By Raphael Minder

Financial Times; Nov 25, 2003   Last November, 26 Chechens were denied asylum by Lithuania and returned to Belarus. Most of them were then detained by Belarus police and put on a train to Moscow, the capital of the country they had hoped to escape.

The European Union's attempt to agree on common asylum procedures has highlighted the difficult balancing act between preventing abuse of the asylum system and avoiding a clampdown that risks leaving refugees such as the Chechens stranded.

EU interior ministers - meeting on Thursday - have set a year-end deadline to reach agreement, and some now admit that is in danger of being missed. In particular, talks have got bogged down over defining "safe" countries to which asylum seekers might be returned.

The very notion of "safe" has proved divisive and the debate has also been skewed by national interests, notably the links between European nations and their former colonies.

Meanwhile, ministers insist an accord is needed before next year's enlargement of the EU's borders, with the addition of Lithuania and nine other countries.

"We feel it is very important to harmonise Europe's asylum policy quickly, but it is also true that we all have strong national principles and views about how to deal with asylum seekers," said Rita Verdonk, the Dutch minister for immigration, after the last deadlocked EU ministerial meeting.

Meanwhile, some are warning that the planned EU legislation could mean a more heavy-handed and blanket approach towards asylum seekers. It could also force less developed nations to deal with more refugees.

Ruud Lubbers, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, sent a letter yesterday to Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, arguing that the EU proposals "will serve to shift the burden from EU member states to countries further afield".

Some non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International, have even urged ministers to abandon the safe-country concept altogether. Amnesty argues it is a blunt instrument and that drawing- up and making subsequent changes to a list of safe countries could result in "political bargaining influenced by national interests, rather than human rights considerations".

A proposal for a common list of safe countries was presented last year by Austria, on the basis that "radically different national attempts to resolve the problem . .. prevent an EU asylum policy from working properly".

The Austrians drew on an argument allegedly made by Mr Lubbers that about 90 per cent of all asylum applications lodged in the EU were unfounded. They claimed that lack of co-ordination across the EU had allowed refugees rejected by one country to try their luck in another.

Germany is also proposing the safe country concept, having introduced legislation in 1993 to allow German border guards to send back asylum seekers arriving from a neighbouring country. The number of asylum seekers in Germany has fallen steadily, down to 71,000 people last year from 322,000 in 1993, which the government sees as proof of the legislation's benefits.

Some NGOs argue that tougher asylum rules simply encourage illegal immigration, often controlled by criminal networks. The EU debate has two components, namely safe countries of origin and transit. Although defining safe countries of origin has proved less thorny, establishing a final list remains a challenge.

For example, some member states oppose the idea of including the US, since refugees should not be sent back automatically to a country that has the death penalty.

While ministers in Brussels discuss common asylum legislation, individual governments are steering the issue in different directions, often to respond to public pressure to deal efficiently with immigration.

David Blunkett, the British home secretary, has been promoting the economic benefits of legal migrants. But he is also set to unveil next month an asylum bill that will limit the opportunity of applicants from designated safe countries to challenge rejection decisions.

Meanwhile, refugees coming to France will face tougher hurdles under legislation approved this month. Patrick Dewael, the Belgian interior minister, also recently sparked controversy by suggesting that Belgium should limit economic aid to countries that fail to control migration.

"The aim is supposedly to have common rules, but every week a minister is coming up with a new idea or new national law which somehow should then be incorporated in EU legislation," said Karl Kopp, EU co-ordinator for Pro Asyl, a German NGO.

The example set by other nations suggests the EU might need more time to reach consensus. Canada and the US first discussed a safe country agreement for asylum seekers travelling across their common land border in 1995, but only signed a deal last December after negotiations were given added urgency by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.