Minister for International Development Erik Solheim

The future of refugee protection

Norwegian Refugee Council’s 60th anniversary, Oslo, 10.11.06

According to an old Jewish saying, when you die God simply asks you before letting you enter heaven; “Did life on earth become a little bit better because you lived?”. If the answer to that is, “yes, life became a little bit better”, then we are on the right track. And I think that is really the only thing we should ask ourselves; “Am I making this world a little bit better”. Flyktninghjelpen and their staff can proudly answer; “Yes, we are contributing to making this world a little bit better”.

You are doing a great job, and I would like to start with congratulating you with doing so for 60 years, adding that I hope that you will not be needed for another 60 years.

Let me start with one of my historical favourites, the American general U.S. Grant. When the American civil war started in 1861 he was running a clothing shop in a small town in Illinois. Grant was very eager to join the army because he wanted to do so before it was over. He did not think it would last very long. The war lasted four years and more Americans were killed during that war than in all other American wars combined. But those who started the war thought it would be short, successful and relatively unbloody.

The story has repeated itself throughout history. Hitler thought he could defeat the Russians before winter, so he did not bother to provide his army with winter boots. The Americans thought likewise when they went to war in Vietnam. When the Russians decided to invade Afghanistan, there were four persons involved in the decision, two of them suffering from senile dementia. Again, they thought the campaign would be short, successful and relatively unbloody and that it would establish Soviet influence in Afghanistan for decades to come. The driving force was Yuri Andropov, probably the most intelligent and decent person to reach that level of Soviet politics ever, before Gorbachov. They invaded around Christmas and Andropov thought the Russian forces would be out of Afghanistan by summer..

Nearly all wars are much bloodier, much more confused and last longer than those starting the wars believed initially. The only resent exception being the first Gulf war in 1990.

The most important we can do if we want to help refugees in the world, is of course to avoid war. Unfortunately there is no Nobel Peace Prize for preventing a war. You can get the prize for mediating a peace agreement. You can get it for starting a war and later being able to stop it, but nobody has ever received the Nobel Peace Prize for a war avoided.

There is a tendency to always believe that the world is going from bad to worse. This is not true. Even when it comes to war, there is a trend going from bad to somewhat better. There are fewer wars today than in the 1980ties and they are less bloody. There are more democracies in the world today, fewer Saddam Hussein-types of leaders. Overall the human rights situation is improving.

The general trend is moving in the right direction and the main reason for that is that the tendency of outside powers to interfere is not as strong as during the cold war. Today the big powers are by and large, working together trying to solve problems, rather than fighting proxy wars in the developing world.

Events over this last week also give reason for optimism. The Norwegian government is of course neutral when it comes to elections in the USA, but the election result might change one aspect of the US policy, perhaps the one that has been most difficult for us to understand; The present administration’s unwillingness to speak to parties they don’t like. Declaring that this or that government or this or that movement is persona non grata that we should not talk to.

I’m a fanatical supporter of dialogue, even with people I completely disagree with. There is simply no other way to solve problems like the Palestinian problem, or the Afghanistan problem, or the Sudan problem than speaking to people. And you can not only speak to those you like, you must speak to all relevant parties. To exclude relevant parties from the dialogue is a dangerous attitude, but I believe that we might see changes in that attitude.

If you want to solve the refugee problem or the problem with IDPs in a country like Afghanistan, there is no way you can do this without including the Pakistanis, the Indians and the Iranians. Please remind yourselves that there is no way that the Afghans could have made such a mess of their country if they had been let to themselves. Only if all relevant parties are engaged, can we ensure that the country is moving in the right direction.

This is my starting point. Let us speak, let us work for international solutions where everyone is moving in the same direction, together for common solutions and let us do everything possible to avoid war. But if war breaks out, despite these efforts, we have to use diplomacy, political social and economic means, and - if necessary - military power, to prevent war from escalating.

Narrowing the scope somewhat towards the specific task of Flyktningehjelpen. Let me just comment on a few important items:

1. Protection in the future must be based on what has been done in the past: the 1951 Refugee Convention has been and will be the central tool for the protection of refugees

The UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention) was adopted in 1951. It has been confirmed as the central protection instrument on several occasions. 143 countries have ratified it to date. In future, it will be important to protect the Convention and its protocol from being eroded. It is also important to convince additional countries to ratify the Convention. Unfortunately, several important countries in the Middle East and Asia have not done so yet. NGO like Flyktninghjelpen has a very important advocacy role to play with respect to strengthening the convention.

2. The number of refugees is declining – IDPs are today’s greatest challenge

Today, there are around eight million refugees in the world, the lowest level since 1980. The number of IDPs, however, is on the rise, and today IDPs pose a much greater humanitarian challenge than refugees. IDPs are not protected by any international convention, and a number of states are of the view that their protection is a national responsibility.

The increase in the number of IDPs is to a large extent due to the fact that many of today’s conflicts are internal, rather than between states. The situation in Darfur is probably the most striking example; northern Uganda, Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo are others. IDPs require protection and support. Various states are either unable or unwilling to provide security for their IDPs.

IDPs are mainly a result of fragile states. Why is it so? Because most of these states are new states, founded on the basis of maps drawn in Berlin and other places. The result is states without any national identity, without any national ideology, without any historical leadership. Adding to that, there were hardly any structures or institutions to begin with. For example many African countries had hardly any army. And when there is no real army safeguarding the political control, any small group with arms can challenge the leadership.

The main difference between Sri Lanka and India is that India has a strong, functional state. India is actually a political miracle. So few wars, so little organized violence within a bigger population than Africa and South-America combined is of course the result of India having a strong state.

In order to avoid more IDPs, in order to avoid more wars, particularly in Africa, the focus should be on state building. This is a difficult task. It has to be home grown and we should avoid all simplistic approaches to state building.

Increased attention has been focused on IDPs through the cluster approach that was launched a year ago. It aims to clarify which of the various organisations involved in a given situation is responsible for taking action. Although the new approach still needs to find its final form, it has already had a positive effect. We need to ensure that this trend continues.

UNHCR has given higher priority to IDPs during the past years. This part of its work should be strengthened, and UNHCR must do its part to make the cluster approach more efficient. There needs to be a sharper focus on field activities, and coordination mechanisms have to be made less bureaucratic. The Norwegian Refugee Council has focused on IDPs for a long time, and IDPs already account for around 80 per cent of its beneficiaries. Through the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), valuable efforts have been made to focus attention on these people.

3. Displaced women are particularly vulnerable – strengthened follow-up of Security Council resolution 1325 (Norwegian action plan)

Women tend to be more vulnerable than men, but they also tend to take more responsibility in a refugee situation than men.

A large proportion of both refugees and IDPs are women. They are too often subject to sexual violence, even in situations where they ought to be protected. Rape and other forms of sexual exploitation are all too common. Massive sexual exploitation is one of the ugliest aspects of the dramatic situation in Darfur. The Security Council adopted resolution 1325 in 2000, and too little has been done to implement it since then. The Norwegian Government therefore launched a national action plan for the implementation of the resolution in March this year. The action plan provides that all recipients of Norwegian humanitarian aid will have to incorporate the resolution into their projects, and include this aspect in their reporting.

4. Protracted situations – residence in refugee camps becomes permanent

A large proportion of the world’s refugees have lived in camps for several years (protracted situations). Greater attention must be paid to solving these long-standing problems, and efforts must be made to avoid new refugee situations becoming protracted. Trying to find solutions to such protracted situations can often help to reduce tensions and alleviate conflicts between countries. Far too often, unresolved conflicts have hindered neighbouring countries in improving bilateral relations. (Examples include: Nepal/Bhutan, Western Sahara).

One way of resolving protracted situations is to adopt holistic approaches that combine various long-term solutions, such as local integration, voluntary return and resettlement in third countries. In some cases, the targeted use of development cooperation funds could kick-start the process of finding holistic solutions. At present, serious efforts are under way to find a holistic solution to the problem of Bhutanese refugees who have been stuck in Nepal for the last 15 years.

5. Transitional support (GAP) – return is the most obvious long-term solution

For the great majority of refugees in the world, return to their homes is the most obvious long-term solution where the circumstances allow it. It is of utmost importance to ensure that refugees have something to return to. Transitional support has an important role to play in restoring vital infrastructure. A minimum level of health and education services need to be in place before refugees can return successfully.

Many refugees today are in a better situation in their camps than they would be in at home. This is true, for example, of the refugees from Southern Sudan who are living in camps in neighbouring countries. Greater efforts must be made to put in place some minimum infrastructure, so that people can return home and resume their lives.

6. Xenophobia and right-wing populist policies create problems for refugees in host countries

The protection of refugees has in recent years come under increased pressure in various host countries as a result of populist policies and xenophobia. These things threaten countries’ ability to meet their obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Internal policy in host countries should not be given greater priority than the obligation to provide effective protection to those who have fled because of threats to life or health. Efforts should therefore be made to combat xenophobic tendencies. Improved integration of refugees and immigrants is key here.

The politicians have to take the lead, but NGOs like Flyktninghjelpen are crucial in establishing a climate that is conducive to receiving refugees.

7. International migration – important to secure the rights of those who need protection

There are persons in real need of international protection among the large numbers of labour migrants seeking their fortune in other countries. In future, it will be important to manage both groups of people in a way that does not undermine their fundamental rights. UNHCR has an important role to play in helping transit and receiving countries to establish systems for the efficient identification of those who are truly in need of protection, so as to avoid sending them back.

I would also like to express my great satisfaction with the fact that migration now has been placed on the UN agenda. All member states now agree that the issue of migration can not be isolated to the national level. This is a very important step forward.

8. UNHCR must reform to become more efficient – far too much is spent on administration and personnel costs

UNHCR is the UN’s refugee agency. Its very important mandate is set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention.

It has been, is currently, and must continue to be a very important actor in the humanitarian field. Norway is a staunch supporter of UNHCR.

Unfortunately, in recent years, the organisation has been operating at a sub-optimal level. The rise in administrative and staffing costs has caused a gradual decline in UNHCR’s ability to provide effective protection. This has also reduced donors’ trust in the organisation.

A much larger proportion of UNHCR’s resources need to be channelled into operations that directly benefit those who need help. UNHCR needs to work more efficiently with partners, particularly NGOs. An encouraging reform process is under way. Norway will keep a close eye on the reform process and, with the recent election of Ambassador Wegger Strømmen to the post of Vice-Chairman of the Executive Committee of UNHCR; it has accepted a particular responsibility to closely follow the process.

9. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) – an old but vigorous organisation

The NRC has been an important advocate for the rights of displaced persons, both in Norway and internationally, for 60 years. Through determined action, it has grown to become an internationally respected organisation and a central UNHCR partner. Around 4000 individuals have been seconded to various international organisations to help them to provide timely relief to people who are in great need as a result of crises or catastrophes.

I would like to conclude by expressing my strong support for the NRC. It is of the utmost importance that the NRC continues to speak out for the rights and needs of refugees and displaced persons, even if this involves criticising the Government.