28 June 2002
20 June 2002
Ruud Lubbers, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, on how 9/11 made his job tougher
20 June 2002
The Times of India
No Place for the Displaced
As United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers has a mandate to ensure that the world’s refugees are treated fairly and steps taken for their speedy and secure rehabilitation. In an interview with Siddharth Varadarajan, he says he is concerned about the growing intolerance towards refugees in the West:
Though this doesn’t fall under your mandate, are you aware of the terrible condition in which internally displaced persons (IDPs) — victims of communal violence — are living in camps in Gujarat?
I am aware of the situation, and of course we have to ponder over our role as the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Our policy is to protect and assist refugees. As far as IDPs are concerned, we come in only at the request of a government. It is the responsibility of the government itself to assist people when they are in trouble.
But judging from media reports and your own information, do you feel the situation in which they are living is adequate?
I prefer not to comment on that, not because I have a particular criticism or a particular positive observation but because I have no mandate. This is a difficult internal problem, but is in no way related to refugees. We have not, as far as I know, seen these people wanting to flee India. If that were to happen, then they become refugees, and we might get interested.
When internal conflicts cause as much humanitarian disaster as external conflicts, do you feel it is time the UNHCR began to take a more active interest in the situation of IDPs?
Our mandate is for refugees. Where we are available for IDPs is when the causes of internal displacement are the same as for refugees, or the resettlement needs are the same. However, to respect the sovereignty of nations — and to make it absolutely clear that they have their own responsibility — we always insist on a green light from the government concerned.
For example, today, in Afghanistan you have many IDPs and chairman Karzai has asked us to take care of them as well as those refugees who are coming back. In Columbia, we are taking care of IDPs but that’s the other way around — because they are IDPs but if we do not mobilise support for them, they will start to become refugees.
How do you feel India stands in terms of its own domestic protection for refugees?
India has a good record with refugees but the time has come to go for a refugee law. In a democracy, you need act-based law, non-discriminatory rules. And there is an additional reason. Sometimes, there is the risk that one starts to think that amongst refugees there are people leaning towards crime, terrorism. It is good to have a law which clarifies that if there is reasonable suspicion that some people are connected to crime, they are excluded from protection given to refugees. Even if they come from a country where there is persecution or violence, you cannot say everybody is a refugee. The 1951 Convention on Refugees has such an exclusion and the Indian law could include this provision.
Another reason is that if India feels in the future that there is a population imbalance in one region and goes in for a more restrictive policy on economic migrants, it must not exclude genuine refugees. But how do you distinguish refugees from economic migrants? You need a refugee law. Then you have a definition written into law.
After 9/11, is there growing intolerance in the West towards refugees?
Yes, it’s been a lot of work for us to explain country by country that a good refugee law based on the 1951 Convention excludes criminals and terrorists. The UNHCR is not there to tell governments to accept as many people as possible; we say, organise it well, screen people. This is one element. But the problem didn’t start with 9/11. Globalisation has had a sort of rebound effect. Countries started to say, ‘We have our own identity, we need to exclude foreigners, people of other religions’. Now, 9/11 gives a rationalisation, as it were, as if what happened is a consequence of all the terrorists who had managed to come in. But none of those terrorists came to the US as a refugee.
Are you worried that US military plans such as their desire to attack Iraq will produce more refugees?
Iraqi refugees are primarily a product of the internal situation there, the nature of the regime. But the refugee problem will increase in relation to American military action. We have an interest in the regime changing to the extent it does not produce refugees — and in the international community finding solutions to master the Iraqi problem without military intervention, which would produce new flows of refugees.
Do you think it is time to look more openly at the concept of economic refugees?
Has the time come to broaden the concept of asylum? No. Should we be more realistic about immigration, more open? Yes. But it is still useful to distinguish between the two. Managed immigration is good. I will say that there are good reasons to accept migrants, especially in greying countries. But refugees are victims of violence and persecution. They have to be treated as a different category.
The Times of India
No Place for the Displaced
Interview with Ruud Rubbers, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees
As United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers has a mandate to ensure that the world’s refugees are treated fairly and steps taken for their speedy and secure rehabilitation. In an interview with Siddharth Varadarajan, he says he is concerned about the growing intolerance towards refugees in the West:
Though this doesn’t fall under your mandate, are you aware of the terrible condition in which internally displaced persons (IDPs) — victims of communal violence — are living in camps in Gujarat?
I am aware of the situation, and of course we have to ponder over our role as the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Our policy is to protect and assist refugees. As far as IDPs are concerned, we come in only at the request of a government. It is the responsibility of the government itself to assist people when they are in trouble.
But judging from media reports and your own information, do you feel the situation in which they are living is adequate?
I prefer not to comment on that, not because I have a particular criticism or a particular positive observation but because I have no mandate. This is a difficult internal problem, but is in no way related to refugees. We have not, as far as I know, seen these people wanting to flee India. If that were to happen, then they become refugees, and we might get interested.
When internal conflicts cause as much humanitarian disaster as external conflicts, do you feel it is time the UNHCR began to take a more active interest in the situation of IDPs?
Our mandate is for refugees. Where we are available for IDPs is when the causes of internal displacement are the same as for refugees, or the resettlement needs are the same. However, to respect the sovereignty of nations — and to make it absolutely clear that they have their own responsibility — we always insist on a green light from the government concerned.
For example, today, in Afghanistan you have many IDPs and chairman Karzai has asked us to take care of them as well as those refugees who are coming back. In Columbia, we are taking care of IDPs but that’s the other way around — because they are IDPs but if we do not mobilise support for them, they will start to become refugees.
How do you feel India stands in terms of its own domestic protection for refugees?
India has a good record with refugees but the time has come to go for a refugee law. In a democracy, you need act-based law, non-discriminatory rules. And there is an additional reason. Sometimes, there is the risk that one starts to think that amongst refugees there are people leaning towards crime, terrorism. It is good to have a law which clarifies that if there is reasonable suspicion that some people are connected to crime, they are excluded from protection given to refugees. Even if they come from a country where there is persecution or violence, you cannot say everybody is a refugee. The 1951 Convention on Refugees has such an exclusion and the Indian law could include this provision.
Another reason is that if India feels in the future that there is a population imbalance in one region and goes in for a more restrictive policy on economic migrants, it must not exclude genuine refugees. But how do you distinguish refugees from economic migrants? You need a refugee law. Then you have a definition written into law.
After 9/11, is there growing intolerance in the West towards refugees?
Yes, it’s been a lot of work for us to explain country by country that a good refugee law based on the 1951 Convention excludes criminals and terrorists. The UNHCR is not there to tell governments to accept as many people as possible; we say, organise it well, screen people. This is one element. But the problem didn’t start with 9/11. Globalisation has had a sort of rebound effect. Countries started to say, ‘We have our own identity, we need to exclude foreigners, people of other religions’. Now, 9/11 gives a rationalisation, as it were, as if what happened is a consequence of all the terrorists who had managed to come in. But none of those terrorists came to the US as a refugee.
Are you worried that US military plans such as their desire to attack Iraq will produce more refugees?
Iraqi refugees are primarily a product of the internal situation there, the nature of the regime. But the refugee problem will increase in relation to American military action. We have an interest in the regime changing to the extent it does not produce refugees — and in the international community finding solutions to master the Iraqi problem without military intervention, which would produce new flows of refugees.
Do you think it is time to look more openly at the concept of economic refugees?
Has the time come to broaden the concept of asylum? No. Should we be more realistic about immigration, more open? Yes. But it is still useful to distinguish between the two. Managed immigration is good. I will say that there are good reasons to accept migrants, especially in greying countries. But refugees are victims of violence and persecution. They have to be treated as a different category.
11 June 2002
Rumsfeld has special forces offer for India
11 June 2002
The Times of India
Rumsfeld has special forces offer for India
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: As part of a plan to de-escalate tension between India and Pakistan along the Line of Control, Washington is considering a proposal for the ambit of Indo-US military cooperation to be expanded to allow US special forces to operate in Jammu and Kashmir.
According to sources, officials in both countries have been seriously evaluating this proposal, which is likely to be raised formally — along with other suggestions — when US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld meets Indian leaders here on Wednesday morning.
If at all this radical proposal goes through, any American military deployment is likely to be fairly modest and will officially be described by both India and the US as part of the continuing war against al-Qaeda. There will be no reference to the LoC or to the need to verify on the ground the extent of Pakistani compliance with General Musharraf’s assurances on ending cross-border infiltration.
However, the aim of the deployment would indeed be to monitor the LoC. As far as the Pakistani side of the LoC is concerned, the US is reported to be considering air-borne monitors tasked explicitly with observing cross-border movement.
The US proposal to India comes in the wake of Prime Minister Vajpayee rejecting the idea of "international monitors" for the LoC and Pakistan reacting coolly to the Indian proposal for joint Indo-Pak patrolling.
While both sides are evaluating the legal implications of US forces operating alongside the Indian military such as rules of engagement, immunity and sovereignty issues, officials in Washington and Delhi have concluded that it is only the war on al-Qaeda that can provide a politically safe rationale for the Vajpayee government to allow American troops in, given India’s traditional aversion to outside mediation in Kashmir.
It is possible that recent official Indian claims of al-Qaeda being active in the Valley and of "Arab-looking terrorists" being shot dead by the security forces in J&K are part of the government’s efforts to prepare the ground for "joint Indo-US military action".
In the days and weeks to come, say the sources, India could very well declare, "al-Qaeda and all the other bad guys are operating here and we invite the US to help us deal with them". A section of Indian officials has already started speaking of the possibility of the Kaluchak massacre and some other recent incidents in Jammu & Kashmir as being the handiwork of al-Qaeda.
The Times of India
Rumsfeld has special forces offer for India
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: As part of a plan to de-escalate tension between India and Pakistan along the Line of Control, Washington is considering a proposal for the ambit of Indo-US military cooperation to be expanded to allow US special forces to operate in Jammu and Kashmir.
According to sources, officials in both countries have been seriously evaluating this proposal, which is likely to be raised formally — along with other suggestions — when US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld meets Indian leaders here on Wednesday morning.
If at all this radical proposal goes through, any American military deployment is likely to be fairly modest and will officially be described by both India and the US as part of the continuing war against al-Qaeda. There will be no reference to the LoC or to the need to verify on the ground the extent of Pakistani compliance with General Musharraf’s assurances on ending cross-border infiltration.
However, the aim of the deployment would indeed be to monitor the LoC. As far as the Pakistani side of the LoC is concerned, the US is reported to be considering air-borne monitors tasked explicitly with observing cross-border movement.
The US proposal to India comes in the wake of Prime Minister Vajpayee rejecting the idea of "international monitors" for the LoC and Pakistan reacting coolly to the Indian proposal for joint Indo-Pak patrolling.
While both sides are evaluating the legal implications of US forces operating alongside the Indian military such as rules of engagement, immunity and sovereignty issues, officials in Washington and Delhi have concluded that it is only the war on al-Qaeda that can provide a politically safe rationale for the Vajpayee government to allow American troops in, given India’s traditional aversion to outside mediation in Kashmir.
It is possible that recent official Indian claims of al-Qaeda being active in the Valley and of "Arab-looking terrorists" being shot dead by the security forces in J&K are part of the government’s efforts to prepare the ground for "joint Indo-US military action".
In the days and weeks to come, say the sources, India could very well declare, "al-Qaeda and all the other bad guys are operating here and we invite the US to help us deal with them". A section of Indian officials has already started speaking of the possibility of the Kaluchak massacre and some other recent incidents in Jammu & Kashmir as being the handiwork of al-Qaeda.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
