Issues Confronting UNHCR in 1998 and Beyond

October 2, 1998

Speaker: Karen AbuZayd, Regional Representative of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees for the United States and the Caribbean

Moderator: Kathleen Newland, Senior Associate and Co-Director, International Migration Policy Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Kathleen Newland welcomed and introduced Karen AbuZayd to Washington exactly one month after she began work as UNHCR's Regional Representative. Before coming to Washington, Ms. AbuZayd served in Geneva for two years as Chief of Staff to High Commissioner Sadako Ogata, a position that immersed her in the entire range of UNHCR's work during a very difficult time for the agency both operationally and doctrinally. Prior to this work at the "nerve center" of refugee policy and practice, Ms. AbuZayd spent two years as Deputy Director of Program and Operational Support, and worked as head of the UNHCR’s Bosnia mission from 1993 to 1995. Until that time, she worked primarily on African refugee issues.

Karen AbuZayd began her remarks with a "quick tour" of a variety of issues with which the humanitarian community, and particularly UNHCR, is grappling. She noted some significant changes in the humanitarian and refugee environment since the end of the Cold War. For instance, not long ago, refugee agencies could be confident that they would be operating in safe conditions, while today their major involvements are in conflict or fragile post-conflict zones. With these changes, UNHCR's responses have evolved.

She cited six challenges and dilemmas confronting UNHCR in this new environment:

The first challenge lies in problems associated with being the humanitarian alibi in the absence of the exercise of political will. Turning to the role of UNHCR, Ms. AbuZayd said the agency is often thrust onto the scene of a humanitarian emergency as an aid resource; then its presence is used as an excuse for not having to take the necessary political action to resolve the conflict. No one seems to know how to activate the needed political will. Refugee agencies must not be blamed for prolonging the conflict. Their actions will make only limited contributions to ending political conflicts. They may create time and space within conflicts, but the real test lies with the political actors, who eventually must show strong decision-making and implementation.

The case of the Great Lakes in 1994 highlights the second challenge confronting UNHCR: the need to provide physical protection to refugees and humanitarian workers, and the decision about when to stay or withdraw in dangerous situations. In this case, the High Commissioner’s requests for security forces went unmet, and UNHCR resorted to hiring Mobutu's Presidential Guard.

The Great Lakes and West Africa also offer examples of UNHCR's third dilemma: the question of whether or how much to facilitate return to unstable locations, and how to promoted reintegration in such a context. What should the humanitarian community do when refugees "vote with their feet" to go home when conditions of safety and dignity are not met?

A fourth dilemma is the perception that UNHCR now concentrates on assistance activities to the disadvantage of its protection mandate. Ms. AbuZayd argued that the "assistance vs. protection" debate sets up a false dichotomy. In many refugee situations, assistance is the price of admission for protection agencies, including UNHCR. Assistance is the key to access without which protection is impossible. She also emphasized that assistance must be linked to the eventual attainment of durable solutions.

Linked to this idea is the question of burden-sharing. Asylum countries with huge refugee populations are not averse to playing their role in protection, but others have to share their burden and offer material assistance. It is increasingly difficult to get countries who do not need assistance to carry out their protection responsibilities. Some of those who are pressing UNHCR to stick to a narrow mandate and to move out expediently from countries of origin are among the same authorities who are closing the doors to asylum seekers. "It is rather embarrassing, particularly in this 50th anniversary year of the Declaration of Human Rights, for us to try to explain to asylum countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America why they should behave better than Europe and North America," Ms. AbuZayd said, given the imbalances in the numbers of refugees on their territories.

A shift toward hostile attitudes to asylum, particularly in Europe, but also in the U.S., presents a fifth challenge to UNHCR. Ms. AbuZayd deplored European and U.S. practices that attempt to keep out asylum seekers and mistreat those who manage to enter. She asked, "Who can defend 'expedited removal' procedures? Who can support detention practices which include putting asylum seekers in jail, treating them like criminals, shackling them, and separating them from their children? What has brought this about in a country with a strong economy where refugees who do pass through the barriers almost all immediately find work and settle into communities to become proud and productive citizens?" She urged groups now working on these issues not to give up or compromise, saying, "The world needs an asylum role model, and where more naturally can that be found that here in the United States?"

Less developed countries who were traditionally receptive to refugees now often match the restrictionist attitudes of the North with an increasing tendency to view refugee presence as a threat to sovereign and national security interests. These hostile attitudes toward asylum give rise to the sixth challenge facing UNHCR in the current humanitarian environment: competition over shrinking resources in an increasingly crowded humanitarian space. This factor both causes and compounds the other challenges within the humanitarian community. Media attention to selected humanitarian emergencies attracts more and more interlocutors to the fray. At the same time, donors are becoming more cautious and particular about the allocation of funding. They also go through phases of pushing bilateral vs. multilateral arrangements, preferring less expensive nongovernmental implementers to UN bodies and generally becoming more demanding of proof of sustainable results and positive impacts. Ms. AbuZayd said this competition is good for all actors, but we must learn to treat it in a healthy manner by working together to ensure there are sufficient resources to allow us to serve our beneficiaries adequately.

Nevertheless, Ms. AbuZayd noted some positive signs that the international community is improving its understanding, attention and responses to these issues.

There has been a growing appreciation for placing refugee "problems" in a political context, demonstrated particularly by the close attention paid by the Security Council to humanitarian issues.

Also contributing to the potential for improving security conditions for refugees and humanitarian workers is the military/humanitarian/DPKO cooperation which has strengthened over the years and is being followed by a new alliance between humanitarian agencies and the private sector. And there is a healthy spirit of coordination blooming within the UN system – as seen in the creation of emergency units, development of standards of conduct, NGOs' new and stronger constituencies and expansion of technical proficiencies, and new vitality at OCHA.

Finally, Ms. AbuZayd noted the widespread and bipartisan support for refugee issues in this country with "pleasant surprise." She then asked the audience for comments, questions and suggestions.

The Question and Answer session included comments on a variety of issues ranging from specific refugee situations to more thematic concerns in the humanitarian community.

In response to a question from T. Alexander Aleinikoff, a Senior Associate in the International Migration Policy Program, Ms. AbuZayd discussed the practice of expedited exclusion in the U.S. and her initial impressions of U.S. lawmakers. She said that so far she was hearing the right ideas from policy makers and officials in the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Problems for asylum seekers seem to be at the local level and are due to excessive decentralization. Regina Germaine, senior legal counsel in the UNHCR regional office, said that defining aggravated felony poses a significant problem in the U.S. asylum system whereby some refugees who have committed minor crimes are barred from asylum. Questions of past persecution and alternative flight paths also create obstacles for asylum seekers in the U.S. Although regional representatives of UNHCR have made several INS site visits, they have not yet witnessed a credible fear interview. Ms. Germaine suggested that Congress mandate a study of the asylum system.

Patricia Weiss Fagen of the Inter-American Development Bank asked Ms. AbuZayd to relate her observations of the successful withdrawal of humanitarian relief and subsequent hand-over to development agencies (namely, the transition from UNHCR to the UN Development Programme). Ms. AbuZayd replied that progress in this area has been made, and cited Mozambique and Namibia as examples of hand-overs in which an inter-agency approach was successful. She said that success largely depends on the personality of a single, strong leader who can take charge of an entire, integrated operation.

Other topics of discussion included the current balance between humanitarian assistance and protection in Kosovo; the proportion of funds going to emergencies vs. development; the evolving role of UNHCR in working with internally displaced people; reliance on UNHCR for resettlement referrals; the Regional Representative's work in the Caribbean; guidelines for social and psychological treatment of refugee children; US leadership as a model for the world; and UNHCR partnership with the Immigration and Naturalization Service's international affairs program for refugee resettlement.

Click here to visit the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' web site