On the Way to a Better Future: Belgium as Transit Country for Trafficking and Smuggling of...

Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK,and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

© 2005 IOMInternational Migration Vol. 43 (4) 2005

ISSN 0020-7985

* Department of Orthopedagogics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

On the Way to a Better Future:Belgium as Transit Country

for Trafficking and Smugglingof Unaccompanied Minors1

Ilse Derluyn and Eric Broekaert*

ABSTRACT

During the last decade, irregular border crossings emerged as a new elementin international migratory flows, with smuggling and trafficking networksbeing an essential part. Many people are compelled to use these networksto realize their dream of a better living, and for many this “promised land” isthe United Kingdom (UK). Belgium has important sea connections with theUK, and is, therefore, an important migration transit zone, although manymigrants are intercepted on Belgian territory during their attempt to reachthe UK. Some are unaccompanied or separated children and adolescents,minors travelling without parent(s) or a legal caregiver. This study aims togain insight about this population of unaccompanied minors travelling tothe UK. We use the situation in Zeebrugge, one of Belgium’s main ports, asa case study.

We analysed 1,093 data files of unaccompanied minors intercepted inZeebrugge, and carried out participatory observation at the shippingpolice station. The intercepted unaccompanied minors are mainly male,between 15 and 18 years of age, and from an Asian or Eastern Europeancountry. Of the 899 unique persons found in the data files, 113 were inter-cepted several times. After the interception, the Aliens Office gives themajority (82.9%) an identity document without a requirement to leave Bel-gium, while 15.3 per cent must leave Belgium immediately or withinfive days. In 82.9 per cent of the cases, a child protection officer is con-tacted to make a decision about the situation. In 67.2 per cent of these

Derluyn(final).p65 9/5/2005, 7:37 PM31

32 Derluyn and Broekaert

cases, no child protection measure is taken, and the minor may leave thepolice station; in 32 per cent of the cases, the minor is transferred to acentre, mostly crisis reception.

Almost all unaccompanied minors are convinced they want to reach theUK to create a better livelihood, join a family member, or escape a difficultpolitical situation. Nevertheless, most travel in difficult circumstances; arescared; and lack essential information about life in the UK, their possibilitiesin Belgium, what will happen if they are transferred to a centre, and so forth.Most minors also do not want to be transferred to a centre, and many –although not all – disappear again from the centres.

This study has several implications concerning the kind of decisions takenby the legal authorities, the necessary physical and psycho-social care andthe availability of an interpreter and social worker during the interception,the number of reception places and the care in these centres, and the tasksof the legal guardian. Finally, some limitations of the study are mentioned.

INTRODUCTION

Human trafficking and smuggling

In June 2000, the bodies of 54 men and four women were discovered in anairtight 18-metre container at the port of Dover. The driver of the Dutch-registered lorry had just made the crossing from Zeebrugge, Belgium, when hisvehicle was pulled over for inspection by a customs official, and 58 dead Chi-nese people were found.

Over the past ten years, irregular border crossings have emerged as a newmajor element in international migratory flows throughout the world, with smug-gling and trafficking of human beings an essential part of these movements.Since European Union (EU) member countries have added numerous restrictionsto asylum seekers in an effort to curb the inflow, asylum seekers are increasing-ly led to underground means through the use of traffickers and smugglers (Black,2003; Mavris, 2002; Morrison, 1998; Van Impe, 2000). Networks of humansmugglers have proven to be highly successful in moving large numbers ofpeople illegally, and in amassing substantial profits. Violence, coercion, and ex-ploitation are an integral part of smuggling, and therefore, it is impossible todiscuss smuggling without trafficking (Skeldon, 2000), although it remains dif-ficult to get a clear distinction between both concepts (Loff and Sanghera,2004). In general, human trafficking is considered the transportation of peoplefrom one place to another for exploitative purposes through coercion, deception,


33On the way to a better future: Belgium as transit country

or some other form of illicit influence, while human smuggling is associatedmore with illegal border crossings under the assistance of third parties (Içduyguand Toktas, 2002; Salt, 2000). According to Içduygu and Toktas (2002), traf-ficking differs from smuggling in two points: first, exploitation is a fundamentalelement of the various phases of trafficking, whereas the foremost character-istic of smuggling is not exploitation, and, secondly, although smuggling sug-gests itself as the illegal entry of a person into a foreign country encompassingan aspect of international migration, human trafficking does not necessarilyinvolve border crossing. Nevertheless, not only traffickers expose migrants toabuses and human rights violations, as smugglers are not above committinghuman rights violations themselves, such as rape, physical and mental abuse,food deprivations, abandonment, and death (Içduygu and Toktas, 2002; Salt,2000). Therefore, practices of migrant smuggling always hold certain risks forthe person appealing to the smugglers: putting himself into a subordinate pos-ition involves losing complete control over the situation, as a result of whichsmuggling may easily degenerate into trafficking (Van Impe, 2000). The mi-grants are beholden to their traffickers or smugglers through their vulnerabilityand their dependence on them to realize their migration objectives, while re-maining exposed to dire potential consequences in terms of interception andapprehension by immigration or police authorities or even their own demise ifthey should become stranded. The extent of their desire to migrate and theirdesperation and vulnerability are the strength and backbone of the traffickingbusiness, and these factors ensure their continuing operations and tremendousprofits (Içduygu and Toktas, 2002).

Given the definitional imprecision surrounding “trafficking” and “smuggling”,the difficulty of logically separating it from several other types of migration, andthe inherent characteristic that this is an illegal occurring phenomenon, it ishardly surprisingly that accurate numbers are elusive (Loff and Sanghera, 2004).Of the trafficking victims, it is estimated that at least one-third are unaccom-panied or separated children (Bump and Duncan, 2003), children under 18 yearsof age who are outside their country of origin and separated from both parentsor their previous legal or customary primary caregiver (SCEP, 2004). Becausethese children do not have the protection of a parent or caregiver, they areextremely vulnerable to criminal groups of smugglers and traffickers. Theyeasily can fall prey to human traffickers who provide false papers and accessinto a country, but often with a high price – they may become indebted to thetraffickers and then be pulled into a circle of exploitation and debt (Costner,2003). And even when these minors are transferred to an institution where theyare cared for, they frequently “disappear” from the centres, facing the risk ofcoming into contact with traffickers who might sexually or economically



exploit them (Costner, 2003; De Pauw, 2002; IOM, 2001; Sjögren and Lööf,2002; Verlinden, 2004).

Belgium as transit country

For many migrants and refugees, the UK is their “promised land”, as they per-ceive the UK to offer favourable employment opportunities, along with otherattractions, such as better benefit payments, better access to health care, andbetter social conditions than other EU states. In addition, the existence of ethniccommunities or the presence of a family member in the UK who can providesupport and employment appeal to many migrants.

Because Belgium has important sea connections with the UK, these transportroutes are frequently used for illegal border crossings to the UK. The increaseduse of these routes has led the UK to take important steps in order to reduce thenumber of illegal border crossings, including the elaboration of an agreementbetween the Belgian and UK Governments, which gives the UK control overthe presence of undocumented migrants in trailers and boats while on Belgianterritory; and the imposition of high fines for lorry drivers who bring un-documented migrants to the UK.2 This has resulted in the development ofimportant security measures on Belgian territory, which checks transport to theUK by shipping companies and the UK Government itself. A considerable rise inthe number of migrants intercepted in Belgian ports while attempting to crossUK borders illegally (e.g. by hiding in the port terminal, in a trailer, in the luggagecompartment of a car, etc.) was an important consequence of these increasedcontrols. Many migrants without appropriate documents are intercepted in theport of Zeebrugge, as this port has important sea connections with the UK, butthey are also intercepted in other ports, the whole coastal region, parking places,and trains and train stations.

After interception, migrants are handed over to a local police unit, whichmust handle all administrative and legal procedures when a person without legaldocuments to stay on Belgian territory and/or to travel to the UK is interceptedon Belgian territory. This involves the identification of the person (name, age,nationality); taking fingerprints, photographs, and an iris scan; and seizing thedocuments and all other items the person is carrying. The latter is done becausethe police also try to find evidence or tracks of (networks of) human traffickersand smugglers. After this identification process, the Belgian Aliens Office iscontacted. This service examines whether the migrant is allowed to stay onBelgian territory, decides what kind of document the migrant receives (e.g.order to leave the Belgian territory immediately or within five days, and so forth),and if the person has to be transferred to a closed centre.



For unaccompanied minors – children under age 18, not from a member coun-try of the European Economic Space, and not being cared for by his/her parent(s)or legal caregiver (Belgian Aliens Office, 2002) – the same procedure is fol-lowed. Also for unaccompanied minors, the Aliens Office gives a documentwhich states the identity of the minor, together with the following possibleadditions: the minor has to leave the country immediately, the minor has to leavethe country within five days, or the minor is not obliged to leave the Belgianterritory.

As these adolescents are unaccompanied minors, and Belgium ratified the Inter-national Declaration on Children’s Rights, the minors must be protected andcared for until they reach age 18. This means that after the interception of anunaccompanied minor, the police also must contact the child protection officeror – from 1 May 2004 on – the Guardianship Office.3 This institution mustmake a decision regarding whether the minor should be transferred to aninstitution, or whether he can leave the police station without any child pro-tection measure being taken.

The reception and care system for unaccompanied refugee and migrant minorsin Belgium is split up in two main parts due to the Belgian constitutional struc-ture. In general, we can state that the Belgian Federal Government is responsiblefor the reception and care of all unaccompanied minors who apply for refugeestatus (the asylum seeking unaccompanied minors), and the Communities(Flemish- or French-speaking Communities) are responsible for the care andreception of all unaccompanied minors who don’t apply for refugee status.Thus, the unaccompanied minors this study is dealing with are mainly theresponsibility of the Flemish Community, as these minors rarely make an asy-lum application. For the moment, the Flemish Community has created twospecific centres for the reception of these unaccompanied minors, which nowhave a total capacity of 32 places. For the unaccompanied asylum seekingminors, the Belgian Federal Government has created 499 special places inasylum centres or specific reception centres for these minors.

Aim of the research

Literature on the phenomenon of trafficking and smuggling – especially ofunaccompanied and separated minors – is growing, but consists mainly ofdescriptive and anecdotal evidence. There is a paucity of scientific literature andresearch concerning this problem (Içduygu and Toktas, 2002; Salt, 2000). There-fore, the general aim of this study is to gain insight into unaccompanied andseparated migrant and refugee minors travelling through Belgium, with the UKas final destination. This involves, at first, getting insight into some demographic



characteristics of the intercepted minors (age, nationality, etc.), the number ofminors several times intercepted, and what happens with the minor after inter-ception (the kind of decisions taken by different institutions and the receptionstructure for these minors). Secondly, we would like to gain some insight intothe motives and feelings of the intercepted unaccompanied minors.

Given that Zeebrugge is a very important transit zone for migrants travelling tothe UK and many migrants are intercepted in this port, we use the situation ofunaccompanied minors intercepted there as a case study.

METHODOLOGY

Study setting and data

The study was carried out in the Belgian port of Zeebrugge, where we cooper-ated with the shipping police, who are responsible for safety on the Belgianterritorial waters and in the port.

At first, we analysed 1,093 files of unaccompanied minors intercepted by theZeebrugge shipping police from January 2000 through August 2004. These filesprovide the following information: date of interception; age and nationality ofthe minor; the decision of the Aliens Office; whether the child protection officeror the Guardianship Office was contacted, and which decision thisinstitution takes; and, in the case the minor is transferred to an institution, thename of this institution is given.

Secondly, participatory observation was conducted at the police station of theshipping police by the first author of this paper: from January 2004 throughApril 2004, the researcher was contacted by the shipping police when an un-accompanied minor was intercepted. In total, she went seven times to Zeebrugge.After she arrived at the police station, she explained the aim of the research tothe minor, and his/her oral informed consent was asked. The researcher thenstayed with the minor and tried to talk with him/her until the decision of theAliens Office and the child protection officer or Guardianship Office arrived,and the minor had to be transferred to a centre or could leave the police station.Further, in August 2004, we could interview two Moldavian unaccompaniedminors together, with the support of an interpreter.

Analyses

Descriptive statistics were used to describe some demographic characteristicsof the group in order to analyse possible double counts – migrants intercepted



several times by the shipping police – and to explore the decisions made by theAliens Office, the child protection officer, and the Guardianship Office. In theselatter analyses, we distinguished between the unaccompanied minors only pickedup once by the police and those intercepted several times, and we looked at theinfluence of the minor’s age on the decisions taken. For these analyses, we alsoused χ²-tests.

Secondly, the information gathered during participatory observation was writ-ten in detail immediately after the observation, and these field notes were used todeduce some main themes out of the participatory observation and interview.

RESULTS

Number of unaccompanied minors

The number of unaccompanied minors intercepted at Zeebrugge port shows agradual increase from 2000 on, together with the total number of interceptedmigrants (see Figure 1). Eighty-five unaccompanied minors were intercepted in2000, 260 in 2001, 342 in 2002, and 305 in 2003. Approximately 10 per cent ofthe intercepted persons are unaccompanied minors (total number of interceptedpersons: 610 in 2000, 2,291 in 2001, 3,766 in 2002, and 4,235 in 2003).

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2000 2001 2002 2003

Unaccompanied minors All intercepted migrants

FIGURE 1

NUMBER OF INTERCEPTED MIGRANTS AND INTERCEPTEDUNACCOMPANIED MINORS AT ZEEBRUGGE PORT,

DURING THE PERIOD 2000 TO 2003

Derluyn(revised).p65 9/4/2005, 8:22 PM37


In the 1,093 data files of intercepted unaccompanied minors, we looked forpossible double counts by analysing similar names and dates of birth. We found899 unique persons, 786 were intercepted once, while 113 unaccompanied minorswere intercepted several times. From this latter group, 73 minors (64.6%) wereintercepted twice, 21 (18.6%) three times, six (5.3%) four times, seven (6.2%)five times, three (2.7%) six times, one (0.9%) seven times, and two (1.8%)were intercepted eight times. The mean number of days between the first andsecond interception for the minors intercepted more than once is 7.20 days. Inmost cases, there is only a limited period between the first two interceptions(e.g. in seven cases, the minor is intercepted twice a day; in 29 cases, the minoris intercepted two days in succession; in seven cases, there is two days betweenboth interceptions; and in 11 cases, three days passed before the second inter-ception). In some cases, there is a longer period between the first two intercep-tions, in one case 90 days and in another case even 169 days. The same patternis seen concerning the period between the second and third interception (mean =5.73 days), in most cases only one or a few days passed between interceptions.

Demographic characteristics

If we look at some demographic characteristics of the group of unique un-accompanied minors, we see that most minors are male (837, 96.4%), only31 females (3.6%) have been intercepted. More than 90 per cent are betweenages 15 and 18 (see Figure 2): 147 (16.4%) are 15 years old, 234 (26.1%) are16 years old, 344 (38.3%) are 17 years old, and 99 (11%) are 18 years old;30 (3.3%) unaccompanied minors are between 9 and 13 years of age, and44 (4.9%) are 14 years old.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

age (years)

FIGURE 2

AGE OF INTERCEPTED UNACCOMPANIED MINORS AT ZEEBRUGGE PORT,DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY 2000 TO AUGUST 2004

Derluyn(revised).p65 9/4/2005, 8:24 PM38


Most unaccompanied minors come from Eastern Europe (506, 56.3%) and Asia(386, 42.9%). Only a small group comes from Africa (6, 0.7%) and South America(1, 0.1%). The main countries of origin are the former Yugoslavia (177, 19.7%),Afghanistan (167, 18.6%), Macedonia (106, 11.8%), Albania (96, 10.7%), andMoldavia (94, 10.5%). Other countries of origin are (in order of frequency):Iraq, China, India, Iran, Romania, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Viet Nam, Pales-tine, Nepal, Pakistan, Belarus, Sudan, Russia, Colombia, and Jamaica.

If we compare the groups of those intercepted once and those intercepted morethan once concerning these demographic characteristics, we find no significantdifferences (gender: χ² = 0.000, df = 1, p = 0.984; age: χ² = 9.870, df = 9, p =0.369; continent of origin: χ² = 1.198, df = 3, p = 0.754).

What happens with unaccompanied minors after interception?

If an unaccompanied minor is intercepted by the shipping police, the BelgianAliens Office must make a decision regarding whether the minor can stay onBelgian territory, and which kind of document the minor will receive. In mostcases (899, 82.9%), the Aliens Office decides to give the minor an identitydocument without the obligation to leave Belgium; in 126 cases (11.6%), theminor receives an order to leave the Belgian territory immediately, and in40 cases (3.7%) an order to leave the country within five days. In eight cases(0.7%), the Aliens Office decides to repatriate the minor to his country oforigin, and in two cases (0.2%), the minor is put in a centre for illegal immi-grants. Seven minors (0.6%) decide to apply for asylum in Belgium, and three(0.3%) receive a voluntary return document.

Due to the fact that these are unaccompanied minors and thus have to be pro-tected and cared for, the child protection officer also must determine the minor’sfuture. In general, this officer decides whether the minor must be transferred toan institution or whether the minor can leave the police station without any childprotection measure being taken. During our study, an officer was contacted bythe shipping police in 598 cases (82.9%); in 121 cases (16.8%) the officer wasnot contacted, and for two minors (0.3%) it was discovered that they weremarried. In the cases where the officer was not contacted, eight minors werebrought to a closed centre, seven of them with immediate view on repatriation,and all others were allowed to leave the police station without any other childprotection measure being taken.

In the cases where the child protection officer was contacted, the decisionswere: in 399 cases (67.2%), no child protection measure was taken and theminor was allowed to leave the police station with the other persons he wasintercepted with; in 190 cases (32%), the officer decided the minor had to be



transferred to an institution; in three cases (0.5%), the officer supported theasylum application of the minor; one minor (0.2%) is repatriated to his countryof birth; and one (0.2%) is arrested for criminal acts previously committed.

Since the installation of a guardianship system for all unaccompanied minors on1 May 2004, it is the task of the Guardianship Office to take care of theseminors. From 1 May 2004 through 10 August 2004, the Guardianship Officehas made 71 decisions for minors intercepted in Zeebrugge: in 38 cases (53.3%),the minor has to be placed in an institution; in 12 cases (16.9%) the minor has tobe transferred to the Guardianship Office; in 19 cases (26.8%), the minor isallowed to leave the police station without any child protection measure beingtaken; and in two cases (2.8%), the minor turns out to be of age. From the200 minors transferred to an institution, 44 (22%) are placed in a specializedinstitution for illegal unaccompanied minors, 66 (33%) in crisis reception placesin refugee centres, 76 (38%) in other crisis centres (e.g. a military hospital),10 (5%) in another centre for minors, and four (2%) are locked up in a closedcentre for foreigners without legal documents.

If we look at the influence of the age of the minor on the decisions taken by theAliens Office and the child protection officer or Guardianship Office, we findthe following results (see Table 1): the older the minor, the more the AliensOffice decides to give a document with the order to leave Belgium (immediatelyor within five days) (χ² = 107.14, df = 18, p = 0.000). The child protectionofficer is more often contacted by the shipping police when the minor is younger(χ² = 58.53, df = 10, p = 0.000), and this officer decides less often to placeolder minors, compared to younger minors (χ² = 31,80, df = 10, p = 0.000).Concerning the decisions of the Guardianship Office, we see the same trend,but as this institution only started a few months ago with their work, it is still tooearly to make clear statements about this.

The decisions made by the Aliens Office also differ depending on whether it isthe first time a minor was picked up or whether he/she was already interceptedone or more times (χ² = 31.07, df = 6, p = 0.000): minors intercepted severaltimes receive more often an identity document without the obligation to leavethe country (187 (96.4%) vs. 712 minors (79.9%) intercepted for the firsttime), while those picked up for the first time more often get the decision toleave the country immediately (122 (13.7%) vs. 4 (2.1%)) or within five days(38 (4.3%) vs. 2 (1%)). The child protection officer is more often contacted bythe shipping police when it is the first time a minor is intercepted (477 (84.6%)vs. 121 (77.1%)), although this difference was not significant (χ² = 5.91,df = 2, p = 0.052). There is no significant difference (χ² = 1.94, df = 4,p = 0.747) in the kind of decision the child protection officer takes for thoseintercepted for the first time, compared to those intercepted more than once.



TABLE 1

INFLUENCE OF THE MINOR’S AGE ON THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE ALIENS OFFICE, THE CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER,

AND THE GUARDIANSHIP OFFICE

≤ 13 years

14 years

15 years

16 years

17 years

18 years

Decision of the Immigration Service

Identity document with obligation to leave country immediately

6 (17.6%)

1 (1.9%)

4 (2.3%)

18 (6.3%)

66 (15.9%)

31 (25.6%)

Identity document with obligation to leave country within five days

1 (2.9%)

1 (1.9%)

1 (0.6%)

3 (1.1%)

21 (5.1%)

13 (10.7%)

Identity document without obligation to leave country

27 (79.4%)

51 (96.2%)

170 (96%)

258 (90.8%)

321 (77.3%)

71 (58.7%)

Other decision 0 0 2 (1.1%)

4 (1.4%)

7 (1.7%)

6 (5%)

Contact with child protection officer?

Yes 25 (92.6%)

24 (85.7%)

101 (92.7%)

160 (86.5%)

236 (84%)

52 (57.1%)

No 2 (7.4%)

4 (14.3%)

7 (6.4%)

25 (13.5%)

44 (15.7%)

39 (42.9%)

Decision of the child protection officer

Placement in institution 1 (44%)

13 (54.2%)

46 (45.5%)

56 (35%)

55 (23.7%)

9 (17.3%)

No child protection measure taken

14 (56%)

11 (45.8%)

53 (52.5%)

103 (64.4%)

175 (75.4%)

43 (82.7%)

Other 0 0 2 (2%)

1 (0.6%)

2 (0.8%)

Decision of the Guardianship Office*

Placement in institution 0 1 (100%)

2 (40%)

10 (66.7%)

19 (50%)

6 (50%)

Transfer to the Guardianship Office

0 1 (20%)

1 (6.7%)

7 (18.4%)

3 (25%)

No child protection measure taken

0 2 (40%)

4 (26.7%)

10 (26.3%)

3 (25%)

Of age 0 0 0 2 (5.3%)

0

Note: *In 100 per cent of the cases from 1 May 2004 on (the starting date of the law on guardianship for unaccompanied minors), the Guardianship Office was contacted by the shipping police of Zeebrugge.



Participatory observation

We gained some insight into the background of these fleeing unaccompaniedminors, their expectations for the future, their dreams and motivations, the travelcircumstances and their current feelings through participatory observation andone extended interview with two unaccompanied minors together.

Most unaccompanied minors travel in difficult circumstances; the journey issometimes very long, for many minors even several months. They travel throughvarious countries, many through Turkey, Greece, and Italy. Many speak someItalian, perhaps signifying that they stayed for awhile in Italy, which is mostlikely because they had to earn new money to pay a smuggler for the secondpart of their journey. Most travel in lorry trailers or in containers of a liner train.If they do not travel, they try to find a place where they can sleep – dilapidatedhouses where many migrants live together, a wooden bench in a park, or some-where under a bridge or near train rails – partially sheltered against cold andrain, and hidden from the outside world.

A group of eight people is intercepted, six Albanians, two Indians; two of the Albaniansare unaccompanied minors. A policeman tells that they entered a lorry trailer at aparking place somewhere in Belgium, but at the port of Zeebrugge, the trailer wasparked because there is no sea traffic on Saturday. So, because of hunger and cold, themigrants left the trailer and were intercepted by a security service of the shippingcompany. I talk to one of the adults: “I think you are tired”, I say. “Yes, very, verytired. We did not sleep whole night. It was very, very cold. That’s why we came out,and then, they [members of the security service] saw us. (…) We did not sleep, we didnot drink, we did not eat” (field notes, 10 January 2004).

All of the intercepted migrants we talked to told us they came alone to Zeebruggeand didn’t receive any help. None of them admitted that they received supportor instructions from smugglers or traffickers.

Intercepted in the port of Zeebrugge, many migrants see their dreams (tempor-arily) shattered by the police, and most find it difficult to understand what ishappening, why they are intercepted, how long it will take until they can leavethe police station, and so on. Many are, therefore, also very suspicious: “Whatdoes Belgium have to do with the fact that I want to go to England?” (…)“What does Belgium earn with this?” (field notes interview, 28 August 2004).

Most of the time, migrants find that the police treat them well – they receivefood and tea, they can have a short rest, and they are approached in a friendlymanner – but this is not always the case. One of the unaccompanied minorsexplains how a policeman was treating him quite badly: “The policeman said bad



words. He said I am a thief. I don’t want to steal, I want to go to England” (fieldnotes interview, 28 August 2004).

When asked for their reasons to set up a new life in the UK, different motivesare mentioned: at first, these minors want to create a better livelihood for them-selves and their family at home, as there are very few possibilities in their owncountry; secondly, most of them know somebody – often a family member –who is already living in the UK; and, finally, some want to escape the politicalsituation and the lack of freedom of speech in their country of birth. Mostexpect to find a job quite easily in the UK, although they often don’t know whatEngland is like.

An Albanian adult asks me: “How is London?” I reply: “It is a beautiful city, withbeautiful buildings, but the weather is bad.” I ask him how he learned about England.“By television”, he answers. (…) Some time later, one of the unaccompanied minorsasks me: “How do you have to apply for a job?” I don’t understand the questiondirectly, but after a while I understand he is asking which words, which sentence youhave to say if you want to apply for a job. After I have done some suggestions, hecontinues practicing to remember the sentence I said to him (field notes, 10 January2004).

If the minor is told by the police that he might be transferred to a centre forminors, many protest firmly against this; they don’t want to be in a centre, evenmore, they don’t want to stay in Belgium – they want to go to the UK.

I already was in a centre in Brussels, a centre for children. But I didn’t want to staythere. I had to behave there like the other ones, but I don’t want to stay in Belgium. Iwant to go to my brother in England (field notes interview, 28 August 2004).

I would rather swim to England… I would rather be dead than stay in this situation(field notes, 13 February 2004).

What would you do if you were in our situation? If there is nothing in your country?Wouldn’t you escape? And if you know that you cannot stay forever in a certaincountry, like Belgium; that, if you are 18 years of age, you will be sent back to yourcountry. Wouldn’t you then also go to England like we want to do? (field notes interview,28 August 2004).

Nevertheless, there are also minors who don’t want to leave the police station,who feel so desperate that they just want to have a bed, a little bit of rest, and anend to this exhausting journey. But if there is no place in a centre for them, theyhave to leave, whether they want to or not.

All minors – and also almost all adults – admit that they feel very afraid and arescared of the things that are happening now and all the things that might happenin the future.



I am sitting on the bed in the police station, together with an intercepted minor, lookingat the countless names, dates, words and texts written on the walls of the room. Mostare in languages I do not understand, but some are universal language: “London”, “FuckBelgium”, “England”, “Love: Life of pain – Oceans of tears – Valley of death – End oflife” (field notes, 11 March 2004).

After the interview, I want to leave the room. An apparently old man, also interceptedduring night, approaches me and takes me by my arm. He says a lot of things, but I canonly understand some words: “Me, Afghanistan”, “London”, “London, England”. Herolls up his sleeves, demonstrates how somebody shoots at him, and shows the woundsof the bullets on his left arm and right leg. A policeman enters the room: “This is yourpaper. You have to leave Belgium within five days.” The man nods and leaves the room,with only a pullover, and sandals on his feet. He wouldn’t ask for anything better thanleaving Belgium – as soon as possible – to England (field notes, 28 August 2004).

DISCUSSION

In the few last years, there was an important increase in the number of inter-cepted undocumented migrants and in the number of intercepted unaccompa-nied minors in the port of Zeebrugge (Belgium), all trying to reach the UK. Thisincrease in interceptions is certainly related to better detection methods used inthe port, in an effort by the UK Government to decrease the influx of migrantsentering illegally the UK. The UK Government imposed high fines for shippingcompanies bringing persons without appropriate documents into the UK, and asa result of this, the shipping companies increased their security measures andcontrols on the presence of undocumented migrants in trailers and on board.Further, the UK Government started to execute controls in the Belgian ports,while the Belgian Government also increased their controls. Another reason forthis increase in interceptions might also be that the number of persons trying tocross borders illegally in an effort to reach the UK is rising. This may also be theconsequence of the changing Belgian asylum policy, which in any case resultedduring the last three years in a considerable decrease of persons applying forrefugee status. Nevertheless, exact figures about how many people try to reachthe UK illegally (and succeed in this) are quasi inexistent.

From January 2000 through August 2004, the shipping police of Zeebruggemade 1,093 interceptions of unaccompanied minors. Most were between16 and 18 years old, male, and from an Asian or Eastern European country. Thislatter finding is an important difference from the group of unaccompanied mi-nors applying for refugee status in Belgium, who are mainly from African coun-tries (the main countries of origin in 2003 were Congo-Kinshasa, Guinea, andAngola). In 2002, 605 unaccompanied minors applied for asylum, and another



1,135 unaccompanied minors were registered as non-asylum applicators;in 2003, 570 unaccompanied asylum seeking minors were registered, and955 undocumented unaccompanied minors (CGKR, 2004). The figures aboutthe undocumented unaccompanied minors are probably an underestimation, dueto inaccurate procedures to gather exact figures about this group, and due to thefact that not all unaccompanied minors without legal documents are known tothe authorities.

We can state that almost all of these unaccompanied adolescents really made uptheir mind to reach the UK, and build there a new, better life for themselves andfor their family in their country of origin, despite border controls, extremelydifficult travelling and living circumstances, dependency on human smugglersand traffickers, and so on. Creating a better livelihood, existing contacts withfamily members or friends living in the UK, and political motives are thereforethe main reasons why they decide to leave their country to migrate to the UK(Anderson, 1999; Boonpala and Kane, 2002; O’Briain et al., s.d.). Further, lowlevels of community and parental involvement with young people and negativeperceptions about their future in their own country may also be important “push”factors (O’Briain et al., s.d.). Also in our study, different minors told us that intheir home country, they lived in the streets without support or guidance from aparent.

This continuous drive to reach their goal and live in the UK can be seen in thefact that 113 of the 899 unaccompanied minors in this study were interceptedmore than once. In addition, from our participatory observation, we can con-clude that most of the minors are prepared to make an enormous effort to reachtheir destination. Further, other studies on unaccompanied minors in Belgiumreveal high figures of unaccompanied minors disappearing from the centres thatcare for them. It is hypothesized that one of the biggest groups of these dis-appearing minors are adolescents who are intercepted on their journey to theUK, but who don’t want to stay in Belgium and therefore try over and overagain to cross the border (De Pauw, 2002; Verlinden, 2004).

Nevertheless, despite the very strong desire of these minors to reach the UK, itis not clear – and therefore very disquieting – what happens to these minorsduring their journey on the way to the UK or after their disappearance from thecentre where they are placed. It is also unclear what happens to them if theyreach the UK or, if not, what then happens to them. Questions also remain aboutwhat happens to the minors who are intercepted several times, but then neverseen again – did they reach the UK, or did they decide to stay in Belgium withoutany legal documents, care and protection, or did they go to another country, andso forth?



In any case, this study shows that travelling and living conditions for theseminors are extremely difficult: travelling in trailers or containers, withoutappropriate food, clothes, washing, and sleeping possibilities must be very hard.And even if the period between two interceptions is in most cases rather limited,one can imagine only a little bit how these minors have to survive during the“waiting time”, not only in Belgium but also in the other transit countries.

Moreover, the dependency of smugglers and traffickers must be hard to handle,a finding supported by the fact that none of the minors we talked to admittedthey received any help or guidelines from smugglers or traffickers. This couldbe an indication that these people really are “indoctrinated” to keep quiet anddon’t dare tell anything. Nevertheless, we may assume, out of literature andother studies (Black, 2003; Mavris, 2002; Morrison, 1998; Van Impe, 2000),contacts with police focussing on the struggle against trafficking networks, andthe finding that most of the minors were travelling in small groups, that smug-gling and trafficking is an essential part of their journey, although there aresometimes minors travelling completely alone for all or part of their voyage.

Nevertheless, the question remains whether we should consider the smugglingof minors as “trafficking” because of the minority of these adolescents. Insome cases, we may assume that there is indeed exploitation of the minor orthat the purpose of smuggling changes to trafficking throughout the journey. Inany case, the vulnerability and dependence of these minors to smugglers for therealization of their migration dream might be a great danger to expose them tohuman rights violations and even more severe exploitation (Içduygu and Toktas,2002).

Although most migrants felt well treated by the police during their interception,many felt very scared. This probably explains why many felt a great desireto talk, to tell a little bit of their story during the time they were intercepted,although the lack of interpreters was an important barrier to have genuine, in-depth conversations.

After the interception of the minor, the Belgian Aliens Office has to decide whatkind of document the minor receives. Most receive an identity document with-out the obligation to leave Belgium, but the older the minor, the more likely he isto receive the order to leave the country immediately or within five days. Wecould not get a clear indication about which other elements influence the kind ofdecision the Aliens Office makes, and how the different documents affect theliving situation and future perspectives of the minor and the decisions madeby other institutions or authorities. In any case, according to the InternationalDeclaration on Children’s Rights, unaccompanied refugee and migrant minors



may in general not be repatriated to their country of origin and may not belocked up in closed centres. Nevertheless, in our study, we found that eightminors were repatriated to their country of origin, and two were placed in aclosed centre for asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal procedures andforeigners without legal documents. As we do not dispose of all informationabout these specific cases, we cannot generalize this finding or state that thisstill happens now. However, it is obviously still important to follow up this issue,as unaccompanied minors have to be protected, may not be locked up, and canonly be repatriated to their country of origin if this is in the interest of the childand if enough guarantees are available that the well-being of the minor in all itsaspects will be guaranteed.

If an unaccompanied minor is intercepted, the child protection officer has todecide which child protection measure will be taken to ensure the safety andcare for this minor. In our study, we found that in almost 83 per cent of thecases, the child protection officer is indeed contacted to decide which childprotection measure must be taken. It is not clear why the child protectionofficer wasn’t contacted in the other 17 per cent of the cases.

In more than two-thirds of the cases where the child protection officer wascontacted, this officer decided to let the minor leave the police station withoutany other child protection measure being taken. Therefore, we should be awarethat these children and adolescents might encounter important dangers, andeven might risk severe exploitation or abuse after they leave the police station.

In many cases, the child protection officer is forced to make the decision to letthe minor leave because there is an important lack of available reception placesfor these illegal unaccompanied minors in Flanders. In our study, only 200 mi-nors – a relatively small percentage of the whole group – have been effectivelytransferred to an institution; most (70%) to crisis reception centres (e.g. militaryhospital), only 44 (22%) could be placed in a specialized centre for illegal un-accompanied minors.

It is astonishing that the right of these unaccompanied minors on protection andcare cannot be guaranteed due to a lack of reception places created by theFlemish Government. Moreover, the care provided in the crisis reception cen-tres is often very limited, and this lack of appropriate care might, therefore, alsobe an incentive for the minors to leave the centre and try again to reach the UK.Further, it happens quite often that an adolescent, after several interceptions andsometimes several transfers to an institution, finally decides to (temporarily)give up his goal to reach the UK and stay in Belgium (in the reception centrewhere he currently resides). On the other hand, out of the participatory obser-



vation with unaccompanied minors in Zeebrugge, it was very clear that most ofthe minors we spoke to did not want to be transferred to an institution, and didnot want to stay in Belgium. Indeed, many disappear again from the centreshortly after their arrival. All this means that very often the right and sometimesnecessity to protect these minors is diametrically opposed to what the minorswant themselves.

For the moment, we cannot make clear statements about the influence of theinstallation of a guardianship system for these minors, as this is only been ineffect for a few months. The Aliens Office still remains responsible for thedecision concerning the identity documents of the minor, but now it is theGuardianship Office that has to ensure the care of the minor (e.g. placement inan institution), and not any more the child protection officer. For the moment,all unaccompanied minors arriving in Belgium or intercepted on Belgian territory(if they apply for asylum or not) are for a short period (normally a maximum offour weeks) placed in a special crisis reception centre for unaccompaniedminors. The aim of this crisis reception care is to create a first observationperiod to clarify the identity and future perspectives of the minor. During thisperiod, the minor is also appointed a guardian. After this first orientation periodthe minor is transferred to an appropriate reception centre: those applying forasylum are transferred to a centre for unaccompanied asylum seeking minorscreated by the Belgian Federal Government, and those who don’t apply forasylum are mostly orientated to a centre for unaccompanied minors created bythe Flemish Government. For the moment, we see that for the asylum seekingminors, the period in the crisis reception centre is indeed limited to two or threeweeks, but for the minors who don’t apply for asylum, the waiting time beforethey can be transferred to a centre for unaccompanied minors remains verylong (even several months), as there is still a very important shortage of placesfor these minors.

Implications

This study has important implications for policies concerning unaccompaniedminors who are intercepted on their journey to reach a new country. First,enough guarantees should be included to safeguard the rights of the minorsduring their interception by the police. This means that the minors have to betreated with respect by the police, and that facilities should be available to meetthe minimum basic needs of these children and adolescents, such as food andhot drinks, and washing and resting facilities. Further, all involved police, author-ities, and institutions should have appropriate training on how to deal with inter-cepted unaccompanied minors. This implies, among other things, knowledge ofthe situations and backgrounds of these minors; training on the recognition of



important physical and psychological problems; knowledge of the involved author-ities and their possible decisions, and of the reception structure and care pos-sibilities for these minors; training on how to treat the minors in a humane andrespectful way (e.g. how to do a body search, how to talk to the minor,…); andtraining in dealing with communication difficulties.

Moreover, we are convinced it would be of very great value if social workersalso could play a part in the interception process. First, it was clear to us thatmany of the minors – and also the adults – felt a need to tell a little bit of theirstory. Secondly, it was sometimes very astonishing how these minors lackessential information about legal procedures and provisions and the receptionstructure for unaccompanied minors, about their current and future possibilities,about possible dangers related to their journey, about living circumstances in theUK, and so on. Therefore, providing a platform for listening and for givingadequate and independent information are essential elements that should be pro-vided to these adolescents by people working independently from the juridicaland police context.

Finally, it is clear that all of this is impossible if the possibility to have an inter-preter available during the interception is not created. They are indispensablebecause they allow the minor to tell his/her story. Further, an interpreter isnecessary to provide the minor with all necessary information concerning thethings happening and to discuss with him/her the possibilities for the future.Thirdly, these interpreters can play a crucial role in assisting the police in gath-ering relevant information about trafficking and smuggling networks.

Another implication of this study is that there should be more clarity about thedecisions taken by the Aliens Office, and more information is needed about thepolicies of the recently installed Guardianship Office. Further, more research isneeded about what happens with those minors who are not transferred to aninstitution, or those who leave the institution shortly after they are placed. Thisresearch is not only necessary to have more information about the differentliving conditions of these minors, but also to adapt the current interventionsmore toward the specific needs and wishes of this vulnerable group. In addition,an extensive debate should be held to discuss whether it is appropriate to trans-fer all minors to an institution after their interception, or if the opinion of theminor should be taken into account, and thus let the minor leave the policestation without any child protection measure being taken if he chooses.

In any case, it is clear that it is absolutely necessary to increase the number ofreception places for unaccompanied minors without legal documents. More-over, the care offered in crisis reception centres should be intensified, and prior-



ity should be given to inform the minor in-depth about the different possibilitieshe has for his future life. Finally, much effort must be taken to establish a goodguardianship system, as this too could be helpful to let the minor make the rightchoice and help avoid dangerous situations, such as exploitation networks.

Finally, unaccompanied refugee and migrant children and adolescents are athigh risk of developing emotional problems, especially if they have experiencedmultiple traumatic events (see e.g. Ajdukovic, 1998; Derluyn et al., 2004; Jensenand Shaw, 1993; Seedat et al., 2004; Sourander, 1998). The population thisstudy is dealing with is certainly liable to both risk factors. Above, these minorsare regularly deprived of their identity documents, and are often forced to takea false identity, age, and history, which also might be an additional threat to theiremotional well-being (Hessle, 2002; Sjögren and Lööf, 2002). Therefore, policeand social workers should pay enough attention to detect possible emotionalproblems in the intercepted unaccompanied minors. The emotional well-beingof these children and adolescents must be one of the main foci of the receptioncentres as well.

LIMITATIONS

The study has some limitations. We had to rely on the information gathered bydifferent police and on the information given by the minors themselves for thedata files, which means they might include false information regarding identity,age, and nationality. Also for the analysis of possible double counts, we onlycould rely on the names and dates of birth given by the minors, so it might bepossible that more minors were intercepted several times. Further, the settingof a police station and the difficult situation in which these minors are in, doesnot allow the development of a trustful relationship with the minor, and manyobservations and answers may be influenced by this context of fear and dis-trust. In addition, no interpreter was available (except during the interviewin August 2004), and language problems formed a serious barrier to in-depthconversations.



NOTES

1. We thank all participating adolescents and adults. We thank the shipping policeof Zeebrugge, with special thanks to the AGAI department, Chief Inspector Mr.Depreetere, and the Chief Commissioner of the shipping police, Chief InspectorMr. Calemyn. We also thank Mrs. R. Vervaeke of the Integration Centre of theProvince West Flanders (Belgium). This study was supported by a PhD bursaryof the Special Research Fund of Ghent University.

2. These measures were elaborated in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act(NIA Act), given Royal Assent by the British Government on 7 November 2002.In September, 2002, the British Home Secretary came to an agreement withthe Belgian and French Governments to perform joint controls at Zeebrugge(Memorandum of understanding as the result of a meeting of the Ministers ofthe Interior of Belgium, France and Great Britain on 26 September 2002), and on6 December 2002, new penalties were introduced for haulers and others carrierswho bring illegal immigrants into the UK (ECRE, 2002).

3. Since 1 May 2004, the law on guardianship for unaccompanied minors is enactedin Belgium. This involves that every foreign minor not accompanied by a parentor legal caregiver has to be appointed a guardian, who has to take care of theminor in all aspects of life.

REFERENCES

Ajdukovic, M.1998 “Displaced adolescents in Croatia: sources of stress and posttraumatic

stress reaction”, Adolescence, 33(129): 209-217.Anderson, P.

1999 In a Twilight World: Undocumented Migrants in the United Kingdom,Jesuit Refugee Service, Brussels.

Belgian Immigration Service2002 Dienstnota niet-begeleide buitenlandse minderjarigen (Directive Un-

accompanied Minors), Belgian Immigration Service, Brussels.Black, R.

2003 “Breaking the Convention: researching the ‘illegal’ migration of refugeesto Europe”, Antipode, 35(1): 34-54.

Boonpala, P., and J. Kane2002 Unbearable to the Human Heart: Child Trafficking and Action to Elim-

inate It, International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour,International Labour Office, Geneva.

Bump, M.N., and J. Duncan2002 “Conference on identifying and serving child victims of trafficking”,

International Migration, 41(5): 201-218.



CGKR2004 Strijd tegen de mensenhandel: December 2004. Analyse vanuit het

slachtofferperspectief (Struggle against Human Trafficking: December,2004. Analysis from the Victim Perspective), Centrum voor Gelijkheidvan Kansen en Racismebestrijding, Brussels.

Costner, E.2003 Trafficking of Unaccompanied Minor Asylum-seekers in the European

Union, School for International Training, International Studies, Organ-izations and Social Justice, Geneva, http://www.sit-edu-geneva.ch/trafficking_of_unaccompanied_min.htm.

De Pauw, H.2002 De verdwijning van niet-begeleide minderjarigen en minderjarige

slachtoffers van mensenhandel (The Disappearance of UnaccompaniedMinors and Minor Victims of Trafficking), Child Focus, Brussels.

Derluyn, I., et al.2004 “Post-traumatic stress in former Ugandan child soldiers”, Lancet, 363:

861-863.ECRE

2002 ECRE Country Report 2002: United Kingdom, European Council onRefugees and Exiles, Brussels.

Hessle, M.2002 “Assessment of trafficked and unaccompanied children”, paper presented

at Unaccompanied Children from the Region of the Baltic Sea States con-ference, Interministerial and Interagency Co-operation for ImprovedAssessment, Care and Reintegration, Stockholm.

Içduygu, A., and S. Toktas2002 “How do smuggling and trafficking operate via irregular border cross-

ings in the Middle East?”, International Migration, 40(6): 25-54.International Organization for Migration (IOM)

2001 Trafficking in Unaccompanied Minors for Sexual Exploitation in theEuropean Union, International Organization for Migration, Brussels.

Jensen, P., and J. Shaw1993 “Children as victims of war: current knowledge and future research needs”,

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,32: 697-708.

Loff, B., and J. Sanghera2004 “Distortions and difficulties in data for trafficking”, Lancet, 363: 566.

Mavris, L.2002 “Human smugglers and social networks: transit migration through the

states of former Yugoslavia”, New Issues in Refugee Research, WorkingPaper no. 72, Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit, UNHCR, Geneva.

Morrison, J.1998 The Cost of Survival: The Trafficking of Refugees to the UK, Refugee

Council, London.



O’Briain, M., et al.(s.d.) Joint East West Research on Trafficking in Children for Sexual Pur-

poses in Europe: The Sending Countries, ECPAT Europe Law Enforce-ment Group Programme against Trafficking in Children for Sexual Pur-poses in Europe, Amsterdam.

Salt, J.2000 “Trafficking and human smuggling: a European perspective”, Inter-

national Migration, 38(3): 31-56.SCEP

2004 Separated Children in Europe Programme: Statement of Good Prac-tice, third edition, Save the Children and UNHCR, Copenhagen andGeneva.

Seedat, S., et al.2004 “Trauma exposure and post-traumatic stress symptoms in urban African

school: survey in Cape Town and Nairobi”, British Journal of Psychia-try, 184: 169-175.

Sjögren , P., and L. Lööf2002 “Conference report”, Unaccompanied Children from the Region of the

Baltic Sea States, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Migration and AsylumPolicy, Sweden, and Council of the Baltic Sea States, Children’s Unit,Stockholm.

Skeldon, R.2000 “Trafficking: a perspective from Asia”, International Migration, 38(1):

8-30.Sourander, A.

1998 “Behavior problems and traumatic events of unaccompanied refugee mi-nors”, Child Abuse and Neglect, 22: 719-727.

Van Impe, K.2000 “People for sale: the need for a multidisciplinary approach towards

human trafficking”, International Migration, 38(1): 113-131.Verlinden, A.

2004 De opvang van niet-begeleide minderjarigen, slachtoffer van seksueleuitbuiting. Aanbevelingen voor goede praktijken (The Reception ofUnaccompanied Minors, Victims of Sexual Exploitation: Recom-mendations for Good Practices), Child Focus, Koning Boudewijnstichting,Brussels.



VERS UN AVENIR MEILLEUR : LA BELGIQUE COMME PAYSDE TRANSIT POUR LA TRAITE ET L’INTRODUCTION

CLANDESTINE DE MINEURS NON ACCOMPAGNÉS

Au cours de la dernière décennie, le franchissement irrégulier des frontièresest apparu comme un nouvel élément des flux migratoires internationaux, dontles réseaux de traite et d’introduction clandestine sont un aspect essentiel.Beaucoup de gens sont forcés d’utiliser ces réseaux pour réaliser leur rêve d’unevie meilleure et pour beaucoup, cette « terre promise », c’est le Royaume-Uni.La Belgique ayant d’importantes liaisons maritimes avec le Royaume-Uni con-stitue de ce fait une importante zone de transit pour les migrations, bien que denombreux migrants soient interceptés sur le territoire belge alors qu’ils tententd’atteindre le Royaume-Uni. Certains d’entre eux sont des enfants et des adoles-cents non accompagnés, séparés, des mineurs qui voyagent sans parent(s),sans personne qui en ait la garde juridique. Cette étude vise à mieux connaîtrecette population de mineurs non accompagnés voyageant en direction duRoyaume-Uni. Nous prenons comme cas concret la situation à Zeebrugge, l’undes principaux ports belges.

Nous avons analysé 1 093 fichiers de données concernant des mineurs nonaccompagnés interceptés à Zeebrugge, et nous sommes livrés à une observationparticipative au poste de police du port. Les mineurs non accompagnés inter-ceptés sont pour la plupart des garçons âgés de quinze à dix-huit ans originairesd’un pays d’Asie ou d’Europe orientale. Sur les 899 personnes trouvées dansles fichiers, 113 ont été interceptées plusieurs fois. Après l’interception, les Ser-vices de l’immigration donnent à la majorité de ces garçons un documentd’identité sans obligation de quitter la Belgique, alors que 15,3 pour cent d’entreeux doivent quitter le pays, soit immédiatement soit dans les cinq jours. Dans82,9 pour cent des cas, un agent de protection de l’enfance est contacté pourprendre une décision quant à la situation. Dans 67,2 pour cent de ces cas, aucunemesure de protection de l’enfant n’est prise et le mineur peut quitter le postede police. Dans 32 pour cent des cas, le mineur est transféré dans un centre,un lieu d’accueil pour les situations de crise.

Presque tous les mineurs non accompagnés sont convaincus de vouloir se rendreau Royaume-Uni pour y gagner leur vie, retrouver un membre de leur famille ouéchapper à une situation politique difficile. Pourtant, la plupart de ces mineursvoyagent dans des circonstances difficiles. Ils ont peur. Ils n’ont pas lesinformations essentielles sur la vie au Royaume-Uni, sur les possibilités quiexistent pour eux en Belgique, sur ce qui se passera s’ils sont transférés dans uncentre. Beaucoup – mais pas tous – disparaissent de ces centres.



Cette étude a diverses implications concernant le genre de décisions que pren-nent les autorités juridiques, les nécessaires soins physiques et psychosociauxpendant l’interception ainsi que la présence d’un interprète et d’un travailleursocial, le nombre de places et les soins dans les centres d’accueil, les tâches dela personne qui a la responsabilité légale du mineur. Enfin, certaines limites decette étude sont évoquées.

CON MIRAS A UN MEJOR FUTURO:BÉLGICA COMO PAÍS DE TRÁNSITO DE LA TRATA Y

EL TRÁFICO DE MENORES NO ACOMPAÑADOS

Durante la última década, los cruces fronterizos irregulares se han convertidoen un nuevo elemento de las corrientes migratorias internacionales, siendo uncomponente esencial de ellas las redes de tráfico y trata de personas. Son muchaslas personas que se ven obligadas a recurrir a estas redes para hacer realidad susueño de una vida mejor y para muchos “la tierra prometida” es el Reino Unido.Bélgica tiene importantes conexiones marítimas con el Reino Unido y, por consi-guiente, es una zona de tránsito de la migración sumamente importante, aunquemuchos migrantes son interceptados en territorio belga en su intento por llegaral Reino Unido. Entre las personas interceptadas se encuentran niños y adoles-centes, menores de edad que viajan solos, sin sus padres o tutor legal. Esteestudio tiene por objeto comprender cómo esta población de menores no acom-pañados viaja al Reino Unido. Con ese fin, se recurre a un estudio por casosexaminando la situación en Zeebrugge, uno de los principales puertos de Bélgica.

Se han analizado 1.093 expedientes de menores no acompañados, interceptadosen Zeebrugge, y se ha realizado una observación participativa en la estación depolicía naval. Los menores no acompañados interceptados eran principalmentevarones, entre 15 y 18 años de edad, provenientes de Asia y Europa oriental. Delas 899 personas no acompañadas encontradas en los expedientes, 113 habíansido interceptadas varias veces. Tras la intercepción, el Servicio de Inmigraciónotorga a la mayoría un documento de identidad (82,9 por ciento) sin obligarles aabandonar Bélgica, mientras que el 15,3 por ciento debe salir inmediatamentede Bélgica, o bien en un plazo máximo de cinco días. En el 82,9 por ciento delos casos, se establece contacto con un oficial de la protección de la infanciapara que decida en cuanto a la situación del menor. En el 67,2 por ciento deestos casos, no se adopta ninguna medida de protección del menor y éste puedeabandonar la estación de policía; y en el 32 por ciento de los casos, se transfiereal menor a un centro de recepción que se ocupa de casos críticos.



Prácticamente todos los menores no acompañados tienen la certeza de que llegaránal Reino Unido para tener una mejor vida, reunirse con un familiar, o escapar dela difícil situación política. No obstante, la mayoría viaja en condiciones difí-ciles, tiene miedo y carece de información esencial sobre la vida en el ReinoUnido, sobre sus posibilidades en Bélgica, y sobre lo que ocurrirá si son trans-feridos a un centro, etc. La mayoría de estos menores no quiere ser transferidaa un centro y muchos, aunque no todos, se escapan de los mismos.

Este estudio repercutirá, sin lugar a dudas, en las decisiones que adoptan lasautoridades jurídicas, en la atención física y sicosocial necesarias, en la disponi-bilidad de un intérprete o trabajador social durante la intercepción, así como enel número de plazas de acogida y de atención en estos centros, y en las tareasque incumben a todo tutor legal. Finalmente, se enumeran algunas de laslimitaciones de este estudio.


On the Way to a Better Future: Belgium as Transit Country for Trafficking and Smuggling of...

Documents

Transcript of On the Way to a Better Future: Belgium as Transit Country for Trafficking and Smuggling of...