[size=15pt]Nigerian asylum seekers and national image[/size]

By Luke Onyekakeyah
While the Minister of Information and Communication, Professor Dora Akunyili is launching her grand re-branding Nigeria project, news that hundreds of thousands of Nigerians that fled the country's crippling economic crunch are in different world capitals seeking asylums is damming on the country's image. What else could smear the image of the country than for her citizens to flee in droves practically to all parts of the world in desperate search for refugee status? This is a major challenge to Mrs. Akunyili and her re-branding project.

Most annoying is that the Nigerian asylum seekers line up with citizens from war-ravaged countries to seek refugee status in foreign lands under whatever condition so long as it is outside their country. Usually, countries fighting war provide the natural source of refugees and asylum seekers. The presence of Nigerians amid refugees driven out by war in their countries raises consternation as to whether Nigeria is also in war? Otherwise, what is happening to Nigeria that would make her citizens flee like refugees?

Since Nigeria is not officially in war, citizens from war torn countries would naturally be considered first in asylum applications while the Nigerians are denied. Those denied asylum are subsequently arrested and put in detention because they have expired immigration papers. This swells the number of Nigerians in foreign prisons, which is another image issue the re-branding project should tackle.

According to the reports, the global asylum statistics released recently by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) indicates that more Nigerians are seeking asylum in Europe and other developed countries around the world. The report released in Geneva showed that in 2008, more Nigerians fled the country to seek refuge in foreign countries.

Among the top countries, Iraq, for obvious reasons of protracted war came first on the asylum seekers list with 40, 500, followed by Somalia again for the same obvious reasons of war with 21, 800 asylum seekers. After the Russian Federation with 20, 000 came Afghanistan with 18, 500 asylum seekers.

Overall, the report says "Africa was the only continent experiencing an increase in 2008 with more people from Eritrea, Nigeria, Somalia and Zimbabwe requesting refugee status".

Nigeria with 12, 573 asylum seekers is listed alongside Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and Somalia. For instance, while the percentage of asylum seekers in Afghanistan rose by 85 per cent, that of Zimbabwe rose by 82 per cent, Somalia by 77 per cent, Nigeria 71 per cent and Eritrea 34 per cent. These, the report say are the "major countries of asylum seekers" recording significant increases. The report categorized these countries as having "experienced unrest or conflict in 2008".

It should be noted that some countries also recorded a decrease in asylum status in 2008 compared to their 2007 figures. Most interesting among these countries is Lebanon, which registered a drop with 23 per cent. Others in this category are Columbia and Vietnam with 25 and 24 per cent respectively.

I am surprised that whereas the report went into details to provide statistics of countries and the number of their citizens seeking refugee status in the developed world, it failed to give information on the number of those applications approved. I don't know why the report took that one-sided posture. Why is it only interested in exposing the ugly picture of asylum seekers from different crisis-ridden poor countries? What is the purpose of this statistics? Is it meant to address the problem or is it for what? Are the statistics published just for records or are they meant to provide a basis for talking the problem?

Year in year out, the statistics are published but without anything done to address the global inequality gap, which is at the root of mass migration. Who does not know that in a world where the very rich exist side by side with the very poor, it is natural for the poor to look unto the rich for succour? The inequity in the world is to blame for the increase in refugee migration.

How many of these applications were granted in the European Union, America and the other OECD countries? What is the status of the refugees in question? Were they granted the asylum or denied? It is likely that some applicants were granted asylum while the majority were denied. What is the fate of those denied? Were they repatriated, detained or placed on waiting list? The report failed to provide all this vital information as a basis for further analysis and action.

It is not enough to give raw statistics of asylum applications from different countries without stating the number granted. I get the impression that the purpose of that is to ridicule the affected poor countries. The rich countries are immune to this malaise because they are economically buoyant and politically stable. Their citizens have no cause to seek asylum in any country. The United Nations should champion a new world economic order that would reduce the disparity gap between the rich and the poor as a first step towards solving this problem.

Furthermore, effort should be made to help create good governance in crisis-ridden countries. Since the fall out of bad government impacts on the rich nations by way of influx of refugees, it is foolhardy for these countries to ignore issues of mis-governance in the developing world. Some international laws must be reviewed to take care of emerging social, political and economic imperatives in this era.

All the refugees or asylum seekers can be categorized into two groups. The first, which constitutes the larger number, is economic refugees from countries that have been ravaged by years of inept and corrupt leadership. Typical examples of countries in this group from Africa are Somalia, Zimbabwe and Nigeria. The second group is refugees from war torn countries whose citizens are forced to flee violent internal conflict in their countries. Iraq, Afghanistan and again Somalia are typical examples. Internal conflicts in Africa are usually caused by greed, avarice and the dictatorial attitude of seat tight leaders who don't want to relinquish power. Decades of misrule breeds poverty and instability, which negatively affects the citizenry.

Now, back to Nigeria. It is disheartening that Nigeria has for sometime now been listed among the poorest of the poor countries. Incidentally, most of the countries often listed are war torn countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. Ironically, Zimbabwe, which perhaps has the worst economic indicators today in Africa, ranks higher than Nigeria in some indices. Whereas these countries are officially in war, which is the cause of the deplorable situation, the Nigerian paradox is caused by years of inept leadership, unbridled corruption and political insensitivity. The political class is constantly raping the country. No one borders what becomes of the citizenry or the country's future.

The failure of leadership has derailed the country's development aspirations. Today, we have a country where nothing works. The woes of the country are innumerable which explains why Nigerians are fleeing the country in thousands even at the risk of their life. Countries in war appear to have a brighter future because the end of the war would mark the dawn of a new beginning. But the Nigerian situation is so complex and unpredictable that it is difficult to address it from one angle.

The collapse of social infrastructure services, high unemployment rate, insecurity of lives and property, high inflation resulting in escalating cost of living amidst ravaging mass poverty are among the factors responsible for the mass outward migration of Nigerians. People are forced to flee the country when they can no longer cope with the worsening hardship. The increase in the 2008 asylum seekers is not unconnected with the biting global economic crunch, which has worsened the endemic problems in Nigeria. I must stress that people are leaving the country as a last resort because of circumstances beyond their control. What do you expect in a country where thousands of graduates have no hope of getting employment, not to talk of millions of other school leavers from different levels? It is a pathetic situation.

On this basis, the re-branding project of Mrs. Akunyili must identify the root of our problems and focus on it. I observe that so far, Mrs. Akunyili has focused her re-branding campaign on ordinary Nigerians. For instance, she has been hammering on the attitude of Nigerians and calling for a change as if that is the cause of the country's poor image. That is misplaced. Mrs. Akunyili has never at any occasion mentioned the failure of leadership and the abrasive attitude of the political class as the root of the country's battered image. The truth is that if the re-branding project is going to focus only on Nigerians without addressing the leadership failure and its impact on the country, then I'm afraid it won't work. For instance, you won't achieve anything by haunting the asylum seekers while leaving the issues that forced them to flee the country. Re-branding should start from the leadership question, which is holding the country hostage. Nigerians will continue to seek asylum until the home front is conducive for living.

http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/editorial_opinion/article02//indexn2_html?pdate=310309&ptitle=Nigerian%20asylum%20seekers%20and%20national%20image