ICG: Failed responsibility

I was supposed to be in New York today talking about Iraqi refugee issues, but couldn't make it.  To make up for that, I'll just draw attention to a new International Crisis Group report, "Failed Responsibility: Iraqi refugees in Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon.":

In managing the problem of the refugee wave that has washed over Jordan, Syria and (to a far lesser extent) Lebanon, and severely strained these resource-poor states, the international community and the Iraq government have failed in their responsibilities. The refugees have confronted distressing conditions, as savings dwindled, and hosts toughened policies. Host countries must provide adequate services and protection. But donor countries and Iraq bear the greater responsibility, to assist both the refugees and the host countries.
...

If Jordan, Syria and Lebanon can be faulted for unfriendly treatment of refugees at border crossings and lukewarm assistance once they have entered, they should, nonetheless, be credited for having agreed to receive so many Iraqis in the first place and allowing them to stay at great cost to their own societies. By contrast, it is difficult to give the Iraqi government any credit at all. Flush with oil money, it has been conspicuously ungenerous toward its citizens stranded abroad. No doubt there are senior former regime figures among the refugees, but this does not excuse callous neglect of overwhelmingly non-political people who loyally served Iraq rather than any particular regime.

The approach of the international community, especially states that have participated in Iraq’s occupation, has been equally troubling. Western nations have been happy to let host countries cope with the refugee challenge, less than generous in their financial support, and outright resistant to the notion of resettlement in their midst. Although it has contributed more than most, the U.S., whose policies unleashed the chaos that spawned the outflow, has clearly failed in its own responsibilities: downplaying the issue, providing far less assistance to host countries than needed and admitting to its own shores merely a trickle of refugees and only after unprecedented security checks to which asylum seekers from other nations are not subjected.

Recent improvements in Iraq’s security situation could lead some to lower their interest in the refugee question on the assumption that massive returns are imminent. This would be wrong. Even under today’s circumstances, returning can be extremely perilous: safety remains uncertain, public services inadequate, and many houses have been seized by others, destroyed or are located in neighbourhoods or villages now dominated by militias of a different sect. There is no indication that large numbers of refugees have returned because of a positive reassessment of security conditions. Far more than improved conditions at home, it is unbearable conditions in exile that appear to have been the determining factor in most returns.

It would be reckless to encourage Iraqis to return before genuine and sustained improvement takes place. For the vast majority of refugees, returning home is the only viable solution, but that will not happen soon. In the meantime, the international community – especially countries that bear responsibility for the war and the post-war chaos – has an obligation to do more both to assist refugees in host countries and to welcome additional Iraqis on their own soil.

The report does not deal with the internally displaced (IDPs), who face a whole different set of unresolved issues.    But it is very much worth a read - it avoids many of the pitfalls of more sensationalist readings, looks carefully at numbers, economic and demographic trends, and reaches sobering conclusions which fit well with what I found when looking at these issues in Jordan in May. 

Comments

[Guardian reading liberal]

Back in December 2002 the ICG published a report, Voices from the Iraq Street, which played a very useful PR role in the drive to war. The report asked Iraqis a series of questions about Saddam Hussein's rule and the ICG said its main finding was that most Iraqis would support a US invasion. The ICG didn’t publish the polling data nor did it state what questions were asked. The report was seized upon by proponents of the war citing it as yet another reason why it would be a 'cakewalk' (for instance, in the UK the Independent's Johann Hari headlined his coverage of the report as 'The case for war').

Predictably, there's no acknowledgement in the latest ICG report about its own (presumably inadvertent) role in making the case for the war. Instead its report serves as an in-sadness-more-than-anger indictment of the 'failed responsibilty' of those involved in trying to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe.

[Ashraf al-Halabi]

How Marc Lynch became associated with Iraq is beyond me and maybe beyond smarter people than me.

What the hell do you know about Iraqi refugees in Syrian, Jordan and Lebanon?

How many of them do you know? How many times have you been to Iraq? How many times have you been to any of the mentioned host countries? What do you know about the massive attrition of the Iraqi person?

Come write for my blog, at least the laughter there is meant to be funny...

[Christiane]

the international community and the Iraq government have failed in their responsibilities

Well, what about the US responsibilities ? Is the US free to shatter a country and his people without taking responsibility for it ? the US leaders responsible of the carnage and the harms done to the Iraqi should be tried for it and should pay due compensations for years. Now after these harms were caused by the oil greediness of the wealthiest nation in the world, you want other nations to pay for you ? this is blunt !! you have no shame.

By contrast, it is difficult to give the Iraqi government any credit at all. Flush with oil money, it has been conspicuously ungenerous toward its citizens stranded abroad.

I have yet to see how can Iraq be flooded in oil money. Yes, the prices of oil have gone up (but that among else this is a payback for the adventurous US policies in the ME), however Iraq is barely pumping the same amount it was before the war begun. And with all the infrastructure destructions caused by the US army, how can they pay for 4M refugees and internally displaced. How many refugees did the US admit on his soil ? 12'000 people last time I heard about it. It is a shame.

The approach of the international community, especially states that have participated in Iraq’s occupation, has been equally troubling.
"The international community" .. let me laugh.. apart of the Brittish, none participated in the US invasion. The others have been pressured by the US aggressive diplomacy and have done so despite a firmly opposed opinion (to the point that these government fall a couple years thereafter); they have paid from their pocket to assist a shamefull operation and have received very few in exchange.. no surprise if they aren't running to pay for the US misdeeds.

Although it has contributed more than most, the U.S.....

You are kidding right ? Sweden for instance has alredy admitted 17'000 Iraqi refugees, while the US is barely able to accepts 12'000 among those who worked for her and thus whose life is threatened now.. Contrast these numbers with the number of inhabitants respectly living in Sweden and the US and you'll see how "generous" the US has been.

Well, I agree with the rest of the report you are quoting, especially with the last paragraph, but you have to replace the "International community" by the "US government and Brittish one" :
In the meantime, the international community – especially countries that bear responsibility for the war and the post-war chaos – has an obligation to do more both to assist refugees in host countries and to welcome additional Iraqis on their own soil.

[Eric Martin]

Ashraf,

Can you at least try to be more creative? You're getting kind of monotonous. Spice it up. Accuse Marc of criminal acts, or a nasty drug habit or perhaps a healthy dose of anti-Semitism. Or something.

Alternatively, stop. Or take a break if not stop. Maybe, say, two weeks off. Then you can come back with the same tired mantra.

Incidentally, I just finished reading an excellent book on music in ancient Greece. I found it quite informative, despite the fact that the author had never been to ancient Greece, nor met any ancient Greeks!

Odd, huh?

[Ashraf al-Halabi]

Christiane,

Okay then, I'll take two weeks off, I will b back on July 25.

Regards,

Ashraf

[Yja]

"Ashraf" just craves attention and seems to be somewhat jealous that people come to this blog and not to his own.

[bb]

Recalling the Kosovo refugees, the Afghanistan refugees, the Bosnian refugees and the Kurdish refugees who massed on the Turkish border in 1991, the Iraqi refugees since 2003, in contrast, have had almost no media attention. Is this because the UN did not have to crisis manage by setting up border refugee camps?

If so, why? ie Why were the governments of Jordan and Syria apparently willingly and able to absorb the Iraqi refugees and why did they choose to do so? Was it because the refugees had money and means at their disposal? If not, what was the reason?

My basic point is: if there were no UN camps having to be set up, then there would be no sense of "crisis" and therefore no media interest and that answers the question as to why there is so little pressure on the Iraqi Government to do anything about it?

[Dove's Friend]

Maybe an Iraqi parliament in exile could bring calm to the Iraqis in and outside of Iraq.

This should not develop into a Cuban or Hungarian stalemate.

The historical wave of refugees should be skilfully managed into an enlightened movement, and help to modernize the society.

[dbliss]

“Maybe an Iraqi parliament in exile could bring calm to the Iraqis in and outside of Iraq.”

On the contrary, influential or particularly active diaspora populations more often than not exacerbate conflicts back home. According to one World Bank survey, politically active diasporas increase the risk of renewed war in post-conflict societies as much as six-fold (Collier, “Policy for Post-conflict Societies: Reducing the Risks of Renewed Conflict,” 2000).

The “historical wave of refugees” you speak of is not as easily manipulated as you indicate, though it is just as powerful as you make it out to be. First of all, it would be very difficult for the US government (or any of its institutions) to “skillfully manage” these diasporans because, due to this administration’s hesitance to accept Iraqi refugees, only about 12,000 have been admitted. More importantly, though, the Iraqis displaced by sectarian violence will be the LEAST likely to foster internal or external unity. Diaspora populations are notorious for retaining grievances and refusing to return to a homeland that does not look exactly like their ideal.

This is at least in part why it would be “wrong” to “lower [our] interest in the refugee question on the assumption that massive returns are imminent.” Instead, the refugee crisis must be the focus not only of the international community but also of the Iraqi people. Even if unity at home is achieved – against all odds, it would seem – the fledgling government must work vigorously to reconcile with those displaced. In this very hypothetical future, only by finding common ground with diasporans will Iraq ensure stability in the near future.

[Zathras]

The last comment strikes me as very sensible. In any event, and the ICG notwithstanding, my ideas on how the United States should extricate itself from the Iraq quagmire do not include importing that quagmire here.