Discuss_Each_of_the_Three_so_Called_‘Durable_Solutions’_in_Terms_of_Their_Contribution_to_Refugee_Protection.

Discuss each of the three so called ‘durable solutions’ in terms of their contribution to refugee protection. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines a refugee as a person who: “owing to a well-founded fear of being prosecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…” this definition later evolved to include those fleeing from war and violence within their countries of origin. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (also known as the UNHCR) has been working towards the relief of refugees since it was established in April 1950. The main aims and objectives of the UNHCR are to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems. Its mandate also includes the protection of internationally displaced persons (IDPs). The UNHCR introduced the ‘durable solutions’; this was done in order to achieve one of its main objectives which is to reduce the number of people under refugee status. This, they argue can only be done by either helping refugees return home (also known as repatriation), helping them to integrate into the host country and become naturalized (local integration) or providing them settlement option within a third country (resettlement).The purpose of this study is to assess how helpful the three ‘durable solutions’ have been in helping remove the status of being a refugee for the millions of people in this condition. The first of these three ‘durable solutions’ is Repatriation. Repatriation consists of helping the refugees to move back to their country of origins, whereby the Refugee Agency will help them to slowly adjust their lives back in their own country. Repatriation is claimed, by the UNHCR to be the durable solution by choice for the majority of refugees, as be able to return home is the strongest hope to end exile. It has been claimed that “Repatriation has over the past twenty years become the distinctively most important solution, preferred by the UNHCR as well as most host states.” It is the preferred option because it’s easier for refugees to settle and reintegrate themselves into a familiar environment, rather than adjusting to a country that consists of a completely alien culture, social environment and ethics to their own. Also, as mentioned before the strongest hope for refugees is to one day return home safely. For Repatriation to be successful the country of origin is required to give its full commitment to readmitting the population into society securely and with dignity. The Refugee Agency organizes ‘go-and-see’ visits for those refugees who wish to resettle in their country of origin. This enables the refugees to be able to assess the situation in their region and decide whether it is safe for them to now return. Hathaway has asserted the importance of this practice; “in 2002 UNHCR helped five representatives of the Namibian refugee population in Botswana to return to their homes in Caprivi province to assess the suitability of return. Based on their positive assessment, nearly half the refugee population opted to go home.” Though repatriation has many positive points, there are some challenges to its practice. Dumper highlights the fact that the process of repatriation is highly time consuming, he says “that the whole process from planning to execution to consolidation takes a great deal of time, possibly up to a decade” This relates back to the notion of states having to provide mass amounts of commitment and devotion in order to provide the returning population with security and a comfortable place in society. Adelman has discussed the perils of repatriation without reintegration; something that could occur if the country of origin fails to devotedly reintegrate the refugees back into society. He argues that “when the refugees are repatriated but the reintegration of those refugees is not successful, the result is the creation of a breeding ground for future violence and even recruits for a new violent uprising.” What Adelman is suggesting is that failure to reintegrate can lead to an increase in recruits for refugee warriors, which would in turn endanger the security of the refugees. This is apparent in the case of Rwanda in 1994, when nearly 1.5 million refugees were forced to flee due to a vast amount of extremist propaganda, and were forced to remain in exile. This problem was only resolved through military means in 1996. Therefore it can be presumed about repatriation that it is useful for providing security to refugees; it gives them the hope to be able to return ‘home’ and start afresh. Though it rests on many pre-conditions such as a change in environment within the country of origin, be it a political change in government or the end of civil war. Whilst, practices such as the ‘go-and-see’ visits enable the refugee agency to ensure the refugees will be returning to a safe environment and will be free of the fear of persecution, they can also drastically fail if the repatriation isn’t followed by successful reintegration, as seen in the case of Rwanda. The second ‘durable solution’ is Resettlement; this takes place when the refugees cannot move back to their country of origin, due to unresolved problems, nor can they remain within the host country, because of inadequate conditions. It provides refugees with the chance of a new beginning in a third country. Despite a lack of participants in the resettlement of refugees, the United States has been the leading third country for resettlement. Resettlement has many advantages for both the refugees and the host country. Furgerson emphasizes these by stating that “The two primary gains that come from the refugee resettlement are economic and cultural benefits to the host country and educational and financial benefits for the refugees and their country of origin.” It can be inferred from this that the financial and educational benefits for the refugees, who in most cases did not have access to such facilities in their country of origin, is a massive advantage to have. This is because it would enable the refugees to begin a new life in a new country and begin to support themselves; which would allow them to build a life of dignity. Furthermore, the resettlement country has to provide each refugee with all the rights of any other citizen of that country; these include civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. In doing so the refugees are granted total protection within the borders of the resettlement country. Maume and Arrighi highlight this; “Ongoing benefits for the newly arrived refugees include transitional cash assistance, health benefits…The primary focus is job placement, cultural orientation, English language acquisition, and healthcare access.” However, Resettlement does have some problematic features as well. It has been claimed that: “The major problems facing refugees in resettlement schemes are landlessness, unemployment or underemployment, especially during trough seasons, overcrowding, marginalization, increased morbidity and mortality, food insecurity…social disintegration.” It can be deduced from this statement that despite being provided with the conditions to become self sufficient, Resettlers have little hope for prosperity in a competitive world. The lack of income and support eventually plunges them into a spiral of decline, catching them in a poverty trap that endangers both health and food security. Therefore it can be understood that resettlement provides refugees security from the circumstances in the countries of origin and help them to avoid persecution, however it cannot be considered a viable option as it doesn’t always make life securer or easier for the refugees. Walford has examined the problems relating to host countries not being able to adjust to resettlement schemes. Giving the example of small cities in the United States, he asserts, “Changes in national policy regarding refugee resettlement and immigration have created situations where smaller cities are taking in large number of refugees and immigrants…The changes within these smaller cities have serious repercussions…The schools are taking on new situations that they are not trained for, nor willing, in some cases, to accept.” He goes on to explain how this can result in elevated discrimination and racism. Thereby it can be concluded that resettlement can often act as a catalyst to the rising social problems of Resettlers in new countries. The third and final durable solution is known as Local Integration. This is the process of naturalization for refugees within the first host country. Through the scheme of local integration, refugees gain access to all the same rights as the citizens of the country and are also allowed to eventually become citizens of the country and remove their refugee status. The benefits of local integration for refugees are the same as those of resettlement. Nobel has noted that the problems for Resettlers are also reflected in the problems faced by refugees going through the process of local integration; claiming that “integration is also found to be an erroneous assumption. Very few African exiles find refuge in the ‘bosoms of their coethnics across borders’. Instead, most refugees run into strange and often hostile social and cultural environments which make adjustment and integration a very slow and torturous process.” Thus it can be understood from this statement, that local integration often causes problems for the refugees to live in safety and dignity, thereby failing to meet the primary objectives of the UNHCR. On the other hand there are many governments who are dedicated to aiding a smooth integration for refugees. The UK has devised a Refugee Education Training and Advisory Service (RETAS), which aims to aid the integration of refugees without jeopardizing their security. A “Handbook on Education for Refugees in the UK” was also published to enable refugees to better understand the academic system of the UK. This information, therefore, render local integration schemes marginally successful in helping refuges remove their status and settle down living lives of safety and dignity. After analyzing each of the three ‘durable solutions’, it can sufficiently concluded that these solutions only help the refugees to move on and re-build their lives to an extent. All the solutions have their benefits and their disadvantages. It is now important assess whether the costs outweigh the benefits. Repatriation can be considered the most adequate solution, as it doesn’t place the refugees in alien environments where they must tackle discrimination, racism and alienation. Yet they still face challenges of building back their lives, and with mass movements of refugees, opportunities are always in a deficit. Furthermore, the states involved are required to give their full commitment to the repatriation scheme, in order to ensure an unhindered path. This however is not always possible due to the fact that repatriation is a long term commitment and can often stretch past a decade. On the surface, Resettlement seems like an adequate scheme for those displaced persons that cannot return back to their country of origin, nor remain in the host country the presently reside in. However, it is evident from the above analysis that national policies cannot be expected to affect results. Despite the provision of financial aid, healthcare and education, once again Resettlers find themselves in a competition with those more qualified, which they most certainly will not be able to defeat if they reside in a discriminatory environment. Lack of opportunities and options can often push the Resettlers into a poverty trap, further worsening their condition. It can therefore be understood, that resettlement, on the whole, can endanger the Resettlers’ personal, health and social security if the entire process is not well managed. The same argument can be taken towards the process of Local Integration. Success cannot be guaranteed unless the wider population of the host country accepts the refugees as part of the nation and not ‘outsiders’. Until and unless this happens, refugees will continuously be in danger of discrimination and violence. In order for these solutions to be more successful in attaining the aims of the UNHCR, better management through all levels of integration is required. In the process of Repatriation, both states and the International Community are required to assist the refugees in every which way and remain committed to the cause until and unless the process is complete. In the case of Resettlement, it could be argued that positive discrimination would help the Resettlers to improve employment levels amongst themselves and begin to become more self sufficient. Government will also need to facilitate them, and those working with them in order to ensure that the Resettlers get equal opportunities. Only after achieving these two objectives will Resettlement become a more viable option for refugees. Therefore, it will suffice to say that the current management of the so-called ‘durable solutions’ is lacking in many ways. Mass improvements in management and implementation are required for these solutions to contribute to the protection of Refugees to their optimum potential. The current management not only endangers the security of refugees but also often, in many cases, imperils them with further problems of poverty and discrimination. Bibliography 1. Adelman, H., -‘Refugee Repatriation’ – in Stedman, S.J,, Rothchild, D.S., and Cousens, E.M.(eds) – Ending Civil Wars: The Implementation of Peace Agreements- Lynne Reiner Publisher (2002) 2. Arrighi, B.,A. and Maume, D.J – Child Poverty in America Today: Children and the State- Praeger Perspectives (2007) 3. Cantrell, D. and Brickey, B. (eds) – Up for Debate: U.S Foreign Policy Options Towards the Greater Horn of Africa - Picket Fence Memories (2009) 4. Cernea, M.M and McDowell, C (eds) – Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees – International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK (2000) 5. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 1, 1951 6. Dumper, M. – Palestinian Refugee Repatriation: Global Perspectives- Routledge (2006) 7. Hathaway, J.C., - The Rights of Refugees under International Law- Cambridge University Press (2005) 8. Local Economic and Employment Development (Program), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development – From Immigration to Integration: Local Solutions to a Global Challenge – OECD Publishing (2006) 9. Nobel, P. – Refugees and Development in Africa- Nordiska Afrikainstitutet (1987) 10. Stedman, S.J,, Rothchild, D.S., and Cousens, E.M.(eds) – Ending Civil Wars: The Implementation of Peace Agreements- Lynne Reiner Publisher (2002) 11. Swain, A., Amer, R., Öjendal, J., (eds) – Globalization and Challenges to Building Peace – Anthem Press (2008) 12. Walford, G. – Ethnography and Education Policy- Elesevier Science (2001) Words: 2164