"Modern
forms of warfare, the so-called, “new
wars” or forms of armed conflict are
the principal drivers of forced
displacement in the world today.
Indeed, they seek to displace forcibly
as many persons as possible, as the
current statistical trajectories of
those forcibly displaced clearly
indicate. It may be true that the “old
wars” or forms of international armed
conflict are no longer the scourge of
the past and their numbers are
diminishing they have been replaced by
the “new wars” or forms of modern
warfare where the numbers of deaths
from conflicts is in decline while, at
the same time, the number of those who
are being forcibly displaced is
escalating dramatically.
The nature of armed conflict has
changed. It is no longer easy to
distinguish civilians from combatants.
Those who are most affected by the new
wars and forms of armed conflict are
civilians, as the battlespace of
modern warfare is the “hearts and
minds” of the society’s civilian
population. Indeed, civilians become
the key targets of the “new wars”
through the use of information, but,
also through the twin motivations of
“greed and grievance.” The “blurring,”
that is characteristics of the “new
wars,” is intended to obfuscate the
actual situation and if one cannot
tell whether there is a state of war
or not then it has achieved its
primary objective.
The
forcibly displaced from war zones are
not routinely included alongside
battle related casualties in the
calculus of war. Yet, the displaced
are a direct consequence of the armed
conflicts. The fact that refugees come
from armed conflict has been
increasingly recognized in the
definitions of “refugee.” For
instance, this is most evident with
the 1969 OAU Convention, the 1984
Cartagena Declaration and the 1966
Bangkok Principles. There are forms of
surrogate protection from human rights
treaties reinforcing the principle of
non-refoulement. War refugees need to
be factored into the calculus of war.
New definitions of what constitutes
armed conflict and new measures of its
seriousness need to be and are being
developed.
An
examination of the 10 highest
producing refugee countries
demonstrates that they are all in the
throes of protracted armed conflicts
or generalized violence and
instability. A strong dictatorial
government can be a cause of large
civilian deaths as in Syria, but so
can a weak government like Somalia.
Both are examples of protracted armed
conflicts.
Just
four of these 10 States account for
more than half of all refugees in the
world today: Palestinians, Syrians,
Afghans, and Somalis. Of
these, the Palestinians and Syrians
are at the stage of needing to agree
to begin “making peace.” In both cases
next steps of how to move towards
peace are in place with the UN.
The
Somali conflict appears to be on a
path with an agreed government moving
very slowly to greater control.
Similarly, the highly fragile Afghan
conflict is on a path with an agreed
government. Seeking ways to reinforce
the Somali and Afghan processes while
they are moving along a path must not
be forgotten in the concerns to
address the major Syrian conflict or
to begin movement on the Palestinian
conflict.
The
UN has been evolving and reforming in
many areas including development,
human rights and peacekeeping. It has
been engaged in the efforts to try to
end all protracted armed conflicts but
many have defied its capacity to deal
with them. The 2005 Report of the
Secretary General on Mass Exoduses
proposed a UN response built of UN
reforms around a combination of human
rights, security and development. This
formula remains the basis of the UN
pushes for peace in response to
conflicts causing mass exoduses. In
addition there are initiatives with
longer-term payoff to promote such as
the Arms Trade Treaty and the search
for controls on conflict finance and
managing what happens to products
being mined.
The
Somali process has drawn on the UN
formula elements and appears to have
some potential for success with a
negotiated way of forming a
government, a way of international
armed forces working with national
armed forces, a way of development of
democratic institutions within wider
development.
Conflicts
involving many external actors are the
most difficult to address. Syria
teaches us the risk to international
peace and security of not getting all
the external actors around the
negotiating table quickly enough. Yet,
such conflicts pose a terrible
dilemma. Ending the conflict by
external power would risk a new form
of colonial rule, be it Pax Russia or
Pax United States. Encouraging the
Syrian parties involved to resolve the
conflict when there are external
actors is difficult and it takes time
with an ongoing threat to
international security and devastating
impact on civilians.
Provision
for return of refugees must continue
to be an important part of peace
processes. Plans must provide for
reintegration of refugees and their
inclusion in the wider post-conflict
development planning.
The
UNHCR High Commissioner must be
supported in advocating for protecting
the rights of refugees as he did
before the Security Council in 2015
concerning Syria. The role of refugee
advocate should be formalized
alongside that role as it is presently
enjoyed by the Under Secretary General
for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency
Relief Coordinator who acts as
advocate for displaced persons.
The
call to address the root causes of
refugees, as made by High Commissioner
McDonald in the vastly different
context of 1935, must be renewed. It
is now a call to address the causes of
refugees and remove the obstacles to
their safe return. It cannot be left
to governments squirreled away in UN
commissions and councils. It should
not be left to them because it is
political or too difficult or too long
term or not personable enough. It
should not be left to the UNHCR alone.
Those
NGOs with access to elected
representatives such as Members of
Parliament, Congressmen and
Congresswomen, or to Governments or
to the UN must call on them to
address the conflicts and provide
solutions for the refugees. The call
must become a routine component of
any humanitarian work around refugee
protection. The call must be nuanced
because the large refugee
populations have different needs.
Yet, pushing for the necessary
resources for the UN operations must
be a common thread."
