Trade Union for the Immigration Service. Broad estimates of cost were used including money spent from 1989 onwards on undetermined applications (ie the cost of appeals and tribunals etc.). This is partly why the figure is so much higher than the 500 million quoted in question 4.

Q: What steps if any is the British government taking to curb the increasing flow of Sri Lankan asylum seekers to the UK?

A: The British Government is committed to bringing a fresh approach to asylum: one that is fairer, faster and firmer. So an interdepartmental study of the asylum process has been going on, which has examined the asylum process from beginning to end and scrutinised the welfare system for asylum seekers. The Government has just announced the decisions it has taken based on the study's findings.

At the EU level, under the UK Presidency, we promoted discussion of a wide range of issues relating to asylum seekers. In particular, earlier in the year, Member States adopted a comprehensive Action Plan on the influx of migrants from Iraq and the neighbouring region. In addition Britain is seeking to secure agreement on a programme of action designed to improve the operation of the Dublin Convention. Under the Dublin Convention, the EU Member State where an asylum seeker first lands is responsible for examining an asylum claim, wherever it is finally made.

Q: Why is the LTTE allowed to operate in the UK in spite of appeals made by the Sri Lankan Government to curb its activities?

A: Any organisation may operate in Britain providing it obeys the law. However, if there is any credible information or evidence that individuals are involved in terrorism of any kind, action is taken against them either under the criminal law or under Immigration Act powers.

Q: Is not Tony Blair on record as having said he will not allow terrorist organisations to use Britain as a safe haven? Does not Britain perceive the LTTE as a terrorist organisation?

A: The Prime Minister Mr. Blair said during his visit to Egypt in April that he was determined not to allow Britain to become a haven for terrorists. That commitment stands. Britain does not designate foreign terrorist groups. Under our current counter-terrorist legislation, the power to proscribe, or ban, organisations only applies to those terrorist organisations connected with Northern Ireland. But where we have evidence of illegal activity, we act.

Q: Is Britain a signatory to the UN Convention against terrorist bombings in other countries?

A: Indeed it is. We played a leading role in elaborating the UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. We signed it on 12 January 1998, the day that it opened for signature in New York.

Q: If so has Britain begun to draft the necessary legislation to adopt the convention as domestic policy?

A: Our record on implementing international agreements on terrorism, including the UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, is second to none and we are committed to incorporating the Convention into domestic legislation soon. We are also committed to legislation making conspiracy in the UK to commit terrorist acts overseas an offence.

Q: Is Britain aware that the LTTE apart from operating out of two main offices in the UK also have other numerous business interests, which raise funds to sustain their struggle for a separate state in Sri Lanka?

A: Any organisation may raise funds in Britain as long as this activity does not transgress our laws. If anyone has any evidence, that would stand up to scrutiny in a court of law, that individuals in the UK are involved in raising funds for terrorism, they should pass that information to the British authorities. It is, however, very difficult to prove a link between money raised in one country and terrorist outrages in another, as our experience of IRA fund-raising shows.

Q: Why is Karikalan a key member of the LTTE given refuge in Britain?. Is it not true that Captain Vasudeva Jayapalan who is involved in gun running for the LTTE lives at No. 18, Bruce Road, Mitchum, Surrey?

A: We do not comment on individual circumstances.

Q: Does not the Home Office know how much funds are raised in Britain by the LTTE to sustain its battle for eelam in Sri Lanka? Is it true that some 250,000 pounds is raised annually by the LTTE in the UK?

A: We cannot comment on speculative figures. However, we are currently preparing a consultation paper with a view to introducing permanent, UK-wide counter-terrorism legislation. This will include proposals for strengthening existing controls on terrorist fund-raising and extending them to cover fund-raising activities by international terrorist groups in the UK.

Q: Have British authorities ever received complaints by Sri Lankans in Britain that money is being extorted from them to finance the LTTE?

A: There have been allegations of extortion but as far as we know no one has been prepared to make a formal complaint which could be followed up by the police.

Q: If LTTE cadres were to officially apply for entry into Britain would their application be considered? If so on what grounds?

A: I assume you mean can an LTTE cadre claim political asylum. We are required to consider all asylum claims individually in line with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention. The Convention does provide that those responsible for serious non-political crimes outside the country of refuge should not benefit from its protection. Any evidence of involvement in such crimes is therefore very carefully considered before a decision is reached on a claim for asylum. We do not hesitate to use the exclusion Clauses in the Convention where there is sufficient evidence to justify doing so. But remember that evidence of criminal activity alleged to have taken place abroad must be capable of satisfying a British court in the event of an appeal.

Q: Is Britain aware that many Sri Lankan Tamils are smuggled into Britain? If so, what steps do British authorities take to curb such activity?

A: We are aware of the significant numbers of illegal immigrants who originate from Sri Lanka be they Sinhalese, Tamil or Muslims. We also know that there are a few people in this city - Colombo - who have made a fortune out of people smuggling. That's why Britain has taken a pro-active role in combating illegal immigration and why we remain committed to effective border controls in order to deter it.

But you can't combat illegal immigration in isolation. That's why we work closely with those countries that encounter illegal immigrants in large numbers particularly our European Union partners, the USA and Canada. This cooperation is now being extended to countries which are the transit points for illegal migrants such as the Eastern European and Middle Eastern states. And we continue to liaise with the authorities of countries like Sri Lanka, which suffer from human trafficking.

We are very aware that the people who organise clandestine entry to Britain whether from Sri Lanka or elsewhere often have close links to other organised crimes such as drug smuggling, prostitution and perhaps to terrorist groups.

Such criminals can go to elaborate lengths, such as chartering ships and aircraft, to convey their clients to their ultimate destination. Their clients have to pay thousands of pounds and are often treated appallingly.

I commend this trade to you as a subject for serious investigative journalism. In any case Britain has dedicated considerable resources to combat this criminal element and to prosecute them vigorously when detected. But we can't prosecute offenders outside the UK.

Editorial/Opinion Contents