Dr. Francis Deng, Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons
|
Francis Deng is a former Sudanese minister of state for foreign affairs and ambassador to Canada, the United States and Scandinavia. Since 1992 he has been the Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons.
In an interview with IRIN Deng discussed a range of issues related to the nature and application of the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. He pointed to the increase in the number of countries willing to incorporate the Principles into national legislation and recent discussions that have been held with international and other non-state actors. Deng said efforts to make the Principles more compatible with [Islamic] Shari'ah law were intriguing but warned that this effort required great sensitivity if the potential for divisiveness was to be avoided. He also pointed to the importance of promoting the Principles so the internally displaced can understand that they have rights. On institutional arrangements Deng felt that effective international and country-level mechanisms now existed but that attention at the local level was needed to ensure functional structures were in place to assist needy populations.
QUESTION: Some developing countries at this year’s ECOSOC meeting said that they were not properly consulted on the drafting of the Guiding Principles. What can be done to address their concerns?
ANSWER: First of all I take issue with the generalisation that developing countries say they were not consulted. We have been to a number of countries on missions looking at the Guiding Principles. We have held workshops in a number of regions. The Guiding Principles are being used by a number of governments to develop their policies, and some of them have actually changed legislation in terms of the Guiding Principles.
But in addition to that, these Guiding Principles were developed in response to a request by the Commission of Human Rights and by the General Assembly - were in fact submitted to both bodies and taken note of. Since then they have been applied and their application has been encouraged by the UN bodies, let alone the different agencies of the United Nations but also by the General Assembly and, indeed, even in the Security Council. The Security Council called for Governments to make use of the Guiding Principles. The Secretary-General has called on the Security Council to advise Governments to apply the Guiding Principles.
This is all by way of the process by which they were developed. Yes, largely by a team of international legal experts, but in a process that included a broad-based participation within the United Nations and beyond. So for people to say that developing countries were not included would be virtually to say that they are not involved in the Commission on Human Rights, in the General Assembly and in the various bodies of the UN system.
On the other hand, we are respectful of governments who say that this is a rather unusual way of introducing what might be tentative to law. We call them Guiding Principles precisely because we do not want them to be seen as binding, and therefore creating a problem of whether this was a different way of making law. We thought that while they actually restate the law as it is - human rights law, humanitarian law and analogous refugee law - they are not in themselves binding and, as such, are persuasive if indeed they meet the need, and through this persuasive authority become broadly accepted.
As far as I’m concerned, the technicality of whether they are legally binding or not becomes an academic question, because if they are articulating the law, and if they are, in fact, found to be useful, then their purpose has been served.
What we need to do is to engage these governments in dialogue, to try to get a clear understanding of their concerns, and then to see to what extent we can be responsive to their concerns - and, as I have often said, no law is static. It is always dynamic, and therefore the comments of governments on particular aspects of the Guiding Principles would be put into consideration as we report periodically and would be part of the interpretation of the Guiding Principles in their practical application.
Q: What actually are the concerns of these countries?
They are not clear. Some have gone as far as saying: Well, we just think that they
[Guiding Principles] should be given more formal recognition by the UN system. Some may say that some of the Principles could be interpreted as justifying intervention, which we don’t think is the case, but that can be discussed. If there are specific provisions that they are concerned about, we can look at that.
What the Guiding Principles try to do is to say that the protection and assistance of displaced populations is a matter of sovereign responsibility. In other words, we are saying that this is first and foremost a responsibility of the government, but under certain circumstances governments need the support of the international community.
If a government is going to say that even if our people are suffering in large numbers and we are not capable of providing the necessary protection and assistance and they are, in fact, dying and we still don’t want anybody to get involved because this is a matter of internal concern, nobody in this day and age can justify that kind of attitude. That’s what human rights is all about, that’s what humanitarianism is all about.
Q: What about the suggestion made by some countries that the Guiding Principles should be submitted for adoption by the General Assembly?
A: Well, a number of those who have expressed concern do argue that they should be submitted for formal consideration by the General Assembly. They even go as far as saying that they are not really against anything in the Guiding Principles, they simply want to legitimise the process by having them formally adopted by the General Assembly.
Now it’s a question of the extent to which this is a positive step towards having them adopted or is, in a sense, raising issues to take us back to a debate over the Guiding Principles. Depending on what it is it could be considered to be positive or, frankly, retrogressive.
Q: The Guiding Principles have been incorporated into national legislation in Angola. Are there any other countries where this has occurred, and would you view this as a step in the right direction?
A: Ironically enough, we have just had training in Sudan on the Guiding Principles by OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs], and they are being broadly applied. We are now in the process of holding another training session in Rumbek [in southern Sudan] with the [rebel] SPLM [Sudan People's Liberation Movement]. Uganda is another country where we have had a workshop and where the Guiding Principles are being incorporated into national legislation.
Just about everywhere I have been in Africa - and this is true in other countries around the world - I have found the Guiding Principles being discussed. Columbia is another very good example where it has effected national legislation. So while the specific cases of countries that have changed their legislation might still be limited, the process by which they are being introduced to these countries in different regions is rapidly growing...
Q: You mentioned the planned workshop with the SPLM. Is this the first time that this has happened with a non-state actor or rebel group and, if so, are there any plans to hold similar workshops in the future?
A: The Guiding Principles clearly spell out that they are not simply to guide governments and other international actors but also non-state actors, and it was specifically envisaged that there would be situations where large numbers of people are under the control of insurgency groups, and therefore it is incumbent on them to show the responsibilities of their control.
We have talked to non-state actors in different parts of the world depending on the logistical and practical situation. In Columbia the Government was encouraging me to talk to the insurgents. We didn’t do it because of the time factor. Again, in Tajikistan we were able to talk to rebel elements and opposition groups. Previous to this I have been talking to SPLM/SPLA [Sudan People's Liberation Army]. So the principle is not being applied for the first time, but to actually hold a workshop with a movement that has control over people, this is the first time we’re doing that.
Q: It has been suggested that in order to make the Guiding Principles more palatable to Islamic countries it might be appropriate to make them compatible with [Islamic] Shari'ah law. What are your views on this?
A: It is always intriguing to see the extent to which human rights are legitimised and reinforced by internal perspectives, whether cultural or religious, and one could, indeed, say that in order for the universality concept to be generally universal it has to be in tune with the values of any religion or culture. There is no culture in this world nor any religion that does not support the fundamental values of human rights.
The potential for divisiveness is there if you begin to say: Let us see the extent to which these principles reflect the religious values of any one religion, or the extent to which others would say: If you’re going to see how they are supported by that religion why not also by this religion, and to what extent would there be absolute uniformity or even consensus on the extent to which these religious values are indeed supportive of the universally accepted human-rights standards.
It is an intriguing idea. It is also an idea that has the potential to be divisive and, to some extent, if it is to be done it has to be done with a great deal of sensitivity in bridging between the relativity of religious considerations and the universality concept of human rights.
Q: The Guiding Principles envisage the possibility of the displaced returning to their home areas. What happens if the displaced do not wish to do so for reasons relating to, for example, security or ethnic discrimination?
A: The most important thing to remember is that this is an internal matter mostly involving citizens who have the freedom of movement to go wherever they want in the country. On the other hand, displacement usually exposes people to new opportunities.
For instance, people move from rural areas to the cities, where they find a lot of services that have not been available to them before - health services, education, employment opportunities, and therefore, while there is always a yearning to go back, part of which is a nostalgia for home, it is also true that not everyone wants to go back, and when conflicts have gone on for a long time people are apt to find alternatives and become integrated where they are.
Now there are, of course, practical problems for people who want to go back. To what extent is it safe? To what extent are they going back with dignity? To what extent are services in the areas they were in restored? To what extent are they given opportunities for self-sustaining life in their areas? And just remember, many of these people come from impoverished backgrounds in rural areas. If you want people to go back you must give them their security, basic services and opportunities for programme development.
Q: This touches on the question of the definition of an internally displaced person, which has been the subject of much debate recently. What are your views on this?
A: Our working definition in the Guiding Principles is a descriptive one, not a legalistic one, and the description is that you have been uprooted by a number of factors - conflict, human rights violations, violence, human and natural disasters in which some discrimination is a fact. If those conditions cease, if the causes end, then, by definition, you cease to be an internally displaced person. Some people make a condition of return a factor, but, as I have just said, people may choose to do something else other than return. So it is really a question of whether the needs still exist and the needs are linked to the causes?
Q: At the moment the Guiding Principles are, in your own words, the only normative framework focused on internal displacement. Do you believe that the legal framework for dealing with IDPs [internally displaced persons] should be strengthened?
A: Well, when we speak of the GPs [Guiding Principles] being the first instrument dealing specifically with IDPs it is important to remember the sources. These Principles do restate existing law - human rights law, humanitarian law and analogous refugee law. For me, it’s a question of whether they serve the purpose. If governments and other international actors increasingly find them useful, the debate we are dealing with right now is whether they should be made into binding instruments, or is it just enough to continue dealing with them as Guiding Principles.
I think there are varying degrees of differences in this respect. Some think we should work towards a convention or a declaration. That would be time-consuming and controversial.
Some say let’s just work with the Guiding Principles as they are now. That is also controversial to a certain extent. Some say why don’t we have them adopted by General Assembly Resolution, where some states who have concerns can also try to find room to have their concerns addressed. So there’s still a bit of debate and I can see validity in all these arguments but, as they say, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it. So if the Guiding Principles are serving their purpose, I think we should work with them for now.
Q: You mentioned in your statement to the 58th session of the Commission on Human Rights that the Guiding Principles needed "promotion". What is being done to promote the Guiding Principles on the ground?
A: The Guiding Principles are proving to be a living instrument for those who are concerned with displaced populations, such as NGOs and academic institutions. They are being incorporated into the syllabi of a number of university programmes and, above all, they are being introduced to the local displaced populations in their own languages so that they are aware of their rights, so that they are not seen as simply people begging for humanitarian assistance, but people who have their rights as citizens and therefore demand a response as a matter of right.
Q: What do you think about the use of radio
to disseminate the GPs to remote locations where access to print
material is poor, for example, in rural parts of Africa?
A: That’s a very good idea. The point is that once these principles are locally owned we literally just take pleasure in the fact that they are now in the hands of people who are on the ground and who are promoting the interests of displaced populations, and so if it has not been done it is a good idea and I hope that people pick it up.
Q: You have now been on more than 20 missions throughout the world to try to draw attention to the plight of IDPs. Are there any common findings from these missions, or is the situation different in every country?
A: The most important overarching problem is that these are situations of conflict, and whether the conflict is due to racial, ethnic, religious, cultural or linguistic differences, whatever the cause of conflict it creates cleavages, and you find the displaced populations are part of the group that is caught in the conflict.
Loyalties are brought into question. Are they on this side or on that side? To that extent there is a universal sense of abandonment, isolation and dispossession, and you can hear virtually the same language being used by displaced populations around the world in their relationship with the authorities. They feel marginalised within their own countries. Their needs are basically all the same.
Not all governments are irresponsive. Some governments try to be responsive to the needs of their people. Some even try to find ways of cooperating with rebel forces to help ensure that humanitarian assistance is delivered. Some block it, some create all kinds of obstacles, and so there is a certain common theme about the difficulty of access.
So the first message is that internal displacement creates vacuums of responsibility which we try to impress on governments to correct by demonstrating responsibilities of sovereignty. That also means that international cooperation is nearly always needed. Very few governments in conflict situations are able to meet the needs of their civilian populations, particularly their displaced populations, without some external support.
We also find that while many agencies will insist on providing humanitarian assistance, the angle of protection seen in terms of security of the people and respect for their human rights is often either missing or marginally touched. Sometimes humanitarian and development agencies believe that their presence by definition provides protection. But protection as such is something people still seem to shy away from.
Q: In your statement to the 58th Session of the Commission on Human Rights in April you singled out the need to address the shelter of IDPs as an issue requiring particular attention. Do you believe that this is still the case?
A: Absolutely. And you know, while there is increasing talk about the desire to help the displaced there is still a gap between services actually being delivered on the ground and the rhetoric of international response. And these services include the whole range - shelter, medicine, food, education, employment.
Even when governments identify with the displaced, as is the case in Azerbaijan and Georgia, you still have difficulty actually delivering services to these people because of other political agendas. For instance, until peace comes, countries may feel that they don’t want to solve the problem with the displaced, because that removes the pressure on the international community to find remedies.
Q: What are you doing to help fill these gaps?
A: One of the significant things about missions is that you raise the level of awareness, and people start talking about the problems, and just by sheer discussion of the issues the governments become aware of what’s going on in their own countries. And very often the level of response increases, and in addition to that you mobilise a lot of other actors to get involved. So in many countries today where there is a displacement crisis it’s not even the government but it’s others – NGOs, both local and international, with the support of the donor community - that are actually responding to the crisis.
Q: The need to improve the institutional arrangements for responding to the needs of the displaced on the ground has been a subject of much debate in recent years. Has the situation now been resolved?
A: Basically I think that the arrangements are in place. The coordinating role of the ERC is recognised, the role of OCHA, the role of the IASC, particularly at HQ level, is functioning well. At the capital level of countries affected they are in place. The country team is recognised in varying degrees of effectiveness. Then you have the problem of this coming to the local level where the people are, and that’s where some of the gaps are. But on the whole, you can say that the structures are in place. It is then a question of making them functional in a way that really delivers to needy populations.
Q: In order to visit a country you need to be invited by the government. How do you deal with situations where you know that there is a displacement problem in a particular country, but the government of that country denies it and will not let you in?
A: Well, that clearly is a problem, but it is not just a problem of internal displacement. It’s a problem of human rights in general. There are governments that do not want the international community to get involved in their internal affairs, and another problem is that even if they actually let you visit and you make recommendations, the question is: Do these recommendations get implemented or not, and again this is a problem of the entire human rights issue. We are now in the process of focusing on a number of countries where access is difficult with the same question in mind.
Q: But how can you put pressure on those governments to let you in and draw attention to the problem?
A: There are ranges of responses. Clearly, in my dialogue with governments I try to impress upon them that these missions are not necessarily adversarial. For instance, it took me some time of repeated discussions with the ambassador of Turkey in Geneva for them to eventually invite me, and when I went it was a very constructive mission.
The same was true of Indonesia. The same has just been true of Mexico. Just about every country that has a serious displacement problem, initially has some hesitation, but when you go there and they find that this is a constructive dialogue and that this is not just adversarial monitoring and finger-pointing, then gradually you open them up to cooperation, and countries that were seemingly in denial become quite open to working with us.
Q: But there are, nevertheless, some 25 million people in 40 countries throughout the world who are displaced.
A: Absolutely. And there are a number of governments who are not opening doors, and this is a challenge for the United Nations and the international system.
Q: How can you explain the apparent paradox in the case of Angola, where 4 million people or 30 percent of the population are internally displaced despite the fact that the government has incorporated the Guiding Principles into national legislation?
A: Well the whole thing should be seen as incremental. Clearly you take the first step. It may even be that you have a few individuals who are cooperative in the government. You plant the seed and you begin to work with others, and hopefully nurse the seed to grow and grow. It’s a bit like peacemaking. The country may be in conflict for a number of years, the peace processes continue, a lot of people get involved in an incremental way, and there comes a moment when peace breaks.
So one has to be optimistic that some action is going to lead to a positive result. What we cannot afford to do is to raise our hands in despair, because, as I say on my missions, if I go to a country and I am told there is no problem here at all, it would have been meaningless to go. If I am told that the problem is too big to do anything about, it would have been meaningless to be there. One hopes that there is an acknowledgement of the problem and the desire to do something about it, and together we start doing something.
Q: Continuing with Angola as an example, would doing something mean encouraging the government to use a greater share of its oil and diamond revenue to address the needs of the displaced?
A: Sure. In my dialogue with the leaders in Angola I said that much. I said: Now you say that the war against UNITA is virtually won, and that it’s just a mopping-up operation, you must begin to be seen by the international community as diverting some of the resources that were going into the war towards helping your people. And it is actually by being seen to be doing this that the international community is going to find it attractive to help you.
And then we say that many areas are not accessible, but the church is out there with the people, there are a number of NGOs out there with the people. Well, let us empower those to reach them. The UN has this grading of security situations so that when you reach grade five it is totally out, four certain areas are accessible. Those are the areas where people desperately need involvement and we can’t begrudge them. Let’s do it through others who for a variety of reasons are prepared to get in.
And so, yes, you’re right that it’s paradoxical, but it does mean that the country is realising that it has to do something, and once the level of realisation reaches a satisfactory level, then you hope that national resources that are now being directed somewhere else will increasingly be put towards humanitarian purposes.
Q: How do you handle a situation like Somalia, which doesn’t have a properly functioning government in the normal sense?
A: The message is basically the same. Those that purport to control the lives and land of a country must assume responsibility for those under them, and it is basically the same message as the one to non-state actors except that these ones are quasi-states and so the level of responsibility is greater than for non-state actors.
Q:You have now been doing this job for 10 years. Could you be specific about which countries you feel have made real progress in addressing the plight of the internally displaced and which have not?
A: Well to be quite honest with you, every country I have visited I have felt satisfied with the level of awareness being raised by the mere fact of the mission and by the people who become involved in the process, by even the governments themselves being awakened to what is going on within their countries and beginning to recognise that they have to develop clear policies, clear structures, coordination within the government, with the international community, with intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations.
But I’ll say this by way of concluding remarks. Ten years is quite a period, and although we’ve seen a great deal of increasing international awareness and response there’s still a big gap. Sometimes we don’t quite know what this gap is.
We’ve been citing statistics over the last 10 years, but we have no empirical evidence on how much impact what is being done has made in terms of more meaningful response to the needs of the displaced, in terms of the reduction of the numbers of people being displaced in those countries where action has been taken or where there has been international response, whether the numbers are consistent because of new displacement problems. So all of that requires more empirical work.
In addition, I believe it’s time to take stock of what has taken place so far, so we’re going to be working towards a meeting which is going to be hosted by the government of Austria, which was the one that first hosted our work on the Guiding Principles to assess where we have come from, where we know we are and what challenges lie ahead, to do an appraisal of the different areas of our work, whether it is consciousness-raising, whether it is the Guiding Principles and how they have worked so far, whether it is institutional arrangements, the effectiveness of contributions or even the research agenda, and then to come out with a restatement of goals to reactivate and shift gears and hopefully to have a much more vigorous approach to the problem.
Q: Do you still see yourself doing this job in 10 years time?
A: [Laughs] Well, quite apart from whatever limits are placed – they do say there are natural limits within – there comes a point when what we call political leaders to do is to say: Look, maybe it is time for somebody else to take over. But to the extent that one’s services are needed, to the extent that one feels that the challenge is ongoing and we cannot just say forget it, I’ve had enough, I’m too tired, you do what best you can, but also hope that you are not a lone voice for the voiceless and that there are a lot more people getting involved.
[See also: IRIN Interview with Francis Deng, December 2001]
[ENDS]
|