IRIN Web Special on Internal Displacement

IRIN Interview with Francis Deng, Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons

Francis Deng is a former Sudanese minister of state for foreign affairs and ambassador to Canada, the United States and Scandinavia. Since 1992 he has been the Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons.

In an interview with IRIN Deng discussed a range of issues related to the nature and application of the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. He pointed to the increase in the number of countries willing to incorporate the Principles into national legislation and recent discussions that have been held with international and other non-state actors. Deng said efforts to make the Principles more compatible with [Islamic] Shari'ah law were intriguing but warned that this effort required great sensitivity if the potential for divisiveness was to be avoided. He also pointed to the importance of promoting the Principles so the internally displaced can understand that they have rights. On institutional arrangements Deng felt that effective international and country-level mechanisms now existed but that attention at the local level was needed to ensure functional structures were in place to assist needy populations.

QUESTION: Some developing countries at this year�s ECOSOC meeting said that they were not properly consulted on the drafting of the Guiding Principles. What can be done to address their concerns?

ANSWER: First of all I take issue with the generalisation that developing countries say they were not consulted. We have been to a number of countries on missions looking at the Guiding Principles. We have held workshops in a number of regions. The Guiding Principles are being used by a number of governments to develop their policies, and some of them have actually changed legislation in terms of the Guiding Principles.

But in addition to that, these Guiding Principles were developed in response to a request by the Commission of Human Rights and by the General Assembly - were in fact submitted to both bodies and taken note of. Since then they have been applied and their application has been encouraged by the UN bodies, let alone the different agencies of the United Nations but also by the General Assembly and, indeed, even in the Security Council. The Security Council called for Governments to make use of the Guiding Principles. The Secretary-General has called on the Security Council to advise Governments to apply the Guiding Principles.

This is all by way of the process by which they were developed. Yes, largely by a team of international legal experts, but in a process that included a broad-based participation within the United Nations and beyond. So for people to say that developing countries were not included would be virtually to say that they are not involved in the Commission on Human Rights, in the General Assembly and in the various bodies of the UN system.

On the other hand, we are respectful of governments who say that this is a rather unusual way of introducing what might be tentative to law. We call them Guiding Principles precisely because we do not want them to be seen as binding, and therefore creating a problem of whether this was a different way of making law. We thought that while they actually restate the law as it is - human rights law, humanitarian law and analogous refugee law - they are not in themselves binding and, as such, are persuasive if indeed they meet the need, and through this persuasive authority become broadly accepted.

As far as I�m concerned, the technicality of whether they are legally binding or not becomes an academic question, because if they are articulating the law, and if they are, in fact, found to be useful, then their purpose has been served.

What we need to do is to engage these governments in dialogue, to try to get a clear understanding of their concerns, and then to see to what extent we can be responsive to their concerns - and, as I have often said, no law is static. It is always dynamic, and therefore the comments of governments on particular aspects of the Guiding Principles would be put into consideration as we report periodically and would be part of the interpretation of the Guiding Principles in their practical application.

Q: What actually are the concerns of these countries?

They are not clear. Some have gone as far as saying: Well, we just think that they [Guiding Principles] should be given more formal recognition by the UN system. Some may say that some of the Principles could be interpreted as justifying intervention, which we don�t think is the case, but that can be discussed. If there are specific provisions that they are concerned about, we can look at that.

What the Guiding Principles try to do is to say that the protection and assistance of displaced populations is a matter of sovereign responsibility. In other words, we are saying that this is first and foremost a responsibility of the government, but under certain circumstances governments need the support of the international community.

If a government is going to say that even if our people are suffering in large numbers and we are not capable of providing the necessary protection and assistance and they are, in fact, dying and we still don�t want anybody to get involved because this is a matter of internal concern, nobody in this day and age can justify that kind of attitude. That�s what human rights is all about, that�s what humanitarianism is all about.

Q: What about the suggestion made by some countries that the Guiding Principles should be submitted for adoption by the General Assembly?

A: Well, a number of those who have expressed concern do argue that they should be submitted for formal consideration by the General Assembly. They even go as far as saying that they are not really against anything in the Guiding Principles, they simply want to legitimise the process by having them formally adopted by the General Assembly.

Now it�s a question of the extent to which this is a positive step towards having them adopted or is, in a sense, raising issues to take us back to a debate over the Guiding Principles. Depending on what it is it could be considered to be positive or, frankly, retrogressive.

Q: The Guiding Principles have been incorporated into national legislation in Angola. Are there any other countries where this has occurred, and would you view this as a step in the right direction?

A: Ironically enough, we have just had training in Sudan on the Guiding Principles by OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs], and they are being broadly applied. We are now in the process of holding another training session in Rumbek [in southern Sudan] with the [rebel] SPLM [Sudan People's Liberation Movement]. Uganda is another country where we have had a workshop and where the Guiding Principles are being incorporated into national legislation.

Just about everywhere I have been in Africa - and this is true in other countries around the world - I have found the Guiding Principles being discussed. Columbia is another very good example where it has effected national legislation. So while the specific cases of countries that have changed their legislation might still be limited, the process by which they are being introduced to these countries in different regions is rapidly growing...

Q: You mentioned the planned workshop with the SPLM. Is this the first time that this has happened with a non-state actor or rebel group and, if so, are there any plans to hold similar workshops in the future?

A: The Guiding Principles clearly spell out that they are not simply to guide governments and other international actors but also non-state actors, and it was specifically envisaged that there would be situations where large numbers of people are under the control of insurgency groups, and therefore it is incumbent on them to show the responsibilities of their control.

We have talked to non-state actors in different parts of the world depending on the logistical and practical situation. In Columbia the Government was encouraging me to talk to the insurgents. We didn�t do it because of the time factor. Again, in Tajikistan we were able to talk to rebel elements and opposition groups. Previous to this I have been talking to SPLM/SPLA [Sudan People's Liberation Army]. So the principle is not being applied for the first time, but to actually hold a workshop with a movement that has control over people, this is the first time we�re doing that.

Q: It has been suggested that in order to make the Guiding Principles more palatable to Islamic countries it might be appropriate to make them compatible with [Islamic] Shari'ah law. What are your views on this?

A: It is always intriguing to see the extent to which human rights are legitimised and reinforced by internal perspectives, whether cultural or religious, and one could, indeed, say that in order for the universality concept to be generally universal it has to be in tune with the values of any religion or culture. There is no culture in this world nor any religion that does not support the fundamental values of human rights.

The potential for divisiveness is there if you begin to say: Let us see the extent to which these principles reflect the religious values of any one religion, or the extent to which others would say: If you�re going to see how they are supported by that religion why not also by this religion, and to what extent would there be absolute uniformity or even consensus on the extent to which these religious values are indeed supportive of the universally accepted human-rights standards.

It is an intriguing idea. It is also an idea that has the potential to be divisive and, to some extent, if it is to be done it has to be done with a great deal of sensitivity in bridging between the relativity of religious considerations and the universality concept of human rights.

Q: The Guiding Principles envisage the possibility of the displaced returning to their home areas. What happens if the displaced do not wish to do so for reasons relating to, for example, security or ethnic discrimination?

A: The most important thing to remember is that this is an internal matter mostly involving citizens who have the freedom of movement to go wherever they want in the country. On the other hand, displacement usually exposes people to new opportunities.

For instance, people move from rural areas to the cities, where they find a lot of services that have not been available to them before - health services, education, employment opportunities, and therefore, while there is always a yearning to go back, part of which is a nostalgia for home, it is also true that not everyone wants to go back, and when conflicts have gone on for a long time people are apt to find alternatives and become integrated where they are.

Now there are, of course, practical problems for people who want to go back. To what extent is it safe? To what extent are they going back with dignity? To what extent are services in the areas they were in restored? To what extent are they given opportunities for self-sustaining life in their areas? And just remember, many of these people come from impoverished backgrounds in rural areas. If you want people to go back you must give them their security, basic services and opportunities for programme development.

Q: This touches on the question of the definition of an internally displaced person, which has been the subject of much debate recently. What are your views on this?

A: Our working definition in the Guiding Principles is a descriptive one, not a legalistic one, and the description is that you have been uprooted by a number of factors - conflict, human rights violations, violence, human and natural disasters in which some discrimination is a fact. If those conditions cease, if the causes end, then, by definition, you cease to be an internally displaced person. Some people make a condition of return a factor, but, as I have just said, people may choose to do something else other than return. So it is really a question of whether the needs still exist and the needs are linked to the causes?

Q: At the moment the Guiding Principles are, in your own words, the only normative framework focused on internal displacement. Do you believe that the legal framework for dealing with IDPs [internally displaced persons] should be strengthened?

A: Well, when we speak of the GPs [Guiding Principles] being the first instrument dealing specifically with IDPs it is important to remember the sources. These Principles do restate existing law - human rights law, humanitarian law and analogous refugee law. For me, it�s a question of whether they serve the purpose. If governments and other international actors increasingly find them useful, the debate we are dealing with right now is whether they should be made into binding instruments, or is it just enough to continue dealing with them as Guiding Principles.

I think there are varying degrees of differences in this respect. Some think we should work towards a convention or a declaration. That would be time-consuming and controversial.

Some say let�s just work with the Guiding Principles as they are now. That is also controversial to a certain extent. Some say why don�t we have them adopted by General Assembly Resolution, where some states who have concerns can also try to find room to have their concerns addressed. So there�s still a bit of debate and I can see validity in all these arguments but, as they say, if it�s not broken, don�t fix it. So if the Guiding Principles are serving their purpose, I think we should work with them for now.

Q: You mentioned in your statement to the 58th session of the Commission on Human Rights that the Guiding Principles needed "promotion". What is being done to promote the Guiding Principles on the ground?

A: The Guiding Principles are proving to be a living instrument for those who are concerned with displaced populations, such as NGOs and academic institutions. They are being incorporated into the syllabi of a number of university programmes and, above all, they are being introduced to the local displaced populations in their own languages so that they are aware of their rights, so that they are not seen as simply people begging for humanitarian assistance, but people who have their rights as citizens and therefore demand a response as a matter of right.

CONTINUED�