The myths and lies about asylum seekers perpetuated by politicians and the media continue, writes Jane Kelly, and although economic migrants and Muslims are also the focus of racist and xenophobic attack at present, it is likely that the large numbers of in the future will be vilified as the deep vein of racism is tapped into in Britain Our imperialist history has left a racist ideology that is never far from the surface and, despite the extraordinary multicultural face of many British cities, xenophobia and racism express themselves all too easily. From the recent slogan British jobs for British workers' to the Islamaphobia of the BND, the popular imagination is all too readily fuelled by ignorance and lies.
In 2007 seventy-one percent of the population in Britain thought we were taking in 'too many' asylum seekers; and 46% thought that 80,000 applications were made in that year, while 31% thought there were over 160,000 applicants: in fact there were Climate change only 23,430. The UK is home to about 250,000 or 3% of the world's 10 million refugees and is ninth amongst European countries for the number of asylum applications per head of population. Hardly a world leader in refugee care.
However the numbers of people seeking refuge from political attack, violence and war today will be nothing compared to those forced to leave areas made uninhabitable by the effects of climate change - unless governments do something about carbon emissions. And those most affected will be from areas already suffering poverty, lack of adequate food and water and habitation. This is already
21 happening. For example the war in Darfur derived, in part, from conflict over scarce resources as the desert expands; and other dramatic impacts are predicted in the longer term, such as the disappearance of island states like the Maldives.
Many governments of the richer nations - USA, UK, Australia, etc - are developing policies to try and stave off the huge migrations that will result as the climate heats up. An overloaded RIB about to be siezed while carrying asylum seekers from Libya to Europe
page 22 of the scan
22 Some years ago the Pentagon published such a policy document truly horrifying in its immediate recourse to military might - fortress US - to deal with climate refugees.
The numbers predicted are enormous. A recent UN report estimated that the numbers expected to be displaced by climate change over the next 50 years ranges from 50 million to 1 billion. The higher estimate would mean that one in seven in the world would be a climate refugee. By comparison, there are currently 41.2 million people displaced by conflict.
What is also clear is that elements of the US military are already playing war games' based on such a scenario. For example at The National Defense University last year, they looked at how a catastrophic flood in Bangladesh could set off an explosion of refugees into India, resulting in transmissions of contagious diseases, infrastructure collapse and religious conflict. We know that India is building a frontier wall to cut off Bangladesh from its larger neighbourapparently to 'keep out terrorists' - but really to stem the tide of future climate refugees crossing into India for safety.
The New York Times quotes UK's Guardian: "A 'perfect storm' of food shortages, scarce water and insufficient energy resources threatens to unleash public unrest, cross-border conflicts and mass migration as people flee from the worstaffected regions," and continues: "Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change."
The NYT offers a grim scenario: Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.
There is already discussion in Britain on future food shortages, and guess what, genetically modified food is proposed as the solution. Despite evidence that what is claimed for GM agriculture is often exaggerated and false, the multinationals involved in its production continue to push it as the 'answer' to climate change. Alongside the promotion of GM foods there is a concerted attack on organic agriculture. The recently published FSA report claimed there was no evidence that organic food was more nutritional than non-organic. Quite apart from ignoring the chemical residue in non-organic production, the report itself did find that some organic foods were more nutritional. For example the mean positive difference between organic and non-organic in the following nutrients was: Protein: 12.7%, Beta-carotene: 53.6%, Flavonoids: 38.4%. And there were higher levels of beneficial polyunsaturated fatty acids in organic milk and meatbetween 21 and 27.8%. Yet the FSA report concludes there is no benefit in organic over non-organic food. A recent EU report using thirty-one research and university institutions showed a whopping 90% higher levels of Vitamin C in organic leafy vegetables and fruit.
CLIMATE
What should be our response to these plans for military might against the poorest in the world and the introduction of GM agriculture? Firstly we should say the solutions lie not in keeping refugees out by any means but in cutting carbon emissions everywhere and supporting developing nations in the use of sustainable methods of energy production and agriculture so that people do not have to leave their homes to start with. Secondly we should oppose GM food production and support the use of organic techniques. According to a report published in 2008 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the UN Conference on Trade and Development, in 114 projects covering nearly two million African farmers, their yields produced twice as much by introducing organic or nearorganic methods.
The evidence so far is not positive. The richer countries are looking to use military means to defend themselves against these huge migrations. And big business everywhere is looking to push up their profits so that they can benefit from the appalling impact of climate change.