Agenda

Third Committee

Internally Displaced Persons

by
Raymond Fraters and Patricia Peña-Sam

Specialists estimate that between 20-30 million people have been driven from their homes by violence or catastrophe worldwide. They suffer from a lack of essentials such as shelter, clothing, nourishment, adequate health care, and security. Because these transient populations remain within the borders of their home states they are termed internally displaced persons (IDPs). This is an important distinction from refugee status. Many face the imminent threat of persecution, execution, or worse, yet so far the UN has been largely unable to provide assistance to such parties. While suffering from the same wants as refugees, IDPs currently enjoy fewer protections and certainly much less public acknowledgment. The status of IDPs is currently being addressed by the UN and concerned non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The plight of the world’s IDPs is inexorably linked to that of refugees, and further complicated by issues of state sovereignty and international humanitarian law.

Floods, such as those in the 1990s in China, earthquakes (Indonesia), volcanoes (Philippine Islands), and other man-made disasters and natural phenomena cause demographic shifts, and frequently herald large scale international humanitarian programs. Sovereign governments are usually very receptive to outside assistance, and often turn to the UN for help. But states are more hesitant, unable, or even unwilling to request intervention in cases of civil or intra-state conflict. Afghanistan, Chechnya, Colombia, Georgia, Mozambique, East Timor, and Sri Lanka are some but not all of the states in which citizens are currently persecuted and/or driven from their homes by armed conflict. Of course, whenever there is war civilian populations are subjected to deprivation, relocation, and human rights violations.

Whether from conflict or disaster, IDPs or refugees, migrant populations require and are entitled to the same things. Concerned with much more than food, shelter, and clothing most UN humanitarian programs focus on issues such as health, education, and self-sufficiency. Vaunted programs such as Lifeline Sudan and The International Civilian Mission in Haiti (MICIVIH) take a holistic approach to humanitarian and human rights assistance. From subsidizing small-scale family business to monitoring national elections the UN attempts to assure a minimum level of comfort and stability to people around the world.

When a sovereign government is unwilling, unable, or otherwise indisposed to comply with its obligation to protect and aid its citizenry, such persons retain the right to seek a better place even if it means leaving their country. When displaced people cross international borders a host of NGOs and UN bodies spring into action, as was the case recently in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The act of transiting national frontiers to avoid strife or want classifies migrant civilians as refugees.

The General Assembly created the office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in response to the needs of such people. Sovereign governments are understandably quite accepting of international efforts to alleviate the impact of an influx from neighboring states. Whether seeking asylum, or waiting for conditions to improve at home, refugees receive relatively expedient and sustained assistance in reassembling their lives.

More often, however, such displaced persons stay within their home states’ borders, due either to choice or by circumstance. These internally displaced persons are much more numerous, and much harder to render assistance to then are refugees. They have long been overlooked by UN nomenclature. Regional violence and armed civil conflicts have risen markedly through the 1990s. Such internal conflicts effect large segments of sovereign populations and account for the majority of displaced persons worldwide. The situations in East Timor, Kosovo, and Chechnya have been globally publicized yet represent only a small portion of those expelled from their homes by armed conflict, persecution, or other human rights abuses.

Recently, attention has turned towards Colombia, where paramilitary factions have been blamed for terrorizing civilians (voters). Severe civil rights abuses, attributed to government and anti-government forces alike, and the constant ebb and flow of armed conflict have prompted hundreds of thousands of native Colombians to relocate time and again. Often, such IDPs must flee at a moments notice, sometimes without as much as proper identification. This type of situation is not unique to Colombia. The Organization for African Unity’s estimate places the number of IDPs in Africa alone at 20 million. In Tajikistan, only 10% of the displaced population crossed state borders to become refugees. Worldwide, ethnic, religious, and political violence displaces about three times as many people within sovereign borders as it forces to seek refuge without.

Only under the most extreme conditions has UN aid been given without the consent of the sovereign government, as was the case with assistance to the Kurdish population in Iraq. Especially in cases of armed conflict, UN assistance to IDPs is seen as unnecessary or undesirable by some member states. In places like Mozambique and the former Yugoslavia IDPs are often eclipsed by refugees, although they routinely share the same UN auspices. Many sovereign states that have “thrown off the colonial yoke” are understandably hesitant about allowing an international body to regulate the internal governance of their populations. Other states have rejected the proffered assistance of the international community as thousands of their own people were systematically slaughtered. Still others are themselves responsible for the displacement of large segments of their own populations.

Even in cases where UN assistance is welcome, providing succor to IDPs is eminently more difficult than helping refugees. The high incidence of conflict involved in IDP scenarios creates an uncertain security environment both for the IDPs and for humanitarian workers. In situations of armed conflict, control of IDPs is sometimes contested by rival factions. In order to make assistance available to all those displaced by conflict, UN missions must negotiate with government and/or armed factions alike to assure access to people in need. Further, doubts about the impartiality of UN programs meant to assist IDPs places humanitarian missions at risk of suspension or attack.

Many of the same problems encountered in assisting refugees are faced in aiding IDPs, but there are additional obstacles. Unlike refugees, IDPs often do not to remain in a given locale for long periods of time. Not having fled the state in conflict, IDPs must often move as the areas of battle shift. Rival factions often accuse each other of using refugee camps for safe rest areas or as a haven from reprisals for the families of combatants. Such political problems extend to efforts to assist IDPs as well. Also, those threatened by gross human rights violations (i.e. cases of ethnic or religious persecution) may be purposely hard to locate and identify. These types of conditions place additional demands on the incredibly complex logistics of international humanitarianism.

While the rights of every person in the world are recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN charter, numerous resolutions, conventions, and international law embodied through the not-yet functional International Criminal Court Rome Statute, no specific legal protections exist for IDPs. The brunt of assistance programs for IDPs has been borne by independently mandated NGOs such as the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), World Vision International, Save the Children and CARE. Such agencies can sometimes slip through the political cracks inherent in situations of armed conflict. UN affiliated missions are much more restricted.

The past decade has seen an expansion of existing UN refugee and humanitarian mandates that was designed to include IDPs. Programs are enhanced on a case-by-case basis and only after a lengthy consideration and assessment phase. UN missions must be ordered by the Secretary-General, the General Assembly, or another appropriate UN policymaking office, as per GA/48/116, which outlines the criteria for UN intervention with IDPs. Such missions are often handled through UNHCR and coordinated through the offices of the UN’s Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC). Due to lack of adequate funding and its priority on preserving its original mandate regarding refugees, UNHCR is meticulous in its adherence to the complexities of international humanitarian law. It is estimated that UN programs currently serve merely a quarter of IDPs worldwide.

In 1992, Sudanese national Francis M. Deng was appointed Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Internally Displaced Persons. He has since urged greater attention to the plight of IDPs, and published a 30-page pamphlet, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. In it he has re-emphasized existing international law and its applicability to IDPs. Severely under-financed, Mr. Deng’s office serves mainly to advocate for IDPs and to plan, monitor, and delegate programs and resources meant to alleviate the suffering of IDPs. With little operational capability, the Special Representative fosters co-operation between UNHCR, the ERC, available UN agencies, and concerned NGOs on an ad hoc basis. It has been conceded that as long as the current UN budgetary crisis continues there is little hope for the creation of a more substantial UN office devoted to IDPs.

Involvement of UNHCR with IDPs brings much-needed infrastructure and experience to their cause. The main goal of UNHCR is to return refugees to their states of origin within a sustainable and favorable framework. This involves resettlement and other social and institutional rebuilding measures with the returnees having much the same needs as IDPs. In effect, returnees are IDPs once they are repatriated to their devastated homes. It is up to the Special Representative for IDPs to normalize this process and ensure that IDPs who are not returnees get equal assistance and protection.

It has been suggested that instead of reacting to such crises, the UN should be more active in alleviating the tensions that lead to armed conflict, thereby reducing the number of refugees, IDPs and other victims of human rights abuses. As noted above, however, there are numerous obstacles to unwanted, unasked for UN intervention. Peacemaking and peacekeeping are among the highest priorities of the UN but are often restricted by the principle of national sovereignty, as per the UN charter. Only in the most extreme conditions can the Security Council mandate programs without the consent of the state in question. Such conditions include a lack of a recognized, sovereign government or widespread abuses of human rights. Even then UN programs must operate within humanitarian guidelines as noted in the 1977 Protocols of the Geneva Convention, UN charter, GA resolutions, etc. Such non-requested interventions can be a dangerous threat to UN credibility, impartiality, and support.

Although hampered by political, budgetary, and operational considerations, the UN must maintain and expand its capability to react to and assist IDPs as the need arises. A greater emphasis within its current means must be placed on recognition of and programs for IDPs. The humanitarian responsibility for these people currently falls only upon the state and as has been shown large numbers are suffering deprivation of necessities and abuses of internationally recognized human rights.

There are additional obstacles to assisting many such groups, not least of which is the recognition of their existence, as a class, and of their basic needs. Although they require much the same assistance as refugees, a well recognized and responded to group, IDPs’ uncertain status (viz. a viz.: humanitarian aid) presently means that they must frequently suffer until their situations reach international proportions. As the UN turns more attention towards IDPs, it is being discovered that the problem is bigger than expected. The events that displace states’ populations continue to increase. New approaches must be sought to gain access and trust for UN programs, and to alleviate the plight of the internally displaced.

Questions for further consideration:

1) What kinds of assistance should be provided for IDPs?
2) How can the tension between the need for humanitarian assistance and national sovereignty be alleviated? 
3) Should the Guidelines regarding IDPs be given a more official status through a resolution or other venue? 
4) Who should be responsible for assisting IDPs: A strengthened office of the Special Representative? A new organization? An existing organization?
5) How would such an organization or expanded office be funded? What would its mandate be?