Global Crisis of Internal Displacement

June 15, 1998

Panelists: Francis M. Deng, Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons, Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution; Roberta Cohen, Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institution, Co-Director of its Project on Internal Displacement; Robert K. Goldman, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at American University’s Washington College of Law; Steven Holtzman, Social Scientist in the Post-Conflict Unit of the World Bank’s Social Development Department; Roger Winter, Director of the US Committee for Refugees

The occasion for this panel was the publication of Masses in Flight: The Global Crisis of Internal Displacement (Brookings, 1998), co-authored by Francis Deng and Roberta Cohen, and to which all of the panelists contributed. Alex Aleinikoff introduced the panelists and recognized Masses in Flight as the leading study on internally displaced persons (IDPs), a largely under-studied problem of increasing intractability and scope. Twenty to twenty-five million people are internally displaced, yet this population falls through the cracks of the existing international humanitarian and refugee system and countries in conflict.

Francis Deng explained that internal displacement is generally caused by internal conflict: in divided countries, IDPs are often seen not as citizens, but as part of the enemy; they become dispossessed. With such large numbers and desperate needs, they turn to the international community, but the international community confronts the sensitive issue of sovereignty. Mr. Deng’s mandate was created originally to answer the questions: Should the international community get involved and if so how? A comprehensive study recommended three options: 1) establish a new organization devoted to IDPs; 2) have a single, pre-existing agency assume full responsibility; and 3) develop ways for existing institutions to be more effective. Mr. Deng had expected the international community to act on either the first or second option, but they chose the third.

Mr. Deng said he views his role today as that of a catalyst for the following objectives: 1) Development of a legal framework; 2) Development of an institutional framework; 3) Enhancing the capacity of existing institutions’ through country missions; 4) Ongoing studies, dissemination of the mandate’s guiding principles; motivation of effective action on the ground; guidance for enhanced implementation; and continued work with various agencies and governments.

Mr. Deng explained that he does not view IDPs as an isolated group, but rather as a group that has particular needs -- specifically, humanitarian aid and protection. Further, he sees the presence of IDPs as a microcosm of the problems in society at large. Following his study, he approaches the issue of sovereignty with new deference. This approach defines sovereignty as a responsibility of governments to meet the needs of their people; when governments fail to do so, they can expect intervention by the international community.

Roger Winter noted the importance of identifying internally displaced persons. He told a story about a visit by Thorvald Stoltenberg, then UN High Commissioner for Refugees, to the Sudan, where an estimated four million people are displaced as the result of civil conflict. When Stoltenberg met with the Sudanese president in Khartoum, the president complained that the international community wasn’t sending enough money. Stoltenberg agreed that resources were in short supply, but reminded the president that 300,000 of his people were now refugees in Ethiopia. The president refuted, "They are not my people." Mr. Winter used this story to illustrate how circumstances which displace people often make their own government view them as the enemy. Similar conditions afflict the displaced survivors of genocide in Rwanda. The numbers of IDPs are larger than the refugee population, and though there are IDPs on every continent, there are no clear mandates to deal with this population in a comprehensive way. According to Mr. Winter, statistics are a real problem for the following reasons: 1) Source reliability; 2) Access to IDPs; 3) Mobility; and 4) Protective coloration, especially in urban settings.

Finally, Mr. Winter added that from his perspective within an NGO, civil war tends to be communal in character, so that when a government is ill-disposed to a certain segment of the population, it becomes prone to genocide.

Robert Goldman described the study of a legal team he headed, as part of Mr. Deng’s mandate, to determine whether existing international law was sufficient to cover the needs of IDPs. In order to answer this fundamental question, he examined refugee law, humanitarian law, and human rights law. The team identified three possible causes of internal displacement: 1) Tensions and disturbances; 2) Non-international armed conflict (a majority of situations); and 3) Interstate armed conflict.

The study concluded that while existing law did provide substantial coverage, large gaps and gray areas do exist. For example, there is no information on: a right not to be displaced; the particular needs of IDPs, especially women and children, once displaced; documentation or compensation for loss or restitution of property; and return, resettlement and reintegration (a major gap). The study also clarified that no state or authority can try to invoke sovereignty in violation of human rights; there is a substantial argument for intervention where a government forfeits its legitimacy.

On the basis of this study, Mr. Goldman’s legal team decided that 30 guiding principles were the best way to proceed. These principles are divided into five sections: general; protection against displacement; protection during displacement; protection related to humanitarian assistance; and return, resettlement and reintegration. These principles are directed at all legal authorities, since in many areas, displacement is provoked by non-state actors who are bound by international humanitarian law but not by human rights law.

Roberta Cohen focused on protection, the biggest gap in the international response to IDPs. Although most debate has focused on relief, the futility of feeding people who are unprotected has been demonstrated in the expression, "the well-fed dead," which emerged out of the Bosnia crisis. The protection of IDPs makes many uncomfortable because it is supposed to be the responsibility of government; but governments are not always willing to provide protection. By recasting sovereignty as a concept of responsibility, guiding principles provide a legal framework for international protection.

Ms. Cohen recommended that field staff of humanitarian and human rights organizations play a greater role in providing protection, since they are often the only ones with sufficient access or leverage. She emphasized that humanitarian action is about protection and assistance. Some NGOs, such as Medecins sans Frontieres, have assumed protection roles, but most are cautious for fear of jeopardizing their access or the lives of their staff. Ms. Cohen offered the following considerations:

• Include protection and human rights concerns in needs assessments, in addition to food and water supplies.
• Reinforce an international presence when protection problems arise.
• Support community-based protection.
• Train staff in protection problems.
• Collaborate with other agencies to develop protection strategies.

Since there are cases where only military interventions will suffice, the lesson is not that military intervention should be avoided, but rather, that it should be more effective. Finally, Ms. Cohen advocated a standing rapid reaction force as a means of preventing massive assaults and cited UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Sadako Ogata, saying that true globalization means an international response to provide protection to persons at risk.

Steven Holtzman stated that during the Cold War years, we knew what a refugee was and had a system in place for relief aid followed by development assistance. This model is no longer as useful when working with conflict affected populations and entire societies, rather than just individuals. Further, from a development perspective, looking backwards from reconstruction, the numbers of people affected by IDPs (counting host communities) double or even triple. The return is not the end of the story, for often if the home no longer exists, the economic capacity is gone and possibly the entire community.

Our role in dealing with IDPs is to work as much as we can during a conflict to build a foundation of a society, to maintain a capital beyond humanitarianism -- including human capital, financial capital, etc. Presently, we have only ad hoc implementations. We have to understand these communities as partial, and repair them for future options. In addition to access and sovereignty constraints, institutional walls divide agencies by category, therefore hindering their efforts to accomplish the same goals.

In the Q & A session, debate focused on whether to define IDPs as a particular category or under the broader term, "conflict affected persons," suggested by Mr. Holtzman. Mr. Deng argued that IDPs are easily identifiable when visiting areas of conflict; they are usually found clustered in large groups or shelters. He reiterated the analogy with refugees, saying that those who are displaced become vulnerable as people who have crossed borders of identity; consequently, they lose the protection of either government or rebel forces. Ms. Cohen added that displacement, by nature, creates vulnerability and different needs. The description of IDPs is similar to that of refugees, except that they have not crossed an international border. IDPs also include victims of natural disaster who suffer discrimination in the aid (or lack of aid) distributed by their own government. The reason they identified this group was to ensure that their needs are met, because they’ve done so badly in previous emergency situations. It is a question of distributing international funds. We should never pit one vulnerable group against another.

Mr. Deng asked the audience to bear in mind that "we are in an incremental process." Once the international community has established a foundation for action, then it can be more assertive in pursuing more serious cases of internal displacement. He intends to make his mandate more operational and more daring. As a final comment, Mr. Deng reminded the audience that the key concept must be flexibility.

The Brookings Institution Press will release a second volume on internal displacement in July. The Forsaken People: Case Studies of the Internally Displaced examines ten countries or regions and makes recommendations for action.