June 23, 2005

Senior staff from the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) were the featured speakers at a briefing at the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) on June 23, 2005 to discuss the World Refugee Survey 2005.  The panel consisted of: Lavinia Limon, President of the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Gregory Chen, Director of Policy Analysis and Research, and Merrill Smith, Editor of the World Refugee Survey.  MPI Director Kathleen Newland chaired the panel.

Panel Remarks

Kathleen Newland introduced the 44th annual World Refugee Survey.  This survey builds on a theme of “refugee warehousing” introduced in the 2004 Survey—a term used to describe cases where refugees become mired in legal situations without being able to exercise their rights.  For the first time, this year’s survey “grades” countries on their performance in the treatment of refugees.

Lavinia Limon opened by highlighting some of the worst abuses of refugee rights around the world, discussing Italian deportation of Libyan refugees, Libyan deportation of Eritrean refugees, Chinese abuse of North Korean refugees, and US interdiction and repatriation of Haitians asylum seekers.  She stated that refoulement and abuse are used by many countries to control and eliminate what they see as a “problem” of asylum seekers.

This year’s survey reports on the warehousing of 7.7 million refugees, out of a total of 11.5 million refugees worldwide.  Many of these refugees remain in camps or in urban centers without the right to work or to move freely.  Limon said last year’s report argued that warehousing is in violation of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.  This year, the report argues that warehousing is also ineffective because it does not work to end the refugee “problem” and imposes substantial costs on governments to provide even minimally for the basic needs of warehoused refugees.

Gregory Chen gave a brief overview of the format of the report, describing its comprehensive analysis of the situation of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) worldwide, and its update on the refugee policies and practices of all the major refugee hosting countries.  He then described the Survey’s new grading system in greater detail.  He explained that the report graded countries on four areas of rights: 1) refoulement and asylum practices; 2) the practice of detention, including whether detention is used to try to deter asylum seekers from seeking protection; 3) refugees’ right to earn a livelihood; and 4) freedom of movement.

Chen described the grades assigned to several refugee hosting countries including the United States, Tanzania, Chad, and China.  The US was given an F for refoulement and asylum, for returning thousands of Haitians interdicted at sea without any fair refugee screening practice.  It was also given an F for detention due to its widespread use of the practice, and for arbitrary parole policies applied inconsistently across geographic areas.  However, the United States earned As for the right to work and for freedom of movement, since refugees in the United States are granted broad rights once they have attained refugee status.

China scored poorly due to its treatment of North Koreans, who are denied the right to asylum, to work, or to move freely; if apprehended, many are held in detention.  Although China does treat Indochinese refugees well, USCRI assigned grades in relation to the worst treated group, because there is an international standard of non-discrimination. 

Chad, despite being a poor country, accepted over 100,000 refugees in 2004, and currently has over 260,000 within its borders.  The refugees are generally allowed freedom of movement and the right to seek a livelihood.

Chen stated that the grades assigned are not meant to castigate countries for their practices, but rather are intended to allow countries to learn from each other as they strive to improve their practices.

Merrill Smith stated that refugee warehousing is a political problem, and that change must come from citizen pressure on governments.  He cited the Refugee Consortium of Kenya as an example of a group that builds support for policy change by reaching out to civil society groups to work with and advise the government.  He also called for governments to share responsibility in protecting refugees, and for the world’s citizens to work together in developing a united message on refugee policy to present to their governments.  He ended by promoting the North-South Civil Society Conference on Refugee Warehousing to be held in Geneva, Switzerland in September 2005.

Question and Answer Session

During the question and answer session, some discussion centered on the difficulty of assigning broad grades.  Newland pointed out that if the grading system were further refined, USCRI might assign different grades to different agencies within the United States government.  Limon also explained that in some cases the limitation of rights in one area affected rights in another—such as when restriction on freedom of movement affects people’s ability to work—but that the editors decided to keep categories separate and not grade according one category’s effect on the other.  Chen explained that good grades were assigned to countries with good laws and policies on a particular right, and that poor grades were assigned for countries that either had restrictive laws or had no laws at all on that topic.  USCRI also accounted for country’s practices as well as official policy in their grading.  According to Chen, the worst grades were assigned for large scale violations of international law.

One audience member asked whether countries had issued official responses to the survey.  The panel explained that while the report has received a lot of press, no country had responded officially.  They stated that they expect more responses in the future, and that they welcome discussion with governments.  However, according to Limon, they do not expect an official response from the United States government.  USCRI has received responses from several foreign embassies. 

Another audience member asked Smith to clarify how citizens can pressure their governments on refugee policy in countries where governments are not responsive to their populace.  Smith argued that even in undemocratic countries people can effectively pressure their governments, especially if their action forms part of an international movement.  Newland asked what would happen in cases where public opinion is part of the reason that a government follows restrictive refugee policies.  Smith countered that granting refugees broad rights will benefit everyone, and that when dealing with refugees one-on-one, most people are accepting of such broad rights.  Limon suggested civil society should be educated about the benefits of granting asylum to refugees.

The participants also discussed the issue of whether refugee camps, which offer protection, might also restrict freedom of movement.  Chen answered that the USCRI is not opposed to refugee camps, stating that camps can be effective in providing security or allowing the distribution of aid.  Smith added that camps do not necessarily restrict movement or a refugee’s ability to work when aid is not confined to camps and when people are free to leave the camps if they desire.