Global Refugee Regime Seems to Be Veering

Global Refugee Regime Seems to Be Veering Away From Traditional Rules

As the threat of war looms large, the situation of those displaced because of violence and fights is becoming the focal point of talks amidst humanitarian groups. Many wrote about the situation in Afghanistan. The last many years have brought about quite a lot of enormous "refugee movements and humanitarian emergencies." More than 50 million people have been displaced by conflicts, war and other disasters and things may get worse.

The many organizations that offer aid to those who are forced to flee from their native lands are trying their level best to reach out and help each one of them. But nations all over seem to be hesitant to take in refugees who do not have any place else to go. What is the solution? How can humanitarian agencies cope with the increasing number of refugees? A book report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees puts forth this query. (1)

The report points out changes that have happened since the Cold War and analyzes the roots of the present humanitarian problem as well as changes in the manner in which agencies act to resolve such problems. Though it is essential to "respect the right of asylum," more attention should be paid to handle refugee problems "at their source," that is, by creating a non-threatening environment and by helping the affected regions gain back normalcy so that those who have been coerced into leaving their homes can be brought back. For this to be made possible, it is essential to get together and plan for joint "international action" to see that none violates human rights, avoid and help prevent "armed conflicts," encourage progress and cope with "migratory movements." (1)

The book analyses the connection between these various issues that are linked to refugees and also has information, by way of "a comprehensive set of statistical tables, graphs and maps, describing the state of the world's refugees." It also employs case studies to study conditions of refugees across the world and to gather more knowledge about innovative methods used in managing refugee movements that are now being employed by aid agencies. The book, titled The State of the World's Refugees 1995, gives comprehensive information on problems faced by refugees and the policies followed by nations and agencies in this era, that is, the "post-Cold War period." It can be termed to be an important source of knowledge and information on the subject of refugees - a topic that has gathered high priority in the agenda of international organizations. (1)

Literature Review

The Price of Indifference, by Arthur Helton, is one of the latest books to have hit the market and it concerns original information about one of the most important problems faced by the world today that is, the subject of refugees. Helton gives an extremely comprehensible picture of "humanitarian action" over the last ten years and concentrates more on "forced displacement" and the role enacted by the UN in solving this problem. The book poses a number of queries and also gives many suggestions. It is a good addition to the ongoing argument on "humanitarian action," and will be of great use to those concerned in coping with "humanitarian challenges better in the future."

Helton's book throws light on the plight of the many refugees and shall prove helpful in guiding those who are interested in knowing more about how the world may be rendered stable and safe for the many million refugees and "displaced people." (2)

Helton stresses through this book, that all the nations around the world are capable of accomplishing a better task with people who have been displaced due to strife. The book also enumerates the importance of the issue of refugees as far a foreign policy is concerned. Though it is more than often not given much thought to by those at the helm, the problem of refugees is connected to ever nation in the world and is, thus, an international issue. The Security Council, NATO and other agencies have been prompted to intervene in the significantly huge problem of "forced displacement" that has come up as one of the major issues in politics in the past ten years.

The Price of Indifference assesses facts gleaned from these incidents so that any further events related to forced displacements are handled effectively in future. The book has an elaborate analysis of policies related to refugees taken in the past and is also helpful with policy steps the various agencies and governments could take regarding future problems. The recommendations stress on "preventive comprehensive measures" and provide a vast range of information on those displaced, prevention of armed or social conflicts within regions, policies related to dealing with humanitarian emergencies and international organizations and law.

The material used in the book relates to historical facts and the text analyzes information with "first hand observations." The suggestions provided are many. According to Princeton N. Lyman, Executive Director, Global Interdependence Initiative, The Aspen Institute, and Former Director, Bureau for Refugee Programs, U.S. Department of State "It is a policy-oriented text which deserves careful reading and re-reading, and one of the best I have ever read." (3)

The book reflects the effort Helton has put into compiling facts and figures on internal and international refugees and it may be considered as essential research material for those who are into deciding policies for the future. The author has also made efforts to study how essential prevention of conflicts are when it comes to displacement of people from their lands and nations.

The book is a good read for all those who want to absorb an elaborate and very well-written analysis on the issue of refugees. (3)

The author, in his talk on Afghanistan and Iraq, Helton analyzed the way in which present policies work towards solving the refugee problem and stressed that those at the helm should take up a "more proactive and comprehensive policy" for helping out refugees and for more "co-ordination" among the many national and international aid agencies and organizations. He also said that the system adopted for solving the refugee issue and for running humanitarian agencies "is broken" and that it could not be "fixed from within." He stressed that though it was essential to help alleviate the problems faced by people, it was also necessary to make sure such problems do not happen again. He says that the answer to this problem lies in "the consolidation of the United Nations humanitarian actors" and the creation of a new organization that would co-ordinate "refugee assistance policy."

He suggests the establishment of an "intergovernmental policy research center-what he called Strategic Humanitarian Action and Research" so that the existing gaps in the "international humanitarian assistance community" might be filled. He cited Afghanistan as an example and argued that the various agencies need to see that the functions carried out there need more co-ordination of "humanitarian response and reconstruction efforts." He also underlined many suggestions for the national and international agencies working in Afghanistan. The suggestions include taking up a "small projects strategy for recovery and the development of local capacities for governance." He also suggested a better role for non-governmental organizations to help create a stable region.

President Bush's plans of invading Iraq do bring about many "challenges" to the various humanitarian aid agencies worldwide. Helton is of the opinion that the international community has to be more flexible in their approach towards planning for emergencies. Instead of chalking out plans for particular situations, the organizations must be prepared for other emergencies and be able to draw out and follow other plans as per incidents "on the ground." Though it sounds difficult, Helton is of the view that the present system of dealing with refugees is not flexible enough to handle emergencies and unpredictable events. (4)

Beyond Charity, by Gil Loescher, is about the crisis faced by the world today on account of the vast number of refugees that exist owing to fights and wars. The issue of internally and internationally displaced people has been the center of raging debates that relate to the "political changes are necessary in the international system" so that more reliable and effective solutions are drawn out in future. The book not only analyzes the humanitarian crisis that exists all over the world but also stresses that the refugee issue is not just related to "humanitarian concerns" but also to the various related subjects of peace and protection all over the world. Beyond Charity is an effective contribution to the debate surrounding the refugee problem and it also recommends certain methods to solve this problem effectively in future. (5)

Historical Background

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was established in 1951 with the main objective of securing the rights of and helping out refugees. Refugees may be termed to be people who have been forced to abandon their homes and because of threat to their lives for being of a certain "race, religion, nationality, political opinion," or because of being members of any specific "social group" or those who simply cannot live in their native lands owing to too many conflicts there. There are those who manage to get away from their native lands but do not attempt to cross their national borders and such people are termed "internal refugees." The UNHCR tries to cope with such refugees too, for instance, those who had to leave, due to the tension in 1992, from Transdniesteria. The UNHCR indulges in other activities too. Besides providing a secure place and help to such people it joins hands with the many aid agencies and non-governmental organizations to bring to the attention of the world the hindrances and problems faced by internal and international refugees.

The UNHCR supports and helps millions of refugees. The number of refugees keeps increasing by the day and the various crises have done nothing but to add on to these statistics. The problems in Kosovo rendered approximately a million people homeless and displaced. The Afghanistan crisis too affected many Afghans, as news reports have indicated. As one considers this international phenomenon of migration, realization reveals that this kind of coerced abandonment of homes and lands "in the nineties" has been caused by "a succession of civil wars and inter-community conflicts." All the tension and turmoil has resulted in millions being pushed out of their own homes. The functioning of the UNHCR in over "120 countries" is a stark reminder of the unhealthy state the world is in.

The UNHCR carries out a role that can be said to be truly life giving because of the operations it undertakes and in many countries, it plays a pivotal role in saving and nurturing human lives. The very convenient mix of political as well as humanitarian goals way back in the 1950s enabled the UNHCR to frame appropriate rules and regulations for ensuring the safety of refugees in various host countries. As the 1960s began, movements of immigrants changed as they started abandoning their lands in large droves. Most were from Africa because it is there that the "process of decolonization" had an enormous impact. Countries received these refugees from Angola, Zaire, Zambia and other affected regions because they were victims of "national liberation wars."

The UNHCR helped them seek refuge and also assisted them in going back to their homelands once independence was won. Conditions got worse because Cold War enemies transformed into a "polarized and heavily armed Third World" bringing in tension and conflicts. The fights that followed led to huge numbers of people being displaced "in and out of Mozambique, Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, Angola, Indochina, Central America, and Afghanistan."

By the year 1991, refugees numbered more than "17 million." Most of them were fearful of fights, repression, poverty and famine and not all of them faced "political persecution" back home. The Cold War resulted in a total withering of foreign relations between countries and this hindered the act of finding a solution to the refugee crisis. The consequence was that millions of people hurdled together in camps in nations that did not want them and were not financially prepared enough to "absorb" them. Aid agencies could only provide for the basic needs of such people.

The objectives of the UNHCR

The organization functions under "the authority of General Assembly." It undertakes the responsibility of protecting people who "fall within its competence as defined by the Statute." It is an international organization and so, can reach every nation on earth. It looks out for stable or "temporary" answers to the worries faced by millions of refugees and is assisted by government's worldwide and the non-governmental organizations too.

The basic need of refugees is the "right to asylum," whereby they are ensured of a place to stay and ensured that they are not coerced into going back to their lands where they might face the threat of being killed. Other than protection and security, they also need other things such as "social and psychological assistance" and education for their children. Some of these refugees may be "repatriated" whereas some may be assisted in dwelling amongst people of the "host community."

Mixing with natives and being one among them would raise the need for "access to the labor market" and some kind of legal document that would help them be recognized by the land, for instance, a permit. There are problems in certain regions regarding such authorizations. Like in Moldova, no legislation exists that would help the people in charge there to fulfil "international standards." The UNHCR, therefore, has to help the region establish a "legislative and administrative framework" that would help "ensure the exercise of basic rights." The First World War was responsible for many changes including the wiping away of "the autocratic empires of Prussia, Russia and Austria-Hungary" and underlining the need to carry on with international relations as per international law. The Second World War brought about a great many "political changes" that initiated the establishment of the UNCHR and nations across the world began to work together with new objectives in mind.

A convention, in 1951, was based on the status of refugees and an organization was brought into being for proper implementation of the Convention. One of the main tasks of the organization was to create good modes for employing the vast number of refugees in Europe so that they could begin their life anew. These refugees were in camps, but camps soon disappeared till huge movement of refugees started again because of the Bosnian War.

Though they were always present, the tension in Bosnia made millions abandon their homes and run from their countries, coercing the UNHCR to establish enormous camps for these people again "in the heart of Europe." The count of people entering Europe from Kosovo, too, has burgeoned lately. The most recent numbers stood at 900, 000 of them or even more and these numbers keep increasing as days go by. The numbers are so huge that it is becoming quite a task for the members of the UNHCR to find them a place to stay. There are those who have been taken in by families in "Montenegro, Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." More than "50,000" of them have been sent to other nations and more than half their number remain in camps.

Though refugee camps were hoped to have been wiped out, and the UN did not want them to be revived again, the huge numbers of people coming in have left organizations with no choice but to establish refugee camps. It may be said that after more than fifty years of handling refugees, agencies and aid organizations find themselves right back on square one, that is, Europe. (2)

Hypothesis

Humanitarian emergencies usually happen because of a "weak" state and because the richer class keeps occupied in looking after their own lives and interests. A powerful leader rules the country and helps his network of "cronies" who happen to be in "civilian and military bureaucracies." Those who get to be in places of power get there through force and "clientelism" that form the essential traits of "most peripheral states." (V yrynen in Nafziger et al. 2000, 2;437).

Vayrynen carries forward this hypothesis to explain the link between the "political and economic" fields through a mode of "state predatory and rent seeking activities." The consequences of these are looting, exploitation of the weak and total anarchy. It also leads to the system depending upon force and planned "state-sponsored" fights against those in the opposition.

Those who work out solutions for such conflicts should keep in mind the above-mentioned basic realities. Otherwise, it is possible that they might keep devising ideas that create "peaceful illusions on unjust and untenable institutional bases." Good conditions do not seem possible in places that experience a total "subversion," by those in power, of the "coercive power of the state and the exchange power of the market." It may help if agencies try and bring together communities of such countries by functioning "in and through other civil society institutions" and this might be useful with regard to relief and aid, but it cannot guarantee long-term peace. Any progress may face the risk of being "subverted" by corrupt people in power and the "increasing criminalization of politics." (11)

Statement of the problem

The one good way of showing a nation's will to "defend human rights and uphold humanitarian values" is to be successful in handling appropriately the problems of those who have run away from their lands and homes to escape being killed or being subject to abuse. However, though the UNHCR was created by nations that were interested in providing protection to refugees, the states that were in the forefront then seemed to have forgotten their principles. In short, the refugee regime the world over seems to be "under serious threat."

Forced displacements

The UNHCR is more than fifty years old and it has been functioning for the security and livelihoods of the many refugees who are displaced due to civil wars and other tensions. The increases in the number of refugees and the "forced" migratory movements of people have prompted the UNHCR to open its offices all over the world. The refugee problem has turned more complex in the last many years no nation on earth today is devoid of the problem of displaced people.

The year 2000 began with approximately "14 million" people being termed refugees who had to abandon their homes and flee across the borders of their own lands. There were approximately "six million people" in the Middle East, living as refugees. Palestinians constitute a great majority of the people termed as refugees in the Middle East. Africa holds more than "three million" people and the "every country on that continent has been affected by refugee movements." (6)

The refugee crisis does seem enormous, but such numbers do not show a much bigger problem - that of internally displaced people, that is, those who do not have a choice but to abandon their homes "often for the very same reasons as refugees - war, civil conflict, political strife, and gross human rights abuse" but those that stay within their national borders and hence are not considered to be "eligible for protection" under the international set-up that protects international refugees.

Reports indicate that the number of internally displaced people may be "30 million" or even more. The most number of internally displaced people can be found in Sudan, as the region lies mired in civil war for the past two decades. Millions have been displaced in Angola due to the civil war there. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) holds more than a million internal refugees due to prevalent human rights abuse there and fighting in Columbia has led to "1.5 million" people being forced to leave their homes. (6)

The security of refugees is more of a "human rights issue." The international refugee regime has to recognize the right of every person to "seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries." The rule of asylum says that when an individual does not have any access to any mode of "human rights protection," he should be free to leave his country and "seek refuge" in another nation. The matter of any nation accepting a refugee can be a "life and death" issue for him because of the risk he faces back home owing to "persecution or abuse." The many number of refugees flee their homes because of the atrocities and abuse that human rights groups convey as it assesses events that happen around the world. As it puts in great efforts to prevent and stop "human rights violations," to wipe off the main causes of wars and tension and to prevent their effects from being as cruel as they have been, Human Rights Watch also tries to heal the major reasons of "refugee and forced migration flows." (7)

Even after repeated attempts to drive out such atrocities, they exist. Human Rights groups urge governments of all nations to make sure they fulfil their duties with regard to securing the rights of refugees and displaced people irrespective of where these people come from or where else they might seek refuge. Under the various other spheres of human rights, it is not hard to check the progress of nations but when it comes to "protecting refugees" a general decline has been seen in the commitment of states over the past five decades. The Convention of 1951 happens to be one of the major human rights conventions ever to be created after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Though it was not satisfactory enough, the Convention exhibited a certain sense of responsibility from all nations and a duty with regard to providing security for those who had to abandon their lands because of the terrible effects of the Second World War. Things are different today with many states not being able to fulfil their duties as mentioned under the Convention. There are many nations, "in Asia and the Middle-East," that have not "ratified" the convention. (7)

Though it can be said that many nations have been lacking in commitment to solve the refugee crisis, one can say that the effects any nation has to withstand when it takes in refugees, that is, the financial and "security" costs can be said to be one of the factors in not being able to host international refugees. There is also lack of proper international help regarding finance and other factors owing to which the phenomenon of nations taking in refugees has reduced in the past many years.

However, three years back, international nations responded effectively and promptly when the Kosovo crisis took place and displaced millions of people. Help and money were sent in to camps in Macedonia and Albania, and aid organizations were flooded with donations and offers to help. Governments, of western nations in particular, helped airlift people out of Macedonia "under the humanitarian evacuation program." This made things easier for the region and helped it keep its borders open to refugees from other regions who were crowding in. one could point out that the crisis in Kosovo happened to generate phenomenal levels of interest in the public and media and this made it more important besides the fact that the people, who were affected, had a certain kind of "strategic military and geopolitical importance."

The fighting that happened in Kosovo was the biggest ever NATO operation in Europe. The interest and help that was forthcoming with regard to Kosovo could not be seen as much when it came to other nations. Guinea, for instance, faced a complete unavailability of help with regard to both efforts and money. In Sierra Leone, the refugees were at risk of serious attacks from across the border and "incursions" but the UNHCR did not get any kind of help (its target was to obtain $4 million in U.S. dollars) when it appealed saying it had to find a way for moving the refugee camps away so that the people there do not face risks by keeping close to the border. And to think that with respect to Kosovo, the organization could obtain $10 million in U.S. dollars every week for the refugees in Kosovo.

The UNHCR pointed out that nations world-wide put in U.S.$120 dollars for every person in the "former Yugoslavia" where as it gave just around U.S.$35 for every person in West Africa - the money spent for refugees in the Yugoslavian crisis was approximately "three times" more than that spent for those affected by wars in West Africa. As far as Guinea is concerned, it did not keep its borders open after it faced large scale cross border trouble and incursions from Sierra Leone and Liberia in the year 2000. Situation, with regard to safety, in the borders was pathetic and that is where the camps had been located.

The officer in charge of the UNHCR office in Macenta (on the Liberian border) was killed and this forced the UNHCR to leave its work unfinished and return from the borders. This obviously led to the refugees being left alone without any kind of security and help, facing huge risks of violence and abuse. But the international realm did not react swiftly to help these people stranded on the borders and their condition was not enough brought before the world through television or newspapers. No money was available and western nations did not opt for airlifting the refugees to safer domains as they did in Macedonia.

Lack of funds for the UNHCR has prompted it to use money from its working capital so that all its operations may be funded appropriately. Help has not been forthcoming from all nations and this has mired the UNHCR in deep financial crisis. Lack of money has forced the organization to leave its work unfinished in countries that need their help the most, especially Africa. Those nations that have funds for donation to the UNHCR have to be willing to take on the following "challenges":

Governments that have the funds should make them available to the organization in adequate and equitable measures irrespective of the " nationality, race, location, or strategic significance" of those who need to be protected as refugees. They should be able to help "host nations" in improving security measures in areas that are not safe, especially with regard to places that hold refugee camps during periods of intense refugee movements. Funds may also be diverted towards the security of certain groups of refugees, say, women and children. They should carry on with providing help with regard to "long-term protracted refugee situations" and also assist in unearthing stable answers in solving the refugee problem. The solutions may involve assisting in "voluntary repatriation and local integration" or helping refugees avail of "third country resettlement opportunities." (8)

Refugees have been facing a major change in the way they are being treated by the international regime. The years before the 1990s were responsible for many refugee movements and these were because of the after-effects of the Cold War. The people who were affected had a "strategic geopolitical value in the arena of superpower rivalry." They were generally used to "discredit" their native countries or to strengthen the position of "receiving" nations and also to improve "alliances" with important and powerful nations. This can be seen in the case of "Nicaraguan refugees in Honduras, Afghans in Pakistan, and Cambodians in Thailand." However, the initial years of the 1990 era consisted of many factors that affected the nature of politics and the "political environment for refugees." As the Cold War ended, the refugees did not have as much of a "geopolitical and military value" as they used to have.

Nations that were initially willing to let in refugees saw them as "irritants" as they sought to create strong "political and economic relations" with countries that lay on their borders. Other nations that were "receiving" countries had to face problems with their economy which made them incapable of spending to take in huge numbers of "long-term" refugees or make funds available for long and costly "asylum determination procedures." Many nations pointed fingers at the refugee population for their national problems and blamed them for being a threat to "national or regional security," for "draining" the resources of nations, for "degrading the environment" and for the increase in the amount of crimes. Many leaders of nations started spewing hate against refugees and sought the help of the media to sell to the public pictures of "floods" of displaced people swarming into their nations.

In countries that were fast progressing towards industrialization, leaders concentrated mainly on creating hindrances for in-coming refugees rather than on keeping them safe in their countries. As nations began to stop refugees from entering, things became even more problematic. Because of the largely unstable state of affairs caused due to "political and economic instability" around the world, and because of a good amount of progress in communications and travel, refugee movements began to increase and people began to migrate even more. The reasons were many - economic conditions back home, violence, tension or lack of human rights.

As nations did not allow refugees to enter legally, they resorted to other modes of reaching the countries they wanted to live in. These methods often involved opting for "opportunistic, exploitative and often dangerous human trafficking and smuggling rings" that knew how to get past "routine migration controls." At the end of the decade, governments saw that human trafficking and smuggling of refugees had to be recognized as "one of the most serious aspects of transnational organized crime" and they ultimately joined hands to get rid of the malaise.

Though it would have been better had the governments of these nations strove to protect the rights of such people, security or assistance never was intended in their operations against ending smuggling. Nations dealt with this problem with the primary motive of stopping people from entering their nations and any proper solution to the "asylum and migration" issue did not come up. No one tried to reach the root of the problem by attempting to find out why people turn to other nations and decide to leave their lands to be migrants or refugees. The right of every person to "seek and enjoy asylum" from the risks they faced back home was not given much thought to. (9)

Today, attempts that were made at the end of the Second World War to build a good responsive organization that would be known for its humanitarian actions seem to be going waste, as the UNHCR, which belongs world-wide, faces challenges owing to lack of funds and commitment from the nations that were included in it. The basic problem lies in the unresponsiveness of states to give asylum to those who seek protection from risks back home and in the "perceived failure of alternative methods of helping the victims of humanitarian crises." It has also been seen that in several cases reactions from international agencies have not prevented people from being abused or killed. Their problems seem to be increasing by the day. Because of such disappointing results, people have stopped believing in any kind of humanitarian intervention and organizations that were into providing humanitarian assistance have not been getting the kind of assistance, "financial and political," that they ought to have for pursuing their goals. "Compassion fatigue" was considered a big hindrance to "humanitarian enterprise."

Politicians used the term when they needed reasons to justify their stance. The people of a nation, rather than its leaders, are more forthcoming when it comes to helping those in need. The one problem faced by humanitarian agencies all over the world has happened as a consequence of the huge and fast change in the international method of "humanitarian response" after the end of the Cold War.

It is also a product of the "considerable confusion" over "whether too much, or too little, is being asked of humanitarian efforts" in this world where contingencies are turning out to be increasingly "complex." The transformation that we see in the nature of humanitarian response today is partly because of the "rapid growth of the institutions, operations, and budgets of humanitarian response," which have brought up enormous troubles in the way the operations are handled, with respect to their "effectiveness, co-ordination and accountability." The worldwide nature of humanitarian actions signify that "negative as well as positive lessons are rapidly diffused to local, national and international actors" in contexts that relate to emergencies. (10)

The last few years have brought on extreme disregard with regard to observing the rules of international humanitarian law that ensures the safety of "non-combatants" from violence and abuse. The problems that hinder rescue work include conscious "targeting" of civilians, using "famine as a weapon," misusing supplies intended for the civilian population and practising "ethnic cleansing and genocide." These worries were always present but they seem to have increased with the years. Other than violence against the civilian population, another of the main worries is total lack of respect given to those who are part of humanitarian groups. This can be seen from the very many incidents of violence against "humanitarian facilities and personnel." The refugee regime needed to fulfil certain requirements such as the rules of "non-refoulement and voluntary repatriation" and these procedures seem to have reduced as well. There have been cases where asylum seekers have been forcibly repatriated from Iran (to Afghanistan and Azerbaijan), from Bangladesh (to Burma), from Thailand (to Burma and Cambodia), from Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo (to Rwanda), from Germany (to Bosnia, though not many because of an outcry), and from the United States (to Haiti and Cuba, and some would argue, to China). (10)

The UNHCR has had no option but to agree with this kind of forcible repatriation because of the fact that it is the best deal for those refugees who face risks and are not really secure even in countries where they have sought refuge. However, irrespective of explanations given, the organization has been spoken against "internally and externally" for having disregarded the "cornerstone" of the refugee regime that says those who seek asylum are not to be sent back to places where their lives are at risk or where they may face "persecution."

In the years after the Cold War, one could even point out cases where humanitarian principles were not followed; as in, there is no guarantee that civilians may be delivered safely when a war is on and negotiations done through aid agencies to be able to reach civilians has many a time resulted in "humanitarian resources being put into the hands of military forces" whose aims are "unhumanitarian" or even "anti-humanitarian." Those who flee their homes but not their native lands are subject to greater trouble because they are harder to reach.

The Red Cross can reach out and promise help to those who are "internally displaced" during times of tension or wars but the states are not at all obliged legally to agree to take their help. The officers at the helm of the United Nations have, and can, urge the UNHCR to assist those who have been displaced internally and such cases have happened many times during the past few years. But, generally, those who are displaced inside their native nations are not considered to be within the "international institutional framework of protection and assistance."

It is a fact that though the rules and regulations that are meant to be followed within refugee regimes are not being adhered to, more nations are joining the regimes. The Convention has been ratified by most Eastern European countries, "the former Soviet Union" as well as South Africa. RedCross offices are being established in many countries and rebel groups that are fighting for recognition by the international community have decided to follow the Geneva Convention and Protocols and have also agreed with the Red Cross on matters such as "prison visits and tracing of missing persons."

Factors that have caused the erosion of rules

What can be said to be the major reasons for nations not abiding by rules that were agreed to by them initially? Many factors can be recognized to be relevant. One of them is the manner in which most wars are fought today. Years gone by have seen major fights happening between superpowers and smaller states, but now wars are fought not between nations or recognized guerilla groups; they are fought by militants and gangs that "operate with diffuse and fragmented (and often very short) chains of command."

There are wars that are based on aims that relate to wiping off entire groups of people rather than achieving victory over the other side. Many nations that were not part of the decisions taken after World War II have now become active participants in the refugee regime and they simply do not feel obligated enough to follow the rules of the agenda set back then. The sense of obligation felt by many Cold War allies in participating in programs meant for helping refugees who were a result of the War also had a political aim to it.

But as the Cold War has ended, things have changed and the countries do not feel as obligated as they felt earlier and no kind of goal exists so as to fulfil the humanitarian rules of "non-refoulement, protection of non-combatants, admission of refugees," etc. Besides the transformation of the political environment and the "vacuum" created by the degradation of rules set years back and of a steady decline in the reaction of various nations to emergencies arising world-wide, there are other issues too.

The political economy of humanitarian assistance" is one of them. Does helping backward nations and poor countries make a difference to the "dynamics of conflict"? Though there have been many good studies on this issue, no one has really assessed the effects, if any, of humanitarian projects undertaken in poor countries. Another of the issues faced by the regime is regarding "neutrality." Neutrality is regarded to be one of the basic rules of the "classic humanitarian regime" and it is seen to be under pressure with regard to theory as well as practice.

Theory actually puts forward the question of whether neutrality is something that is possible or if it is something that the regime needs. Though some agencies argue that "neutrality of outcome is as much a fact as neutrality of intent," they seem to overlook the effect humanitarian assistance can have on the politics of a nation. There are other actors that want to play a larger role than just aid givers. They want their actions to make a difference to the dynamics of the conflict and to the consequences of a war by offering "incentives" for being more humane or by "countering the illicit war aims (such as ethnic cleansing) of parties to a conflict." As both these views are basically extremely different from each other, the issue of neutrality has become a much-talked about subject regarding humanitarian aid in today's era. It has been pointed out that mingling humanitarian aid with other goals to transform or bring about differences in regions that are strife-torn turns the whole idea of assistance "into a concept inside of and subservient to development and political agendas." It actually converts the objective of assisting people in need into an instrument that is used to gain many aims that are "beyond the immediate relief of human suffering." (Cindy Collins) (10).

There is also the issue of some nations repatriating refugees even before their status back home is considered agreeable. During the Cold War period, circumstances were different, as nations were unable to send the refugees back home within short periods of time. But today, host countries are under constant pressure to send the refugees back home even if conditions in their native lands are not favorable. The UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies have been criticized for assisting in forced repatriation before the safety of the people concerned is ascertained. Those in the refugee regime could possibly give as much assistance as possible to the affected people who are to face forced repatriation or otherwise refuse to participate in any activity that would lead to these people being forcibly sent back home to face dangerous risks. During the initial years of the 90s period, the world witnessed a totally novel way of dealing with humanitarian emergencies.

The focus of players shifted from giving help and security to refugees to more attention being paid towards regions that were experiencing turmoil. For instance, in places like Iraq, Somalia and Haiti, the major powers decided to make the regions safe rather than helping people flee from their lands and providing them with safety elsewhere. The task of making life easier for people in their lands could be accomplished - even through the use of force. Countries could undertake military operations against erring states and this kind of assistance, termed to be "humanitarian intervention," was agreed to by all nations via the United Nations. Such kind of a military tactic consisted of making use of "military resources" for assisting affected people and regions "and/or" with the main objective of bringing "law and order that a relief operation could proceed." The approval of the sovereign government of the concerned region did not matter. The UNHCR described the matter as something that was required because of an increasing "tendency" for international players to connect themselves with situations that have been termed "internal" with regard to any particular region.

Such internal matters involve human rights abuse, minorities being treated unfairly, "indiscriminate violence and persecution." Situations such as these that give rise to refugees cannot be viewed as internal because of the tremendous impact that they have on other countries that have to deal with the millions of people entering their borders while fleeing from their lands. But agreeable opinions about using military intervention in dealing with crises began to diminish after some time. This was sparked off by the death of U.S. Rangers in Somalia as well as many observers beginning to understand that there were limits to how much the international community could intervene in solving difficult situations in another country. Though the action did succeed in Iraq and Haiti, these were rather temporary successes with no permanent gains. Almost all nations in the world have lost their faith in such military actions and none would agree to fund resources for participating in such operations. But still, chances of solving crises militarily is very much part of talks that are conducted on international humanitarian reaction to emergencies. The discussion revolves around military operations basically because almost every kind of humanitarian assistance program is conducted "within or on the fringes of armed conflicts."

Though military programs and operations disillusion many, nations have not stopped playing an active role in countries where an emergency arises. They attempt to prevent people from being forced to abandon their lands by giving them help and security so that they are able to stay within their lands avoid being internal refugees in their country. Nations that participate in humanitarian assistance also continue with their roles as major players when it comes to "repatriation and reconstruction" of regions that go through major problems. The "comprehensive approach" to solving refugee situations speaks of the "tendency" to increase the idea of humanitarian assistance to involve much more than "emergency relief."

During the initial years of the 1980s, such a method has been adopted in "Indochina, Central America, Haiti, Cambodia, and former Yugoslavia." This approach views the repatriation of refugees as "part of a larger plan" to bring about political reconciliation, reconstruct government institutions and "civil society," help the nation build itself economically, assist in conducting elections, etc. Many of these instances have been "multilateral efforts" and have had UN peacekeepers or supervisors playing an active role. Being more active indicates a willingness to "narrow" a system that that is based on the issue of protection of refugees and that functions not within but outside the borders of the affected region.

The activist mode actually exhibits a marked hesitance on the part of rich nations to take in refugees and give them asylum. They would agree to it only if there were "carefully pre-planned programs." The unwillingness to admit refugees can be clearly seen in the many number of hindrances and blocks that have been put up by nations so as to make entering the region difficult, "expedited procedures for removing people," the narrow way in which the term "refugee" is defined by nations and the "interdiction of refugees before they reach an intended country of asylum."

As these are practices by rich nations, the not-so-rich countries, too, find it easier to defend their actions that consist of not letting refugees enter their regions, pressurizing those in charge for sending the refugees back home as soon as possible or forcing the refugees to return to their home lands. As wars continue to take place and refugees continue to seek asylums, nations have established plenty of novel ways to "compensate" for their hesitation in participating in military action or taking in refugees by offering them safe haven amongst their people. They have devised the idea of giving "temporary protection," the creation of safe havens, "cross-border deliveries of assistance" and assistance in the form of peacekeeping forces and "military resources" for helping those who need assistance. Other new rules that use "interdiction and heightened barriers to entry" are obviously not a form of encouragement for refugees who need help but more of an attempt to restrict the arrival of refugees in large numbers. The military interference in Iraq in 1991 served two purposes - it helped the Kurds in the region to escape unharmed and also prevented any pressure on Turkey to take them as refugees. Novel methods of assistance were formed as "ad hoc responses" to emergencies wherein traditional methods of allowing people to get away to other lands could not be made possible because of hindrances that existed and also because nations did not favor the use of the latter method. (10)

Temporary asylums and safe havens

When nations devised the idea of giving temporary protection to refugees, they did so with the intent of "reconciling" the unwillingness of nations to admit refugees as "permanent residents" with the "acknowledgement" of their duty to save asylum-seekers from facing more suffering in their home lands.

Many people from former Yugoslavia and Central America secured asylum by agreeing to the temporary protection formula that dictated that their right to stay in the land of refuge was "limited." When such people are to be repatriated home is the problem faced by nations offering temporary refuge and the trouble involved in sending those who have established their roots in the region because of the number of years they stayed as refugees is also enormous. Many nations have decided humanely on this issue and offered a permanent permit to such refugees who were taken in as temporary residents. This makes the idea of temporary protection quite unviable. Its use in such a way has made some commentators feel that rich nations might just not want to adopt this idea in future. As far as the not-so-rich countries are concerned, asylum-seekers always wanted to stay on a temporary basis because of the conditions they had to face due to poverty in their land of asylum. They did not wish to stay back.

However, governments of such regions now refuse to let "long-staying" refugees stay any more and want them to reside in camps and live on food that the international community should provide for them. "Safe havens" have not been known to be a total success either. It has been proved that a "safe haven" is nothing but "a holding pattern" and not an answer to a potent humanitarian contingency. As in the case of Iraq, the level of safety promised by the "safe haven" did not exist as it was always. It diminished after five years. In the same way, the promise of defending the "eastern enclaves in Bosnia" was not fulfilled enough to avoid the death of over "8000 men" who fell into the "death trap" created by one of the enclaves. Another was "forcibly over-run by armed aggression."

Though the U.S. Army had complete control of an "off-shore camp" in Guantanamo, it simply could not hold the safe haven in the region. No matter how strong one's will to protect "an in-country safe haven" forcibly, it can never match the strength of the desire of the particular region to get back its land. Apart from this, "an off-shore haven" is not the same as everyday life and, after some time, may start to look like a "refugee camp at best, a prison camp at worst."

When nations establish safe havens, they should also be on the look-out for some action to follow it with so that the safe haven is not needed anymore. The U.S. was quite victorious when they assisted Haitian refugees by creating a safe haven for them in Guantanamo because a few months after they created the safe haven, they also undertook military operations to remove the "military junta" that was in power, bring back an elected government and help prevent violence by appointing peacekeeping troops. The same region of Guantanamo was not suitable enough for Cuban refugees because none could change the situation in their homeland due to which they had to flee the country. It has to be said that military intervention has helped save the lives of many in former Yugoslavia, northern Iraq and eastern Zaire. A capable military force might prove to be the only help if civilians are attacked during armed conflicts. The negative or minus point of involving military forces in humanitarian programs is that it casts an undesirable effect on the "perceived status of humanitarians as neutral parties."

Military intervention can also result in diminished access to people who need assistance or even endangering the lives of the many civilians stranded in the region of conflict. Though novel modes of reacting to emergencies are presented as being "alternatives to exile," they are most probably designed to prevent refugees from entering other nations. Nations that are rich are fearful of the "Magnet Effect" - the fear that if they give refuge to those who really need assistance, it will result in an increasing number of migrants entering the place pretending to be refugees.