Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05GENEVA1689
2005-07-11 08:43:00
UNCLASSIFIED
US Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

UNHCR: INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION

Tags:  PREF UNHCR 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 GENEVA 001689 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREF UNHCR
SUBJECT: UNHCR: INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION

REF: GENEVA 01605

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 GENEVA 001689

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREF UNHCR
SUBJECT: UNHCR: INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION

REF: GENEVA 01605


1. (U) SUMMARY: The Executive Committee (ExCom) of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) held a
meeting of its "Standing Committee" June 28-30 to discuss
budget and program matters. This cable focuses on protection
issues, the main topic of the June meeting. Others will focus
on budget matters and the High Commissioner's Five
Commitments to Refugee Women. UNHCR presented papers on "The
International Note on Protection", statelessness, mass influx
situations, local integration and self reliance,
complementary forms of protection, refugee women, and on
"Project Profile." Debates, particularly on local
integration, gender issues, and complementary forms of
protection, were lively. An undercurrent to the meeting was
the issue of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs ) see
reftel),a category of people for whom UNHCR is still trying
to delineate its protection role. The discussions reflected
concern about recent high-profile cases of refoulement, the
merit of generic frameworks, while nations directly affected
by refugee movements actively defended their policies and
looked to UNHCR for additional assistance. END SUMMARY.

--------------
Note on International Protection
--------------


2. (U) Director of the Department for International
Protection Erika Feller introduced this year's Note on
International Protection as "only a part of a mosaic of
material on protection issues." The note emphasized the
close link between the legal, social, and economic aspects of
protection. Noting that physical security of refugees was a
central issue, she expressed concern about recent
refoulements of refugees, rape as a weapon of conflict,
abduction and recruitment of children, recent incidences of
refoulement, and a re-emergence of boat arrivals. She
welcomed the "almost unprecedented" levels of voluntary
repatriation and the "rehabilitation" of resettlement as a
durable solution, but noted that local integration remains an
"elusive solution." She defined international protection as
the safeguarding of physical security and the enjoyment of
rights. Of her recent trip to Sudan, Feller said that UNHCR
had insufficient staff on the ground to do full justice to
the protection responsibilities entrusted to UNHCR in West
Darfur. She also complained of the gap between supportive
rhetoric and actual funding of protection interventions
there.


3. (U) Feller said UNHCR was trying to realize protection in

a climate of "asylum fatigue" triggered by the
asylum/migration nexus, international crime, terrorism and
smuggling of people. She cited a lack of funding as the
reason why UNHCR does not have adequate numbers for
appropriately staffed protection and community services posts
and why protection-related duties are often delegated to
junior staff and UNVs. She also highlighted food insecurity
for refugees and stressed partnerships. She expressed
UNHCR's commitment to the collaborative approach. Feller
noted concern about mandate gaps, saying that the need for
protection (and assistance) was not restricted to refugees
and asylum-seekers. Key challenges for UNHCR were how to
ensure that resources at the disposal of protection are
adequate to the tasks, to capacitate managers in all aspects
of protection, to ensure the expertise and knowledge of all
staff doing protection, to minimize security problems, to
work within the current operational climate, including
"asylum fatigue", and how to realize solutions in an
environment of unresolved or rekindling conflicts, protracted
stay, uneven burden-sharing and limited asylum space.


4. (U) Highlights from the lengthy and wide-ranging debate
included a call for a more analytical approach to the Note,
more focus on delivery on the ground, and a holistic approach
to protection and operations. Several member states
expressed support for the collaborative approach on IDPs and
there were mixed views regarding Convention-Plus (there were
some calls for mainstreaming it),and stressed the importance
of resettlement. Concern was expressed regarding the overuse
and possible misuse of the Protection Surge Capacity Project
and Feller agreed to convene a meeting of interested parties
to discuss UNHCR's approach to IDPs and other populations of
interest.


5. (U) Most delegations agreed that the core mandate of UNHCR
is protection, and that the preferred durable solution for
refugees is voluntary repatriation with a community-based
focus for reintegration. Feller noted that there was also a
need for broader, perhaps global, consultations to
distinguish between protection and non-protection needs. As
occurred in the May informal discussions on the preparation
of the 2006 budget (see reftel),many delegations expressed
concern over the increasing number of internally displaced
persons (IDPs),and stressed the collaborative approach as
the correct solution. It was plain throughout the three-day
meeting that UNHCR is committed to establishing a more active
and predictable role on IDPs.


6. (U) USdel noted that resettlement criteria must be
flexible to accommodate needs. Many delegations asked that
UNHCR strengthen its resettlement function and promote
regional resettlement programs such as the Latin American
example. For many countries, resettlement is seen as a
viable solution and should have synergy with other durable
solutions. The Australian delegation lobbied for upgrading
the level of the senior resettlement position.


7. (U) Other delegations expressed concern over
"asylum-shopping." The Italian delegation asserted that more
than 50 per cent of asylum-seekers disappear from camps
before their status is determined, effectively giving them an
illegal status. Many delegations called for the development
of a multilateral framework with burden- and
responsibility-sharing in order to preserve respect for
asylum, ignoring the fact that negotiations on a framework on
irregular secondary movements have stalled. Some said UNHCR
should work with IOM and ILO to address the prevalence of
economic migrants.


8. (U) Many delegations mentioned their desire to strengthen
the implementation of the 1951 Convention by registering
asylum-seekers using a standardized system, specifically
mentioning biometrics as a possible solution to prevent fraud
and irregular secondary movements. The African group was
particularly concerned with this issue. There was also
discussion on how EU efforts to define a common asylum
system, and possibly joint resettlement programs, would
impact countries in and out of the EU.


9. (U) USdel called for a halt to refoulement by Rwanda,
Burundi, and Kyrgyzstan (welcomed by Feller who said it was
time to start naming names in Standing Committee,) sought
information on the increase by over two million of people of
concern to UNHCR (IDPs in Sudan and Colombia plus stateless
persons),requested consultation with member states on
UNHCR's role vis-a-vis IDPs, expressed concern at dearth of
experienced international protection staff, emphasized the
need for more focus in the Note on physical protection and on
women and children, and highlighted the need for more
self-reliance for refugees. USdel praised registration
efforts, called for donors to better support World Food
Program, and called for a continued increase in UNHCR's
resettlement capacity. Feller said that improved counting of
IDPs in Sudan and Colombia and stateless persons were
responsible for the large increase in persons of concern to
UNHCR. USdel commented that the Note inadequately covered
the important issue of physical protection. Feller agreed to
include more on the issue next year. USdel also expressed
concern about the impact UNHCR's taking a larger role
regarding IDPs might have on host countries willingness to
grant asylum; Feller said UNHCR was conscious of the risk and
preserving the principle of non-refoulement was a criterion
for HCR involvement with IDPs. There were differing views on
the future of Convention-Plus protocol with a few delegates
(Denmark) calling for its continuation while others (Finland,
Austria, the U.S., Canada) recommending that it was time to
mainstream it, apply it to the field, and give the
responsibility for further discussions on it to the Standing
Committee.

-------------- --------------
Statelessness - No Restriction on Scope of UNHCR's Activities
-------------- --------------


10. (U) Many states agreed that statelessness is a major
issue that needs to be remedied. The progress report
published by UNHCR at the meeting called for an increase in
the role that UNHCR will play on this issue. Basing its
mandate on General Assembly and ExCom decisions, UNHCR said
its responsibility extended well beyond the strictly legal.
However, UNHCR assured USdel that it had no intention of
expanding its activities dramatically. UNHCR is working with
nations who have large numbers of stateless people to develop
national frameworks. The debate became personal between
Russia and Latvia/Estonia regarding former Soviet citizens
who did not gain citizenship at the time of independence.


11. (U) USdel called for follow-up on the provisions
included in the Executive Committee Conclusions encouraging
States, in cooperation with UNHCR, to work on resolving
statelessness, including through the resettlement of
stateless persons in precarious situations who may be
refugees, stressed the importance of ensuring that all
children are registered when born, regardless of their
nationality, status or place of birth, urged UNHCR to outline
objectives targeting selected regions with stateless
populations and reflect such objectives in its global appeal,
and mainstream the issue of statelessness into its regular
operations and training programs. Amnesty International, on
behalf of the NGOs, noted the &universal right to a state8,
welcomed UNHCR's expansion in Central and Eastern Europe and
called for a dedicated budget line for stateless activities.

-------------- --------------
International Cooperation in Mass Influx Situations
-------------- --------------


12. (U) There were differing views on "International
Cooperation and Burden Sharing in Mass Influx Situations."
Refugee-hosting countries supported the creation of new
mechanisms and conclusions for international cooperation,
while donor countries spoke out against the need for
additional frameworks and roundtables. Donor countries are
looking for more empirical analysis and practical solutions
on the issue in lieu of generic theory. They are concerned
about trying to create a one-size-fits-all structure that
will not adequately target solutions in specific crises. A
study on the issue, which had been blocked by DIP Head Feller
because it failed to deal with many practical aspects, is
expected to be published shortly.

-------------- --------------
Local Integration and Self-Reliance - Small Signs of Hope
-------------- --------------


13. (U) The debate on "Local Integration and Self Reliance"
was more forthcoming than in the past when many
refugee-hosting countries refused to discuss either of these
issues. A statement by Deputy Director of Protection
Ngonlardje Mbaidjol that emphasized both the strong
advantages and interrelatedness of the two issues catalyzed
much of the debate. Most of the differences were found
between resettlement countries and mass-influx countries.
Smaller nations were concerned about the impact of local
integration on their economic, social, and environmental
condition, while the wealthier resettlement nations agreed
with UNHCR about the benefits. All delegations stressed that
special programs need to be developed for women and child
refugees.


14. (U) A few nations still hesitated to discuss
Self-Reliance at all, while others wanted self-reliance to be
officially described as a "tool" to achieving durable
solutions. Both resettlement nations and mass-influx nations
noted its ability to reduce host-country burdens, including
food aid. Strangely, some states also raised IDP needs under
this agenda item.


15. (U) While it was obvious there were strong differences
of opinion, the Africa Group acknowledged that local
integration could be an option for small numbers of refugees,
as long as the international community focused on
burden-sharing in this context. The US Committee on Refugees
and Immigrants' statement on behalf of the NGOs was
relatively low key, quite well received, and described as
"fair" by the Zambian delegate. It stressed, as did several
delegates, that self-reliance should not be restricted to
durable solutions but should be viewed in the context of
ongoing care and maintenance situations. The underlying
question on many delegates' minds was whether or not refugees
are agents of development.


16. (U) UNHCR is planning a study on the impact of local
integration in developing countries to be published next year.

--------------
COMPLEMENTARY FORMS OF PROTECTION
--------------


17. (U) The document on "Complementary Forms of Protection"
highlighted the need for the international protection system
to address protection gaps, called for complementary forms of
protection for people who cannot obtain refugee status under
the 1951 Convention; that complementary forms of protection
should strengthen the global refugee regime; and that
complementary forms of protection should not weaken the
measures in place to address statelessness. The subsequent
debate centered on where UNHCR,s mandate begins and ends and
who should be the beneficiary of complementary forms of
protection, with many delegations calling for a more
harmonized, consistent procedure to examine all international
protection needs. Other delegations asked that UNHCR ensure
that refugee protection is not undermined by complementary
protection, that persons granted complementary protection not
be given the same status and rights as Convention refugees,
and that there be a clear distinction between complementary
and temporary protection.


18. (U) Feller emphasized that UNHCR is not trying to confuse
concepts and equate protection with mandates, humanitarian
response with protection being offered, or protection with
status. Feller said that UNHCR does not have a mandate for
every victim of displacement or in need of protection. She
also drew attention to the report's conclusion, which
mentions that the 1951 Convention should be implemented
resolutely and fully, and that complementary forms of
protection should not be substituted for the Convention.
However, she also noted that relevant law is not only based
on the 1951 Convention, but the applicability extends to the
OAU Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.


19. (U) Feller stated that there would be situations when the
1951 Convention is not applied as resolutely as it should be.
In addition, Feller highlighted that UNHCR's paper does
not/not address the situation of persons who have been
excluded from refugee status, but who nevertheless cannot,
under relevant human rights law, be returned to a country
where they would face a risk of torture, cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, Feller
stated that UNHCR's conclusion is not intended to provide in
full detail the substance of complementary forms of the
protection regime, but rather suggest an outside framework
for consideration. Nevertheless, Feller asserted that the
mandate between UNHCR and statelessness is clear. UNHCR has a
mandate for stateless people, coming from Article 11 under
the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and by
decisions of the General Assembly.


20. (U) Member states seemed to agree that the ExCom
conclusion should provide a general outline rather than being
all-encompassing because there should be sufficient
flexibility for nations to account for differences in
granting complementary protection. In particular, the
Australian delegation stated that it was not appropriate to
have a "one size fits all" process with so many different
possible situations. In response, Feller mentioned that
there would be significant development at the regional level
to ensure flexibility at the national level.


21. (U) Member states also appeared concerned about the
distinction between humanitarian as opposed to refugee
assistance, and highlighted that grants of international
protection should be on the basis of the threat to the
individual. The British, Dutch, and Italian delegations, as
well as NGOs, emphasized that international protection should
not be extended to victims of natural disasters; with the
Dutch government stating that its government did not agree
that international protection should be extended to any
people who do not fall under the 1951 Convention. In
response, Feller noted that statutes on protection needs do
not automatically grant status to people who are fleeing
natural disasters, but that perhaps some forms of
complementary protection should be designed.


22. (U) Discussion of draft conclusions on "Local
Integration and Self-Reliance" and "Complementary Forms of
Protection" will begin July 13 and 14.
Moley