MADRID June 24, 2006 - Durable Solutions for Refugees Presentation of John K. Bingham, Head of Advocacy, International Catholic Migration Commission to the II World Social Forum on Migration.

Introduction

A word about me. For eight years, I worked with Cambodian refugees, first teaching human rights and criminal justice in a camp of 240,000 on the Thai-Cambodian border and, after repatriation, teaching international business law at the university in Phnom Penh. I then worked another eight years with immigrants and refugees in New York, heading a program that worked with large numbers of people and families actively seeking asylum in the US courts or arriving as refugees already approved overseas for resettlement in America.

I am an immigrant to France and a migrant worker, crossing the border to Switzerland every day, where I am the Head of advocacy for the International Catholic Migration Commission.

ICMC works with refugees and asylum seekers in 6 ways. Directly, ICMC is active in:

Refugee identification and processing: For over a decade. ICMC has operated a large "Overseas Processing Entity" in Turkey, which processes thousands of refugees from North Africa, Mideast and Southwest Asia regions every year for resettlement principally in the United States, with large numbers of Iranian refugees in recent years. These refugees, for whom resettlement is the only durable solution available, are referred by UNHCR based on criteria established in the UNHCR Resettlement Handbook. ICMC has also organized rapid, one-time programs to process for resettlement refugees in urgent need of a durable solution, such as a recent program the Australian government supported for resettlement of Liberian refugees languishing in devastating circumstances in refugee camps in Guinea and Ghana. Most of these refugees were women head of households and their children. Deployment of experts to augment UNHCR staff in their resettlement offices worldwide, with some 60 ICMC staff in 30 UNHCR offices worldwide. These experts, 20% of them Europeans, offer expertise in several areas, including determining refugee status, reaching "best interest determinations" for refugee children, and assessing psycho-social needs that need to be considered. Voluntary return programs that have assisted refugees and displaced persons in considering and completing their return home, most recently in the Balkans and Indonesia. ICMC has assisted refugees in finding adequate housing, jobs, schooling and medical care, with particular emphasis on the need for special attention and solutions for the most vulnerable returnees. Emergency humanitarian assistance to refugees and IDPs in conflict and post-conflict situations and after natural disasters, such as after the tsunami in Indonesia and the earthquake in Pakistan. Advocacy, from our offices in Geneva, Washington and Brussels, primarily at international and regional levels, including training and capacity building of government and non-government agencies as well as policy work. More indirectly, ICMC is also active with refugees and asylum seekers: through 172 Church-related member organizations working in camps, urban settings, and detention centers, and in national and local asylum and refugee settlement programs, like the one with which I worked.

It is important to note that our Church remembers that Jesus himself was a refugee, so our motivation is a matter of faith and identity as well as heart and humanity.

My talk will have 4 parts to it:

Part 1: The "real" importance of access to asylum and resettlement
Part 2: 6 current threats to that access
Part 3: 6 signs of hope for that access in the world today, and
Part 4: The case for greater resettlement of refugees in Europe

Part 1: The "real" importance of access to asylum and resettlement

Our topic here is "Threats to Access" to asylum and resettlement. Let's start right there with the importance of access to those procedures; the need for access. Because it is difficult not only to get legal access, that is, to participate in asylum and resettlement processes, but also to physically get a chance at access. And the lengths to which people go just to get physical access to asylum and resettlement processes tells us how important that access truly is for them. That is where we must begin, and center, and test and turbocharge our attention in these matters.

3 quick stories.

I was working in the Cambodian refugee camp, managing security in the camp for the UN one Sunday, when we heard an explosion just outside the camp. About 20 minutes later, I got a radio call from one of the camp hospitals saying that a woman had stepped on a land mine trying to get into the camp with her son and sister. At the hospital, I stood holding her son's hand as the medics tried to clean up what was left of her leg, with the son just looking at her and at me, with eyes filled with incomprehension and pain.This story tells what human beings will risk just to try for the possibility of asylum or resettlement, and how important access is to them.

The second story was presented in a report this week to governments, the UNHCR and NGOs involved in resettlement at the annual tripartite consultation on resettlement in Geneva. A doctor reports:

"I recently had a large family from Ethiopia come in for testing. There were probably about eight or nine of them, and only the mother turned out to be HIV-positive. I called her back in to tell her about the result and asked her to come back for reconfirmation testing the following week. About a month later, after I'd been calling quite a while, one of the other family members told me that she'd killed herself after she found out [she was HIV-positive]. They said that she wanted them to be able to go [to the country of resettlement], and they couldn't since she was HIV-positive. I'm not sure about the requirements, but I think her visa would still have been granted [despite her HIV status]. There was no reason for her to die, but these patients will do anything to get their families there [to the resettlement country]."

This story tells what human beings will not only risk, but sacrifice,just trying to get access to resettlement; how incredibly important that access is to them.

We all know the stories. And the tough thing is: they're not just "stories." They're real human beings.

The third however, is a story of the kind of resistance to access that refugees and asylum seekers can face from governments.

This is also from this week's annual tripartite consultation in Geneva, just a few hours before I got on the plane for this conference. One of the NGOs in Australia told of a new law being proposed by their government there: to process refugee claims on an island off Australia, not belonging to Australia, for anyone picked up on a boat or on the shore who asked for refugee status. However, even the few actually given refugee status would still not be allowed to enter Australia. The idea was that the refugees would either be offered to other countries for resettlement or even traded to countries for refugees that the other countries did not want. Someone sarcastically suggested that submarines might be the next step of logic and efficiency for such thinking on refugee processing and invisibility...That's resistance alright.

Now, "6 and 6":

Part 2: 6 current "threats" to access to asylum and refugee resettlement.

The first three threats are very closely related, and probably all too common in too many parts of the world.The first big threat is the bad habits of too many political leaders and the media.This includes in particular:

Populism, which the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres cited as the number one problem regarding world migration today. There is an alarming growth in political and campaign rhetoric-and media reporting-that feeds and feeds on xenophobia, racism and the fear of the new or unknown.
Fixation and overrepresentation of the worst problems, stories and photos.Forgotten crises. For example, who remembers Northern Uganda? When was the last time you read or heard news of the 2 million displaced there, many for over 10 years now?

The second threat is ever-hardening laws and systems (national and regional)

Laws and systems have always been unequal to begin with, but all are getting tougher and tougher against those seeking asylum or resettlement. How many locks do we need on the door? One nation after another is debating or legislating ever-more selective immigration ("l'immigration choisie") while restricting and reducing its asylum or resettlement processes.

In fact, the number of asylum applications alone has dropped more than 40% in just the past 5 years! This raises the question-which is neither asked often enough nor ever answered: why do so many political leaders and the media continue to talk as if asylum seekers are a rising flood and crisis? Similarly, global refugee numbers are at their lowest since 1980.

Perhaps as CEAR President Ignazio Díaz de Aguilar said a few days ago , indeed "legal walls are more subtle and efficient" than walls of concrete and barbed wire.Perhaps it is also important to remind governments that under international legal agreements as well as basic moral and human standards , they need to provide protection to asylum seekers and refugees, not be protected from them...

The third threat is the increase in "fortress" mentalities-the three "d's":

Unwarranted demonizing of asylum seekers and refugees, for example, recent US legislation barring consideration of asylum seekers or refugees who may have been even unwittingly associated or forced participants in groups considered dangerous or terrorist, with the result that only 40,000 refugees are expected to be processed for resettlement in the US this year even though the US president expressly authorized 70,000;
An excessive "defense reflex", for example, the harsh interdiction of migrants trying to arrive in Ceuta, Mellila, Florida and Australia; and
Disproportionate security, including the militarization of borders and points of entry, the externalization of processing (as in the proposal of the Australian government), and the development of "outer rings," enlisting neighboring countries as agents of migration control.
The fourth threat is a lack of consensus on important gender issues:

Just 2 examples:

UNHCR right now is struggling with opposition among certain UN member states to adopting a Conclusion on Women and Girls at Risk designed to clarify and make uniform standards for protection of those refugees. Though the draft conclusion has been in process for quite some time and had seemed to be achieving broad support among member states, recent disagreements over harmful traditional practices such as genital mutilation and forced marriage may derail its adoption this year and its consideration beyond. The failure to achieve a conclusion of any kind would be a missed opportunity for the over 50% of refugees who are women and girls. A lack of consistency in processing female refugees. For example, of the millions of Afghans refugees that continue to live in Pakistan and other countries, UNHCR projected only 300 referrals of women at risk this year, and actually referred for resettlement only 100.
The fifth threat, to refugee resettlement specifically, is a lack of UNHCR capacity.

There are two aspects to this. On UNHCR's list of the five top challenges just presented at this week's Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement in Geneva, lack of capacity was listed as # 1... and # 2... AND # 3!!!

This is coming after an already difficult year-which itself was predicted by UNHCR at last year's Tripartite Consultations when, for example, they warned:

"The figures in the Projected Global Resettlement Needs for 2006 show an increase from 2005 to 48,000 plus, but UNHCR only has the capacity to address the resettlement needs of 34,000 refugees. [...] In Africa for instance, 14 out of 31 country offices do not have the sufficient human resources and capacity to deliver the projected needs. [...] In the Americas region, three countries will not be able to meet the projected needs unless additional resources are found. Although the absolute number is less than 600 people, the deficit represents 30 percent."

Given UNHCR's current budget crisis, with 20-40% budget cuts across the board and as much as 60% reductions in certain departments, the lack of capacity that was already bad may only be expected to get worse.

The sixth and last threat is actually 2 false battles that we non-government organizations (NGOs) have to beware.

False battle # 1: Asylum (processing where the applicant is already inside the country) versus refugee resettlement (processing where the applicant is outside the country). It is easy for NGOs to get distracted and divided into opposing camps on this, especially NGOs who work exclusively with and are passionate about just one or the other of the two issues. But we must keep our eyes on the prize, which is protection. And both asylum and refugee resettlement processes are about protection. So it is not either-or, it is both that are needed. One should keep in mind that those that engage in the long travel to Europe to seek asylum once there are often the strongest and the fittest. The most vulnerable refugees, including largely women and children, are less able to undertake such hazardous journeys and are dependent on durable solutions such as resettlement from abroad.

Above all, we must be very careful that WE don't become the ones locking the doors against people who are knocking begging for protection. The problem is not whether they are knocking on the inside or the outside: the problem is the locked door.

False battle # 2: Asylum seekers and refugees versus more "useful" economic migrants. We have to watch that as the world gets increasingly excited about the "positives" of migrants and "skilled labor" and remittances and supporting "graying societies," a utilitarian approach and priority does not smother the urgency-and international obligations-to offer protection.

Part 3: 6 "signs of hope" for access to asylum and refugee resettlement.

As always with "hope," some of these signs of hope are like small lights in areas of darkness. Some are the bright side of a tough story-for example:

The first good sign is that the numbers of refugees and asylum seekers are indeed way down. While as already mentioned, this is in part a result of a toughening of laws and processes that force people either to migrate by irregular routes or to stay within their own borders as internally (i.e., non-refugee) displaced, in truth the numbers are also down substantially because over the past few years millions of refugees have actually gone home, to Afghanistan in particular. And that is clear, objective good news-and a sign of great hope.

The second good sign is that more countries worldwide are involved or expressing new interest in refugee resettlement, especially following the "Mexico Plan of Action" in 2004. Whereas some of this engagement is slow, several countries, including Chile and Uruguay, have recently joined the traditional resettlement countries. At the same time, only eight countries in all of Europe (six members of the European Union) participate in refugee resettlement , accepting about 5,000 of the 90,000 refugees that resettle each year. However, recent steps offer hope for greater resettlement: a "1000 more" campaign launched this year to increase Denmark's current annual quota of 500 (though the Danish government has not agreed), a proposal for Italy to engage in a resettlement program, and a commitment by Spain to accept 500 refugees from outside the country for resettlement in addition to those granted asylum in processes inside the country.

The third good sign, like several others, brightens an area of worry described earlier: there is ongoing (and big!) improvement in at least certain gender-related areas, even if there is not necessarily international consensus in every case. This is especially true with respect to victims of human trafficking and of gender-based violence. Laws, procedural decision-making and services that support these victims are increasing dramatically, including for example a case this past year in Spain that granted asylum to a woman from Iran entirely on the basis of 20 years of domestic violence.

The fourth good sign is what I call (like the song) the "Don't worry be happy!" mood-swing on global migration, embodied in the report of the Global Commission on International Migration and the various conferences and reports prepared by the World Bank and a number of UN and other international organizations in the lead-up to the UN high level dialogue on international migration and development in September 2006.

The fifth good sign is the increase in trainings worldwide, like these, both of non-government organizations and government entities, to develop or improve standards for asylum and refugee processing. For example, last month ICMC organized a nearly three week training for that purpose of Ministry of Interior officials in Turkey, as we have for the past three years. In one of the trainings, a border guard supervisor asked a question about the "10-day rule" under Turkey's law that said people lost their right to an asylum process if they did not request it within 10 days of crossing the border. To the surprise of many of the participants, the boss, who was also in the training, announced that the rule no longer applied! At another of the trainings, there was an active and positive discussion of the role of NGOs in partnering with the government for better response to refugees and asylum seekers. These training experiences are great signs of hope, visible in many countries and settings.

That leads directly to the sixth and last sign of hope I'd mention, what I'd call the "frog in the cooking pot" principle: the increasing role and influence of civil society in matters of asylum and refugee processing. You may be familiar with the story of the frog in the pot, where the frog doesn't know he's being cooked even as the heat goes up higher and higher. That's the way it is in this work worldwide: if the frog in our work is bad policies, practices and proposals regarding asylum and refugees, we need only to keep the heat on. And maybe we won't know it or even sense it happening, but we will win better protection and access for asylum seekers and refugees by simply keeping the heat on.

Part 4: The case for greater resettlement of refugees in Europe, that is, adding external resettlement processing without reducing or externalizing internal asylum processing.

We have to make this case, to which ICMC and our affiliate ICMC-Europe in Brussels are firmly and actively committed. Having begun our work over 50 years ago with refugees in Europe, and based on experience in the decades since helping to process and resettle millions of refugees in many parts of the world, we see 10 reasons for Europe to further develop its resettlement of refugees :

Resettlement creates opportunities for protection, especially in protracted situations (also called "refugee warehousing.")
Resettlement programming offers possibilities for solidarity and burden-sharing among nations that otherwise are too often left in two separate groups: one, small group of nations, typically with limited resources, that receive and host large numbers of refugees, and the rest who don't.
Resettlement opens ordered access for refugees to Europe at a time when huge efforts and resources are being directed to restrict access.
Formal resettlement processes allow for high-quality reception and integration programs.
Resettlement complements existing national asylum systems.
Like the last two above, these next five are quite practical, but call for great care, prudential judgement, and evaluation with respect to how related policies and programs are developed and actually implemented.

Formal resettlement processes offer governments a choice in which refugees come to the country, how many and when. While this can be problematic and improperly manipulated , the experience of many of the traditional resettlement countries is that among other things, it helps to promote the integration interest of the refugee as well as the state. For example, it permits a constructive matching of culture and language to the native demographic or to other immigrant communities already there.
Formal resettlement processes offer genuine alternatives to irregular migration, human smuggling and trafficking (as well as rescue) to the several hundred or thousand that might be resettled each year.
Strategic use of resettlement opens up other possibilities for governments and regional or international objectives. For example, moving and resettling a refugee population:is often a final step to peace in a conflict;
"makes room" for other refugees in greater need (e.g., the resettlement of Vietnamese and Cambodians from Thailand made it more possible for Thailand to host refugees from Burma)even reduces spontaneous arrivals of refugees and asylum-seekers by demonstrating a formal and ordered process as an alternative. Flexible use of resettlement allows governments and the world to respond to specific situations and crises, a point noted favourably in a European Commission Communication dated June 4, 2004. Finally, the public is generally more accepting of refugees already recognized as having credible protection needs, e.g., through formal resettlement processes. With proper respect to privacy and dignity, organized resettlement programs also tend to offer easier public relations and media opportunities.

Conclusion

It all comes down to three simple propositions. Human beings flee persecution in their country of origin and need protection. Some seek another country's protection by applying for refugee status inside that country (in asylum processes), some by applying from outside (for refugee resettlement), usually from a region in which they have remained a refugee for many years, without any hope of constructing a future for themselves or their children.

Under international laws and agreements, and for the sake of humanity, nations in Europe and around the world are called to answer that knock on their door, whether it comes from inside or outside.NGOs must promote that response, and partner in it.Refugees and asylum seekers like the Cambodian in the minefield and the Ethiopian mother are risking their hopes, their children, and their lives for that response.