Areti Sianni, Chief of Mission at UNHCR India and the Maldives, on refugee protection: a case for balance between national security and humanitarian concerns
Areti Sianni, Chief of Mission at UNHCR India and the Maldives, on refugee protection: a case for balance between national security and humanitarian concerns
In 2010, more or less the time I joined UNHCR, there were around 41 million displaced persons across the world. In 2022, the figure had risen to 180.5 million. A majority of them are within their country of origin but many, around 36 million, have had to cross international borders, running for their lives in order to find security.
Displacement due to conflict, violence, or human rights violations was widespread throughout the 20th century. I would claim, however, that in the 21st century, it has become one of the defining features of modernity. UNHCR was set up in 1950 with a mandate of three years to address the problems of displacement at the time. 74 years later, we are still around, and it looks like we will be around for quite a while longer because, rather than having seen progress in addressing displacement challenges, what we are seeing is a significant increase in the number of people leaving their homes for safety and security.
Central to UNHCR’s role has been the practical realisation of the right to seek and enjoy asylum, which is a right that is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It’s actually Article 14. And it has also been given effect through the adoption of the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 Protocol. Throughout the years, as UNHCR, we have worked in partnership with states across the world to protect and assist displaced individuals and often act in moments of acute crisis. And, at the moment that I’m speaking to you, UNHCR is one of the main humanitarian agencies working in response to crisis situations such as in Sudan, Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, but also in Ukraine.
To clarify here, and I know that this is a situation very much in our minds, when it comes to the situation in Gaza, it is another UN agency. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency that is responsible for Gaza’s specific mandate for Palestinian refugees.
We work across 135 countries, primarily to work with states to set up asylum systems with a primary focus, and that is the key priority for UNHCR, to prevent refoulement. What I refer to when I talk about refoulement is the forcible return of people to situations where their lives or liberty would be at risk. To a certain extent, and this is a question that was asked to me during lunchtime, what is the difference between a refugee and a migrant? The difference is that when it comes to refugees, they cannot go back home. As an international community, we are committed to ensuring that while they need protection, they are provided this protection.
So, we work for the promotion of refugee rights and beyond reform is the right to equality before the law, the right to non-discrimination, but also the right to protection from arbitrary detention. We provide humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable when this is needed. And we support people to become self-reliant so they can make use of the skills and the expertise they have and contribute to the societies they live in. And when their conditions are right, we also support people to go back home if it is possible to go back home in conditions of safety and dignity, or to find a solution in a third country through resettlement, or locally integrate in the country where they have found asylum to start with.
I should say that in addition to our mandate for the protection of refugees, we have been given the legal responsibility by the General Assembly for two other categories of individuals, and that is stateless persons, people who are not considered to be nationals of any state, as well as, under specific circumstances, internally displaced persons. And these are people forced to flee their homes but remain within their country of origin. They have not crossed international borders.
In an interconnected world, where borders are increasingly porous and conflicts are ever-present, states are faced with a significant challenge. And the challenge is, how do you balance the sovereign right and the responsibility to control borders and also manage migration with the responsibilities with respect to rights and the commitments made by all countries, to ensure that nobody is left behind when it comes to the pursuit of the sustainable development goals. And this is a real challenge, and it is a challenge that states are facing across the world, no matter what the specific circumstances relating to refugee movements.
Let me take you through some of the responses that states have adopted to address this challenge and to find the right balance. There are three approaches that I would like to share with you that are either happening in isolation or sometimes in parallel:
Many states have taken measures to close their borders, sometimes by building walls, in the expectation that those who are displaced would stop coming.
Experience has shown that not only does this not work, but also it has significant human costs in terms of the harm that people might face, but also in terms of loss of life. Some of you might have read coverage of the situation in the Mediterranean, for example, which is the region close to my home, or the situation at the border between Mexico and the US.
Closer to home, here in India, in 2023, there were 4,500 people who attempted to move irregularly by boat through the Bay of Bengal, and the Andaman Sea, fleeing primarily from Myanmar, but also leaving camps in Bangladesh. Out of these people, around 600 lost their lives last year.
Secondly, beyond closing borders, what states have also attempted to do is restrict the rights of people who have made it to their territory is measures that include restricting the right to work or education, but also subjecting refugees to arrest and detention often without recourse to legal advice or representation while in detention.
Without access, however, to work – without the possibility to feed their families – many refugees are subject to extreme levels of exploitation and abuse, sometimes by criminal networks, sometimes by unscrupulous employers, and/or they might end up living a life of dependency without being provided with the opportunity to make use of the skills and the potential that they have.
And as for return, here, the record is not good. In 2023, less than 1% of refugees returned back home because the conditions are not there. What we are seeing across the world is really we are moving to a situation of perpetual conflict without resolution to conflict in many parts of the world which means that people cannot go back.
However, beyond closing the borders, beyond restricting rights, there is a third way and it is a way that has been tried in some states and it is a way which it’s proven to work. And this is to receive refugees and then embracing the potential that they have in terms of providing them with a legal right to work and then until a solution can be found for their plight, harnessing the expertise, the knowledge, and the skills that they can bring.
I’m not making a humanitarian case here that this is only good from a humanitarian perspective. Evidence suggests that this is a good business case that refugees, when they are unable to contribute, can make a big difference. After all, refugees in many countries are today’s engineers, lawyers, or doctors, and our world would have been much poorer without their contributions to the societies that we live in.
You might be asking yourselves, what is the approach that India has adopted over the years? Here, it is important to underline that India has had an honourable tradition of receiving refugees, starting with the Parsis many centuries ago, and I was talking to a gentleman from that community today, but also most recently with the arrivals of Tibetans as well as Sri Lankan refugees.
In addition to these populations, there are about 46 and a half thousand refugees primarily from Myanmar, Afghanistan, some from Yemen, Sudan, and some African countries who are registered with UNHCR, either as asylum seekers, and refugees. And I should say that having joined UNHCR in India about six months ago, I have been impressed by some of the good practices that we need to cherish and also project outwards to the world.
But challenges persist and the challenge of how India balances its national security concerns with humanitarian traditions and the strong rights-based culture that is enshrined in the Indian Constitution. And also, it can be found in the commitments that India has made under the sustainable development goals of leaving no one behind, including refugees. Something that is important to underline is that the UN cooperation framework that has been signed by the UN and the Government of India includes specific references to refugees as being one of the marginalised communities that should not be left behind.
Let me now turn to a question that has been raised with me since I came here about the relevance of the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol and whether these are instruments that remain relevant for the challenges that we are facing across the world nowadays rather than at the time of the adoption. After all, the Convention was drafted to deal with the challenges of displacement caused by persecution and human rights violations on a massive scale during World War II. Yesterday, when I was at the Maharashtra National Law University talking to a group of very bright law students, they did raise the question, but it’s a question that has not been raised to me for the first time. And that is, fundamentally, and I’m paraphrasing here, where was the Convention when it was needed the most in this region, at the time of the 1947 Partition when the huge displacement took place.
It would not be surprising to any of you, given that I’m someone who has worked for UNHCR many years and I have spent my life working on refugee rights, to hear from me asserting the relevance of the Convention for the 21st century. But beyond personal views, I would like to look at some of the facts. The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol are one of the most widely ratified international treaties with 149 contracting states party to either one or both.
They are the modern embodiments of the age-long institution of asylum and a milestone of humanity, a bonded, fundamental humanitarian movement and values upon which there is a broad, global consensus. Across all regions, the 1951 Convention has provided and continues to provide the practical tools that states need to get the right balance when it comes to national security, border control, migration management, and humanitarian concerns.
They provide the tools to identify who is a refugee, who does not deserve refugee protection because they might have committed certain rights, who might need to be excluded from any support because they might have committed crimes or engaged in terrorist acts, or there might be a risk to the national security of a country. They provide the tools at the border to separate who is a civilian and who is a combatant. And, also, they fundamentally provide a script and a roadmap on how to care for refugees in a fair and predictable way until solutions can be found and they can stop being refugees.
I would argue here that it is an instrument that remains relevant. We have seen that also in 2016 when at the General Assembly, a declaration for refugees and migrants was adopted which also led to, a couple of years later, the agreement on the Global Compact on Refugees, which not only looks at how to protect refugees but most importantly, how to share responsibility across countries which carry the greatest responsibility for refugee protection. I should say that about 80% of refugees are in low and middle income countries and where solidarity is essential for them to continue playing an important role in the protection of refugees.
Let me now perhaps look at some of the developments. At the end of the year, we had a Global Refugee Forum and that was very much a forum of bringing together states. There were about 167 states and it was pleasing to see that India was represented at senior level where we looked at how to ensure that greatest solidarity can be put in place and there were many pledges, many commitments made, so that the pressure can be eased to countries that carry the greatest burden and the world can move towards a greater way of working with greater responsibility.
Against this background, what I would like is for us to perhaps look at, in sort of moving towards a conclusion, is given the context of displacement, the large scale of displacement, the challenges facing states that are facing refugees seeking protection, what could be priorities for India, but also at the more local level, community level, what could be priorities for this esteemed audience.
Allow me to start by looking first of all at the root causes of displacement. Forced displacement, as it happens at the moment, is fundamentally the consequence of political failure. It’s the consequence of failure to uphold peace and security and the human rights of all human beings. It’s also the failure to deal with inequality and discrimination, and to take care of the environment and fight against climate change.
A first priority for the international community, but also I think for all member states of the UN, is to contribute to common efforts to address the root causes of displacement where conflict, human rights violations, at times compounded with natural disasters and the effects of climate change.
And there has never been a greater need for peace-building and reconciliation, for engagement at community level, peaceful coexistence, and joint action for development, to match the scale of the crisis that we are facing at the moment worldwide. And here, I think that India, as an aspiring global leader, and also as an aspiring leader in the global south, is and can continue playing a very important role.
A second priority, I think, has to do with how we treat refugees when they are found in the midst of the societies that we live in. Across the world, what many cultures have in common is the understanding of how we treat our neighbours, especially those fleeing from persecution, conflict, or war, is an expression of our shared humanity.
In different countries the golden rule, if you like, is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And in today’s turbulent times, this principle could never be more relevant. It starts at home with each one of us welcoming families who have escaped war by helping anyone in need without any distinction, but also speaking out on behalf of refugees to influence attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours in support of solidarity, peaceful reconciliation, and coexistence with each other. And I should say that the need for speaking out has never been greater in order to counter the impact of xenophobia, malicious and false narratives, and that we are seeing spreading across all social media at a time causing real world harm.
However, going beyond the personal, let me turn a little bit at the policy level. I have mentioned already that India has an honourable tradition of upholding the rule of law, and also a very strong reputation as a responsible state. 75 years ago, India was one of the very important drafters – and we owe a lot of the language in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to India in particular when it comes to gender – and of course, Article 14 in the Universal Declaration is about the right to seek and enjoy asylum. India is also a signatory to several human rights instruments. It’s not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, however, it is a signatory to all the core human rights instruments and has also incorporated human rights protection in its own Constitution and national legislation. And we have some very important jurisprudence that has come from the Supreme Court which extends, which interprets Article 21 of the Indian Constitution on the right to life and personal liberty as applicable to foreigners with a number of courts also having brought the principle of non-refoulement within the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution.
So, there is a lot to build upon. What’s needed at this stage is perhaps moving away from the approach that has been specific to individual groups and, to a certain extent, it’s an ad hoc approach to the development of a national policy framework for India for the protection of refugees, so that the right to life and personal liberty that is included in the Constitution can give an effect when it comes to refugees at the moment present in India with respect to access to services and also access to all basic rights.
Here, what as UNHCR we are advocating for is building on the good practices that are in place and then coming up with an Indian-led and Indian-owned framework that could serve to defend India’s domestic choices on refugee protection while also positioning the country as a constructive party in the resolution of crisis at global and regional level. So, there is an element which is internal to the domestic situation, but it’s also an element that is more outward-looking to global crises across the world.
So, if the first priority is addressing routine, the second priority is dealing with refugees at home.
The third priority is to work towards solutions. And there has never been a greater need to work on solutions. For those who cannot go back home, the option available is one of inclusion and acceptance. In the societies where they live, there’s no other option. It is until the conditions are propitious for them to return. It can be on a temporary basis but let me be frank. At the moment, there are more than 28 million refugees who are in a protracted situation of over five years.
So, there are very few solutions. I think it’s important to look at how, while work is taking place on addressing root causes and improving the situation in countries of origin, in the meantime, people are provided with the opportunity to contribute, to work, to have a normal life, and be included in the society where they live. Solutions beyond return also include some solutions through resettlement, that is on the basis of solidarity and responsibility sharing. Some refugees are accepted in third countries. And in India, there are about 1,750 refugees every year who are submitted for resettlement to countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. And, of course, return is something that we should continue pursuing. It’s the solution that most refugees need, and it’s the solution that is the most elusive at the moment.
Allow me to conclude by referring to Mahatma Gandhi, and I’ve seen in the city of Mumbai in a few places, his statue, where he says Be the change you want to see in the world. During the turbulent times that we live in, there has never been a greater need to imagine a world where no one is forced to flee, where refugees have the chance to go back home. And while they are in our midst, they are offered a helping hand and a welcome in order to be able to contribute and have a fulfilling life.
I would suggest that we remain optimistic and bold in imagining a world where the values of compassion and justice prevail, and where eventually there would be a time we celebrate the end of UNHCR’s work, because there would no longer be displacement.
ROTARIANS ASK
What do you think of the controversial Rishi Sunak policy on shipping refugees after Rwanda, which the Tory just managed to get through recently.
And, second, there is a perception that refugees from the Middle-East are not being accepted by GCC countries and all flee to Europe. Is that true, and do they do that because of better education, welfare, and opportunities in Europe, or do GCC countries actually not take them in?
When one works for UNHCR India, one is precluded from speaking on matters that concern UNHCR in London. And the reason for this is because we do not follow the details of the debate. To a certain extent, we are only in a position to talk about the issues that we are dealing with on a day-to-day basis. But let me try to answer this question from a personal perspective. I worked for a number of years on issues relating to irregular maritime movements by sea in the Asia-Pacific region. I was with the Regional Bureau for the Asia-Pacific and then I was based for a number of years, a conduit, to the Bali Process Regional Support office which was chaired by the Government of Indonesia and the Government of Australia and at the time they were primarily looking at the issues of irregular movements by sea and there were a lot of tensions at the time.
At the time there was a concerted attempt to stop arrivals. By transferring individuals to Papua New Guinea and Nauru, there were significantly reduced arrivals to Australia, and I think they were eventually stopped with absolutely horrific costs in terms of human suffering. It was a solution that addressed irregular movements to Australia… but it’s a solution not in line with the honourable humanitarian tradition of Australia.
And Australia has a very strong humanitarian tradition. Across the world, states believe that it is possible to address irregular movements through restrictions, which to a certain extent end up penalising the people who engage in irregular movements because they have no other choice. I think there is an alternative way to address irregular movements, and that is through working to support countries in the regions where refugees are so that they can receive them, and they can provide them with assistance while assistance is needed. Support the conditions that would allow for return, in other words, peace-building conditions, but also reconstruction and development interventions in countries of origin, and somehow find a way that we can address the needs of individuals in a more humane manner.
We all need to bear in mind that at one time in history, we were the ones looking for this, hoping for a welcome. And this element of mutuality is something that we somehow need to keep in mind, and this what brings us all together.
When it comes to refugees in the Gulf states, none of the countries is a signatory to the Refugee Convention. And the only country in the Arabian Peninsula that is a signatory is Yemen, which is the country I was working in just before coming here to India. And there are significant challenges. These are countries with a very large migrant worker population. But among that, some refugees have found solutions through participation in the labour market, and this is very important. But I think when it comes to individuals, the most fundamental principle as mentioned in my presentation is the principle of non-refoulement, not being forced to return to a situation where your life or freedom is at risk, or you might be facing harm.
In these situations, UNHCR would try to work with states to find ways so people are not returned to situations of harm. But a majority of the population in the Gulf states consists of people who are working. And even if they come from countries in conflict, they might have the legal right to work. And therefore, they are receiving some of the protection that is