We have already heard this evening of the enormous pressures put on resources and how that becomes a cause of conflict and war: whether in Iraq, the Middle East, Punjab, Nigeria and so on. Of course, it is civilians who suffer the most - the vulnerable always pay the penalty and are forced to move to overcrowded cities, across borders to neighbouring states and, occasionally, to the UK or EU.
We know why people leave and it is not often through free choice but more often through desperation. Yet, the UK follows an asylum policy based on deterrents and destitution. When I ask members of the European Commission whether they will 'proof' policies for their effect on other countries, to examine what our agricultural subsidies or arms trade, for example, do in terms of pushing people to leave their land, I get no answer. Commissioners move on to the next question.
Refugees are not born, as we may be born black or white, male or female, but are made. Every refugee is the creation of human agency. If we can create refugees, by changing our activities we can stop creating them.
That is why, for me, the Refugee Project is such a powerful initiative. It associates those who are at the receiving end - the victims and survivors - with the activities of companies, which are in turn supported by governments. It links your experience with what we can do to bring about change.
In the European Parliament, we have begun to look at the issue of Export Credit Guarantees, especially linked to the Ilisu Dam and Baku Ceyhan Pipeline. The Greens tabled questions to the Commission about the social and environmental effects of the Dam, but we also asked about competition. The EU is very concerned about anti-competitive behaviour, so we asked a question in their own language, so to speak.
Is it not anti-competitive, we asked, for Company A to know that it will be insured against loss by taxpayers' money when bidding for a contract, when Company B may not get the same support from its national government? The reply: that is an issue for national governments.
Well, I don't agree. It is an international issue, especially where global social, environmental and economic stability is at stake.
A few members of the European Parliament have tried to introduce a definition of environmental refugees and their inclusion in international treaties and EU asylum policy. We have failed. Why? Because the Commission and governments are frightened: frightened that if they recognise this group, they will have to admit to the consequences of their own policies - the failure of their policies in terms of environmental degradation and human misery.
We are now seeing international companies writing their own law: BP in relation to the Baku pipeline for example. Their Host Country Agreements establish law which cannot be effectively challenged in any open court. We are told, by the EBRD for one, that if people's rights are abused in the construction of the pipeline, they can go to court locally - the right exists on paper. But we know that this right does not exist in reality - two of the countries through which the pipeline will travel have unstable governments and all three of them have poor records on human rights and judicial independence. DFID (Department for International Development) tells us that by supporting the pipeline, we will have greater control for the people on the ground, but cannot tell us how this will be monitored and policed.
What
the experience of people on the ground tells us is that we have to restrain and
regulate our companies, not underwrite them. That we have to demand the same standards
from them whether in the UK or Nigeria. Would we stand by whilst our own governments
implement unjust laws to deprive people of their land so that foreign companies
can move in? I see a victim here who has tried to stand up for people's rights
- he was forced to flee. If we wouldn't support it here - we must condemn it everywhere.
I commend the EDM to you all and believe that the Refugee Project can be a powerful
vehicle for change.