The Mess We're In: Managing the Refugee Crisis

Published in Australia by

Trabagem Publishing

PO Box 5068

Camberwell VIC 3124

(+61) 0412 411 829

andrew.r.bennetts@icloud.com

www.andrewbennetts.com.au

First published in Australia 2017

Copyright © Andrew Bennetts 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the publisher, nor be otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

Creator: Bennetts, Andrew, author.

Title: The Mess We’re In: Managing the Refugee Crisis / Andrew Bennetts.

ISBN: 9780994465207 (paperback)

ISBN: 9780994465214 (ebook)

Subjects: Refugees. Political refugees. Asylum, Right of.

Cover photography by Arthimedes

Cover layout and design by Nitsua

Book layout design and typesetting by Nelly Murariu, PixBeeDesign.com

Printed by Ingram Spark

Contents

Definitions

Introduction

PART 1. SITUATION

Section 1.1 Global Review

CH 1. A Desperate Journey

CH 2. Disruption

CH 3. Vulnerable

CH 4. Protection

CH 5. Waiting

CH 6. Solution

CH 7. Home?

Section 1.2 Australian Review

CH 8. Australia’s Immigration

CH 9. Australia’s Humanitarianism

CH 10. Australia’s Debate

PART 2. THE COMPLICATION, PRINCIPLES & ASSESSMENT

Sections 2.1 & 2.2

CH 11. The Complication – The Main Problems

CH 12. Principles & Assessment Framework

PART 3. OPTIONS & RECOMMENDATION

Section 3.1 Options Assessment

CH 13. Approach Options - Component Policies

CH 14. Holistic Approaches and Assessment – Current State

CH 15. Holistic Approaches and Assessment – Proposed

Section 3.2 Recommendation and Implementation

CH 16. Discussion and Recommendation

CH 17. Implementation and Australia’s Lead

Conclusion

About the Author

Acknowledgments

DEFINITIONS

Refugees and International Bodies

Approach Options: Component Policies › Policies raised as possible supporting strategies to resolve the refugee situation. These may assist Holistic Approaches without being all-encompassing solutions themselves.

Approach Options: Holistic Approaches › Comprehensive strategies to manage the refugee situation.

Asylum Seeker › An individual who has sought protection as a refugee, but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been assessed. Every refugee has at some point been an asylum seeker.

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention and Protocol) › A United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who is a refugee. It sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. The original Convention, approved in 1951, was limited to European refugees prior to 1951. The 1967 Protocol removed the timing and geographic limitations.

Countries of First Asylum › Neighbouring countries close to the asylum seeker’s Country of Origin. Due to their proximity, they generally hold the majority of asylum seekers.

Countries of Second Asylum › The 62 countries that are not Countries of First Asylum, have over one million in population, a high or upper-middle income, and are considered free or partially free (according to Freedom House’s Freedoms of the World Index). They have a combined population of over 1.7 billion, roughly 25% of the global population. These countries have the best combination of resources and willingness to create a positive impact on the plight of the world’s forcibly displaced people.

Country of Asylum › The country or territory that is hosting an asylum seeker or refugee.

Country of Origin › The country or territory from which an asylum seeker or refugee originates.

Disruptive Causes › Events resulting in people becoming forcibly displaced.

Durable Solutions › A UNHCR term describing an ongoing permanent protection that is provided to a refugee. The UNHCR defines three durable solutions:

1. Voluntary Repatriation to the person’s Country of Origin;

2. Local Integration within the host country of asylum;

3. Resettlement to a third country, which is a signatory nation to the Refugee Convention.

Forcibly Displaced People › Group term for refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced people (IDPs). Each group has a detailed specification as defined by the UNHCR.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) › Multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 committing parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights, and rights to due process and a fair trial.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) › Multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 and in force in 1976 committing parties to work toward the granting of economic, social, and cultural rights to the Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories and individuals, including labour rights and the right to health, the right to education, and the right to an adequate standard of living.

Internally Displaced People (IDP) › People who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence as a result of generalised violence, violations of human rights, or natural or man-made disasters. They have not crossed an internationally recognised state border¹.

Local Integration › Permanent settlement of a refugee within their host community, being the Country of First Asylum.

Mandate Refugees › Refugees under the mandate of the UNHCR as defined by the Refugee Convention. The key exclusion are Palestinian refugees under the mandate of the UNRWA.

Non-refoulement › The right for refugees not to be returned to a country where they risk persecution.

Refugee › An individual who is outside their home country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution (because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion), and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country; or in the case of not having a nationality and being outside their country of former habitual residence as a result of such event, is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to their country of former habitual residence². Such a person may be called an asylum seeker until considered with the status of refugee by the Contracting State where they formally make a claim for sanctuary or right of asylum.

Refugee Status Determination (RSD) › The legal or administrative process by which governments or the UNHCR determine whether a person seeking international protection is considered a refugee under international law³.

Repatriated Refugees › Refugees who have returned to their place of origin.

Resettlement › Transfer of a refugee from an asylum country to another State that has agreed to admit them as refugees with permanent residence status and to ultimately grant them permanent settlement.

Resettlement Submissions › Requests by the UNHCR for refugees to be resettled on the back of processing which determines individuals who cannot go home due to continued conflict or persecution, or have specific needs that cannot be addressed in the current place where they have sought protection.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P) › The criteria issued by the International Commission on

Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in 2001 for a legitimate exercise of humanitarian intervention.

Returned IDPs › IDPs who have returned to their place of origin⁴.

Secondary Movement › Movement from a Country of First Asylum to another country, often a more wealthy Country of Second Asylum.

Stateless Person › An individual not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law⁵.

UNHCR - Other People of Concern › Individuals who do not necessarily fall directly into any other groups but to whom UNHCR may extend its protection and/or assistance services. These activities might be based on humanitarian or other special grounds.

UNHCR - Population of Concern › UNHCR category including persons who are forcibly displaced (refugees, asylum seekers, IDPs etc.), those who have found a durable solution (returnees), as well as stateless persons, most of whom have never been forcibly displaced. This categorisation is different to that of forcibly displaced persons. The figure for forcibly displaced persons worldwide, includes refugees and IDPs beyond the UNHCR mandate, and excludes returnees and stateless persons⁶.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) › A subsidiary organ of the United

Nations acting under the authority of the UN General Assembly. Fulfils two core purposes⁷: to ensure the international protection of refugees; and to find a solution to their plight.

United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) › A relief and human development agency that provides education, health care and social services to the five million registered Palestinian refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars, a number that includes their descendants.

Voluntary Repatriation › Voluntary return of a refugee to their Country of Origin.

Migration, Culture and Sovereignty

Cultural Assimilation › The process where immigrant cultures come to resemble those of the host group. It is a one-sided process of adaptation that may be gradual or fast. Ultimately the new members of the society give up their distinctive language, culture and social characteristics to become indistinguishable from the host group.

Gross National Income (GNI) Per Capita › The dollar value of a country’s final income in a year, divided by its population. It reflects the average income of a country’s citizens.

Human Rights › A set of moral and legal guidelines that promote and protect our values, our identity and our ability to ensure an adequate standard of living. Nine core human rights treaties defining a series of human rights have been signed by the vast majority of countries.

Liberal Democracy › A democratic system of government in which individual rights and freedoms are officially recognised and protected.

Multiculturalism › The existence, acceptance, or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single jurisdiction.

Net Emigrant Countries › Countries with an excess of persons leaving the country each year after calculating the difference between the number of persons entering and leaving a country during that year.

Net Immigrant Countries › Countries with an excess of persons entering the country each year after calculating the difference between the number of persons entering and leaving a country during that year.

Net Overseas Migration (NOM) › The net gain or loss of population through immigration to and emigration from a country.

Secularism › The belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education.

Sharia › The legal framework within which the public, and some private, aspects of life are regulated based on Islam.

Sovereignty › The full right and power of a body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources.

Theocracy › A commonwealth or state under a system of government in which God or a deity is recognised as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by religious authorities.

Total Fertility Rate › A measure of an imaginary woman’s fertility as she passes through her entire reproductive life (assumed to be 15-49) during one year, experiencing all the age-specific fertility rates for that year.

Australia’s Programs

Australia’s Offshore Program › Australia’s process for resettlement of refugees directly from an asylum country to Australia. That is, they apply to Australia for settlement from outside Australia’s territory (i.e. off-shore). It consists of the Refugee Program and the Special Humanitarian Program.

Australia’s Onshore Program › Australia’s process for Asylum Seekers who apply for protection after arrival to Australia. That is, they apply to Australia for asylum within Australia’s territory (i.e. on-shore). This program processes for ‘authorised’ and ‘unauthorised’ arrivals.

Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs) › Asylum seekers who arrived to Australia by a boat without the appropriate visa entry documents for Australia, should they not be seeking asylum.

Mandatory Detention › Australian law requiring people within its territory found to be ‘unlawful citizens’ to be detained until they are granted a visa or removed from the country. The law also allows for asylum seekers who qualify as ‘unlawful non-citizens’, by arriving at an ‘excised offshore place’ such as Christmas Island, to be detained.

Operation Sovereign Borders › Australian policy, since September 2013, with the aim of deterring asylum seekers from coming to Australia by denying them access to Australia. Australian naval officers are issued with orders to turn back boats carrying asylum seekers "when it is safe to do so⁸".

Pacific Solution › Australian policy for offshore processing of asylum seekers who are unauthorised arrivals. This off-shore processing has been done in detention centres in other countries (Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island) and under the laws of those countries⁹.

Permanent Migration Program › Australia’s program providing permanent entry into the country. It is divided into a Migration Part consisting of Family, Skilled and Special Eligibility components, and a Humanitarian Part consisting of Onshore, Offshore and Special Humanitarian Programs. Refugee entry is provided through the Humanitarian Part.

Temporary Migration Program › Australia’s process allowing international visitors to stay for 12 months or more but not permanently. It includes Temporary Business, Overseas Students, and Working Holiday Makers.

The Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers (Houston Report) › Australian Report commissioned by the Gillard Government in 2012 to assess the policy options available to prevent asylum seekers risking their lives on dangerous boat voyages to Australia. It specifically related to reducing the unauthorised asylum seeker boat arrivals through the Onshore Program.

White Australia Policy › A combination of various historical policies that intentionally favoured immigrants to Australia from other English-speaking countries and certain North-western European countries.

INTRODUCTION

How do we best help refugees? As a 21st century Australian resident, it is difficult not to be drawn into the plight of refugees and our country’s response. For almost two decades it has been one of our country’s dominant political topics and over that time the country has repeatedly changed its refugee-related policies. Each change is seemingly critiqued by local and international observers. Some focus on Australia’s international obligations and adherence to human rights. Others contextualise the changes in terms of border security and controlling the numbers of asylum seekers arriving at our shores. For the casual observer, these changes appear to greatly impact the inflows of asylum seekers, the human rights they experience, and Australia’s global standing.

Overlaying the debate about Australia’s response to a large, long-standing and growing issue, are two global developments that are hard to ignore. The first is the rapidly growing global population, most significant in the poor and developing nations; many of these nations having consistently produced large numbers of refugees over the past 35 years. This growth suggests the scale of refugees is likely to increase significantly in the coming decades. The second is the mass migration toward Europe in the northern summer of 2015 and the ensuing friction. This event may be interpreted either as an isolated occurrence requiring a special effort to resolve, or as a harbinger of future movements should policies remain unchanged. Regardless of the interpretation, the mass migration to Europe in 2015 has crystallised for a generation the possibility of what may eventuate without a review of the current system. Such mass migration is unprecedented in recent times, and therefore its consequences unknown.

The question of how we best help refugees is one of the key issues of our time. It is a global question and has implications for the vast numbers of forcibly displaced people and, potentially, the viability of the nations who are trying to help them.

I have been torn by the dilemma facing Australia, and all nations looking to help, in response to the refugee situation. On the one hand, many Western governments (and certainly Australia) presented as not doing enough to help the world’s Forcibly Displaced People and of systematically breaching key areas of human rights. On the other hand, there appears much to risk by uncontrolled and limitless immigration and refugee flows such as those to Europe in 2015. There are economic risks, which become apparent when considering the number (at least 60 million) of those forcibly displaced¹⁰. There are security risks, such as the coordinated Paris shootings that killed 130 in November 2015. The gunmen, known to authorities and last traced in the Middle East, appeared to have re-entered Europe through the asylum seeker channel¹¹. The cultural risks are debatable and appear to be relevant over a longer term. While cultural risks are affected by asylum seeker and refugee policy, they are also related to education, migration and demographic changes.

There is clearly a moral component to this dilemma. How robust are the societies of the countries who are trying to help and what limits, if any, should they impose on themselves when helping the world’s vulnerable in order to protect their own viability? What if these limits mean denying support to those who, while not being citizens, clearly need help? What if these limits infringe on the human rights of vulnerable and innocent people and breach a country’s obligations under international law?

As a casual observer, I found plenty of information regarding the number of forcibly displaced people and the human rights abuses many endure. What I had more trouble finding was data relating to key demographic questions; for example, population projections and the results of how different approaches to refugee intakes may play out. Certainly the number of refugees was widely communicated, but not the potential number of future refugees or the potential consequences for countries about to take in a large number of refugees. For me, these were crucial pieces of evidence that were less prevalent in the debate seen by the general public.

Surely this gap in information must be filled to best answer the moral questions of our modern-day refugee dilemma. It is this gap that compelled me to research and write this book. My contention was that to fully explore the refugee situation, the consequences of various approaches was required to be fully appreciated. Only then can views regarding the best approach be formed. I am not an expert on refugees, nor demography, sociology or international human rights laws, nor am I aligned to a political party. In many ways this book provides a different and unencumbered perspective and has enabled a review free from adhering to political agenda and party lines. My previous experience is in management consulting and business analysis, and it is these skills I have used to draw together the information related to this issue.

This book is intended to be a resource for Australians interested in better understanding all aspects of the global refugee situation and who want to help refugees (and all other people who have been forcibly displaced) as best as possible. It is designed to be an information repository, not only regarding the facts related to refugees, but also the moral principles that must be addressed to determine what it means to best help refugees. Paris Aristotle, one of Australia’s leading refugee advocates, referred to the refugee situation as an example of a Wicked Problem¹². Wicked Problems are virtually impossible to solve as any solution usually creates other additional problems. Given the complex nature of the refugee situation, the book also presents a way of assessing the various trade-offs that must be made in finding the best possible approach. In terms of semantics, the book discusses approaches rather than solutions as there does not appear to be a solution to the refugee situation.

The topic is broad and emotional, and there are many aspects that are required to be covered. This book sweeps an expansive terrain. It aims to provide the reader with the full landscape of considerations, but given its breadth the deep dives are left for other publications. The concepts to consider include human rights law, economics, sociology, political structures, history, demography and of course, morality. Where there is clearly more to learn I refer the reader to the books I found illuminating and the footnotes provide other sources of information used in the development of this work.

I have come to believe that best helping refugees is also best helping the world. The refugee situation can no longer be isolated and managed through the status quo with no implications for the wider world. The last major change to the world’s humanitarian approach occurred in the aftermath of World War II. The set of international agreements and human rights laws that were introduced with that context set a new standard in international cooperation and respect for all humans. The laws and rights brought much benefit and help to the world. However, that was a long time ago and there are growing signs that changes are necessary. There is no reason why the next generation of changes to the world’s humanitarian approach cannot set a new standard that is higher again.

One of the realities in understanding the refugee situation is getting across the mounds of terminology. Some of it is short hand used to simplify the language; other terms are quite specific and precise. The most critical terms are covered in this introduction, and in the body of the book I define each new term when it is first used. In addition, a definitions section is included at the front of the book as a resource to reference along the way.

The book is set into three parts that broadly mirror a management consulting report. This structure has proved effective for decades in introducing and conveying broad and complex issues in a logical and methodical format. Part 1 is a situational review divided into two sections. Section 1.1 comprises seven chapters and outlines the global refugee situation. This section discusses why people are displaced and become refugees, the types of countries that traditionally produce refugees, and the likely future projections. It covers the history of international efforts in protecting refugees including the formation of the United Nations and its subsidiary organ for supporting refugees – the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). An overview of the different ways in which countries help is also provided. Efforts of supporting nations include donations to the UNHCR, the harbouring of refugees, and granting refugees a permanent residency within their lands. Benefits and costs of migration are reviewed, as is the potential economic, social and security threats that large numbers of refugees may present.

Section 1.2 covers Australia specifically. It contains three chapters that discuss Australia’s migration history and current set up. Australia is one of the world’s foremost nation of migrants, however this has not prevented episodes of racism and xenophobia. Since 1970 it has embraced high levels of migration and achieved a relatively harmonious society where almost half the population is either born overseas or has a parent born overseas. In this section, Australia’s humanitarian history and current approach is also reviewed. The final chapter focuses on the issues and controversies regarding Australia’s current humanitarian policies. Such policies include boat turn-backs, off-shore processing and the mandatory detention of all boat arrivals, including the detention of children.

Part 2 has only two chapters. Chapter 11 describes the complication, which is the summarised list of the main issues identified in the situational analysis. These issues are the essence of the problem, if they could all somehow be resolved then the plight of the world’s forcibly displaced people (and the countries trying to help them) would be rectified. Unfortunately, because it is unlikely that they will all somehow be resolved, we are led to questions of trade-offs regarding competing needs.

Chapter 12 provides a set of ‘questions-of-principle’ that relate to these competing needs. These, questions-of-principle, require priorities to be determined that then frame how the approach options will be assessed. Many of these, questions-of-principle, are difficult as they require a subordination of an intuitive good. Responses are likely to vary among people and will lead to different views as to what approach is the best. A weakness of the current debate about the refugee situation is that it focuses on disagreements regarding approach options rather than the underlying principles from which they are developed. Such a focus may never result in an agreement as two parties that cannot understand their differences in principle are unlikely to be able to agree on an approach option.

In order to move to the options assessment I provide answers to these questions-of-principles. It is these answers that develop the assessment framework. As such, a reader who disagrees with my answers to these, questions-of-principle, will disagree with my assessment of the approach options.

Part 3 provides the options assessment and recommendation. It has two sections each with two chapters. Section 3.1 provides factual information about various policy options and approaches to help refugees. One area regards Component Policies. These are ideas that can help refugees without being complete (or holistic) approaches. The intention is to communicate the broad range of ideas being discussed and tried, both here and abroad. The other area focuses on the Holistic Approaches. These are total approaches, which may utilise some Component Policies. The book details eight Holistic Approaches from the perspective of the likely outcome if all the nations of the world that wanted to help were asked to follow each approach. Each option is described and then assessed against the framework developed in Part 2.

Section 3.2 compares the approach options and reviews the trade-offs required to be made in selecting a ‘best’ option. An example of one such trade-off is choosing between an approach that provides a better standard of living for more refugees but has large implementation challenges that could ultimately lead to failure, against an approach that is not as beneficial for refugees but more likely to succeed. Selecting a ‘best’ option is ultimately a judgement call that can only be effectively made with a full understanding of these trade-offs. The book finishes with a global recommendation as well as a road-map for action detailing how Australia can lead the way in its implementation.

There are a number of terms that invariably come up when discussing the plight of displaced people. Without proper explanation things can easily get confusing. While these terms are explained along the way and listed in the definitions section at the start of this introduction, a handful warrant specific reference here.

■The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (the UNHCR). A United Nations subsidiary organ established in 1950 to ensure the international protection of refugees and to find a solution to their plight.

■Durable Solutions. A UNHCR term that describes the targeted solutions to a refugee’s plight. The UNHCR defines three durable solutions. Each will be described in more detail in Chapter 6 :

■Voluntary Repatriation of the refugee back to their Country of Origin.

■Integration of the refugee locally with their host nation.

■Resettlement of the refugee to a third country.

Fig 0.1 › Book Structure - Management Consulting Approach.

There are many categories for displaced and vulnerable people. The three key groups important to recognise up front are refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced people (IDPs). Each group has a detailed specification as defined by the UNHCR. For simplicity, this book describes people in these three categories collectively as Forcibly Displaced People. A simplified definition for each category is:

■Refugee : An individual outside their home country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of their former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. As at the end of 2014 there were 19.5 million refugees (14.4 million under the UNHCR mandate and 5.1 million Palestinian refugees registered by UNRWA).

■Asylum Seeker : An individual who has sought protection as a refugee, but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been assessed. Every refugee has at some point been an asylum seeker. As at end of 2014 there were 1.8 million asylum seekers.

■Internally Displaced Person (IDP) : An individual forced to flee their home but remains within their country’s borders. Although often referred to as refugees they do not fall within the current legal definition of a refugee. As at end of 2014 there were 38.2 million IDPs.

Fig 0.2 > Relationship of IDPs, Asylum Seekers Refugees and Durable Solutions. Data Source: UNHCR 2014.

Liberal Democracies

A cornerstone piece of this analysis is my belief that liberal democracies are a good thing for humanity. They correlate with higher GDP and have likely contributed to improved living conditions over the past 200 years. With their roots in the ancient Mediterranean empires, such democracies re-emerged in modern times within Western Europe and North America and expanded through all regions of the globe: South Korea and Japan in Asia; Chile and Argentina in South America; Latvia and Lithuania in Europe; Mauritius and Botswana in Africa; and Israel and Cyprus in the Middle East. Wherever they go they invariably lift the freedoms, rights and quality of life of the population.

According to the Museum of Australian Democracy, liberal democracies share four main principles¹³.

1. A belief in the individual: since the individual is believed to be both moral and rational;

2. A belief in reason and progress: based on the belief that growth and development is the natural condition of mankind, and politics the art of compromise;

3. A belief in a society that is consensual: based on a desire for order and co-operation not disorder and conflict;

4. A belief in shared power: based on a suspicion of concentrated power (whether by individuals, groups or governments).

In his inaugural speech to the Australian Senate in March 2016, newly inducted senator James Paterson referred to classical liberals, and by extension liberal democracies, as "the custodians of a set of ideas that goes back centuries. We have inherited an incredibly proud intellectual tradition. Throughout history, liberals have fought for human progress. It was people who called themselves liberals who helped emancipate slaves, enacted religious freedom, and established the principle that all should be equal before the law¹⁴".

More and more countries have become liberal democracies since the start of the 20th century. However, there are still many nations that do not function in this way. Of 195 countries assessed in the Freedom in the World Report by Freedom House, 54% were rated as partly free or not free¹⁵. These countries house 61% of the world’s population. Through the progression of such nations toward being liberal democracies, the standard of living for all humanity can be lifted and the numbers living in poverty and despair reduced.

Of course progress takes time and for the millions of refugees who are suffering today immediate help and action is required. How do we best help refugees, and best help the world? The approach must include maintaining the ongoing viability of liberal democracies as these are the cradles from which human rights will flourish throughout the world. However that does not mean more cannot be done. Our approach to help refugees can and must be improved, this book explores how.

PART 1

Situation

Section 1.1

Global Review

CH 1. A DESPERATE JOURNEY

Fig 1.1 › The Refugee Journey.

The Refugee Journey is a framework that outlines the unenviable journey a person who becomes a refugee takes from forcible displacement through to a permanent, durable solution. This book reviews information relevant to each step to ensure a complete coverage of aspects to consider with regard to the refugee situation. In Part 3 the Refugee Journey is also used in the assessment of various Holistic Approach Options for best managing the global crisis.

The Refugee Journey explained

The Refugee Journey is depicted across three steps. Each step contains an ‘event’ and a ‘status’. The event is an occurrence that moves a person out of one status and into a new status. The status reflects the type of protection (or lack of protection) a person is receiving from a state or non-government agency like the UNHCR. The journey is thought to be an extremely long one. Although precise calculations are difficult, the current average time to move through these three stages is estimated to be eighteen years and growing. In 1993 the average was nine years¹.

Step 1: Not Protected

Step 1 Event: Disruptive Cause

A Disruptive Cause is an event that results in an individual becoming displaced and, initially at least, unprotected by a state or agency. There are multiple types of Disruptive Causes including: persecution of an individual or group by a government (or another group the government fails to keep in check); war or conflict that places a threat to an individual’s life; and natural disasters such as earthquakes or environmental changes such as rising sea levels.

Step 1 Status: Not Protected (through country nor Refugee Convention)

Individuals who are displaced due to a Disruptive Cause do not perceive themselves to be protected by their home country nor are they protected under the Refugee Convention by an agency such as the UNHCR or another state. It is difficult to get a true measure of the number of people in this status as they do not always identify themselves, often for their own safety. Examples of people in this status include:

■38.2 million IDPs at the end of 2014 as estimated by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre ². This includes people in emergency camps due to conflict or a natural disaster within their home country.

■People who are in their home country but are persecuted due to their race.

■People who have left their country due to religious persecution