United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Ruud Lubbers.
Credit: UNHCR | | During his recent visit to Afghanistan in January 2005, Ruud Lubbers spoke with the IRIN Kabul reporter about his hopes for Afghan refugees and the wider issues of the global challenges facing refugees world-wide.
Question: How do you see the situation in Afghanistan?
Answer: There is a lot of progress in Afghanistan. With the new government in place, refugees are finding their way home. People are returning to the villages and, of course, things go better when they plan projects together to improve their lives. I think a lot still has to be done, but it is positive to have a bit of ambition and I hope larger projects will be created. It is also good to see that this is not only a question of money; it is also cooperating with each other. I think the work of UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] is not just transporting people home; it is also being with them for a while, and trying to convince others to improve their lives by living and working together.
Q: At what stage is the return of the Afghan refugees now?
A: We have to be aware that half have gone home but the other half still have to come home - there is still quite a way to go - and that will happen only when there is confidence in the peace - not only political, but also confidence in the quality of village life: that there is justice; that there is no violence; and that people are capable of coping with the necessities of each day - that is what they are practicing here.
The largest operation was and is Afghanistan. We hope to continue repatriation for three-quarters of a year - we are trying our utmost, working with development agencies, like UNDP and other agencies, as well as the government.
Q: What are the chief concerns of UNHCR globally?
A: Worldwide - to say a few words about UNHCR - we are now working in terms of about 17 million people, which is four or five million less than when I came into office four years ago, and there is an ongoing effort to find permanent solutions for [refugees and displaced] people. There are always three possibilities: the best is repatriation, and the second is local integration, and third is resettlement in countries abroad.
Resettlement is increasing again, but in limited numbers. Our main objective is repatriation. In the past year we developed programmes where we don't confine ourselves to repatriation - the concept of the 'Four Rs': repatriation, reintegration, rehabilitation, reconstruction. It is clear that those things cannot all be done by HCR; HCR is always there for repatriation, and we do some projects in reintegration, but we try to partner with others, for example, when a shelter programme, or water or educational programmes are required, we hope these will be put in place by others, such as the government of the home country. People repatriate after a conflict, and almost always the country is devastated. Reconstruction takes time, but we are doing it.
In terms of the global situation, I expect that as we continue repatriation, so every year it [the number of refugees] will go down by a million - that is possible. It is partly successful in Afghanistan - these are very large numbers.
We have also done large repatriations in the former Yugoslavia, in countries like Bosnia Herzegovina, in Serbia, in Croatia, even in Kosovo. Then of course, we also have large repatriations in Sierra Leone, in Angola and now in Liberia, so it is an ongoing process.
The number of a million less means that we are finding more durable solutions, because at the same time, new conflicts are emerging - not many, but still, it is happening. For example in Darfur in Sudan, 200,000 had to flee the conflict last year and we are now taking care of them in [neighbouring] Chad - so there are more refugees, but this is balanced by the fact that we are bringing more people home.
Q: Which country is your top concern?
A: The largest operations were and are still in Afghanistan. We hope to continue the repatriation of, lets say, three-quarters of a million people every year - so in 2005 you will see 750,000 more coming home.
In Iraq there were fewer refugees outside the country - I think we are talking of about 500,000 in neighbouring countries. Of course, many Iraqis fled the regime of Saddam Hussein - millions of Iraqis have gone all over the world, and most of them are integrated in those societies, so they are not refugees anymore, they are accepted there.
I would guess that of the 500,000 Iraqi refugees, around 200,000 have already come home. Even with the fighting going on, quite a few have gone back to their villages in Iraq, especially from Iran. At present it is not possible for HCR to locate international staff there, so we work with our local staff, and assist somewhat in the return process but the situation is still very fragile.
If there were really peace on the ground in Iraq, we could do much more by way of returning refugees, and also internally displaced persons. Saddam Hussein drove out the Kurds, particularly in the north, in what he called his 'Arabianisation' campaign; he was also driving people out in the south, where the Shiites were resisting him.
Our other large action now is Sudan, where there are two operations: one I've mentioned already is Darfur. We have 200,000 refugees from Darfur in Chad, but we also take care of the internally displaced persons in West Darfur, which is an important part of the operation.
Why only West Darfur? Because taking on all of Darfur would be too big for us, and the people in West Darfur have a relationship with those who fled to Chad, so having a presence in West Darfur will be an advantage when we want to return them. At the moment, by assisting people there we can prevent hundreds of thousands more from going to Chad. The situation In Chad is very difficult in terms of water - It is almost impossible, and no more than 200,000 can be accommodated - so it is better if we give assistance in west Darfur.
Then I would certainly mention Burundi, where there is a fragile peace but we are bringing people back. I think last year almost a hundred thousand people came back, which slowed down by the end of the year, but is picking up again. I would not be surprised if we brought back - maybe not a hundred thousand, but certainly more than fifty thousand and, hopefully, up to hundred thousand. Angola is also an important repatriation area.
Now we've had the tsunami natural disaster, which hit heavily in Sri Lanka - a country where we were in the middle of repatriating 400,000 people - but this is typical of HCR work. We had a green light from both the Tamils and the central government, but now there are many additional tsunami victims, so we will see we if can expand our assistance to help these people reintegrate by means of shelter programmes, etc. This is urgent but, at the same time, it has to be well organised.
The resident coordinator will see what will be the best course to take, and who is doing what. But I have a feeling that we, as HCR, will make an important contribution to the tsunami victims in Sri Lanka. We already have teams in Sumatra, the next place we are going to, where we will have to do the first two weeks all by ourselves, but if the UN and the government of Indonesia ask us to take care of other parts of the country, we could do a similar job there.
Q: Do you think the tsunami added to the burden of work you were already doing? Do you think you will need more funding?
A: All of HCR's work is funded by governments and, of course, we cannot do it all, but there is always a certain capacity to expand. There are many people, particularly young people, who want to work with us, so if the international community asks us to do more, we can do more.
We are succeeding in gradually reducing the number of refugees, so that gives us the potential to care for internally displaced persons. We are helping five million now, so if there are, lets say, a million victims of the tsunami - in terms of survivors to be assisted - it is not an impossible task for the HCR, and the number could be higher, as we are geared for handling that particular type of situation. My position as high commissioner is that assistance should be available, but that is the key word - we are only 'available' when the Secretary General [of the United Nations] asks us; when the government of a country asks the donors, and us - that makes it possible for us to assist. These are the three green lights.
Q: How will the international community feel about the increasing number of IDPs, when they are celebrating the decline in refugees?
A: By recognising that we also have to be available to assist IDPs. There are situations where it is more logical to take care of IDPs: when we have IDPs because of drought, it requires more development programmes to make it possible for them to return after the drought. You give assistance when there is a need to assist IDPs, but providing food is more the province of the WFP in such situations.
I won't say that UNHCR, with fewer refugees, should take simply take care of IDP questions, but when the IDPs' problems are very similar to those of refugees, for example in west Darfur, we have to be available - and we are doing more for the IDPs there. We are assisting about five million IDPs now - and maybe ten million in terms of refugees and those who are on the way - to find solutions for returnees, and so on. I imagine that we could do more, gradually, in terms of IDPs too.
Q: Why is there often very little to return to, and reintegration does not take place very well?
A: I think an important factor is that the development work takes too long: the returnees are eager to restart their lives - they want water, irrigation projects, dams - and it has to go a bit faster. We have to work with the developmental agencies, like UNDP and many others, and the governments. They should bear in mind that the returning refugees have enormous productive capacity, and take that into account when projects are defined.
Q: Do you think the US-led coalition operation against Al-Qaeda has created conflicts and, as a result, more displacements?
A: No I don't think so. I think that in all the problems in the world, the world has difficulty in coping, firstly, with regimes that become corrupt or undemocratic, and if you don't find solutions to that, sooner or later you will have movements that use violence; and secondly, especially in the world of Islam, there is a large vulnerability because of the middle-east problem of Palestine and Israel, which hasn't really been solved.
And then, on the interface between superpowers and, particularly, the influence of the United States on the world and other cultures, you often sense that young Muslims feel a bit dominated by this, and that the United States is putting pressure on them. The United States itself thinks they are bringing justice and peace, but others think they are bringing injustice or a lack of justice, so that fuels movements that use violence: sometimes they are desperate people; sometimes young people who want to do something useful with their lives, but then they say, 'lets go and fight'. So I think there is an indirect cause, in the sense of terrorism, but there is also a lack of alternative motivation to prevent young people from becoming terrorists.
Q: When will the last Afghan refugee return home?
A: I think the number of returnees will fade out gradually - it's a question of how long UNHCR needs a formal programme of repatriation. We have assisted more than half now, so we are talking about two to three more years - then we should be there.
[ENDS]
|