ITALIAN RESPONSE TO CRITICISM ON REFUGEE TREATMENT

C O N F I D E N T I A L ROME 001385

SIPDIS


DEPT FOR PRM, DRL AND EUR/WE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/19/2010
TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL SMIG IT UNHCR
SUBJECT: ITALIAN RESPONSE TO CRITICISM ON REFUGEE TREATMENT

REF: A) STATE 72108 B) CAIRO 2682 C) ROME 04 3969

Classified By: Political Minister Counselor Tom Countryman for reasons
1.5 (b)(d).


1. (C) Summary. In the face of criticism by UNHCR, the
European Parliament and center-left politicians, the Italian
Government continues to defend its policy of quickly
returning illegal immigrants to Libya. Ministry of Interior
officials insist the immigrants are being properly processed
for asylum claims and that Italy is fulfilling its
obligations to protect Italian and European borders from
criminals and terrorists. MOI remains defensive about its
immigration procedures, a situation exacerbated by the lack
of a specific Italian law governing asylum procedures and
political pressure to control illegal immigration. The
Northern League Party, a key Berlusconi ally following the
center-right's dismal performance in regional elections,
strongly favors reduced immigration, so we do not expect the
Government will support efforts to make asylum processing
easier. End Summary


2. (U) On March 18, UNCHR issued a press release expressing
"deep concern" about the chain of events that led to the
March 17 expulsion to Libya of 180 illegal immigrants. UNHCR
stated that its representative was denied access to the
processing facility in Lampedusa due to "security concerns"
and expressed doubt that there had been enough time to
adequately process the immigrants for asylum claims. Amnesty
International Italia and opposition members (Greens,
Democrats of the Left) echoed these concerns. On March 24,
the UNHCR representative was granted access to the facility,
which by then held only 88 immigrants, and found no major
problems. On April 13, the European Parliament (EP),citing
events in Lampedusa, approved a resolution that called on all
member states to refrain from collective expulsion of asylum
seekers and "irregular immigrants" to Libya, expressed the
view that Italian expulsion of migrants to Libya violated the
principle of 'non refoulment,' and called on Italy to grant
UNHCR free access to Lampedusa.

Italy Responds
--------------


3. (U) In remarks before the Italian Parliament April 15,
Undersecretary of State for the Interior Saponara provided a
response to these criticisms. Saponara confirmed that
between 13 March and 5 April, 1,504 illegal aliens, more than
half of whom were Egyptian, landed at Lampedusa. Of the 685
processed at Lampedusa (the others were moved to other
centers on the mainland),559 were returned to Libya on
civilian charter aircraft; 76 were repatriated to Egypt; and
another 50 were still being processed.


4. (U) Criticism of Italian policy is based on two
concerns: that Italian authorities are not properly screening
the illegal immigrants for asylum concerns and that returning
immigrants to Libya will endanger their human rights because
of Tripoli's poor human rights record. On the latter point,
Saponara conceded that Libya had not signed the 1951 UN
Convention on Refugees, but he argued that Libya had signed
two other international instruments (unspecified) under which
they were obligated to respect the human rights and integrity
of refugees. He made a point of noting that most immigrants
arrived via boat in trips organized by criminal organizations
that did not respect human rights; these groups trafficked in
drugs and persons and presented Italy with a potential
terrorist threat. Saponara noted that Lampedusa was an entry
point for Schenghen, which obligated Italy to defend not only
its own borders but those of Europe as well.


5. (U) Saponara reported that representatives of the UN and
the European Commission's Committee Against Torture had
visited Lampedusa in November 2004 and found no major
problems. Saponara acknowledged there was overcrowding
(Lamepdusa is an identification center built to house 190 but
officials there repeatedly have had to deal with over 1,000
immigrants at a time) by saying that Italy was now moving
immigrants rapidly to other centers to decrease overcrowding.
He stated that the decision to temporarily deny UNCHR access
to the facility in March was due to security concerns created
by a sudden influx of immigrants. He reasserted that
immigrants receive full emergency medical care and said that
the five Palestinians and four Sudanese who had asked for
asylum had been immediately moved to another facility to
continue their processing.


6. (U) Other Italian officials have also defended Italy's
policy. Stefan Zappala (Forze Italia) of the EP's Justice
and Home Affairs Commission, accused UNHCR and Amnesty
International of being unfairly prejudiced against Italy and
insisted that each immigrant who arrived illegally in
Lampedusa received proper individual processing. UNHCR later
accused Zappala of misrepresenting its position. Zappala,
backed by other center-right Italian politicians (National
Alliance, Northern League) said that Italian authorities had
taken every measure possible to rescue and properly process
the immigrants. Reflecting a widely held belief, the mayor
of Lampedusa issued a press statement March 15 saying that
expulsion was the only way to deter further waves of
immigrants from trying to illegally enter Italy.

UNHCR Views
--------------


7. (C) Michele Manca di Nissa, UNHCR's Rome deputy
representative, described to Laborcouns his recent visits to
Lampedusa. He stated he was initially denied access on March
15 when there were lots of media present, but on a return
trip alone he was allowed into the Lampedusa facility. He
indicated there was one Egyptian interpreter working there,
and that a Libyan delegation had visited Lampedusa for one
day in March. (Note: MOI representatives confirmed that under
Italy's 2004 bilateral agreement with Libya, each has access
to the other's immigration facilities. Details about the
agreement remain sketchy.) Without being present at the
interviews, di Nissa stressed he could only speculate about
procedures. However, based on the numbers, he estimated that
each deported immigrant was interviewed for perhaps five
minutes each and was put on a plane within 48 hours. UNHCR's
concern was that they were being expelled, not on the basis
of individual asylum concerns, but on nationality alone. He
described Italian identification and temporary detention
centers as generally good -- "five star hotels compared with
conditions on Malta." UNHCR had no information, other than
media reports, on what happened to the immigrants when they
arrived back in Libya. He said when they called to ask about
the arrival of a plane that left Sicily, the Libyans could
provide no information on where or if it had landed.


7. (C) Di Nissa described the situation as an Italian
administrative emergency based on entirely predictable
events. The problem, he said, was that Italy is the only EU
country without an explicit law outlining asylum procedures.
He estimated an average of 12,000 immigrants request asylum
every year but that authorities have no legal basis on which
to plan for regular influxes. MOI estimates that the illegal
immigrants who arrive by boat represent only 15% of the total
of illegals, or "clandestini." He insisted that UNCHR did
not want a confrontation with Italian authorities and that he
had tried to convince MOI officials that increased
transparency was in their own interest. But he said MOI
remained defensive to a degree that created questions about
its operations.


8. (C) Comment: Based on the data provided, it is clear
that MOI officials are conducting interviews for asylum, and
its resources are being stretched by the arrival of recurrent
waves of illegal immigrants. MOI's reluctance to share
information makes it difficult to determine if their
processing is adequate. This defensiveness (warranted or
not) is exacerbated by the lack of a specific asylum
procedures law and political pressure within the Government
to appear tough on immigration. One of Berlusconi's key
allies, the Northern League Party, strongly supports
increased immigration controls and, following the
center-right's dismal performance in regional elections, we
do not expect the Government will support efforts to make
asylum processing easier.

MINIMIZE CONSIDERED.

SEMBLER


NNNN
2005ROME01385 - Classification: CONFIDENTIAL