Commentary on current refugee issues.

Commentary on current refugee issues. On 3 November 1994, Aristide Zolberg spoke with members of theJournal of International Affairs The Journal of International Affairs is a leading foreign affairs periodical published twice yearly by the students at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University in New York. editorial board about the currentdevelopments in the international refugee regime and its attempts toaddress unfolding refugee crises. Reprinted here are ProfessorZolberg's responses to particular issues including immigration immigration,entrance of a person (an alien) into a new country for the purpose of establishing permanent residence. Motives for immigration, like those for migration generally, are often economic, although religious or political factors may be very important. tension in host countries, liberalism and multiculturalism, the move ofglobal humanitarian and peacekeeping functions to the regional level andthe need for revitalized and innovative thinking on refugees. For a long time, many refugees were people in the third world, whowere for the most part in camps next door to their countries of origin.The camps were managed in one way or another by the internationalcommunity, where in some cases, relocation has been the end of thetunnel. The Vietnamese, for example. The second category was peopleoriginating in communist countries. There were not too many, becausecommunist countries never let them out for the most part. But EastGermans were welcomed in West Germany West Germany:see Germany. , and the Hungarians in 1956 andthe Czechs in 1968 were able to get haven in various Western countrieswithout much difficulty. Now one of the things that happened, not really after the end ofthe Cold War, but before the end of the Cold War was a kind ofbroadening of this pool and so, a difficulty in sorting them out.Cubans, for example. Cubans came to the U.S., were welcomed as victimsof communism by several successive presidents, and so on. As late as1965 there were "freedom flights" which went on until about1972. By the mid-1970s, it turned out that some of these victims ofcommunism weren't quite as "white" as the other victimsof communism who had come earlier. This began to be a less of an"easy" thing. Also, during the Solidarity crisis The Solidarity Crisis refers to a protest movement in Vancouver, British Columbia in 1983 that emerged in response to the Social Credit (Socred) government's economic policy of "restraint. in 1981, itwas made very clear that Poles wouldn't get massive havens the wayHungarians had gotten havens in 1956 or the Czechs in 1968. It'sinteresting. Austria dosed its borders to Poles. "No we're notgoing to let these Poles in." "Why not?" Because it wasmade clear that Western countries weren't about to take in hundredsand thousands of Poles that way they had taken in the hundreds andthousands of Hungarians earlier. There is a kind of immigration tension in the West, which startedrising with the end of the Bretton Woods Bretton Woods can refer to: Bretton Woods, New Hampshire The United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, more commonly known as the "Bretton Woods Conference" Bretton Woods system, the international monetary system created at the conference boom. Economic conditions andthe end of the "go-go" years, the end of the growth, theenergy crisis of 1973 where in Europe you got all sorts of efforts tostop immigration flows. This began to lead to a reconsideration ofasylum procedures, as well. Now, it's gotten much more that way.I've been involved in this for about 15 years, and I could alreadysee it around 1978 or thereabouts. As I said, not to the same acute andshrill degree as we do now, but there were elements already in the1970s. And that was already leading to some kind of reconsideration ofthe wisdom of having a generous asylum policy. The end of the Cold War clearly changed the situation. We welcomedthese people because they were victims of communism. But the fact thatwe welcomed them, the fact that they wanted to get out was constantevidence that communism was undesirable and that our way of life wasdesirable. Germany received all Germans from any communist country.Obviously, it was a constant demonstration that postwar Germany was alegitimate and desirable state. And that they were under constraints tohave such a policy because of their past and everytime they did receivesomebody, it was a demonstration that they weren't a"bad" Germany that had produced refugees. So, in that sense,it was part of foreign policy. States are not by nature, generous. Nothing happens if you wait forgenerosity or for the state to exercise moral obligation. But I thinkliberal states do have an obligation of asylum and a very important one.And I think this is the only ground we can have to have a really strongand generous refugee regime. But this kind of obligation is much morelikely to be carried out when it is in to your political advantage to doso. Once the Cold War was gone, then the political advantage of doingit was pretty much gone as well. Unless, of course, you had some othernasties kicking around. You can demonstrate that Saddam Hussein Saddam Hussein(born April 28, 1937, Tikrit, Iraq—died Dec. 30, 2006, Baghdad) President of Iraq (1979–2003). He joined the Ba'th Party in 1957. Following participation in a failed attempt to assassinate Iraqi Pres. is aterrible ruler and the illegitimacy illegitimacy:see bastard. Illegitimacybend sinistersupposed stigma of illegitimate birth. [Heraldry: Misc.]Clinker, Humphryservant of Bramble family turns out to be illegitimate son of Mr. Bramble. [Br. Lit. of that regime by helping refugeesfrom Iraq. So that's another Cold War-like, or hot war-likesituation. If you declare such and such a regime illegitimate, one wayto do that is to recognize its people as refugees. And this could anddoes happen on a regional basis. A lot of countries take in eachother's neighbors as a local version of this. But with the Cold War gone, the political incentive for the Westernpowers to really engage is pretty much undermined. At the same time, butindependently of the end of the Cold War, with a worldwide economiccrisis, restructuring of the world economy, massive unemployment -- theend of the post-war boom that provided relatively affluent welfarestates in Europe, etc. Since those things happened at the same time,they've fed off each other, creating a genuine crisis. Rather than trying to move Europe up to the French and Germanlevel, Germany and France, which are the biggest countries, and took inthe largest number of people, are reducing their obligation. The UnitedStates United States,officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area. is maybe not reducing the numbers coming in, but is implementingits immigration policy An immigration policy is any policy of a state that affects the transit of persons across its borders, but especially those that intend to work and to remain in the country. in a more narrow way -- something it's donebefore. It's clear that the Clinton Administration Noun 1. Clinton administration - the executive under President Clintonexecutive - persons who administer the law , which, it washoped, would be more generous, is not going to be more generous. Maybe alittle bit, but I don't know. There's also been movement in the Gulf, Bosnia and elsewheretoward a more interventionist stance. It's interventionist in twoways: one, it's meant to deal not only with people outsidecountries, but also with those people who are in refugee-like situationsinside them -- internally displaced. There are more internally displacedpeople in the world than there are externally displaced people. And manyof these are deprived of protection because they live in countries wherethe state cannot provide protection. In many African countries, thestate is in some kind of anarchy. It's not that they're beingoppressed directly, but that they're living under a veryineffective government. We certainly have the capacity to help them. As many of the rich countries tighten their asylum policies andregulations, they may say, "We should deal with the root causes ofthese displacements, either out of conscience or because of ourproactive foreign policy or management of the world." And thatwould lead to a more interventionist stance. One argument for puttingAristide back into Haiti even though the U.S. government wasn'thappy with him was that otherwise people would start to leave on boats. I have a very firm commitment to a social democratic version ofliberalism; and liberalism today entails commitment to a kind ofmulticulturalism, involving an emphasis on the element of choice inidentity: you choose your sex, your religion. I think liberalism canaccommodate all that. Then, obviously, one can make an argument fortrying to develop a state of mixed populations, in ways in which thisdiversity can be accommodated and develop institutions providingnegotiated solutions for tensions and differences of opinion. We'velearned to do this in countries with respect to differences of class,and we've learned to regulate the obligations of workers andemployers -- what a strike is and that you can't bring outgangsters to kill off workers. And in some countries, we've learnedthat we can have a loose federalism ala the Swiss. Spain has learned thesame thing, with Catalonia having more autonomy than some otherprovinces. Yugoslavia could have moved in that direction, as could othermultinational countries in which diverse populations are relativelyconcentrated. But ultimately, it can also lead to partition and undercertain conditions, I really do believe that there is a right ofsecession. However, in some very difficult situations such as Bosnia andNorthern Ireland Northern Ireland:see Ireland, Northern. Northern IrelandPart of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland occupying the northeastern portion of the island of Ireland. Area: 5,461 sq mi (14,144 sq km). Population (2001): 1,685,267. , where there is a mixing of populations in a smallerunit, it is very difficult to sort things out territorially. Under theseconditions, what are the alternatives? If you develop relativelydemocratic conditions, you can have institutions. In the Britishcolonial empire this was called "communal representation." InMalaysia, for example, under the British empire, you had an electionbased on religious affiliation rather than territorially. It'spossible that it can be worked out this way. One can have dualrepresentation where one can be represented as an inhabitant INHABITANT. One who has his domicil in a place is an inhabitant of that place; one who has an actual fixed residence in a place. 2. A mere intention to remove to a place will not make a man an inhabitant of such place, although as a sign of such intention he of aparticular district and as a member of a particular religious community.And we have a lot of informal things like that in many countries wherereligious communities are in fact represented. I went to vote yesterday. I live in Soho, and in my voting place,there were instructions in Chinese and in Spanish. And there was avoting rights notice that specified that voters could have aninterpreter. Now for some people, that would be absolutely scandalous:"These are American citizens! They should know English! And theyall had to pass an English test to be naturalized." But that beingsaid, from my point of view translations is precisely the kind of thingthat makes life much more possible in a diverse environment. I happenedto have a French friend in for dinner last night and I showed her theinstructions and I said, "Imagine, if in France you had Arabicinstructions on how to secure your voting rights. You'dnever!" I'm not tooting the U.S. horn. But there's a hellof a lot of room for democratic organizations to deal with this kind ofdiversity. Obviously, moving people out, sorting people out, should besomething that's done only when there is no other alternative. Youdon't want to start by saying on principle, that different peopleshouldn't live together. I think its contrary to what most of usbelieve in. It's wrenching, it's horrendous when people haveto leave. However, there may be no choice, in which case, it should bedone with some degree of international security and support. Mrs. Ogatahas really tried to face this. She's been charged withcollaborating in ethnic cleansing by providing for the evacuation ofBosnians who are persecuted by fellow Bosnians or by Serbs from theoutside. Well, what's the choice? You collaborate in ethniccleansing or you collaborate in murder. So the first approach then, is to democratize de��moc��ra��tize?tr.v. de��moc��ra��tized, de��moc��ra��tiz��ing, de��moc��ra��tiz��esTo make democratic.de��moc , with theunderstanding that democracy entails a special attention to thesedifferences and to the accommodation of these differences, more so thanit has traditionally. This is something I'm very interested in.Some political theorists are beginning to think about this. We have alot of people in gender for example, which is fine, but in the U.S. manymore people are interested in gender and criticizing liberalism fromthat perspective, as against the other aspects of identity we'retalking about. Very few people are really thinking creatively aboutthese issues. There's a big debate going on in interviews that Astri Suhrkeand I are conducting with U.N. people in the last few weeks on whetheryou can devolve devolvev. when property is automatically transferred from one party to another by operation of law, without any act required of either past or present owner. The most common example is passing of title to the natural heir of a person upon his death. some of the global functions, certainly the humanitarianand also the peacekeeping functions, to the regional organizations. Forexample, the Organization of African Unity Organization of African Unity(OAU), former international organization, established 1963 at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, by 37 independent African nations to promote unity and development; defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of members; eradicate all forms of or the Organization ofAmerican States Organization of American States(OAS), international organization, created Apr. 30, 1948, at Bogotá, Colombia, by agreement of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, . One thing we hear is that it depends on the region. Ithink it's probably fair to say that the OAS has already learned todo things like that. They have played a major role in settling CentralAmerican conflicts. I think they should play a lead role in the Haitiansituation. It's a region in which you're not going to havethat many big problems. And there are quite a few states around thathave some capacity to deal with them, and they're not so poor. Aregional solution for Haiti is probably better than some kind of U.N.level solution. In contrast, the OAU is not very effective. It's kind of aconsensus organization, it hasn't really worked out that well. ButNigeria is a big local power, the "India of West Africa." Insituations where its own interests are not directly involved, it canprobably play a role if it remains stable. Bosnia is a European responsibility that, of course, most of theEuropean countries don't want to shoulder. But you know, the CSCE CSCESee Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange (CSCE). ,the E.C., the Council of Europe Council of Europe,international organization founded in 1949 to promote greater unity within Europe and to safeguard its political and cultural heritage by promoting human rights and democracy. The council is headquartered in Strasbourg, France. -- a modified NATO NATO:see North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATOin full North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationInternational military alliance created to defend western Europe against a possible Soviet invasion. , for that matter --could become regional organizations which have the material wherewithaland the organizational ability to do it. It's the political willthat's lacking. Some of the U.N. agencies may not like regionalsolutions because they see this as undermining their clout or theirimportance. But when the regional states are themselves party to thetensions involved, the ones that are contributing to the tensions,it's hard to imagine them participating in a solution. Or maybethey're the only ones who can participate in the solution. It's really quite incredible. When it comes just to refugeebusiness, UNHCR UNHCRn abbr (= United Nations High Commission for Refugees) → ACNUR mUNHCRn abbr (= United Nations High Commission for Refugees) → HCR mnormally provides protection, you have food brought inby somebody else, and then UNICEF brings in nonfood non��food?adj.Of, relating to, or being something that is not food but is sold in a supermarket, as housewares or stationery. , so you sometimesneed three airplanes, one with food, one with medicines. Not reallythree airplanes, three systems of airplanes ... three bureaucracies, andso on. By any standards, that doesn't make too much sense. Sothere's plenty of room for reorganization at that level as well asby decentralizing to the regional level. One major issue that I've been thinking about now for fiveyears, is the kind of escalation of violence that is being produced bychanges in technology. Specifically, the widespread availability ofrapid-fire weapons. In the same way that everybody's talking aboutit in the inner city, transfer this to a global level. People who haveethnic conflict, fine. There's nothing new about ethnic conflict,but ethnic conflict with AK-47s, Kalashnikovs, Uzis, and other suchthings. It's a hell of a lot more murderous than it used to be. Atthe level of the international community, think of all the energythat's gone into dealing with the problem of nuclear proliferation,which has been viewed, rightly, as a huge danger. And absolutely zilchwith regard to the control of what is the greatest source of murder,globally. The proliferation of these weapons. Every NIC (1) (Network Interface Card) See network adapter. See also InterNIC.(2) (New Internet Computer) An earlier Linux-based computer from The New Internet Computer Company (NICC), Palo Alto, CA. in the world isin the business of producing such weapons. It's a good export.It's very difficult to control. Anybody who can make a bicycle canmake a good machine gun. I would find it difficult to believe that the U.S. would leadefforts to control their proliferation because we can't do it atthe national level and it's so controversial. Governor Florio justgot beaten because he tried to do it in New Jersey, so I don'tthink the US can do it in on a worldwide basis. So, we have tospecialize. There are some countries that are better able to act in somedomains than others. I don't know who can take the lead in this.There are some good little Scandinavian countries which could dosomething ... But you know, they're not that great with regard tosome things. They're very narrow-minded about asylum and stuff likethat. They don't want foreigners. The U.S. is very good onimmigration issues. As things go, it has a great threshold of tolerance.It's really quite high, quite remarkable. In some realms theinitiative will have to come from the South and some of its morepowerful, global- and leadership-minded countries have the opportunityto lead the world in something and make reputations as peacemakers This article is about the pacifist organization. For other meanings, see Peacemaker (disambiguation). Peacemakers was an American pacifist organization. andproblem-solvers. In other cases, it'll be the good little whiteguys. I don't think there are simple answers. There are specific epistemic ep��i��ste��mic?adj.Of, relating to, or involving knowledge; cognitive.[From Greek epistm communities. Lawyers think about onething, political scientists, about other things. People in thedeveloping world think about north-south issues, and people in the westthink about business security issues. One of the things that people likeus are supposed to do is to show relations between these things. Atleast put the conceptual humpty-dumpty together so that things makesense. I think it's a great moment for creative people. No one whowas prominent in international relations ever focused on the U.N. It wasthe kiss of death kiss of deathgangsters’ farewell ritual before murdering victim. [Am. Cult.: Misc.]See : Farewell . It was just not something you did in internationalrelations. It's not that there is a large group of talent to drawfrom. I mean, Urquhart, Childers, fine, but not many more people thanthat. There are just not the foundations to do this. And foundationsdon't do this kind of work. They're scurrying scur��ry?intr.v. scur��ried, scur��ry��ing, scur��ries1. To go with light running steps; scamper.2. To flurry or swirl about.n. pl. scur��ries1. The act of scurrying. about givingmoney to retired academics or professionals to think about these things.But it's not as though when they're thinking about the U.N.,they say we have 1752 wonderful U.N. thinkers and let's select fromthis group. No. They have two ... or five, or something. It'sreally a very small pool of people who are thinking about these issuesworldwide. The study of international affairs has been so bound up withthe "realism" paradigm that it deals only with things as theyare, and hardly encourages imaginative inquiry into what sorts ofinstitutions are needed to make this strange new world a better place tolive. The coming generation of scholars should rebel against thistradition, and take the future into its own hands. (1.) The Editorswould like to thank Matthew Rendall of the Journal of InternationalAffairs for his significant contribution to this article.