THE crime of hijacking has been fiercely denounced over the years by many governments. One should not, it is said, give in to hijackers’ demands or offer concessions which might encourage others to try the same path. Granting asylum to the Iraqi hijackers who hijacked a Sudan Air Airbus to Britain this week would reward their original action.
It is right to rule out returning them to Sudan. Britain has no extradition treaty with Khartoum, and there is serious doubt as to whether they would be dealt with by proper legal process — or simply be passed on to Baghdad for a more summary and extreme verdict.
Is it sufficient to argue that Iraq is such an extreme case that anyone seeking to leave or avoid returning there, by whatever means, is entitled to lenient treatment? This may be true, yet it risks establishing a bizarre principle that an attention-grabbing crime is more likely to win entitlement to asylum than a quiet arrival.
These are all self-evidently difficult questions with no easy solution. The only firm ground on which to stand is that of the law. Those against whom there is sufficient evidence of participation in hijacking should be duly charged. Asylum is a different matter, and is subject to the provisions of the 1951 Geneva Convention. This excludes anyone who has committed “a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee.”
Does that apply to the Iraqi hijackers? Their cases remain to be argued. In the meantime, no one should encourage expectations that an application for asylum, in these or similar circumstances, would necessarily gain a favourable answer.