WUNRN
CONSIDERATIONS FOR INTERNALLY
DISPLACED WOMEN
Security Council Resolution 1325 was
passed unanimously on 31 October 2000. Resolution (S/RES/1325) is the first
resolution ever passed by the Security Council that specifically addresses the
impact of war on women, and women's contributions to conflict resolution and
sustainable peace.
Link to UN Security Council
Resolution 1325: http://www.peacewomen.org/un/sc/res1325.pdf
_______________________________________________________________
A Seat at the Table: The Role
of Displaced Persons in Peace Talks and Peacebuilding
Presentation
by Donald Steinberg, Vice President, International Crisis Group at the U.S.
Institute of Peace, Washington DC, 14 December, 2007
From Sudan to Sri Lanka, from
Colombia to Congo, there are few more visible and heart-breaking signs of
conflict than internally displaced persons driven from their homes and forced
to live in makeshift camps, abandoned buildings, forests, and shanty towns.
Outcasts in their own homelands, they are unprotected by international
conventions on refugees and subject to the not-so-tender mercies of their own
governments and to relief efforts of domestic and international agencies.
Frequently, they have been endured unspeakable crimes and unimaginable horrors,
and struggle to find food, shelter, health facilities, and basic security. Some
25 million people today find themselves in such conditions in about 50
countries, including by most estimates more than a million each in Algeria,
Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Turkey and
Uganda.
While some internal
displacement results from natural disasters, including droughts, pestilence,
and floods, the vast majority of internally displaced persons (IDPs) have been
made homeless by conflict. Yet when parties come together to negotiate the end
to conflict, IDPs are generally excluded from the peace talks, and the issues
of greatest interest to them – resettlement to their places of origin,
rebuilding of basic infrastructure and social services, clearance of landmines,
and reform of the security sector – are given short shrift by the armed
combatants participating in the talks.
Given that
there is likely to be little domestic pressure for the inclusion of IDPs in the
processes of peacemaking and post-conflict reconstruction, it often falls to
the international community – and in particular the United Nations through its
mediation efforts and the power of the UN Security Council – to ensure their
participation.
IDPs at the Table: Good
for Them, Good for the Process
The
exclusion of IDPs from peace processes is both unjust and unwise. In modern
warfare, some 90 percent of the victims are now civilians, and internal
displacement generally occurs against powerless groups already subject to
exploitation. Sexual violence, including rape used as a weapon of war; theft of
property, livestock and other assets; trafficking in women and girls; and
similar abuses are common among individuals who have lost their homes and
identities. Abuses occur not only at the hands of rebels and criminals, but
often from government security forces who are charged with their protection.
IDP camps are sites of domestic violence, trafficking in persons, drug and
alcohol abuse, tuberculosis, cholera, and crime.
The
exclusion of IDPs from the peacemaking and peacebuilding has a deeper cost of
undercutting the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes. The return of
IDPs to their places of origin are key to the re-establishment of normalcy,
return of security and the extension of state administration throughout the
national territory. Thus, early returns are is often pushed by impatient
negotiators seeking good news and tangible signs of progress from stalled
processes. But the premature return of displaced persons to their homes, in the
absence of security and sustainability, can lead quickly to new displacement,
which simply adds new instability to the process. IDPs themselves are best
positioned to know when it is wise and safe to return to their homes, and their
voices to this effect must be part of the peace process. Further, they must be
there to advocate for assistance and compensation packages: the sense that
demobilised ex-combatants are receiving generous assistance packages, training
opportunities, and positions in the new government or security forces in excess
of what IDPs receive can bring tension and alienation for key constituents.
The
disengagement of civil society groups from a peace process means that they will
view the peace process as belonging to the armed combatants, not to them, and
there will be little civil society pressure on the combatants if the peace
process falters. For example, the exclusion of IDP representatives at the
Darfur peace talks in Abuja in 2006 was a key factor in creating an
unsustainable and unworkable peace agreement that was quickly repudiated by
most of Darfur civil society. It is for this reason that we are now urging the
inclusion of IDP representatives – as well as those of women’s organisations
and Arab tribes – in the UN/AU talks being led by Jan Eliasson and Salim Salim.
One
particularly disturbing problem occurred in Angola while I was serving there as
American Ambassador and a member of the Peace Commission. In our rush to see
Angola’s four million displaced persons return to their homes in a country
where large numbers of landmines had been planted, we focused primarily on the
commercial demining of major roads. Regrettably, our humanitarian demining
efforts in local fields, forests, and lakes were given secondary priority. When
the displaced returned to their homes and started going out to plant fields,
collect firewood, and fetch water, there was a rush of tragic landmine
accidents. Had IDPs been at the table in the Peace Commission from an early
stage, this tragedy might have avoided.
There is an
expression used in the disability community: “Nothing about us without us.”
This concept should apply to the displaced community in peace talks.
Whose Peace Process?
Yet the
exclusion of IDPs persists. We have the strange specters of maniacal and often
homicidal combatants such as Angola’s Jonas Savimbi, Sierra Leone’s Foday
Sankoh, and Uganda’s Joseph Kony, or the fractured forces of Darfurian rebels
claiming to represent “the people” in their respective negotiations. Too often,
the first action of these individuals is to seek amnesty for crimes that they,
their supporters, and even the opposite side committed during the conflict.
While we welcome national reconciliation and forgiveness that accompanies the
end of conflict, amnesties too often mean that men with guns forgive other men
with guns for crimes committed against powerless civilians, including displaced
persons. Amnesties can also put a cynical cancer in the center of a peace
process and undercut the re-establishment of rule of law and justice after the
guns go silent.
These
lessons are vital for negotiators to address, and it is a welcome sign that the
Mediation Support Unit at the UN Department of Political Affairs has recognised
this. This unit is now preparing guidance to be used in training potential
envoys, mediators and representatives of the UN Secretary General in conflict
situations. In addressing these issues, many questions need to be addressed.
Who are the Displaced
and Who Represents Them
First is the
question of identifying IDPs and their representatives and leaders. Often, the
pattern of rural to urban migration and the sudden development of squatters
village and shanty towns on the outskirts of major cities begs the question of
whether these are economic migrants or conflict-related IDPs. One key question
is whether these individuals intend to return to their homes after conflict.
Similarly, it is not enough to look for major camps of displacement: IDPs quite
frequently do not flock only to large camps: many live with friends or
relatives, while others congregate in small groups in safe areas in forests or
mountains.
On the
question of representation, rarely are there cases where clear leaders of the
internally displaced emerge. Rebel leaders may claim to represent IDPs and
their interests, but frequently, these leaders may be the perpetrators of
actions against the displaced or simply seeking to use IDPs as leverage to gain
greater concessions. The leaders of the communities from which the displaced
came may have been killed, displaced elsewhere, or discredited, and IDP camps
do not generally have the stability to elect their own leadership. Further,
individuals in IDP camps themselves may be far from innocent victims, but
actual perpetrators of the violence, such as in the case of IDPs in the secured
areas of Rwanda following the 1994 genocide.
It may also
be difficult to incorporate IDP leaders into formal peace processes given their
lack of formal training and education, and perhaps even language issues.
Typically, IDPs come from marginalised groups, such as the Afro-Colombian
community in Colombia, where the skills necessary to participate in diplomatic
negotiations must be fostered and nurtured. Training for their participation is
essential, and must take place early and in a culturally appropriate manner.
These
questions most often fall to the international or domestic mediator charged
with conducting the peace talks and to the commission implementing the
agreement. These determinations should be made in consultation with credible
human rights and governance institutions, taking into account previously
existing leadership patterns and the structure of leadership that may have
emerged in IDP camps or communities.
When and How to Engage
IDPs
Timing is
critical. Issues related to the return of displaced to their homes are
particularly tense, including divisive questions such as compensation for
displacement, accountability, and restoration of land rights. These questions
can be so disruptive to a fragile peace process that there is an argument for
delaying their consideration and resolution until basic aspects of the armed
conflict have been resolved and consolidated, especially negotiation of a
ceasefire or permanent cessation of hostility and an agreement on the disarmament
and demobilisation of armed forces. Further, emotions can run high when the
abused and the abusers confront each other, even in polite conference rooms.
Thus, there may be occasions where it is wise to include only the principal
armed parties in the initial stages of a peace negotiation, as long as it is
clear that the voices of other key actors – including IDP representatives –
will be heard and heeded shortly thereafter.
Ideally,
implementation of a peace process can help rebuild local capacity of civil
society organisations that have been destroyed by the partisanship of conflict.
IDPs should be a principal target of these efforts. It is a sad fact that as a
conflict moves from a period of humanitarian emergency to re-establishment of
stability and security to post-conflict reconstruction and development, the
resources flowing to the country progressively diminish. Thus, using
resettlement resources to support and strengthen IDP groups as planners,
implementers and beneficiaries of these programs is preferable to relying
solely on foreign entities such as the International Organization on Migration
and international NGOs.
An International
Responsibility to Engage
It is
neither neo-colonialist nor paternalistic for the international community to insist
that IDPs be represented in peace processes. The international community need
not be diffident when faced with charges of interference in the internal
affairs of a sovereign state. There is a lingering view, for example, that the
UN Security Council should not engage unless there are on-going “threats to
international peace and security” and that situations that involve only
internal displacement are not within its purview. Cases such as Zimbabwe, Sri
Lanka, and Myanmar come easily to mind. In fact, in our interconnected global
community, the line between domestic and international crises has been blurred,
if not obliterated. Conflict and the waves of instability flow easily across
borders. Today’s IDP is tomorrow’s refugee, while insecure areas within
countries quickly become breeding sites for international trafficking in arms,
persons, and drugs; and potential training sites for terrorists.
Other
seeking to downplay IDP participation argue that, by not having crossed
borders, they are not covered by the refugees convention and thus do not enjoy
the protection of the international community. In fact, there are ample
precedents and international law to justify forcing IDPs into the peace
process, including rights under international human rights and humanitarian
law. Further, displacement often occurs in conjunction with genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes, or ethnic cleansing. As a result, the concept of
“responsibility to protect” kicks in under paragraphs 138 and 139 of the World
Summit Outcome document of October 2005. These paragraphs, endorsed by the
largest grouping of world leaders ever assembled and subsequently recognised
unanimously by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council, state that
the principal responsibility to prevent and stop these mass atrocities falls to
the host government, but to the extent that the government is unable or
unwilling to perform this duty, the responsibility shifts to the international
community. And even if mass atrocities have not occurred, the act of
displacement makes these populations more vulnerable to this possibility, and
brings into play the corresponding responsibility to prevent.
Further,
while a formal statement of IDP rights has never been adopted, growing
international acceptance of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement
provides a mediator with a wide opening to engage IDPs in peace processes.
Developed in 1998 by former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on
Internally Displaced Persons Francis Deng, these principles identify rights and
guarantees for protecting persons from forced displacement and for protecting
and assisting them during displacement and subsequent return. The principles
have been welcomed by the UN General Assembly in 2003; incorporated into the
charters or regional organisations such as the Council of Europe, Organization
of American States, and African Union; and codified in whole or in part in
national laws in countries such as Colombia, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Angola,
Georgia, Peru, Burundi, Liberia, and the Philippines.
It is vital
that the full expertise of the United Nations and other international bodies on
IDPs is incorporated into peace processes. It is not enough for a well-meaning
UN envoy to be sensitive to these issues. Mediators must have the full backing
of the UN Security Council, including specific references in resolutions to IDP
participation in peace processes involving UN peacemaking and peace enforcement
missions. Mediators must draw on the experience of the Special Representative
for the Human Rights of IDPs, the High Commissioner for Refugees (especially
given its role as IDP cluster lead on protection), the Geneva-based Internal
Displacement Division of the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs, the
International Organization for Migration, the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, World Food Program, UNICEF
and UNDP.
Beyond Victimhood
Many in the
international community view internally displaced persons as mere victims of
conflict and extol their remarkable capacity for survival. But it is vital to
see IDPs as much more: they are an essential piece of the puzzle in making and
building sustainable peace. Peace processes must benefit greatly from their
knowledge of local conditions, their power to generate civil society support
for agreements, their willingness to return home and rebuild stable societies,
and their commitment to the future of their countries. In the pursuit of peace,
we must make them part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Donald
Steinberg is Vice President for Multilateral Affairs for the International
Crisis Group. He previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Population, Refugees, and Migration, and was a Senior Fellow at the United
States Institute for Peace addressing issues of internal displacement. This
presentation is derived from his comments as a discussant of a paper by Khalid
Koser of the Brookings Institution.
================================================================
To leave the list, send your request by email to:
wunrn_listserve-request@lists.wunrn.com. Thank you.