Fixing Responsibility for the Internally Displaced

Panelists: Roberta Cohen, Co-director of the Brookings Project on Internal Displacement; Bill Frelick, Director of Policy at the U.S. Committee for Refugees; Alan Kreczko, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration; and James Kunder, former Director of the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) and now a scholar and consultant.

Moderator: Kathleen Newland, Senior Associate with the International Migration Policy Program moderated the discussion.

When U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke made a statement in January to the Security Council calling upon the international community to assign institutional responsibility for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in a single bureaucratic entity, he re-energized a longstanding debate. Ambassador Holbrooke, speaking independently and not on the behalf of the U.S. government, suggested that UNHCR is the agency most capable of taking up this responsibility. On March 2, the International Migration Policy Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace convened a breakfast briefing to explore the still-evolving thinking within the U.S. government on meeting the needs of the internally displaced, and the prospect of expanding UNHCR’s work.

Kathleen Newland opened the discussion acknowledging Ambassador Holbrooke’s contribution to publicizing the plight of internally displaced persons. While the humanitarian community has been concerned with definitional problems with the terms "refugee" and "internally displaced person" for quite some time, the subject is getting renewed attention since Holbrooke declared, "There is no difference between being a refugee or an IDP."

Alan Kreczko was the first panelist to speak and stressed that the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM) was very engaged in researching the dilemma of internally displaced populations. "This meeting is very timely because we are in the process of trying to review how the international community addresses the needs of IDPs." Kreczko acknowledged that a lot of the impetus for examining internally displaced persons stems from Ambassador Holbrooke’s personal beliefs that often the international community focuses on refugees and does not acknowledge the protection and assistance needs of internally displaced persons. "PRM welcomes the attention that he has focused on this issue and we hope that, at a minimum, this will bring more focus on and assistance to this group of people."

Kreczko reported on a meeting that Ambassador Holbrooke held with policy experts and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Sadako Ogata, to brainstorm about the suggestion that UNHCR be the agency to take the lead on internally displaced persons. "Reaction to the suggestion was mixed. Mrs. Ogata was reserved. She did not invoke the mandate as a primary limiting factor, and noted that UNHCR has done more recently for IDPs, but she did express concern over the resource implications of taking on the job and whether or not there was political support for the proposal." Other concerns expressed about the proposal were: fear that a new mission would "distract" UNHCR from its primary commitment to refugee protection; concern that the expanded role of UNHCR would be resisted by other U.N. agencies; and questions about the basic premise that IDPs were a defined group of people who could be singled out for protection.

Kreczko said PRM is in an ‘information gathering mode’ and is seeking input from various agencies, with emphasis on field staff who regularly come into contact with displaced populations. Some of the issues that PRM is exploring are:

• the specific nature of the "problem" with assistance to IDPs;
• resources allocated to IDPs;
• the inefficient application of resources allocated to IDPs;
• whether there is as much emphasis on protection when responding to IDP situations as there is when responding to refugee situations; and
• the problem of gaining access to IDPs.

Kreczko believes that two conclusions were reached quickly:

• There should be more U.N. support for the U.N. Secretary General’s Special Representative on Internally Displaced Persons’, Dr. Francis Deng, operation.
• More work should be done to elevate the Guiding Principles that Dr. Deng established with regard to internally displaced persons.

Kreczko wrapped up his presentation by reviewing the potential difficulties in creating a lead agency for internally displaced persons. Critics argue that other agencies are likely to resist coordination and often denounce lead agencies for taking on too much responsibility and not delegating well. Opponents respond that without a lead agency there can be no real accountability. Kreczko said that PRM is engaged in sorting out these issues and welcomes input.

Roberta Cohen opened her presentation with reflections on Ambassador Holbrooke’s statements to the Security Council: "It was one of those rare times when a diplomat throws aside his prepared statement and speaks from the heart." Cohen noted Ambassador Holbrooke’s motivations springing from his visit to Angola, where he came into contact with internally displaced people and witnessed their neglect by the international community. Cohen used Angola as an example of a humanitarian effort lacking coordination, where people were given some food assistance but refused protection by international organizations.

"It’s not a new proposal," said Cohen in response to Holbrooke’s suggestion that UNHCR become the lead agency on internally displaced persons. In 1993 the government of the Netherlands made a proposal to the UNHCR Executive Committee that UNHCR take over issues concerning internally displaced persons. Francis Deng supported the same idea in 1993 in his report to the U.N. Cohen noted how extraordinary it is that several NGOs, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders and IRC, have joined Holbrooke in supporting an expanded UNHCR role.

Cohen moved on to evaluate the viability of the proposal and concludes that it is not a realistic plan. Cohen presented UNHCR as a house divided: "some in UNHCR have consistently pointed out that the magnitude of the problem is too big for one agency, and might detract from their work with refugees, while others keep an open mind to the suggestion." Along with skepticism within UNHCR comes fierce opposition from other U.N. agencies to the creation of a "mega-agency." This has spurred increased support for the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) as an alternative to UNHCR. " I think for the time being it’s not going to happen, though personally I find it a very credible and enticing option," remarked Cohen.

After establishing that it was unlikely that UNHCR would be given responsibility for IDPs any time in the near future, Cohen turned to examine where the debate has brought the international community. There are incremental steps that have already been taken to address the issues of internally displaced persons:

• Holbrooke has given the debate new visibility.
• The Economic and Social Council is going to be addressing the issue of IDPs this July.
• UNHCR is examining what more it can do for IDPs, including a more positive approach to getting involved, more advocacy, and an increase in the numbers of IDP’s designated "of concern" to UNHCR.
• OCHA has begun to get more involved, and has pledged to focus on a better division of labor and more attention to protection.
• Increased competition between U.N. agencies to prove their relevance and capabilities.

Jim Kunder based his presentation on his new paper "The U.S. Government and Internally Displaced Persons: Present, but Not Accounted For," published in November 1999 by the Brookings Project on Internal Displacement and the U.S. Committee for Refugees. (For copies of this paper, please contact: Raci Say at USCR (202) 347-3507 or visit the Web at: www.refugees.org.) Kunder stated that his paper was, "a call to action. If there is a bottom line to this paper it’s that there is a lot that can be done within the U.S. government." Holbrooke’s statements have shown that policy debate in the U.S. can encourage action in international and foreign institutions. The paper does not contrast internally displaced persons with refugees because Kunder wanted to avoid the trap of debating "how to cut up an already small pie."

Kunder’s paper approaches the issue from a different angle: "I took a look at a very basic question instead. What if the U.S. Government was interested in doing something for internally displaced persons? How would it reflect that interest?" The paper offers six conclusions on what is needed to put such an interest into operation:

• A strong legislative and legal basis for U.S. Government Action on behalf of internally displaced persons.
• Increased Congressional interest to maintain policy progress.
• More policy documents which explain U.S. policy.
• A lead agency to assume clear responsibility for internal displacement issues and programs.
• Adequate resources.
• External linkages with U.N. organizations, the Red Cross movement, and NGOs.

As an example of a concrete step that the U.S. Government can take, Kunder suggested reforming the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance’s Field Operations Guide. The document currently says that, "assessment teams and disaster assistance response teams should not assume any responsibility for the protection of internally displaced persons." The U.S. government already directs millions in aid dollars towards internally displaced persons in places like Sudan, but Kunder felt that such actions were lacking a policy focus that would take a more holistic approach to internally displaced persons. In conclusion, Kunder called for more study of internally displaced persons in order to be prepared to "rigorously defend why we’ve drawn the boundaries around IDPs."

"What I’d like to do today is to raise the mandate issue," began Bill Frelick. In his presentation, Frelick, sought to dissect Ambassador Holbrooke’s suggestion that UNHCR be the lead agency for IDPs in order to gauge how realistic it would be and to see if it could stand up to legal scrutiny. Taking the refugee law model, Frelick moved to see if it could apply to internally displaced persons. "Refugee law does presuppose that people are outside their country of origin but it is fundamentally a definition about persecution, not about movement. On the other hand, the term ‘internally displaced person’ is descriptive. It describes dislocation and where it occurs." Frelick pointed out that the IDP definition does not say anything about a government’s unwillingness or inability to protect, so "a person who flees the flooding in Mozambique is an IDP." Having strikingly different categories of people lumped under the term "IDP" makes it necessary to apply criteria for different kinds of aid before the international community can address internally displaced persons.

One of the assumed prerequisite, Frelick felt, for any UNHCR or other agency involvement is the consent of the government of the country where operations take place. The state where an internally displaced person resides is still responsible for them under human rights law unlike refugee law, which considers the country of origin to have abdicated those responsibilities. UNHCR’s mandate is to protect refugees by holding third party states accountable for refugees’ rights. Frelick felt that the test of UNHCR’s ability to work for internally displaced persons would come when a state did not welcome their involvement or provide access to the IDPs.

Frelick concluded his presentation with critical analysis of Ambassador Holbrooke’s statements to the security council: "I think his suggestion of fixing the responsibility of IDPs with UNHCR makes sense because it is the agency with the longest track record, it is the best of the UN humanitarian organizations, and it has the infrastructure. What he doesn’t address is the very specific legal protection mandate of UNHCR, and what might even be a conflict of interest between its work with refugees and possible work for internally displaced persons." Frelick also cautioned that governments might advocate helping the internally displaced people of another country out of self-interest in preventing would-be refugees from seeking protection outside of their own country. Some countries see the creation of an "internal flight alternative" as justification for denial of asylum.

Shep Lowman, Refugees International, remarked that it was surprising that the High Commissioner for Human Rights was not raised as a possible lead agency for internally displaced persons; "If protection is our focus, doesn’t UNHCHR have the best-fitting mandate?" He felt UNHCHR is overlooked because of its current weakness.

Patricia Fagan, Institute for the Study of International Migration, was struck by the category problem expressed by the panel. Fagan felt that IDPs could be seen as an entry-point to broader humanitarian responsiveness. She explained that broad categories of those in need are fine if you are talking about assistance, but stricter definitions are necessary to define those in need of protection.

Susan Martin, Georgetown University, expressed the dilemma in terms of creating the best regimes to deal with both populations (refugees and internally displaced persons) without undermining protection efforts for either. Martin also felt that time should be spent figuring out how to increase capacity to deal with displacement issues on a regional level rather than a headquarters or an in-country approach.

Kathleen Newland suggested that a definition of IDP be used that is identical to the refugee definition except that the ‘outside their country’ element be dropped.

Hiram Ruiz, U.S. Committee for Refugees, seconded Kathleen’s point which he thought would usefully limit the international concern over internally displaced persons to those who could be considered internal refugees.

Rob Kramer, USAID, recommended that Colombia, which lacks a coherent U.N. and U.S. strategy, might be a great test case for a lead agency strategy.

Roger Winter, U.S. Committee for Refugees, commented, "One of the problems that we have had in the humanitarian field for some time is the propensity for diplomats to use the ‘humanitarian fig leaf’ to cover up the fact that they don’t want to deal with the underlying issues." Winter felt that if we get caught up in an assistance model of analysis, it is possible to loose sight of more fundamental issues, like penalizing governments who view certain segments of their population as the enemy.

Alan Kreczko extended an invitation to the audience: "I think we have an opportunity to try to get the system to work better, so keep the input coming to PRM."

Roberta Cohen felt certain that when Holbrooke suggested that UNHCR take over responsibility for internally displaced persons, he was speaking about people who would be considered refugees if they had crossed an international border.

James Kunder implored the audience to freely dissect the legal issues involved but cautioned against slipping into legalism when discussing a population which is often the target of tragic human rights abuses.

Bill Frelick summed up his concerns with a final word: "sovereignty."