| |
View
Point Abid
Ullah Jan
Time
for Reparations
“
If these people are in reality refugees then the world is absolutely
full of persecution. Logically this would grant western countries
the right to take over such countries to deal with the persecution.” So
writes the author of “Canada´s Dysfunctional Refugee
Determination System”[1] in response to Canada need not
emulate oppression.[2]
Interestingly Steve Gallagher, author of “Canada´s
Dysfunctional Refugee Determination System” is not alone
in holding such views, nor is such feeling limited towards people
seeking refugee status in Western countries. People from outside
world do not wear distinctive marks to differentiate refugees
from legal immigrants. To most of the Westerners holding views
such as those of Mr. Gallagher, everyone with a different skin
tone and features is an unwelcome visitor
This scribe has so far been a strong opponent to a) open border
policy — which envisions a world in which people, empowered
by policies that respect their human rights, are free to move
without immigration restrictions — and b) the tactics of
obtaining refugee status through forged documents and fake stories.
However, the statements, such as given above forces people who
do not want to hurl down ethical standards even in the face of
adversity to ask: Is the Western world really doing a favour
to people from developing world with granting asylum and immigrant
status?
To answer this question, one needs to look at the issue from
many perspectives such as: the ways in which the Western world
benefits from immigrants; the benefits the Western world has
already extracted from the developing world; the extent to which
the Western world is responsible for the mess which forces many
to leave their countries, and the extent to which brain drain
is hurting the developing world — which in turn becomes
one of the reasons that force people to leave their homes and
end up living as unwelcome visitors or unequal "citizens" in
Western countries.
We also have to ask, Will Steve Gallagher´s solution to
re-occupy or re-colonize the suffering countries clear the mess
of previous such civilizing missions? Of course immigrants needlessly
hurt feelings of some schizophrenic racists. However, the following
assessment shows that Western nations have immensely benefited
from immigrants.
The right questions to ask are: Do the Western countries really
need to destroy and reoccupy the developing world, particularly
Muslim countries? Are they then supposed to share rebuilding
contracts among the "civilized" victors? Or, the developing
countries need self-rule without any outside interference and
with full reparations paid for the damage done under the colonial
rule and subsequent interventions in the post colonial period?
The reality is that the misconception of ending repression through
intervention and occupation are the root causes of the present
human flow towards the Western world. The imperial colonization
has led to social, political and economic problems of unimaginable
proportions for the former colonies. Out of the top 20 countries
from which people claimed for refugee status in Canada in 2001,
almost 18 have been under the occupation of one or another colonial
power in the past.[3] With the exception of Russia, and Turkey,
none of these countries have ever occupied any other country.
Furthermore, with the exception of Iran and perhaps China, the
West recognizes, unduly supports and fully sponsors the sitting
regimes in all top 20 refugee producing countries.
Immigrants pay back
Irrespective
of their mode of legal or illegal arrival, immigrants end up
benefiting the
host countries in many ways. Countries
like the US and Canada have been dependent on the influx of foreign
born citizens in order to continue developing their economies.
The majority of the citizens are the descendants of immigrants.
People migrated from every part of the world to partake in the
construction of these countries. There is a fear that "aliens" are
taking their jobs away. Many a politicians also cleverly play
this card due to the fact that people are ignorant about the
nature of immigration to their advantage.
Migrants do not leave their country without a reason. Leaving
one´s country is a very difficult decision to take. Yet,
for some people it is not a matter of choice, it is a matter
of survival. The first generation of immigrants, the illegal
in particular, usually takes low-paying jobs and lives a miserable
life. These individuals are the ones that persons like Steve
Gallagher in Canada and Pat Buchanan in the US have animosity
against. His negative feelings towards immigrants who unfortunately
break the law affect the other group of immigrants who come legally.
Even legal "aliens" have to go through very rigorous
processes for acceptance and permission to work. Moreover, legal
immigrants pose a big benefit for expanding economies of the
host states, since highly qualified individuals with international
experience are highly demanded. Their capabilities are needed
in an expanded global market. Thus, the credentials of legal
immigrants are usually exceptional and differ with the ones presented
by illegal immigrants.
Many people argue that immigrants take jobs away from natives,
which is false since corporations that bring foreign workers
have to prove that a local person could not have performed the
job to be taken by the "legal alien." For example,
Mexicans do come into the US illegally, but in the US, these "illegal
aliens" do jobs the majority of Americans would never think
of doing. If it were not for them, many American families would
not be eating fresh fruits and vegetables. Similarly American
would do better not to forget contribution of the Chinese in
laying down the transcontinental railroad - just to mention one
example.[4]
40% of New York City is foreign born. If you add the children
of these people, 60% of the city has strong immigrant roots.
New York City, along with San Francisco, another city of immigrants,
are America´s two most thriving cities. Immigrants have
revitalized neighborhoods in these cities, created employment
opportunities for others, and have also caused these cities to
dazzle around the world as great cultural centers. In contrast
to New York and San Francisco, Philadelphia is on the decline
because of a major loss in its population.
The UK Home Office research found that, although immigrants cost £28.8
billion in welfare benefits and state services in 1999-2000,
they contributed £31.2 billion in taxes. The figure was
boosted by the higher salaries earned by immigrants compared
with the local population - on average, 12 per cent higher than
those of people born in Britain.[5]
The
US National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences (NRC/NAS)
study´s main conclusion
is that on average, an additional immigrant to the US generated
a positive net contribution
to the country of roughly $1,800. The study also found that the
average immigrant imposes a net lifetime fiscal cost on state
and local governments of $25,000. However, one explanation is
that the taxes exacted from immigrants go to the federal government,
whereas the services they use, such as school, roads, etc. are
provided by local governments. Furthermore, the study does not
take into account the collection of sales and consumption taxes
from immigrants. Since these taxes can be collected regardless
of immigration status, it is clear that immigrants, both documented
and undocumented, make huge contributions to such taxes.
The Urban Institute found that immigrants paid $70.3 billion
in taxes per year and received $42.9 billion in services. According
to a study conducted by the National Immigration Forum and Cato
Institute, in their low earning years, immigrants are net drains
on the public coffers, but over a period of time, after 10-15
years- in the US, they turn into net contributors. (Cyrus D.
Mehta "Immigrants Are Ever More Crucial After 9/11" a
panelist at a World Affairs Forum on September 25, 2002 entitled "US
Immigration After 9/11: What Should Change?" at the University
of Stamford in CT. The opposing panelist was David Ray, Associate
Executive Director of FAIR.)
Walls or ditches on the borders or re-occupying former colonies
is not the answer to end repressive regimes or decrease the poverty
in these countries. More US Coast Guard vessels in the Caribbean
are not going to prevent a "Junta" of generals from
oppressing citizens from one island nation. Dumping money on
providing security to dictators, such as Musharraf and dedicating
all resources to changing school curriculum rather than addressing
the most pressing needs of the suffering masses are not going
to solve the problem of persons coming to the West illegally,
since these measures do not eliminate reasons to emigrate.
Western supremacists
As opposed to the human rights, pro-refugees and pro-immigrant
forces, Western immigration policies are confronted with Western
supremacists who want to tighten immigration restrictions because
everyone in the developing world would like to be in a better
place and the West cannot afford to accommodate all opportunist
economic refugees.
Western supremacists propagate the ideas of Western supremacy
while denying its racist and xenophobic roots. We can see success
of their approach in the immigration laws that treat persons
from 24 countries (including all Western Europe, Japan, Newzeland,
Australia, Slovenia and Singapore) differently than the rest
of the world. It is interesting to note that this group is comprised
of all of the former colonial bandits.
Loretta J. Ross, Executive Director of the National Center for
Human Rights Education in Atlanta, GA, calls it White Supremacy
which "has a vested interest in denying the privileged position
of whiteness because this would belie their claim to victimhood
status, relieving whites of responsibility for racism and xenophobia.
Yet white nationalists remain obsessed with identity borders,
conflating race with nation. The central question for them is
maintaining white dominance, and non-white immigrants threaten
their power."
The Immigration Act of 1965, which lifted many of the race-based
immigration restrictions and allowed Asians, Latin Americans,
and Africans to come to the United States, has changed for the
worse in recent years. Although there is no direct attack on
immigrants, except a few TV programs which show that immigrants
in Canada are outnumbering locals, voices are on the rise against
refugees and "illegal" arrivals in Canada.
The West cannot escape its past
Immigration
problem is one of the ghosts haunting the Western world for
the repression it
carried out during the "glorious" era
of colonialism. It may hurt Britain today when its whole cities
are replaced by immigrants it may not forget that it is the result
of its plunder abroad. Just to take one example, remember when
its forces battled for over a decade to pacify the country, using
airplanes, armored cars, firebombs and mustard gas. Air attacks
were used to shock and awe, to teach obedience and to force the
collection of taxes. Winston Churchill, as responsible cabinet
minister in the early years, saw Iraq as an experiment in high-technology
colonial control. [6]
Similarly, Belgium today may argue that it is the smallest country
which cannot afford that many refugees and immigrants. However,
it may well remember the time when it was occupying Congo, for
example: 75 times bigger than Belgium. The problem is that the
colonialism has never ended. It was just replaced by system to
serve the imperial interests. In the case of Belgium, its rule
was cruellest rule ever inflicted on a colonized people and,
half-century later, by a violent intervention in Congolese politics
after the country´s independence in 1960.[7]
So far, no other former colonial power has shown any interest
in looking back with a critical eye, even though the colonial
records of, say, the British India, the French in Algeria, the
Dutch in Indonesia and the Portuguese in Angola are full of human
rights abuses and excessive use of force. The colonialists argue
that they have worked hard in developing the infrastructure,
building roads, organized school systems, and they feel they
did a good job and it is very unfair that the whole thing is
being criticized in a very one-sided way.
Misery of colonialism linger on
The post-colonial struggle in the former colonies between local
nationalists promoting true independence with its concomitant
political and economic development, and former colonial states
trying to reassert control over the area through compliant governments,
economic relations and military means, seems to have come to
an end. The external agents have won the contested struggle.
But they have won nothing. Their victory is metamorphosing into
a tragic human nightmare.
The British and French colonial legacy of concretized sectarian/ethnic
divisiveness, client political regimes, and state boundaries
that served the colonizers´ interest is well known. The
present problems are compounded by the seeds of destruction and
animosity the colonial powers have sown long time ago in the
name of bringing civilization to the colonies never stop germinating
and producing deadly consequences for the former colonies. Take
the example of India. Pakistan topped the list of people who
claimed refugee status in Canada in 2001 and was second in 2002.
Similarly India is not far behind at 6the place. History of these
people tells us that both India and Pakistan have starved their
people only to get ready for a third major war. Responsibility
for this resolve to mutually destroy each other goes to the British
imperialists.
Prof B. N. Pande´s speech in the Indian Upper House of
Parliament, the Rajya Sabha, made on 29 July 1977 clarify the
fog of British innocence surrounding this issue. He says:
"
Indian history and its distortion by the British historians,
while India was under British rule, portraying the Hindus and
the Muslims as being divided into two warring camps with little
in common between them, and that this distortion paved the way
for the emergence of the two-nation theory.... the histories
of India which have been taught in our schools and colleges for
generations past were originally compiled by European writers....
A glimpse into official British records will show how this policy
of Divide-et-Impera was taking shape. The Secretary of State
Wood in a letter to Lord Elgin [Governor General Canada (1847-54)
and India (1862-63)] said: ´We have maintained our power
in India by playing off one part against the other and we must
continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore to prevent all having
a common feeling.´ George Francis Hamilton, Secretary of
State of India wrote to Curzon, ´I think the real danger
to our rule in India not now, but say 50 years hence is the gradual
adoption and extension of Western ideas of agitation organisation
and if we could break educated Indians into two sections holding
widely different views, we should, by such a division, strengthen
our position against the subtle and continuous attack which the
spread of education must make upon our system of government.
We should so plan educational text-books that the differences
between community and community are further strengthened (Hamilton
to Curzon, 26th March 1886). .... Cross informed the Governor-General,
Dufferin, that ´This division of religious feeling is greatly
to our advantage and I look for some good as a result of your
Committee of Inquiry on Indian Education and on teaching material´ (Cross
to Dufferin, 14 January, 1887)."[8]
India
and Pakistan are still reaping fruits of the British strategy
to divide religious
feelings. Raising Babri mosque to the ground
is nothing before crimes of the colonialists because the Indian
government did not order its destruction. But the Colonialists
officially issued the following orders: "Every civil building
connected with Mahommedan tradition should be levelled to the
ground without regard to antiquarian veneration or artistic predilection.”[9]
Compare these orders with the Taliban´s destruction of
the Bamiyan statues. At least they did not order to level every
church and temple in Afghanistan.
Any way, the present generations in India and Pakistan are facing
the consequences of what the British have done to their countries,
resources and forefathers long ago. All this might be expurgated
from British official memory but those who decide to leave their
miserable status in India and Pakistan and opt to live in England
for instance have two things on the back of their slavish mentality:
a) England is a better place to live and b) British are far better
than us.
The same approach was adopted in Asia, Middle East and Africa.
The new borders ignored old ethnic and cultural lines, and both
the colonial and post-colonial regimes pitted ethnic groups against
each other as a macchiavellian strategy. Since African nations
were mostly created by Colonial powers that loathed and detested
democracy, during a period when almost all the world´s
intellectuals hated democracy with passionate fury, and worshiped
slavery and totalitarianism, it´s hardly surprising that
no functioning democracies emerged from de-colonialization that
was given the name of independence. The colonial powers installed
carefully selected gangsters, landlords, thugs and mass-murderers,
usually trained at Sandhurst or French military academies, or
at hotbeds of pro-slavery teaching like the Sorbonne or the London
School of Economics ---- then they were financed for decades
from outside. They continue to be financed by the World Bank.
There is no mystery to this process.
As
long as these unelected gangsters, military juntas, kings,
and sheikhs are recognized as "legitimate governments" by
the Western world, these conditions will continue to operate.
Like prostitution, no one could ever stop Immigration. Legal
and illegal immigration would continue as long as people who
murder and torture their way into power are allowed to speak
to the US Congress, the UN General Assembly, send their children
to elite schools in America, France and England, and accumulate
their loot in Swiss Bank accounts, the situation will remain
exactly as it is.
As far as the dream of decolonization is concerned, Robert Fisk´s
April 17, 2003 article is a good answer. He says: ""For
the people on the streets, this is not liberation but a new colonial
oppression. America´s war of ´liberation´ may
be over. But Iraq´s war of liberation from the Americans
is just about to begin."
Time for reparations
In
the current context, if people in the West have the right to
demand control on immigrants
from the former colonies, people
of the former colonies also have every right to demand for reparations
for years of occupation, plunder, slavery and genocide by the "civilized" world.
Moreover, ppressed nations not only live out side the borders
of former colonial states.
In US, the majority of the indigenous population was wiped out
and the rest were forced into areas that the brutal settler government
designated. If looked in the proper perspective majority of those
who hate immigrants are themselves descendents of illegal migrants.
Some of the countries in the band of "civilized" world
still submit to their Queen in England as if she is legal native
with all the rights to be their head, and only those arriving
from Middle East, Asia and Middle East are immigrants.
The luxurious lifestyle led by the elite classes in the imperialist
nations that attracts many immigrants, is a definite result of
the super-exploitations of the former colonies. The only true
road to peace is a road that includes reparations for the oppressed
nations of the world. Therefore the struggle is intimately connected
with the struggle for liberation and self-rule for all oppressed
nations. It is definitely not up to the US to decide when and
how to hold elections in Afghanistan or Iraq, so to say, and
it is definitely not the US and its allies to decide when a dictatorship
in Pakistan is acceptable and when it is not.
It is interesting to note that Western governments ask for reparations
from Libya for its alleged involvement in the bombing of Pan
Am 103. Similarly, the milking of Iraq never comes to an end
in the name of war damages and reparations for its 6 months occupation.
On the other hand, more than 100 years of British occupation
and exploitation of the Indian sub-continent, for example, are
justified and any talk of reparation is at best laughable.
Haiti is a good example for the world to follow with regard to
the issue of reparations. According to the Wall Street Journal´s
January 2, 2004 report, the Haitian government is preparing a
legal brief demanding nearly $22 billion in "restitution" for
what it regards as an act of gunboat diplomacy of France.[10]
More than two decades after rebellious former slaves vanquished
troops from Napoleon´s army in Haiti in 1803, France´s
King Charles X made the fledgling republic of Haiti an offer
it couldn´t refuse. In 1825, as the king´s warships
cruised just over the horizon from Haiti, a French emissary demanded
150 million gold francs in exchange for recognizing the new republic.
The implicit alternative was invasion and re-enslavement. It
was a huge sum, about five times Haiti´s annual export
revenue. Haiti´s then-president reluctantly agreed, taking
on a crushing debt.
Haiti now wants its money back -- with interest. France´s
response hasn´t been encouraging. In June, French President
Jacques Chirac addressed the restitution issue by warning Haitian
authorities "to take care over the nature of the actions
of their regime." Herve Ladsous, a spokesman for France´s
Foreign Ministry, said earlier in January that "this case
has been closed since 1885."
The interesting point in the Haiti´s saga is the tone of
Wall Street Journal´s report, which also tries to dismiss
Haiti´s claim for the reason that Aristide just wants their
money to pay his goons. This tone represents the point of view
that even if reparations are paid, it will be wasted by corrupt
regimes. Actually, the Wall Street Journal´s reporter forgets
that since September 19, 1994 invasion, Bill Clinton always listed
restoring priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power at or near the
top of his accomplishments, called "restoring democracy
to Haiti."
The bottom line is that there are so many Aristides sitting in
power due to direct occupation or indirect interventions of the "civilized" world
in the name of democracy and liberation. The West would do them
a favor by letting them remove their respective Aristides and
paying them damages and reparations for real development. If
Kuwait deserves damages for living under Iraqi occupation just
for six months, there is no reason others do not deserve reparation
for suffering under imperial occupation for 100 years in some
cases.
What the West must not forget at its peril is that the clock
that runs at a rate of $34 a second for Haiti, runs at a much
higher rate in favor of the rest of the world that lived and
is still living under its occupation. Looking from that point
of view, immigrants are not a curse but a blessing for the West.
It must brace for honestly assessing the situation, say good
bye to needless interventions and attempt to find ways for calculating
and paying damages. Failing to do so will never change the rule
of nature: first or last, a nation must pay its entire debt.
Some events may stand for a time between a nation and justice,
but it is only a postponement. It must pay at last its own debt.
If a nation is wise, it dreads a prosperity achieved on blood
and bones of other nations - a prosperity that loads it with
more.
NOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]
Stephen Gallagher, “Canada´s Dysfunctional Refugee
Determination System,” Fraser Institute, Canada, December
2003.
[2]
Abid Ullah Jan, “The need for a rational approach
to the refugee "problem" in Canada,” Montreal
Muslim News January 08, 2004. Also : “Canada need not emulate
repression,” MediaMonitors.net. January 09, 2004.
[3] Canadian Council for Refugees, Country Report, Calendar
Year 2001. http://www.web.net/~ccr/crdd01.html and Calendar year
2002 : http://www.web.net/~ccr/crdd02.html
[4] Chinese American contribution to transcontinental railroad.
Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum http://cprr.org/Museum/Chinese.html
[5] Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor, The Telegraph - UK,
January 05, 2004
[6] See, British Colonialism and Repression in Iraq, Global
Policy Forum, http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/britishindex.htm
[7]
The New Times, Arts & Ideas,
of September 21, 2002. http://www.wehaitians.com/belgium confronts
its heart of darkness.html
[8] History in the Service of Imperialism, by Dr. B. N. Pande
Source: http://cyberistan.org/islamic/pande.htm
[9] Letter No. 9 dated 9 October 1857, from Prime Minister Palmerston
(1784-1865) to Lord Canning Viceroy of India, Canning Papers.
[10] “Impoverished Haiti Pins Hopes for Future On a Very
Old Debt,” The Wall Street Journal Friday, January 2, 2004.
Abid
Ullah Jan´s latest
book, The End of Democracy, has just been released in Canada.
|
|
