Burundian IDP children gathering lost grain after food distribution
Credit: Jean-Manuel Simoes | While the number of refugees internationally has in recent years been falling, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) has been growing significantly. In a survey published in September 2002 the Norwegian Refugee Council supported Global IDP Project estimated there to be at least 25 million IDPs due to conflict, while as of January 2002 the United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, estimated there to be 12 million refugees.
Although in Africa there have been a number of recent wars between states, most conflicts have been internal, and this in part accounts for the large number of IDPs. The prevalence of unstable states, underdevelopment, weak civil societies, social marginalisation and the lack of accountable governments explain the social and political strife that has produced a disproportionate number of IDPs in Africa. Significant numbers of people, however, are also displaced by natural disasters and large-scale development projects.
Moreover, while the UN, through the UNHCR, has always assumed a major role in helping those who have had to flee their countries of origin because of persecution, the international community has had to give increasing attention to IDPs. The countries with the largest number of IDPs - Sudan, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) - have all suffered from protracted civil wars, and others - such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Liberia, and Sierra Leone - not only experienced domestic conflict but have also suffered the collapse of government institutions and services.
To confront these weaknesses, make clear the legal framework for protection of IDPs, and to empower the people involved, the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement were launched by the UN in 1998. Compiled by a team of international legal experts led by the noted Sudanese scholar, Dr Francis Deng, the Guiding Principles (GPs) represent the first international standard for IDPs. They are rapidly assuming centre stage in any consideration of IDPs, but they are relatively new, often not fully understood, and their implications are still being worked out.
However, even with the increased attention to the plight of IDPs, the UN Inter-Agency Standing Committee in March 2001 that the needs of displaced populations "continue to be inadequately addressed". The report attributed this to two broad factors: first, the unwillingness or inability of governments to address the needs of the displaced, and second, "serious gaps" in the UN's response on IDPs.
Guiding Principles and national sovereignty
In 1999 at the 54th session of the General Assembly, Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged UN member states to put aside their "most jealously guarded powers - sovereignty and the sanctity of national borders - in the higher interest of protecting and assisting civilians caught in the crossfire of war".
Analyst John Young argues that national sovereignty does not have the same sanctity in international relations as it did at the height of the Cold War. Nonetheless, while few have questioned any of the Guiding Principles, during debates in the UN General Assembly a number of diplomats noted reservations about whether collectively they may serve to undermine broader concerns about sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Speaking in 1999 when he was chair of the Organisation of African Unity, the president of Algeria, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, said: "We do not deny that the United Nations has the right and duty to help suffering humanity. But we remain extremely sensitive to any undermining of our sovereignty, not only because sovereignty is our last defence against an unequal world but also because we are not taking part in the decision-making process of the Security Council."
Young makes the point that the counterpart to these concerns is the extent to which the UN has the capacity to protect IDPs in the face of states strong enough to stand up to the international community.
He says: "Also often ignored by the international community has been the forcible removal of ethnic communities. While there was a rigorous international response to abuses of civilians in the former Yugoslavia, such response was not forthcoming until after years of ill-treatment, and there was virtually no response when ethnic cleansing was carried out during the Ethio-Eritrean war and in the DRC."
As Bill Frelick of the US Committee for Refugees has argued, "protecting internally displaced people may demand a more vigorous response than humanitarian agencies can provide. If international political powers are called upon to intervene to protect the lives of the displaced against the wishes of a controlling government, there needs to be a firm consensus."
Young believes that non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries is the basis of sound international relations, and will not be readily challenged. Ultimately, he says, there is no ready resolution to this conundrum, and it is one that the international community will have to confront on a case-by-case basis, and for many years to come.
Differentiating IDPs
Critical to responding to the requirements of IDPs is to recognise that they are not an anonymous mass, but invariably a highly differentiated body of people. Their situations vary enormously. Some attention is being devoted to the particular needs of elderly IDPs, but those of the young, women, handicapped and others also have to be addressed.
Nor do all IDPs face the same level of threat. Young cites the example of Sudan, where many people displaced from their homes in western Upper Nile, where the civil war has been bitterly fought, are in a desperate situation, while the needs of millions of southern IDPs in the capital, Khartoum, and other cities and towns in northern Sudan face different and usually less pressing problems. "Protection is the basic requirement of the first group, while the second group's survival is not at stake," Young says.
When is an IDP no longer an IDP?
As noted in the accompanying articles, it is not always easy to ascertain when IDPs cease to hold that status. Some IDPs, such as those who fled from war in the rural areas of Angola, Sudan, and Somalia have now resided in their respective capitals for many years and effectively been economically and socially integrated. These might well not return to their original homes even with peace. On the other hand, others not so fully integrated will begin returning with the first signs of improving security.
In the case of Rwanda, many IDPs were forcibly relocated in 'permanent' villages other than their original homes, and as a result are now no longer considered IDPs by the government, according to the Global IDP Project. In neighbouring Burundi, under the government's policy of "regroupment", some IDPs have been forced against their will to reside in villages.
These examples and others are challenging the international community's understanding of when IDPs cease to be IDPs, and this in turn has led the independent US Brookings Institution to examine the entire issue, with the result that a policy paper is expected to be released shortly. [more details]
Internally displaced have a right to return home voluntarily, in safety and with dignity
Credit: Denis Vidal/IDP Unit | Right of return
Another area for debate has been the focus in the GPs on the right of IDPs to return to their homes. Whereas the right is not likely to be challenged in theory, it may either not be realisable in practice or can only be realised in circumstances that may threaten their security. At a regional workshop on internal displacement in the South Caucasus held in Tbilisi in May 2000, participants noted that while most IDPs had a very strong desire to return home, in part not to reward perceived past injustices, where the root causes of various conflicts had not been resolved large-scale and durable returns were unlikely.
Like refugees, IDPs may be forced to reside away from their homes for many years, which not only robs them of the right to pursue a decent life but may also place them in a position where they became politically marginalised. In Georgia, while the internally displaced are able to vote in presidential elections, they are not able to vote for their local parliamentary and municipal representatives - that is, for those who could most directly help improve their conditions. [More information]
According to Young: "The reality of the circumstances faced by IDPs may thus practically be little different from that of refugees who cross international boundaries (and indeed some critics contend that they should not be distinguished), but while the latter may use their status to apply for resettlement in a third country, the former frequently do not always have that opportunity. And this raises the further problem of the efforts of the international community to encourage IDPs to remain in their country of origin when by so doing they may eliminate or reduce their prospects of resettlement in a third country."
"In northern Uganda, IDPs fearful of the Lord's Resistance Army have been crowded into protected villages, where hygienic conditions are poor, and the IDPs sometimes appear to be even more vulnerable to rebel attacks. Once again, a genuine concern to rectify the problems of IDPs can only be accomplished in the political realm and that remains problematic."
Part II
[ENDS]
|