Skip to content Skip to footer

Europe’s weak protections for refugees leave Central Asian dissidents at extreme risk

Europe’s weak protections for refugees leave Central Asian dissidents at extreme risk

Amid anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim discourse, it seems that some refugees are more equal than others when it comes to seeking asylum in Europe

Leila Nazgül Seiit­bek
, Ori­gin­al pub­lished on openDemocracy

9 Novem­ber 2021, 11.21am

Khizbullo Shovalizoda was pos­it­ive that Aus­tria would be a safe place for him to express his dis­sent without fear of retri­bu­tion, safe from the long reach of the Tajik authorities.

What the 28-year-old act­iv­ist did not know, how­ever, is that European coun­tries are increas­ingly fail­ing to hon­our the norms set out in the UN’s 1951 Refugee Con­ven­tion, which for 70 years has served as a beacon of pro­tec­tion for refugees the world over.

Ini­tially, the Aus­tri­an author­it­ies seemed to observe the tra­di­tion of inter­na­tion­al pro­tec­tion in Shovalizoda’s case. They rejec­ted an extra­di­tion request from Tajikistan, which is known for its author­it­ari­an cli­mate, fol­low­ing an invest­ig­a­tion that showed the charges of extrem­ism and ter­ror­ism brought against him were polit­ic­ally motiv­ated. But then the Aus­tri­an Fed­er­al Office for Immig­ra­tion and Asylum and the courts over­ruled this decision and denied Khizbullo protection.

The Aus­tri­an author­it­ies depor­ted him to Tajikistan in March 2020. Imme­di­ately upon his arrival at Dush­anbe Air­port, the Tajik pro­sec­utor gen­er­al issued a press release thank­ing Aus­tria for its cooper­a­tion in “extra­dit­ing” an “extrem­ist”.

Khizbullo Shovalizoda | Source: RFE/RL

In June that year, in a closed court ses­sion, which observ­ers and fam­ily mem­bers were not allowed to attend, Shovalizoda was sen­tenced to 20 years in pris­on on extrem­ism and treas­on charges.

Iron­ic­ally, fol­low­ing the Tajik court decision, an Aus­tri­an court has now ruled that the deport­a­tion was illeg­al and that Shovalizoda should be returned to Aus­tria and be gran­ted asylum.

Asylum cases are not just num­bers, they are human stor­ies. With the rise of a strong anti-immig­rant dis­course in the European Uni­on, the bloc’s agenda has shif­ted towards keep­ing asylum seekers away from its bor­ders, as well as return­ing as many as pos­sible to their coun­tries of ori­gin, under the mis­guided con­vic­tion that this will deter future arrivals. This has turned the EU’s land and sea bor­ders into spaces of death and desperation.

Not all the same

A more devi­ous form of exclu­sion has seeped into the asylum pro­cess in recent years, too, as asylum seekers are dis­crim­in­ated against accord­ing to nation­al­ity. Belarus­i­an exiles escap­ing the Lukashen­ka regime’s crack­down on pro­longed protests for the safety of Europe have been rel­at­ively lucky.

Yauheni took part in the massive wave of demon­stra­tions fol­low­ing Belarus’s fraud­u­lent pres­id­en­tial elec­tions in August last year. Like many oth­ers, he found him­self under pres­sure from law enforce­ment, and even­tu­ally left for Poland in Octo­ber 2020 on a tour­ist visa. Yauheni applied for asylum in March 2021; his case is cur­rently under review.

Uladzi­s­lau, a 28-year-old LGBTIQ act­iv­ist, fled to Ukraine, where he was gran­ted a human­it­ari­an visa for Poland. Both volun­teer at the Belarus­i­an organ­isa­tion Human Con­stanta, which provides leg­al sup­port for refugees, migrants and state­less persons.

“We look European, like them. People here think we are cul­tur­ally close, we are not Muslim, and that’s why they are more recept­ive and sym­path­et­ic to us”

Speak­ing to open­Demo­cracy, Uladzi­s­lau and Yauheni dis­cussed the numer­ous admin­is­trat­ive hurdles they have encountered dur­ing their asylum pro­ced­ure in Poland, such as the loc­a­tion of migra­tion centres in remote areas, long hours wait­ing out­side the migra­tion office in harsh weath­er, and the dif­fi­culties in renew­ing their asylum iden­ti­fic­a­tion papers after expiry. Both agreed, how­ever, that their troubles were noth­ing com­pared to what oth­er asylum seekers face.

By “oth­ers”, Uladzi­s­lau and Yauheni meant refugees from Cent­ral Asia, the Cau­cas­us, Iraq and Afgh­anistan. “We under­stand why we have this priv­ilege. We are white,” they said.

Yauheni added: “We look European, like them. People here think we are cul­tur­ally close, we are not Muslim, and that’s why they are more recept­ive and sym­path­et­ic to us.”

Protest in Minsk, 27 Septem­ber 2020 | Pub­lic Domain: Jana Nizovt­seva / Flickr

By con­trast, dis­trust and dis­crim­in­a­tion await “non-white” asylum seekers.

The case of Far­hod Odin­aev is emblem­at­ic. Before becom­ing an asylum seeker, Odin­aev was a suc­cess­ful busi­ness­man in Moscow, where he had moved from Tajikistan in 2014. His mis­take was to sup­port the polit­ic­al oppos­i­tion at home: he had joined the Islam­ic Renais­sance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT), the country’s second largest party, in 2007. Fol­low­ing a wide-ran­ging cam­paign to dis­cred­it the IRPT in the run-up to the 2015 par­lia­ment­ary elec­tions, the party was banned and des­ig­nated a ter­ror­ist organ­isa­tion, fol­lowed by the mass arrests and per­se­cu­tion of its mem­bers, includ­ing those liv­ing abroad.

This is when Odin­aev became a tar­get. On the request of the Tajik author­it­ies, he was arres­ted in Belarus in late 2019 as he trav­elled to Poland for a ses­sion of the Organ­isa­tion for Secur­ity and Cooper­a­tion in Europe. He had planned to speak about the rights of migrants in the Rus­si­an Federation.

Far­hod Odin­aev | Source: Social media

Pres­sure from prom­in­ent human rights organ­isa­tions worked and Belarus freed Odin­aev. Faced with charges of extrem­ism, as well as lead­ing and fin­an­cing extrem­ist organ­isa­tions, he con­tin­ued on his jour­ney to Europe and applied for asylum on enter­ing Ger­many. Des­pite a poten­tial total pris­on term of almost 50 years in Tajikistan, his ordeal did not con­vince Ger­many to grant him and his fam­ily inter­na­tion­al protection.

In their deni­al, the Ger­man author­it­ies stated that they did not recog­nise him as a refugee and that he did not qual­i­fy for refugee status in accord­ance with the 1951 Refugee Con­ven­tion. They fur­ther stated that his fears of per­se­cu­tion were not cred­ible and that he could safely return home. For now, Odin­aev remains in Ger­many await­ing the out­come of his appeal against the deport­a­tion order.

“We see now that the sys­tem can act dif­fer­ently when there is a will”

Oth­er cases remain in the bal­ance. Ham­id (name changed), a human rights law­yer, worked in Tajikistan and then with Cent­ral Asia migrants in Rus­sia, help­ing them to obtain work per­mits and offi­cial res­id­ency papers. After one of his col­leagues was abduc­ted in Moscow and trans­ferred to a pris­on in Dush­anbe, Ham­id began receiv­ing phone calls and mes­sages from Tajik secur­ity offi­cials. They accused him, he said, of hav­ing ties to the oppos­i­tion abroad. Dur­ing one of the calls, an invest­ig­at­or told him that a crim­in­al case had been opened against him for extremism.

Feel­ing unsafe in Rus­sia, Ham­id fled to Ukraine in the hope of reach­ing the Pol­ish bor­der to apply for asylum. He had heard from human rights col­leagues in Europe and Belarus that this sys­tem had worked for Belarus­i­an citizens.

But for Ham­id, things have turned out dif­fer­ently. He was turned away three times at the Pol­ish bor­der with three dif­fer­ent explan­a­tions: that he should apply for asylum at the Pol­ish Embassy in Kyiv; that the bor­der cross­ing was closed due to COVID; and that he should apply for asylum in Ukraine. On oth­er occa­sions he claims he was pushed back with no explanations.

Ham­id remains in a leg­al limbo at the bor­der, and con­tin­ues with his attempts to apply for asylum in Poland. He is unable to apply for asylum in Ukraine, he said, as the migra­tion author­it­ies there have reques­ted a three-month rent­al con­tract for an apart­ment – a doc­u­ment he does not have.

A ques­tion of life and death

Aleksandra Chrz­anowska, a leg­al expert at Poland’s Asso­ci­ation for Leg­al Inter­ven­tion, said that the inflow of asylum seekers from Belarus had shown her and her col­leagues “how dif­fer­ent the asylum pro­ced­ure can be”.

Inter­views for applic­ants from Belarus are often lim­ited to writ­ten exchanges of ques­tions, and they receive a pos­it­ive answer in four to six months. While Pol­ish rights defend­ers are very happy to see this hap­pen, Chrz­anowska explained, they attrib­ute it, at least in part, to Belarus­i­ans being seen as “Slavic brethren” in Poland.

“We would be happy to see this treat­ment exten­ded to all oth­er refugees as well,” she said. “For example, we also know that there is a sim­il­arly dif­fi­cult situ­ation in Tajikistan. But pro­ced­ures for Tajik claimants are much longer and more com­plic­ated, with a high rate of ini­tial deni­als, which they must appeal, and the pro­cess can carry on for sev­er­al months or even years.

“We see now that the sys­tem can act dif­fer­ently when there is a will.” Nasta Loiko from Human Con­stanta agrees with Chrzanowska’s ana­lys­is. She fol­lowed Odinaev’s case dur­ing his arrest in Belarus, and said that her organ­isa­tion has been voicing con­cerns over dis­crim­in­a­tion against Muslim refugees in Europe for years. While Loiko is grate­ful to Europe for open­ing its doors to Belarus­i­an exiles, she wishes the same treat­ment would be exten­ded to non-white asylum seekers from dif­fer­ent back­grounds, includ­ing Muslims.

Since 2015, the idea that the European Uni­on is being over­run by people who use asylum as a cov­er to take advant­age of Europe’s social bene­fits has taken root, not least because of unscru­pu­lous politi­cians and the media, who often paint them as crim­in­als and rap­ists. As a con­sequence, the treat­ment of Muslim refugees in European coun­tries appears to have worsened. Instead of asylum, Muslims can expect deport­a­tion. At the end of August, Ger­man author­it­ies depor­ted eight asylum seekers back to Tajikistan; anoth­er group risks the same fate in the com­ing weeks.