Austria

Austria, by its own definition and long-standing practice, is a country of first asylum, having permitted more than two million refugees to pass through its territory since the end of World War II. Out of this total, however, some 600,000 asylum-seekers have, during the same period, found a permanent home there.

Although a majority of arriving asylum-seekers continued to regard Austria as a first-asylum country in 1989, the number of those seeking permanent residence increased. Eastern Europeans continued to be the leading group, but their share declined from over 99 percent in previous years to approximately 75 percent (13,546 of 18,252). Among Eastern Europeans, the numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians increased dramatically, with the former now the largest nationality at the Austrian refugee reception facility at Traiskirchen. Some 40 other nationalities were also represented.

Clandestine entry over land borders by genuine asylum-seekers was minimal. There was, however, a significant problem of alien smuggling through Austria, involving Turks, Lebanese, Sri Lankans, and others. To stop this, Austria introduced a visa requirement for Turkish nationals in January 1990. Beginning the previous November, Bulgarians also needed visas to enter Austria.

During mid-to-late 1989, Austria began to remove from government care and maintenance old cases of Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, and Slovaks who do not qualify for asylum in Austria and have no reasonable prospect of third-country

resettlement. The affected groups are given ample advance notice of their removal and every effort is being made to accommodate hardship

cases.

Any individual requesting asylum in Austria is accorded due process under the Austrian Asylum Act of 1968, which is based on the UN Convention on Refugees. During such processing (which is accelerated for Hungarians, Poles, Yugoslavs, and Czechoslovakians), an applicant is entitled to government care and maintenance plus medical insurance and a modest amount of pocket

money.

Employment of asylum-seekers and other Eastern European visitors became a major issue in 1989. The government does not issue work permits. Thus, the relatively high number of asylum-seekers constitutes a significant pool of illegal labor, a source of growing concern to officials and trade unions alike. Negotiations are underway between the Austrian Labor and Interior Ministries to find

a viable solution to the labor permit question. There was no legislation in 1989, but administrative practice was changed in response to the developments in Eastern Europe and the arrival of an ever-increasing number of non-European asylumseekers.

In another effort to better handle such problems, the Interior Ministry offices handling alien, refugee and asylum matters were consolidated

into one unit.

International and private organizations play an important role in refugee affairs in Austria. UNHCR functions mostly in an advisory capacity, but has access to refugee records and reviews all government decisions on asylum cases, both арprovals and refusals. IOM's respon

sibilities include the transportation of refugees from Austria for thirdcountry resettlement and the administration of English-language programs, as well as a cultural orientation program for U.S.-bound refugees. Numerous private voluntary agencies also assist refugees in Austria.

Austria has traditionally accepted for permanent resettlement small of non-European groups refugees, first and foremost from Southeast Asia. Vietnamese permanent residents of Austria number about 2,500 to date. In response to the 1989 ICIR in Geneva, Austria has again agreed to accept 300 individuals from first-asylum countries in Asia.

Those granted asylum in Austria have the right to work and are eligible for the national social security (health and old age insurance) system. They may apply for citizenship after four years of residence (compared to ten years for all others).

In a relatively wealthy Western country of seven million people, some 20,000 asylum-seekers have no significant political social, economic, or ecological effect. Austrian media, however, report frequently on refugee/asylum matters and related topics, especially on illegal labor performed by the much larger number of Eastern Europeans not registered as asylum-seekers.

In addition to handling its own asylum-seeker population, in 1989

Austria continued its active role in

facilitating the transit of thousands of Soviet emigres (a record number of 74,235 in CY-89) on their way to third-country processing in Italy or resettlement in Israel. Another transit group processed in Austria for U.S. resettlement consisted of 2,0003,000 Iranian Jews.

Belgium

In 1989, refugee applications in Belgium climbed to an all-time high of 8,200 (including principal applicants and accompanying minors), a 76 percent increase from 1988. Belgium's refugee approval rate of 16 percent was the highest in Western Europe.

The number of applicants from certain countries soared: China (2 to 576), Angola (44 to 268), Pakistan (273 to 527), Romania (64 to 311), Turkey (348 to 1201) and Zaire (460 to 902). In addition, unusually high numbers of asylum-seekers (primarily Ghanaians, Indians, Zairois, Yugoslavs and Turks) entered Belgium in the last 4 months of 1989, driving applications up to 900 per month. These nationalities accounted for 61 percent of total refugee applicants. Ghanaians alone made up one quarter of the total.

Refugees enter Belgium in a variety of ways. Applications made for refugee status at the international airport account for only 13 percent of total refugee applications; 87 percent of the applicants enter clandestinely through Germany, France or the Netherlands.

No national groups receive special treatment or consideration for refugee status under Belgian law. However, until recent events in Eastern Europe in 1989, almost all Poles, Russians, Bulgarians, Czechs, and Romanians were found eligible. In late 1989, the government decided, in the wake of democratic reforms in Hungary and Poland, that nationals of those countries would not have "automatic" refugee eligibility. Decisions for Czechs, Romanians, and Bulgarians were deferred for 6 months pending developments in

those countries.

Belgium has a generous assistance policy for recognized refugees and those candidates whose cases are being appealed. Both are allowed to work and have access to all Belgian social and medical welfare benefits, including education, job training, and

social assistance support payments. In addition, both groups may have their spouses and minor children join them.

Recognized refugees are treated like Belgian citizens, except they they may not vote and are not subject to military service. Once asylum is granted, it is permanent.

Belgium does not grant refugee status to those who have already obtained refugee status in a third country. It does offer limited resettlement to persons granted temporary asylum in third countries, but with no fixed criteria and no quota. Vietnamese are the primary beneficiaries of this policy.

The legal mechanism for refugee determinations has been burdened with the increasing number of cases. Inadequate development of the 1988 asylum reform law's key provisions, inadequate infrastructure to adjudicate cases quickly, and inability to deport bogus asylum-seekers have created huge backlogs in the adjudication process and critical shelter problems for Belgium's refugee population. Lack of both staff and facilities have led to a minimum 1, year delay for the average refugee applicant's case to be decided at the initial level by the Ministry of Justice a nearly 50 percent increase in processing time. A two-stage appeal to separate independent government commissions often results in further delays due to inadequate staff and facilities. As a result, many applicants refused refugee status initially are, in effect, free to live and work in Belgium indefinitely.

Belgium does not forcibly repatriate refused refugee applicants. Such persons are given an order to "quit the territory" within 30 days. No enforcement mechanism exists, however, so unless such people are discovered by the local police via random searches, their status remains relatively secure.

The International Organization for Migration, however, did assist in repatriating 229 people who either

were refused refugee status or withdrew their applications. Repatriates from Ghana (49), Zaire (32), Pakistan (30), and India (21) headed the list. Noting that only 10 percent of individuals denied refugee status in Belgium requested help from IOM, the organization believes that the rest continue to live in Belgium or other European countries illegally.

Generous Belgian social tendencies continued to clash with a growing perception that economic immigrants are using monetary and social services that Belgians need. While Belgians remained committed to the liberal tradition of a warm welcome for the genuinely persecuted, media and other reports indicated they increasingly viewed refugees as a drain on resources. Refugee issues, as well as the larger issue of immigration from the developing world, had a sharply higher media and political profile in 1989 than in previous years.

Bulgaria

Nineteen eighty-nine was a year of enormous change and activity in Bulgaria, including the sudden mass migration of 325,000 refugees from Bulgaria into Turkey. The summer exodus followed the expulsion of perhaps 1,000 ethnic Turkish Muslims who had protested the Bulgarian Government's five-year old assimilation campaign to obliterate the Muslims' ethnic and religious identities. The migration, which was at a pace to exceed 500,000 before the end of the year, slowed to a trickle in September, after the Turkish Government re-activated its visa requirement for the refugees.

In addition, Bulgarian leader Todor Zhivkov, said to be the architect of the assimilation campaign, was ousted in November and replaced by Petur Mladenov and other reformist communists. By year's end, the new government had halted the program and acted to restore the rights of the Muslims. An estimated one-third of the refugees

returned from Turkey before the end of 1989, creating large resettlement problems in Bulgaria.

The summer exodus had several causes. In the short term, the migration of approximately three percent of Bulgaria's population (and an estimated one-fifth of its Muslim population) was due to the Bulgarian Government's decision to expedite its new more liberal passport law and provide passports to its ethnically Turkish Muslim minority. In the long term, however, the exodus was caused by the Bulgarian Government's campaign to "Bulgarize" the country's Muslims.

After five years of attempted forced assimilation, the Turkish minority seized the opportunity to flee when the government began to offer passports in May 1989, to citizens in the ethnically Turkish areas of the country. Government officials had been discussing a new, more liberal Passport Law since early 1988, and planned to implement the new regulations in the autumn of 1989. In the spring, however, ethnic Turks began sporadic uprisings, some of which turned violent, against the assimilation campaign and its local enforcers. In reaction, the Bulgarian Government opened its borders in late May to all "Bulgarian Muslims" who wanted to visit or live in Turkey. The authorities began to issue passports to ethnic rights activists, and then to thousands of ethnic Turkish Muslims.

The resulting massive influx of refugees and the prospect of hundreds of thousands still to come was a major factor in a policy change by the government of Turkey. Despite statements in early June that visa requirements would be waived and that its borders would be open to ethnic Turks who wanted to leave Bulgaria for Turkey, the Turkish government closed the borders on August 22 to all travelers except those with visas.

At the border, the holding camps, as well as the long lines, promptly disappeared. By that time,

an estimated 300,000 Bulgarians had entered Turkey. Travel was sharply reduced for the remainder of the year. Approximately 15,000 refugees (and 10,000 tourists) entered Turkey with visas between the end of August 1989, and the end of January, 1990.

In addition, about 100,000 of this total population returned to Bulgaria. It seems that an overwhelming majority of the early returnees did not stay in Turkey because the selective issuance of passports had left many close family members unable to join them.

No accurate figures are available, but it seems certain that Bulgaria's economy was adversely effected by the exodus. The agricultural sector, for example, suffered from the labor shortage, causing failures in crop harvesting and distribution.

After this tumultuous series of events, official attempts to improve the social standing of the ethnic Muslim Turks met with resistance. The Communist Party's announcement in late December that all basic constitutional, civil and human rights would be restored to the country's Muslim minorities caused a backlash of nationalist and chauvinist demonstrations. Mass meetings were organized in the minority regions and in Sofia. Participants on both sides of the issue frequently mentioned the possibility of violence, but as the party leadership in Sofia repeatedly restated its commitment to stand by the decision, the opponents' energies dissipated.

In addition to the Muslims' exodus, Bulgarians continued to opt for the more traditional methods of refuge: leaving Bulgaria with a valid passport and visa and then adjusting status once in another country; or leaving the country by whatever means and applying for refugee status at a UNHCR office. No precise figures on the number of such persons are available, but estimates place the total far higher than the 1,000 per annum reported in earlier years.

Cyprus

Cyprus is a refugee-receiving country. There were no large group of refugees or asylees in Cyprus during 1989. According to UNHCR, 248 persons applied for refugee status during 1989. Of these, forty were accepted by the UNHCR as being "at risk" or "of concern." None requested permanent resettlement in Cyprus. There were no expulsions by the Cyprus Government of persons "at risk" or "of concern" during 1989.

During the spring and summer, several thousand Lebanese came to Cyprus to escape the intercommunal hostilities in Lebanon. These people were not considered refugees or asylees, but as voluntarily and temporarily displaced persons. No Lebanese applied for permanent asylum in Cyprus during 1989. The majority returned to Lebanon after the ceasefire in September. The Cypriot authorities have taken a liberal approach to the presence of Lebanese in Cyprus, treating them as any other sizeable group of tourists or temporary visitors.

In general, Cyprus does not accept refugees from offshore, claiming that the island is already burdened with a large number of Cypriots displaced from their own homes during civil strife many years ago which resulted in a de facto partitioning of the island. For both refugees as well as the government, Cyprus is considered a transit stop on the way to elsewhere. The Cypriot Government does provide temporary lodging and medical care for persons claiming refugee status.

(A small number of the ethnic Turks who were expelled from Bulgaria during 1989 took up residence in the breakaway "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", which administers the northern 37 percent of the island.)

Czechoslovakia

As the former communistdominated totalitarian government was dismantled to make way for participatory democracy, the refugee situation in Czechoslovakia changed greatly in 1989. The new government promised to move quickly to establish legal guarantees of rights of expression, association, travel and other commonly accepted freedoms. Free elections were scheduled for June 1990.

Repressive emigration and travel restrictions were quickly abolished. Czechoslovaks are now free to travel with only a passport, which will be freely available to all citizens. Laws punishing unauthorized travel were repealed. The government may no longer require legal emigrants to liquidate their property in Czechoslovakia or confiscate illegal emigrants' possessions.

Before the political changes in Czechoslovakia, the majority of Czechoslovak refugees found firstasylum in Austria, West Germany or Italy, with smaller numbers also to be found in other West European countries. They then resettled in large numbers in Australia, Austria, Canada, the United States, and West Germany, again with smaller numbers in other West European countries. The abolition of travel restrictions and greater political freedoms in Czechoslovakia and other Easter European countries may well change this movement and the policy in Western Europe towards granting refugee status.

Even before its own milestone political reforms, Czechoslovakia contributed to the democratization movement in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) by its role in the historic movement of GDR refugees. In October, 1989, large numbers of GDR citizens began to fill the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) in Prague, seeking asylum. After negotiations, several groups, numbering five to ten thousand each, were given special

permission to leave Czechoslovakia for the FRG. Finally, in November, 1989, the Governments of Czechoslovakia, the GDR, and FRG agreed to allow any GDR citizen to leave Czechoslovakia merely by showing his citizenship document. This resulted in a flood of GDR citizens across Czechoslovak territory, most of whom remained there only a few hours. The number of GDR refugees who transmitted was estimated at more than 35,000. When the GDR itself opened its borders, GDR citizens stopped crossing Czechoslovakia and went directly to West Germany.

Czechoslovakia's future role in refugee affairs is unpredictable. The country has not heretofore accepted significant numbers of refugees. The Czechoslovak Government, however, has indicated that it intends to subscribe to existing international treaties relating to refugees, which, along with the on-going political changes, may make Czechoslovakia a net recipient of refugees in the future.

Denmark

During 1989, Denmark, like many other refugee-receiving countries, wrestled with the issue of asylum-seekers from Eastern Europe. For the first time, some of these cases were denied. The number of Poles seeking asylum declined, while Soviets, Czechs, and Bulgarians appeared in greater numbers, probably due to an easing of travel restrictions. In 1989, Hungary was designated a "safe" country, i.e., one generally regarded by Denmark as not generating refugees, the first Eastern Bloc country so named. In response to increased flows of asylum-seekers from Romania and Bulgaria, the Danish Government introduced a visa requirement for nationals of these two countries.

The largest groups arriving in 1989 were Palestinians, Iranians,

Iraqis, and Poles. New refugee groups were Bulgarian Turks and Somali Isaaks.

Other developments included the introduction of fines for airlines carrying improperly documented aliens and the opening of two new asylum centers.

According to Danish authorities, most of the refugees in Denmark are "spontaneous" asylum-seekers, that is, they travel on false papers and claim asylum after arrival.

The number of aliens caught entering Denmark illegally from West Germany increased 17 percent from 1988 to 1989, to 1,924. They were almost entirely asylum-seekers en route to Scandinavia or persons denied asylum in West Germany.

In 1989, Denmark doubled its quota for UN refugees to 500, plus 1,500 for family reunification. There is a widespread desire to increase intake of UN refugees and reduce the number of spontaneous asylumseekers.

Denmark provides generous support to asylum-seekers while their case is pending-housing in designated camps operated by the Danish Red Cross, meals, medical care, a small amount of spending money, and education. Camp residents are free to come and go as they please.

There is broad political agreement that persons accepted as refugees should be treated the same as Danes, and have full rights to all the social services (free education, medical and dental care, etc.) the Danish welfare state provides its citizens. New arrivals are given subsidized housing and welfare while they go through an 18-month adaptation and language course. They are allowed to vote in local elections, and can apply for citizenship after residing in Denmark for five years.

Nevertheless, the presence of refugees continued to be controversial. Refugee issues were frequently part of political debate. The increasing cultural diversity of the refugee population has concerned some