NEWS

WIRES

OTHER

Reflections on the 30th Anniversary of the U.S. Refugee Act

I want to thank Human Rights First for the opportunity to speak with you this morning, for organizing this day-long conference and for the group's undying commitment to the protection of the world's most vulnerable people. I also want to thank my colleagues in the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, and to Jeff Drumtra, in particular, for collaborating so closely with me on the words I'm about to offer.

I'm proud to say that I'm a veteran, of sorts, of Human Rights First. When it was still the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights, some 27 years ago, I had the honor of interning at the organization - under the guidance of Diane Orentlicher, now my colleague at the Department of State. And of course, I've had the pleasure through the years of working closely with Mike Posner, Elisa Massimino, and so many others connected with the organization - and have the deepest appreciation and admiration for the important work that you do.

We have come together today to mark the 30th anniversary of the 1980 Refugee Act, a cornerstone of our international protection architecture. As you all know, it was Senator Edward Kennedy who pressed so relentlessly for enactment of this legislation. What some of you may not know, however, is that he worked for more than a decade to secure its passage, after seeing his early efforts frustrated in what he termed "a cycle of inaction."

By 1980, world events demanded a comprehensive approach to humanitarian issues as millions were forced from their homes due to persecution and war. There was conflict in Asia: the rule of the Khmer Rouge and Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia had unleashed a flood of refugees. There was armed conflict in Central America, with vulnerable populations fleeing in great numbers. The Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan, with millions of Afghans pouring into Pakistan. Africa had also seen conflict in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia and Somalia, with large numbers of civilian casualties, and all this turmoil not only had grave humanitarian implications, but also impacted America's national security interests. Even back then, the notion that failed states matter may have begun to impact the thinking of policy-makers.

In pressing for passage of the Refugee Act, Senator Kennedy understood a basic truth in humanitarian policy-making: that capacity and commitment go hand in hand. While there is no substitute for political will, we must build the institutions that enable leaders to make the right choices. And that's just what Senator Kennedy did, with support from leaders such as Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Carl Levin of Michigan, the junior Senator from Delaware, Joe Biden, and, of course, Alan Simpson, the tough-minded Senator from Wyoming who appreciated the importance of this ground-breaking measure.

They, and others, recognized that our country had to replace a politicized, an ad hoc and an inconsistent set of processes with those that reflected our highest aspirations and most noble values: to ensure effective and impartial implementation of our non-refoulement and other obligations under a 1967 Refugee Protocol that incorporated the principles of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, and by developing an impartial and standardized system of asylum. And they recognized the need for a fair and generous process of refugee admissions.

While there will be much discussion over the course of the day about what more we must all do to safeguard the interests of refugees and displaced persons, we all ought to take a moment to note that the United States has formally granted asylum to about half a million people since enactment of the Refugee Act. And during that same period, we have resettled nearly two and a half million refugees.

So here we are, thirty years later - and, having just mourned the passing of this giant of protection, Senator Kennedy, it is fitting that we ask ourselves - how are we doing? Abroad and at home, are we doing everything possible to defend and to promote the human rights, the well-being and the empowerment of the world's most vulnerable uprooted people? That is the critical question that should inform our work, because these goals - defending rights, and promoting well-being and empowerment - are the essence of protection.

In the twenty or so minutes I have left, I will offer five propositions about protection that frame my own perspectives, and inform how I think we must engage on these issues.

First, ownership of the protection mandate has broadened - more humanitarian groups see protection as their responsibility, and the concept and goals of protection have similarly expanded - and these are changes we must both embrace and manage effectively.

Whether or not protection has ever been the exclusive domain of specially mandated agencies - such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross - protection is clearly now a collective responsibility that involves vigilance and action by the full range of UN agencies, NGOs, international organizations, and, of course, donor governments. At the State Department, we program our support with those objectives in mind, and, frankly, we have little interest in supporting aid providers that see themselves as contractors - we want partners, who build empowerment and policy advocacy into their programs.

And while first asylum and non-refoulement must remain at the heart of international protection efforts, we must all rise to other protection challenges as well - combating gender-based violence and sexual exploitation and abuse, promoting freedom of movement, securing land rights and rights related to personal status, just to name a few. Humanitarians must weave a protective approach more deeply into the design of programs related to food, shelter, health and sanitation, among others - what some call "mainstreaming protection." The challenge is to develop and further refine best practices that seek to empower local communities in such efforts.

So let me offer a second proposition: as we expand our concept of protection, we must develop programs that achieve these more ambitious results, matched by sustained and measurable efforts to monitor and evaluate our progress. In other words, rhetoric about a broadened protection focus must be matched by reality.

To illustrate this point, let me discuss a few areas where we and others are seeking to expand the concept of protection, beginning with the special needs of women and children in humanitarian responses. Secretary of State Clinton has stated that women and girls are a "core factor" in U.S. foreign policy, and has condemned systematic rape against civilian populations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a crime against humanity. We will increase our already considerable funding for programs that combat gender-based violence, including promotion of economic programs for conflict-affected women, because we realize a clear link exists between women's desperate struggle to support their families and their vulnerability to gender-based violence and exploitation. Within our PRM Bureau, we have also built into our strategic and operational plans a multiyear effort to judge our own performance in responding to issues of violence against women.

More broadly, we at the State Department will continue to collaborate with USAID to monitor closely the work of the UN Cluster System and its Protection working groups that in recent years have begun to operate both at the field and global levels, so that we can press for quicker and more effective responses, and accountability among the growing number of humanitarian organizations that are working to address the full range of protection threats. We will continue to support a surge protection program that UNHCR can access for additional temporary protection experts. And we are placing emphasis not only on the quantity of protection officers, but on the quality of protection work: we will sustain our support for the SPHERE program and other best practices that seek to establish professional standards for all humanitarian work, including protection efforts.

Managing relationships with others brings me to my third proposition: that rendering effective protection to the world's most vulnerable citizens has become more challenging, and requires more effective collaborations with other governments and international organizations.

As we all well know, modern-day conflicts now commonly pit domestic ethnic groups, clans, religions, or ideologies against one another, with combatants and civilians often dangerously intermingled. In the 30 years since the 1980 Refugee Act, we have witnessed genocide in Rwanda and Darfur, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and rape as a weapon of war in the Congo. The killing, wounding, maiming and humiliation of civilians is not just collateral damage, but often one of the goals of the conflict itself. This presents enormous protection challenges, particularly in situations where the international community lacks humanitarian access - and lacks security for its own staff.

Even when conditions on the ground might permit the kind of access that would safeguard rights, governments hosting refugees or displaced persons are often uneasy at best and hostile at worst to advancing protection objectives. And while it is difficult to make sweeping assertions about the impact of United States diplomacy on other governments when international humanitarian principles are at stake, it is clear that our bilateral influence has its limits. On more occasions than I'd care to admit, we have been less than successful in prevailing upon governments to respect or strengthen protection of refugees or displaced persons on their territories.

So what to do in these more difficult operating environments? First, we should never assume we are without influence. From Pakistan to Ecuador to Sri Lanka to Chad, our advocacy has impacted governments and enhanced the quality of protection on the ground. Second, engagement of other donors expands our ability to influence situations on the ground. And third, and perhaps most importantly, our leadership within a multilateral framework on humanitarian and protection issues leverages our efforts far beyond what we can accomplish unilaterally. That is precisely why the State Department contributes the bulk of its support through international organizations. And that is precisely why we spend so much time, energy and effort to strengthen the international architecture for protection and humanitarian response - through, for example, our broad and deep relationships with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, among others. Many UN policies - and, therefore, international efforts endorsed by dozens of governments - relating to refugee resettlement, combating gender based violence, healthcare for vulnerable populations, and on and on, all came out of engagement between our Bureau, our UN partners and other donor states. The world has benefited from these efforts, which will certainly continue.

I turn inward for my fourth protection proposition: that we must strive to practice at home what we preach abroad. That includes our policies on temporary protection, rescue at sea, treatment of asylum-seekers on our territory, durable solutions for individuals interdicted at sea, and many other issues. I have already met and spoken on many occasions with Ali Mayorkas, the Department of Homeland Security's Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and he and I anticipate a valuable collaboration on protection issues that impact both foreign and domestic policy.

In light of my convictions on this issue, I took special interest in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which resettled about 75,000 persons last year, the highest number since 1999 - after which the program was so significantly impacted by the tragic events of 9/11.

Our admissions program must vindicate protection objectives that include the interests of those persons we are resettling, but our goals must be much broader. And, indeed, through or in coordination with our admissions program, we have enhanced the capacity of UNHCR to identify vulnerable communities in need of resettlement, to develop innovative interim protection measures - such as emergency transit centers in many parts of the world - and to use our resettlement programs as a tool to encourage host government policies of greater tolerance. We have also been able to encourage other governments to do more on refugee resettlement issues, and we've promoted burden sharing. But again, we can best accomplish these and other objectives when our actions at home are models of good behavior for others to emulate abroad.

With that element in mind, and early in my tenure, I visited Chicago, Fort Wayne, Indiana and Minneapolis/St. Paul, to learn more about our efforts to meet the resettlement needs of newly arriving refugees - Bhutanese, Burmese, Burundians, Hmong, Iraqis and so many others. What I saw was both heartening and dismaying. It was so gratifying to witness the deep and abiding commitment to refugees among overworked and underpaid agency personnel in the field, the determination of new arrivals, and the welcoming spirit of local school, healthcare and government officials. On the other hand, it was very sad to meet with refugees who had severe problems that go well beyond the challenges that any new arrival should have to confront. I heard from refugees threatened with eviction after only months in the United States. I learned that refugees often had to choose between buying food or diapers for their children. And I spoke with agency field staff overburdened by the number of refugee families they serve and the complexity of the resettlement service needs of recent arrivals.

The Reception and Placement Program administered by the Department of State includes a one-time per capita grant for the initial weeks after arrival, but the grant had declined in real terms by more than 50% since its inception some decades ago. This was a major reason for the problems I witnessed, which have been documented and publicized in a variety of assessments over the past year or so. In my own review of this issue, I heard repeatedly from all stakeholders - agencies, congressional staff, and PRM Admissions office officials - that the amount we were providing for this short term support needed to be augmented substantially.

In light of our critical obligations on these issues, and thanks to the generous support of the Congress, we have now been able to increase the Reception and Placement per capita grant to voluntary agencies and new arrivals from $900 to $1,800, which was made effective as of January 1, 2010. This is intended to address challenges refugees face in their first 30 to 90 days in the United States, and will ensure that, in the first weeks after their arrival, refugees have a solid roof over their heads, a clean bed in which to sleep and basic assistance. This is also an expression of solidarity with the local communities that bear the greatest burden in meeting the initial needs of new arrivals.

We well understand that more must be done. And we will be working closely with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services to secure additional job training, education and cash and medical assistance in the months that follow initial reception and placement.

My fifth proposition springs from each of my four prior assertions this morning. In short, the humanitarian community must be more relentless and more aggressive advocates for protection and assistance to the populations we seek serve. I offered precisely this observation in a presentation I gave at the Brookings Institution some months ago, on the role of humanitarians in government, but it merits repeating here today.

For years, some experts have referred to a conflict between the imperative of human rights advocacy and the imperative of humanitarian access. The notion was that groups like Human Rights First and Amnesty International could criticize governments for denying their citizens rights, but humanitarian organizations - no matter what they might witness - needed to stay silent to preserve their ability to operate, feed and clothe people, and save lives.

In fact, the reality is not that simple. Silence by donor governments in the face of humanitarian deprivation not only risks implicating the donor in abuses, but often represents a missed opportunity to promote positive change. And frankly, continued access isn't always worth the cost of staying quiet.

In short, if pressing the case with governments, the media, and civil society can impact the situations of vulnerable populations, then we have an obligation to press. In Sri Lanka, for example, we have seen that strong advocacy was followed by large-scale release of internally displaced persons who had been confined to camps. Freedom of movement for those who remain is still restricted, but we can be encouraged by recent positive actions - which I am convinced have been influenced by the strong expressions of concern from the United States and other donor governments.

Finally, it is important to remember that humanitarian advocacy keeps faith with the victims of these conflicts, and keeps news of their suffering in the public eye.

Before closing, I want to talk a bit about the relationship between protection and national security - another issue to which I've alluded in earlier speeches, as well as the role of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration in promoting protection principles.

I believe that the protection of the most vulnerable must be at the center of policy-making - due to the moral imperative, and the simple goal of saving lives; due to our government's interest in sustaining U.S. leadership and building sustainable partnerships, which enable us to drive the development of international humanitarian principles, programs, and policies like no other government in the world; and due to the importance of promoting reconciliation, security, and well-being in circumstances where despair and misery not only threaten stability, but also critical national security interests of the United States.

As a component of the Department of State, our Bureau - Population, Refugees, and Migration - is extraordinarily well-placed to promote the humanitarian imperative in policy making, through our continual and ongoing engagement with the Secretary of State and other State Department principals; through our role in representing the Secretary of State in diplomatic encounters with Presidents, Prime Ministers, Defense Ministers and other senior foreign officials on key humanitarian issues; and through ensuring that, at the working level, humanitarian considerations are being embedded into the work of the State Department's regional bureaus - from Africa to East and South Asia, to the Middle East, to the Americas. As the principal humanitarian advisors in the State Department, we owe it to the Secretary of State, to the President, and to the world's vulnerable citizens, to aspire to a broad role in policy formulation and policy implementation - and especially on those complex crises which combine humanitarian, political and security imperatives.

Some 30 years ago, during Senate discussion of the Refugee Act, Senator Kennedy said, and I quote, that "Refugees are as old as human history. They have been, over the centuries, one of the world's most enduring tragedies. They are one of the saddest commentaries on the human condition....clearly," he said, "refugees must be of concern to the American people."

We all know that Senator Kennedy was a champion of all uprooted and disenfranchised populations, whether or not they were formally designated as refugees. We honor his legacy today by expanding our efforts to protect and empower vulnerable communities, and to meet new challenges with energy, enthusiasm and an eagerness to sustain the commitment reflected in a Refugee Act that has so valuably stood the test of time.

Thank you.

Source: U.S. Department of State