Dilemmas of Humanitarian Assistance

What are the particular problems raised when a government turns against its own people? We saw that in the case of Iraq, in previous Cambodian governments, and so on.

If the government turns against its people and the people leave the country, then the international community takes over and protects them. That is exactly the mandate I have; but when the government turns against their own people within the country, it's a very difficult thing for the international community to intervene. A lot of discussion has been going on these days, a question of humanitarian intervention, how far can you go, what is the right of an international community intervening. I take a rather pragmatic approach, short of military intervention. It's very hard for an international to go into another country when it is in a state of civil conflict or massive violation of human rights. The intervention is limited. What has evolved these days is something like getting humanitarian corridors or zones of tranquility where for humanitarian reasons the international community would negotiate or I would negotiate or UNICEF would negotiate with the government to allow certain protection of a limited sort. I think there is still a minimum need for government acquiescence in order to move into any country.

How is the UNHCR policy of repatriation affected by ongoing conflict or high-potential conflict in a refugee's home country, such as in Cambodia or South Africa?

The executive committee some years ago set up the policy that repatriation should be carried on in safety and dignity. To put this into practice is not easy because today many of the countries to which refugees are returning are war-stricken, poverty-stricken countries.

In Cambodia the factional fight taking place right now is exactly on the route that we are using to take the refugees back, but the Cambodian repatriation was part of the Paris Peace Accord and the fact that repatriation is taking place in itself should add to confidence building. The de-mining aspect there was a very serious problem for us. We are not de-mining experts ourselves, nor does any humanitarian organization have expertise on de-mining, but we did hire a consultant to start verification so that at least the roads that the people are going back on are not mined. Now the peacekeeping forces coming in have undertaken some of the de-mining, so it's more secure. The Malaysian battalion followed the convoy of buses this time, so the security aspect has been looked after by this combination of the peacekeeping forces.

pull-quote from interview In South Africa, too, it's true, there's a lot of racial fighting; at the same time, the fact that the political exiles are coming back under conditions of general amnesty, which we negotiated, is contributing to the confidence building. It is not easy when there's total lack of law and order. A lot of danger is involved in the kind of repatriation and refugee protection we have been doing.

Long-term solutions to these problems raise the question of long-term aid and development to create economic, social, and environmental conditions that allow the people to return in an environment that ensures their ability to survive.

These are all countries that went through a long period of war, internal war, and we're taking people back to countries that are still war torn and poverty stricken. For our efforts to succeed they must be assured of some kind of security and a better future. We as a refugee organization are responsible for taking them back and getting them resettled, but this is only the first step. We've found this to be true all through Central America, where there was a great deal of refugee outflow from Nicaragua, El Salvador. We are bringing them back and trying to bring governments and international organizations together to launch developmental projects that will incorporate the needs of the returnees. So we have to bring in development assistance too; this is the only way they will have a chance to survive in their own country.

This broadens the definition of peace and security in the new world order quite a bit.

I think so, because peace and security today involves people who are victims of war--usually refugees. Traditionally, peace and security involved combatants. The prisoner of war was an important part of the protection afforded by the International Committee of the Red Cross, but we are the ones who protect the refugees. More and more we are expected to reach a solution, not just wait until people cross the border. Protecting them and running camps is not considered by the international community to be good enough these days.

And presumably you must make a lot of this up as you go along.

It's a lot of testing, trying.

Next Page: Multilateralism and Refugees