Refugees guide
|
| Congolese refugees in Rwanda © Refugees International |
Refugees are often feared, sometimes pitied, but rarely understood. In crossing borders, refugees are - like international flows of money, technology, and ideas - a facet of globalisation. While refugees arriving in the West have the highest profile, in fact most live in the developing world. Why does the term "refugee" cause so much confusion? And why do refugees leave their homelands to face the uncertainties of life abroad?
Who counts as a refugee?
Mass movements of people across borders are often divided into economic migrants and political refugees. Economic migrants are seen as having left their homes voluntarily to earn a better wage, while refugees are seen as having been forced to leave for their own safety. This crucial legal distinction was established by the 1951 Refugee Convention drawn up in Geneva which defines "refugees" as people who have left their place of habitual residence, "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".
Originally confined to refugees from war-torn Europe, the Refugee Convention was extended by a 1967 Protocol so that refugees anywhere are entitled to the protection of the 147 countries which have signed the Convention. Refugees are entitled to enter and stay at least temporarily in these countries whilst economic migrants often are refused such rights. People who have applied for refugee protection, but are awaiting confirmation of their "refugee" status, are termed "asylum seekers".
In practice the distinction between refugees and migrants is highly simplistic. International law is a haphazard attempt to define the point at which the push factors encouraging people to leave their home, often under enormous stress and fear, become so strong that their migration should be seen as forced. The legal category of "refugees" is therefore quite narrow. Those who leave their homes because of extreme poverty, famine or environmental factors do not qualify. The 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention, used by African states, has a broader definition of a refugee - as a person who crosses borders due to "events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality".
Nevertheless, if you don't cross an international border, you can't be a refugee. People in countries such as Colombia and Sudan who left their homes due to violence, but who have remained within the same country, are not refugees but are instead labelled internally-displaced persons (IDPs). Neglected by national governments and falling outside the protection of the 1951 Convention, these conflict-related IDPs have become a source of growing concern, especially as their numbers have risen sharply to 26 million at the end of 2007.
A further category is that of stateless people who have no nationality, a fundamental human right denied to possibly as many as 12 million people worldwide. Stateless people can also be refugees, if they fit the 1951 Convention's criteria.
Where do refugees come from?
At the start of 2008, 11.4 million people were classified as refugees by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR or "The UN Refugee Agency"), the multilateral body charged with their protection. This marks an increase of almost 30% in two years and the number is predicted to rise further. The 2006 figure of 8.7 million refugees was the lowest since 1980, following a peak of 18.2 million in 1993 after the end of the Cold War. Refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq account for almost half of the total, with substantial numbers originating from other troubled countries such as Burma, Somalia and Sudan.
The UNHCR totals exclude 4.6 million Palestinian refugees, the people displaced by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and their descendants. These Palestinian refugees are under the protection of a dedicated agency, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.
Why do refugees leave their homes?
The 1951 Convention's definition of refugees implied relatively small, persecuted groups, such as political dissidents from the former Soviet Union. Similar political persecution now accounts for a large number of refugees, from countries such as Zimbabwe and China. Armed conflict has displaced even larger groups of people. Historically, refugees have been a by-product or side effect of war: people have fled in fear of violence, or because they have lost all their possessions in the fighting. In these cases, the warring parties did not have the displacement of civilians as a major tactic.
Increasingly, however, forcing people to leave their homes has become a direct aim in war. Where claims to political power have been framed in terms of ethnic, racial or religious identity, a group mobilises itself on the base of that identity, and then tries to assert its right to power by excluding "others" from the territory. Extreme examples of this have been seen in Rwanda, between the Hutus and Tutsis, and in the former Yugoslavia, between Serbs, Bosnians and Croats. Such displacement can occur through direct violence, or, as happened in Angola, the warring parties may use scorched earth policy to force civilians to leave their land in search of food.
In addition, individuals may be targeted: for example, some Iraqis who have worked with the US-backed Iraqi administration have left the country after being "named and shamed" by anti-government insurgents.
Where do refugees go?
The UNHCR 2007 Global Trends report exposes as a “myth” the idea that the majority of refugees settle in rich countries. Most refugees remain in their region of origin - usually in the developing world where three-quarters of refugees live. Therefore, the burden of hosting refugees falls largely on countries least able to deal with it. For example, the country which has received the most Iraqi refugees is Syria with about 1.4 million. Other major receiving countries include Iran and Pakistan, which host many Afghan refugees, and Tanzania, which hosts populations of Burundian and Rwandan refugees. The Western countries which host the most refugees are Germany and the United States.
How are refugees treated by host countries?
States which have signed the 1951 Convention are legally committed to protect the rights of refugees who arrive in their country and to enforce the principle of non-refoulement which prohibits the deportation of refugees to places where their lives or freedoms could be in danger). Refugees also have civil and economic rights. In practice, this protection has often taken the form of refugee camps. Conceived as short-term emergency solutions, many refugee camps have existed for decades. They often provide little potential for refugees to work and limited education for their children, leading to crime, ill-health and sexual abuse. Host governments have also been adversely affected by camps: the presence of Burundian rebels in refugee camps in Tanzania caused major discontent between the two countries.
The UNHCR outlines three "durable solutions" for refugees. The first is local integration. This involves granting refugees a permanent right to stay in the host country. However, governments in both the developed and developing world have proved unwilling to offer such long-term commitment, due to public xenophobia and to what they see as a lack of burden-sharing by other states. Where refugees have integrated locally in Africa, it has often been through informal "self-settlement", with no firm legal status.
The second major option is resettlement in third countries. The UNHCR continues to resettle globally under a quota scheme, in which participating countries agree to take a certain number of refugees each year. However, the numbers are small as only 9 countries offer meaningful quotas. Although in the 1970s the US accepted hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees, it has been less welcoming to Iraqi refugees, agreeing to admit only 12,000 in 2008.
The third option - currently the most popular with host states and the UNHCR - is repatriation to the country of origin. This has been promoted since the 1990s, in response to the large numbers of refugees living in camps. Legally, repatriation must occur only when the returnees' safety can be guaranteed. In practice, this has not always been the case, for example in the return of Rohingyan refugees to Myanmar. Nor do refugees always wish to return - where "home" is a country which forced them out or which holds no memories, as in the case of the children of refugees. Although nearly 5 million Afghan refugees have been repatriated from Iran and Pakistan since 2002, fresh attempts by Pakistan to repatriate a further 2 million by 2009 have faltered in face of the reality that conditions in Afghanistan have not sufficiently improved.
Why are refugees unwelcome?
The current preference for repatriation is one indication of how host countries have sought to reduce the number of refugees in their territory since the 1980s. This aim has also been pursued by reducing the financial benefits and social services to which asylum seekers and refugees are entitled. In addition, some countries, such as the UK, have introduced detention centres for asylum seekers.
States have also prevented refugees from entering. As refugee status can be sought only from inside a country, many states have unsubtly tried to keep out would-be applicants. This typically involves visa restrictions on visitors from certain countries backed up by fines on airlines and other transport operators who bring those without visas into the country. International proposals have also recently been put forward arguing for refugees to be kept in the developing world, where their claims to asylum can be processed.
There are many political explanations for this backsliding. While the US and Europe welcomed refugees from Communist countries during the Cold War as witnesses of an evil ideology, today's African and Asian refugees are less politically useful. Indeed, far from being a political benefit, refugees are seen as a burden on Western countries' already creaking welfare states. Another explanation is that refugees are seen - by political elites and by the general population - as threatening the cultural and racial balance within countries. Recent riots in the UK and France have highlighted racial tensions: governments fear that influxes of refugees would further destabilise the situation. Governments have also linked refugees with crime and, since 9/11, terrorism. On these pretexts, several governments have introduced legislation allowing them to exclude asylum seekers who they deem to be security threats.
With Western governments increasingly intolerant of refugees, developing countries have often followed suit, for similar motives. For example, the South African government’s lack of urgency in processing asylum claims is in tune with the xenophobic response to Zimbabweans fleeing the political violence of the Mugabe regime. Reluctance to observe the spirit of the Refugee Convention has therefore become a global phenomenon.
Towards a fairer refugee policy
In the context of refugees, there are currently two major injustices: the injustice suffered by the refugees themselves, and the injustice suffered by the developing countries which are expected to host them. These injustices demand a revival of policies which revive the spirit of the 1951 convention.
Firstly, refugees are too often viewed as criminals. Instead of linking refugees to disorder, insecurity and even terrorism, host countries should provide protection, combat public prejudice, and seek long-term and participatory solutions to refugees' plight.
Secondly, developed countries should honour the principle of sharing the burden of the global refugee population with developing countries. It is unrealistic to expect a country such as Jordan to cope with an influx of Iraqi refugees numbering 10% of its own population. This means greatly improving the reception and treatment of refugees, and offering greater political and financial support for the work of UNHCR and other agencies. Tackling the causes of population displacement is an even better form of burden-sharing. Direct and indirect responsibility for some of the most serious armed conflicts and resulting refugee movements can be laid at the doors of Western governments.
Thirdly, governments should take note of the UN high commissioner for refugees, Antonio Guterres, who has said in 2008 that “climate change is today one of the main drivers of forced displacement, both directly through impact on environment …. and as a trigger of extreme poverty and conflict”. A 2008 Greenpeace report contemplates a mass migration of 125 million people from coastal and low-lying regions of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Such environmental refugees are not eligible for asylum under the Refugee Convention and, as perpetrators of climate change, industrialised countries are likely to come under moral pressure to facilitate protection.
More radical proposals continue to be put forward - including that of open international borders - as population movement becomes an issue at the heart of debates over globalisation.
The OneWorld Refugees Guide was first published in February 2007 with a text written by Volunteer Editor Henry Mance
|
| Uzbek children flee the Andijan massacre © SandS / Eurasianet (Open Society Institute) |
Originally confined to refugees from war-torn Europe, the Refugee Convention was extended by a 1967 Protocol so that refugees anywhere are entitled to the protection of the 147 countries which have signed the Convention. Refugees are entitled to enter and stay at least temporarily in these countries whilst economic migrants often are refused such rights. People who have applied for refugee protection, but are awaiting confirmation of their "refugee" status, are termed "asylum seekers".
|
| Bhutanese refugees in Nepal © Naresh Newar / United Nations' Integrated Regional Information Network |
Nevertheless, if you don't cross an international border, you can't be a refugee. People in countries such as Colombia and Sudan who left their homes due to violence, but who have remained within the same country, are not refugees but are instead labelled internally-displaced persons (IDPs). Neglected by national governments and falling outside the protection of the 1951 Convention, these conflict-related IDPs have become a source of growing concern, especially as their numbers have risen sharply to 26 million at the end of 2007.
A further category is that of stateless people who have no nationality, a fundamental human right denied to possibly as many as 12 million people worldwide. Stateless people can also be refugees, if they fit the 1951 Convention's criteria.
Where do refugees come from?
|
| Afghan women and children refugees © ACNUR-España |
The UNHCR totals exclude 4.6 million Palestinian refugees, the people displaced by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and their descendants. These Palestinian refugees are under the protection of a dedicated agency, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.
Why do refugees leave their homes?
The 1951 Convention's definition of refugees implied relatively small, persecuted groups, such as political dissidents from the former Soviet Union. Similar political persecution now accounts for a large number of refugees, from countries such as Zimbabwe and China. Armed conflict has displaced even larger groups of people. Historically, refugees have been a by-product or side effect of war: people have fled in fear of violence, or because they have lost all their possessions in the fighting. In these cases, the warring parties did not have the displacement of civilians as a major tactic.
|
| Kosovar refugees in April 1999 © DPI / United Nations |
In addition, individuals may be targeted: for example, some Iraqis who have worked with the US-backed Iraqi administration have left the country after being "named and shamed" by anti-government insurgents.
Where do refugees go?
|
| Bangladesh hosts 28,000 Rohingya refugees © Refugees International |
How are refugees treated by host countries?
|
| Saharawi refugee camp © Asociación Amal Esperanza |
The UNHCR outlines three "durable solutions" for refugees. The first is local integration. This involves granting refugees a permanent right to stay in the host country. However, governments in both the developed and developing world have proved unwilling to offer such long-term commitment, due to public xenophobia and to what they see as a lack of burden-sharing by other states. Where refugees have integrated locally in Africa, it has often been through informal "self-settlement", with no firm legal status.
The second major option is resettlement in third countries. The UNHCR continues to resettle globally under a quota scheme, in which participating countries agree to take a certain number of refugees each year. However, the numbers are small as only 9 countries offer meaningful quotas. Although in the 1970s the US accepted hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees, it has been less welcoming to Iraqi refugees, agreeing to admit only 12,000 in 2008.
|
| Karenni refugees in Thailand © Ng Yuina |
Why are refugees unwelcome?
The current preference for repatriation is one indication of how host countries have sought to reduce the number of refugees in their territory since the 1980s. This aim has also been pursued by reducing the financial benefits and social services to which asylum seekers and refugees are entitled. In addition, some countries, such as the UK, have introduced detention centres for asylum seekers.
|
| Palestinian refugees from Iraq trapped at Al-Tanf © Refugees International |
There are many political explanations for this backsliding. While the US and Europe welcomed refugees from Communist countries during the Cold War as witnesses of an evil ideology, today's African and Asian refugees are less politically useful. Indeed, far from being a political benefit, refugees are seen as a burden on Western countries' already creaking welfare states. Another explanation is that refugees are seen - by political elites and by the general population - as threatening the cultural and racial balance within countries. Recent riots in the UK and France have highlighted racial tensions: governments fear that influxes of refugees would further destabilise the situation. Governments have also linked refugees with crime and, since 9/11, terrorism. On these pretexts, several governments have introduced legislation allowing them to exclude asylum seekers who they deem to be security threats.
With Western governments increasingly intolerant of refugees, developing countries have often followed suit, for similar motives. For example, the South African government’s lack of urgency in processing asylum claims is in tune with the xenophobic response to Zimbabweans fleeing the political violence of the Mugabe regime. Reluctance to observe the spirit of the Refugee Convention has therefore become a global phenomenon.
Towards a fairer refugee policy
|
| Togolese refugees cross into Benin © United Nations' Integrated Regional Information Network |
Firstly, refugees are too often viewed as criminals. Instead of linking refugees to disorder, insecurity and even terrorism, host countries should provide protection, combat public prejudice, and seek long-term and participatory solutions to refugees' plight.
Secondly, developed countries should honour the principle of sharing the burden of the global refugee population with developing countries. It is unrealistic to expect a country such as Jordan to cope with an influx of Iraqi refugees numbering 10% of its own population. This means greatly improving the reception and treatment of refugees, and offering greater political and financial support for the work of UNHCR and other agencies. Tackling the causes of population displacement is an even better form of burden-sharing. Direct and indirect responsibility for some of the most serious armed conflicts and resulting refugee movements can be laid at the doors of Western governments.
Thirdly, governments should take note of the UN high commissioner for refugees, Antonio Guterres, who has said in 2008 that “climate change is today one of the main drivers of forced displacement, both directly through impact on environment …. and as a trigger of extreme poverty and conflict”. A 2008 Greenpeace report contemplates a mass migration of 125 million people from coastal and low-lying regions of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Such environmental refugees are not eligible for asylum under the Refugee Convention and, as perpetrators of climate change, industrialised countries are likely to come under moral pressure to facilitate protection.
More radical proposals continue to be put forward - including that of open international borders - as population movement becomes an issue at the heart of debates over globalisation.
The OneWorld Refugees Guide was first published in February 2007 with a text written by Volunteer Editor Henry Mance
»
Your right of reply
Does this OneWorld Guide contain any inaccuracies?
Has something important been omitted?
Your views are welcome
»
Please write to the Guides Editor Has something important been omitted?
Your views are welcome
Help us to complete OneWorld Guides
Many important development issues are missing from our range of Guides. OneWorld wants to fill these gaps as part of our efforts to improve understanding of the issues faced by developing countries. We receive no funding for the production of our educational resources. Every small contribution helps!
Many important development issues are missing from our range of Guides. OneWorld wants to fill these gaps as part of our efforts to improve understanding of the issues faced by developing countries. We receive no funding for the production of our educational resources. Every small contribution helps!
|
Printable version
top of the page