IRIN Web Special on Internal Displacement

Q: What do you think about the use of radio to disseminate the GPs to remote locations where access to print material is poor, for example, in rural parts of Africa?

A: That�s a very good idea. The point is that once these principles are locally owned we literally just take pleasure in the fact that they are now in the hands of people who are on the ground and who are promoting the interests of displaced populations, and so if it has not been done it is a good idea and I hope that people pick it up.

Q: You have now been on more than 20 missions throughout the world to try to draw attention to the plight of IDPs. Are there any common findings from these missions, or is the situation different in every country?

A: The most important overarching problem is that these are situations of conflict, and whether the conflict is due to racial, ethnic, religious, cultural or linguistic differences, whatever the cause of conflict it creates cleavages, and you find the displaced populations are part of the group that is caught in the conflict.

Loyalties are brought into question. Are they on this side or on that side? To that extent there is a universal sense of abandonment, isolation and dispossession, and you can hear virtually the same language being used by displaced populations around the world in their relationship with the authorities. They feel marginalised within their own countries. Their needs are basically all the same.

Not all governments are irresponsive. Some governments try to be responsive to the needs of their people. Some even try to find ways of cooperating with rebel forces to help ensure that humanitarian assistance is delivered. Some block it, some create all kinds of obstacles, and so there is a certain common theme about the difficulty of access.

So the first message is that internal displacement creates vacuums of responsibility which we try to impress on governments to correct by demonstrating responsibilities of sovereignty. That also means that international cooperation is nearly always needed. Very few governments in conflict situations are able to meet the needs of their civilian populations, particularly their displaced populations, without some external support.

We also find that while many agencies will insist on providing humanitarian assistance, the angle of protection seen in terms of security of the people and respect for their human rights is often either missing or marginally touched. Sometimes humanitarian and development agencies believe that their presence by definition provides protection. But protection as such is something people still seem to shy away from.

Q: In your statement to the 58th Session of the Commission on Human Rights in April you singled out the need to address the shelter of IDPs as an issue requiring particular attention. Do you believe that this is still the case?

A: Absolutely. And you know, while there is increasing talk about the desire to help the displaced there is still a gap between services actually being delivered on the ground and the rhetoric of international response. And these services include the whole range - shelter, medicine, food, education, employment.

Even when governments identify with the displaced, as is the case in Azerbaijan and Georgia, you still have difficulty actually delivering services to these people because of other political agendas. For instance, until peace comes, countries may feel that they don�t want to solve the problem with the displaced, because that removes the pressure on the international community to find remedies.

Q: What are you doing to help fill these gaps?

A: One of the significant things about missions is that you raise the level of awareness, and people start talking about the problems, and just by sheer discussion of the issues the governments become aware of what�s going on in their own countries. And very often the level of response increases, and in addition to that you mobilise a lot of other actors to get involved. So in many countries today where there is a displacement crisis it�s not even the government but it�s others � NGOs, both local and international, with the support of the donor community - that are actually responding to the crisis.

Q: The need to improve the institutional arrangements for responding to the needs of the displaced on the ground has been a subject of much debate in recent years. Has the situation now been resolved?

A: Basically I think that the arrangements are in place. The coordinating role of the ERC is recognised, the role of OCHA, the role of the IASC, particularly at HQ level, is functioning well. At the capital level of countries affected they are in place. The country team is recognised in varying degrees of effectiveness. Then you have the problem of this coming to the local level where the people are, and that�s where some of the gaps are. But on the whole, you can say that the structures are in place. It is then a question of making them functional in a way that really delivers to needy populations.

Q: In order to visit a country you need to be invited by the government. How do you deal with situations where you know that there is a displacement problem in a particular country, but the government of that country denies it and will not let you in?

A: Well, that clearly is a problem, but it is not just a problem of internal displacement. It�s a problem of human rights in general. There are governments that do not want the international community to get involved in their internal affairs, and another problem is that even if they actually let you visit and you make recommendations, the question is: Do these recommendations get implemented or not, and again this is a problem of the entire human rights issue. We are now in the process of focusing on a number of countries where access is difficult with the same question in mind.

Q: But how can you put pressure on those governments to let you in and draw attention to the problem?

A: There are ranges of responses. Clearly, in my dialogue with governments I try to impress upon them that these missions are not necessarily adversarial. For instance, it took me some time of repeated discussions with the ambassador of Turkey in Geneva for them to eventually invite me, and when I went it was a very constructive mission.

The same was true of Indonesia. The same has just been true of Mexico. Just about every country that has a serious displacement problem, initially has some hesitation, but when you go there and they find that this is a constructive dialogue and that this is not just adversarial monitoring and finger-pointing, then gradually you open them up to cooperation, and countries that were seemingly in denial become quite open to working with us.

Q: But there are, nevertheless, some 25 million people in 40 countries throughout the world who are displaced.

A: Absolutely. And there are a number of governments who are not opening doors, and this is a challenge for the United Nations and the international system.

Q: How can you explain the apparent paradox in the case of Angola, where 4 million people or 30 percent of the population are internally displaced despite the fact that the government has incorporated the Guiding Principles into national legislation?

A: Well the whole thing should be seen as incremental. Clearly you take the first step. It may even be that you have a few individuals who are cooperative in the government. You plant the seed and you begin to work with others, and hopefully nurse the seed to grow and grow. It�s a bit like peacemaking. The country may be in conflict for a number of years, the peace processes continue, a lot of people get involved in an incremental way, and there comes a moment when peace breaks.

So one has to be optimistic that some action is going to lead to a positive result. What we cannot afford to do is to raise our hands in despair, because, as I say on my missions, if I go to a country and I am told there is no problem here at all, it would have been meaningless to go. If I am told that the problem is too big to do anything about, it would have been meaningless to be there. One hopes that there is an acknowledgement of the problem and the desire to do something about it, and together we start doing something.

Q: Continuing with Angola as an example, would doing something mean encouraging the government to use a greater share of its oil and diamond revenue to address the needs of the displaced?

A: Sure. In my dialogue with the leaders in Angola I said that much. I said: Now you say that the war against UNITA is virtually won, and that it�s just a mopping-up operation, you must begin to be seen by the international community as diverting some of the resources that were going into the war towards helping your people. And it is actually by being seen to be doing this that the international community is going to find it attractive to help you.

And then we say that many areas are not accessible, but the church is out there with the people, there are a number of NGOs out there with the people. Well, let us empower those to reach them. The UN has this grading of security situations so that when you reach grade five it is totally out, four certain areas are accessible. Those are the areas where people desperately need involvement and we can�t begrudge them. Let�s do it through others who for a variety of reasons are prepared to get in.

And so, yes, you�re right that it�s paradoxical, but it does mean that the country is realising that it has to do something, and once the level of realisation reaches a satisfactory level, then you hope that national resources that are now being directed somewhere else will increasingly be put towards humanitarian purposes.

Q: How do you handle a situation like Somalia, which doesn�t have a properly functioning government in the normal sense?

A: The message is basically the same. Those that purport to control the lives and land of a country must assume responsibility for those under them, and it is basically the same message as the one to non-state actors except that these ones are quasi-states and so the level of responsibility is greater than for non-state actors.

Q: You have now been doing this job for 10 years. Could you be specific about which countries you feel have made real progress in addressing the plight of the internally displaced and which have not?

A: Well to be quite honest with you, every country I have visited I have felt satisfied with the level of awareness being raised by the mere fact of the mission and by the people who become involved in the process, by even the governments themselves being awakened to what is going on within their countries and beginning to recognise that they have to develop clear policies, clear structures, coordination within the government, with the international community, with intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations.

But I�ll say this by way of concluding remarks. Ten years is quite a period, and although we�ve seen a great deal of increasing international awareness and response there�s still a big gap. Sometimes we don�t quite know what this gap is.

We�ve been citing statistics over the last 10 years, but we have no empirical evidence on how much impact what is being done has made in terms of more meaningful response to the needs of the displaced, in terms of the reduction of the numbers of people being displaced in those countries where action has been taken or where there has been international response, whether the numbers are consistent because of new displacement problems. So all of that requires more empirical work.

In addition, I believe it�s time to take stock of what has taken place so far, so we�re going to be working towards a meeting which is going to be hosted by the government of Austria, which was the one that first hosted our work on the Guiding Principles to assess where we have come from, where we know we are and what challenges lie ahead, to do an appraisal of the different areas of our work, whether it is consciousness-raising, whether it is the Guiding Principles and how they have worked so far, whether it is institutional arrangements, the effectiveness of contributions or even the research agenda, and then to come out with a restatement of goals to reactivate and shift gears and hopefully to have a much more vigorous approach to the problem.

Q: Do you still see yourself doing this job in 10 years time?

A: [Laughs] Well, quite apart from whatever limits are placed � they do say there are natural limits within � there comes a point when what we call political leaders to do is to say: Look, maybe it is time for somebody else to take over. But to the extent that one�s services are needed, to the extent that one feels that the challenge is ongoing and we cannot just say forget it, I�ve had enough, I�m too tired, you do what best you can, but also hope that you are not a lone voice for the voiceless and that there are a lot more people getting involved.

[Ends]