Connect with us

International Law

An everyday exception

Published

on

It might not be evident at first sight, but we are, in fact, living in the most peaceful era of human history. The battles of decolonization and the two world wars having come to an end already decades ago, the world has entered an unprecedented age of geopolitical stability.

Recent terrorist strikes and counter attacks cause indeed significant human suffering, the number of fatalities caused is nevertheless incomparable to previous carnages. This positive development is in part the result of the encroachment of law into international relations, which is supposed to favor peace and concord through the proliferation and respect of treaties between nations. Legal conferences set up by organizations with universal affiliations, permanent international courts and  arbitration  forums  formalize and tighten  relationships  between  countries.  The underlying rules’ interdependency favors cooperation and dialogue over escalation.

While these tremendous efforts have been put forward to keep statespersons from mobilizing troops, experts have also proposed to expand the general trend of peacetime regulation to times of armed conflict by introducing a unique legal framework to be respected in the now less likely event of a military altercation. This is how in the beginning of the twentieth century, the development and codification of the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions, substantial parts of what is nowadays known as the Laws of War, brought humanity right to the battlefield. The new legal principles, which were followed by several additional protocols, aim to apply to all forms of warfare and to all types of weapons, those of the past, the present and also those of the future. Furthermore, they do not only deal with standards of certain categories of bullets and projectiles as well as with chemical weapons, but also with the lot of the wounded in the field and at sea, the status of prisoners of war and the protection of civilians and victims.

On the one hand, perfidious combat methods and the use of outstandingly cruel weapons were banned, and civilians were put under particular protection. These changes were largely welcomed because ordnance at the time lacked precision, and fights were marked by paramount brutality on whose constraint everyone agreed upon in their own interest. Moreover, armed conflicts at the time took place mainly between countries – and not within – and were therefore well regulable: once the desired gain of territory was recorded, the war came to an end. On the other hand, the warring parties maintained their license to kill so to speak, an instrument which was explained by the very nature of armed conflicts and had already been part of customs between combatants, the goal of an armed conflict was and is to beat the adversary after all. This explicit permission to kill under certain circumstances is admittedly still today unheard-of in other legal fields, but its formal codification allowed the ratification of the Laws of War by all countries on this planet and their recognition by numerous non-State actors.

It needs to be borne in mind that the precious legal architecture thus established is one of the few fields of law where the long lasting efforts of diplomatic conferences and negotiations led to an international consensus, also between powers that had no friendly relations so far, that had been at war with each other in the past or that were going to be so in the future. It might not only have been the conviction to make a small step towards “doing the right thing” from a humanistic perspective which pushed delegations from States with at the time obviously opposing interests such as Americans, Hungarians, Russians and Japanese to adopt such universal principles. Establishing rules on how to treat the adverse party’s civilians and combatants was also perceived as a reasonable price to pay for the protection which the own population could inevitably expect to benefit from during the following armed conflicts. From the start, the initiators’ idea was never to limit the military clout of the warrying parties, but rather to prevent unnecessary suffering in an already hostile environment.

Despite juridification and humanization of combat methods, war has nonetheless remained an affair of death and cruelty. An armed conflict has continued to be been viewed as a case of extremes, and the application of the Laws of War has been strictly limited to actual times of war. Through the simultaneous consolidation of other fields of law, such as the broadening of procedural law, the extension of civil rights and the individualization of protection norms, the gap between our peacetime guaranties and the ruthlessness of wartime has steadily been deepened. Also for this reason, suspension of our protected civil lives has been only tolerated as a strict exception, which was geographically, temporally and personally limited: this means that while regular soldiers in uniform performed the necessary evil on the battlefield, the rest of the population fled or held its breath and remained passive observers, while ever vulnerable to collateral damages such as death or injury. Subsequently, life continued in peace for both sides with one side inevitably submitting to a new form of sovereignty.

The post- 9/11 “War on Terror” catalyzed by the Bush-Administration and its Western allies twisted this centuries-old exegesis of war-regulating treaties. At stake is not any more the scaling up of territorial claims, but rather the repression of insurgents, economic supremacy and exertion of cultural and geopolitical influence. While international terrorism apparently seeks to threaten us arbitrarily and infinitely, the net reaction seems to be the authorization of occidental armed forces to respond on a permanent basis. Thus, not the times of war but the times of peace would have become the exception, if any. A clear transition from peace to war and the other way around would not exist anymore.

The Western governments’ legal advisors know that the exceptional Laws of War have not been developed for their worldwide and permanent application and that their use cannot fulfill our expectations in a satisfying manner. However, since more, longer and wider-spread military action is considered to be a facile panacea, we are submerged by fear-spreading slogans which make us feel surrounded by threats and which make us overlook how our and others’ civil rights are jettisoned. This, in times where we are less likely to die of unnatural causes than ever before; in times where our well-equipped police forces and sharp witted intelligence services do their best job in history. The only goal seems to be securing discretionary Western use of weapons, even at the costs of international agreements that have been toughly negotiated throughout decades on the basis of reciprocity. While the West refers on the one side to its impressive human rights achievements and does not miss an opportunity to impose sanctions on States which lag behind in this regard, it forgets its humanistic progress when dealing with its enemies– enemies that admittedly might hold little regard or concern for humanism themselves.

In this context, targeted killings of terror suspects are presented as a modern and precise method of war that is to be taken advantage of wherever and whenever deemed useful. Yet, this contradicts the temporary and geographic limits of the Laws of War which we created ourselves and which our soldiers rely on, and it also sets us back to times where it used to be some monarch who disposed of his subjects’ and adversaries’ lives and deaths at his sole discretion and without any rule of law whatsoever. Our war against terror does not only make quick work of its enemies, it terrorizes entire areas, even in countries with which the Occident is not officially at war, such as Somalia or Yemen. Drone strikes, which are often used to carry out targeted killings and which do not expose the own military forces to noteworthy dangers, have dramatically increased during the past years. The civilian population in the Middle East and Southwestern Asia, which is unable to flee from our attacks, perceives them as arbitrary. Reports about the increasing number of civilian victims and misrouted operations neither escape the enemy fighters nor the local populations, whereby the latter was otherwise mostly receptive to Western concerns.

For instance, the local Muslim population’s support for the Islamic State corresponds to a vanishingly low  single-digit  percentage  making  the  analysts  of  a  Pew  poll  come  to  the conclusion that “Muslim publics share concerns about extremist groups.” Another survey shows that the rise of the Islamic State is even the number one concern in young Muslims’ lives. Instead of taking advantage of these unexpectedly shared values, we do not fight our enemies hand in hand with the locally affected population. Pew suggests that only about 3-5% of the Arab population approve US drone strikes compared to more than 60% of the Americans. A report published by Stanford and New York Universities says that Pakistani civilians feel “terrorized” by US drone attacks. Terrorized by the land of the free? And yet, the American citizens seem to be in denial: Less than 3 out of 10 consider themselves very concerned that US strikes could lead to retaliation from extremist groups or that they could damage America’s reputation around the world. Just after 9/11, only 7% of the Muslim population told Gallup that they considered the Twin Tower attacks to be justified, an image which changed drastically after the US “War on Terror” was initiated: already in spring 2003, Pew reported that 71% of Pakistanis and 83% of Jordanians viewed the United States “very unfavorably”.

At the same time, even the Taliban established a code of conduct for its fighters stipulating that “[t]he utmost effort should be made to avoid civilian casualties”, whereas one of their former commanders publicly condemned attacks against Afghan civilians and government officials. No other than Osama bin Laden used to underline the need to protect civilians when fighting the adversary armed forces, an opinion that was confirmed by his secret letters which were seized by the US during the Abbottabad raid.

“It is a hard fact that US strikes have resulted in civilian casualties,” former US President Barack Obama admitted, “These deaths will haunt us”, he said – before continuing to order more drone strikes than any of his predecessors. His successor Donald Trump so far even outpaced him with respect to the number of drone strikes he ordered, the first targeted killing attack under his command was carried out in Yemen at the very day of his inauguration. Ultimately, with so much occidental schizophrenia, the last bit of sympathy for us is dissipating. Who would like fight alongside with the Western world or even make peace with it if its rules are applied whenever deemed convenient for our purposes only? With rulers who pretend to wipe out terrorism by pushing a button and without taking into account the fears of about one billion Muslims living in the affected areas?

One hundred fifty years ago, the Battle of Solferino in Italy brought infinite suffering to the involved soldiers, suffering which triggered the creation of the Laws of War. It was one step towards more humanity as well as a sign of progress towards the rule of law and domestication of the military. Powerful countries with technologically advanced military forces that insist on the alleged permanent permission of the use of violence that such rules contain do not leave the impression that they are partners in good faith, in particular when it comes to conflicts where insurgents and civilians are difficult to distinguish from one another. Our weapons must be internationally connected intelligence services as well as first class equipped police forces – trumps which no terror network in this world has at its disposal. Our enemies must be extradited to our courts. After all, it was possible to condemn the mass murderers of the Nazis during a fair trial in Nuremberg. The merciless laws of armed conflict were developed for exceptional and timely limited periods during which the basic rights in times of peace, such as the right to life and physical integrity, almost disappear. The gap between our precious values and our military’s cold and indiscriminate calculation toward terrorists and innocent civilians does not honor our free and democratic society. It damages the credibility of the Occident and makes our world less safe.

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

Coronavirus force majeure and new world order

Published

on

The current pandemic has given rise to a variety of forecasts and  judgements on a wide range of issues that are directly or indirectly related to the future world order. These predictions can be divided into two main groups. The first group incorporates factors of uncertainty in global politics which will likely affect it for a fairly long time. That’s why the  forecasts of a new world order which are short of conceptual categoriality are provided with a reservation  that they are purely preliminary: their coming into effect will depend on a combination of many, not yet visible, variables.

The second group includes prognostic estimates which present a more or less completed picture of the new world order but, in our opinion, too prematurely.  In some cases, the suggested visions of the future world order, its “new normality” or “new abnormality”, are based on individual concepts and assumptions. What needs emphasizing is that a linear projection of dramatic and turbulent changes on the present-day geopolitical landscape to the realities of remote future cannot account for the intricate interdependence of the old and the new in global politics. Life shows that the never cooling magma of international events which tend to overlap minimizes or reduces to zero whatever efforts international experts make to provide substantiated arguments for both long-term and middle-term prognostic prospects.

Given the unexpected changes of turbulent streams of events, it would be too premature to describe the basic factors of a new world order: such a forecast may easily shift in the direction of futurological predictions which are very often interpreted loosely enough.

At present, amid the acute crisis of a pandemic, it is essential, as never before, to be able to analyze, to understand what is critically important or substantial, and what is merely a “detail”, something secondary, an instance; it is significant to sense a disparity between an illusion, a false reality, and the true essence of international phenomena and developments; to detect the deep-lying reasons and specifics of global, regional and local conflicts and  confrontations. What acquires a particular practical and political value is the undistorted realization of the intertwined web of homogeneous elements and heterogenous opposites, which will make themselves felt with an ever greater impact in the new world order.

Significantly, as the humanity recovers from the pandemic shock, the ideas that the pandemic produced a powerful impact on the formation of a new world order become less categorical, less radical. Could it not be a warning from the future, that a lot of the past is still ahead of us, and we will say afterwards that the future is largely behind us?

First of all, this refers to a range of issues related to globalization. The acceleration of differently directed processes in the globalized space is currently estimated across a wide spectrum of definitions: anti-globalism, de-globalization, false universalism, counter-trends in the development of globalization etc. Other assessments prognostically boil down to the reformatting of globalization, neo-globalism, and even – apparently with an excessive haste –  to post-globalization.

The pandemic laid bare a conflict that is linked to the earlier, centrifugal tendencies in the development of globalization: the crisis is global – the measures against it are local ones, mainly within the centralized «national state» framework. The coronavirus crisis drew a line under the era of neo-liberal minimization of the role of a national state. The conviction of many years that the functional potential of a state is due to undergo erosion and is bound to wear itself out has been rejected. The reverse geopolitical drift towards “a national state” means that the new is the well-overlooked old.

Overcoming the traumatic shock of the coronavirus pandemic becomes dependent on the protection of the state, since the potential of international organizations for assisting countries in combating the pandemic proved limited to negligible figures. In the conditions of a large-scale disorientation of neo-liberal establishment the state regains the role of a centralized regulator. Threatened by a catastrophic depression, the state is forced to think in global categories of a crisis and is made to act quickly within sovereign institutional bounds. Consequently the pandemic put a finishing touch to the crisis of  the neo-liberal model of the world order, and it did so in a flicker of a moment, revealing in a congested form the new flaws and reaffirming the old structural and functional defects of such a model. This will certainly affect the formation of a new world order: interstate conflicts are imminent, fraught with intensification of global imbalances.

In this respect, the basic meaning of the concepts “multipolarity” and “polycentrism” acquires a particular political and methodological relevance. These two notions are used so frequently on a daily basis that they are automatically regarded as identical even in political documents, let alone in numerous publications which are related directly or indirectly to global politics and international relations. Meanwhile, the original separation of these concepts and the specifics of their meaning give rise to an appropriate interpretation of the transformational direction of the world order. Polarity incorporates a more or less direct conflict; polycentrism suggests an intricate interaction of several independent centers of force, capable of creating various geopolitical configurations, which preserve an extensive potential for the protection of their national and state interests.

The age of hegemonic unipolarity is coming to an end. Such the “end of history” became inevitable. The clearly visible new centers of force scattered all over the  world, making it difficult and burdensome for the Unites States to eliminate them one by one, let alone, in total, are becoming a characteristic feature of the oncoming polycentric world order, which is unavoidably provided with elements of asymmetry.

In the new world order, the commonly recognized concepts of leadership and hegemony will pass into the realm of other, radically transformed and undergoing profound change, relevances. The prospects of America-oriented leadership, invariably associated with hegemonism, are infinitely slim as the world is moving towards the formation of new centers of force, new geopolitical formats without a pronounced centric role of one of the most influential global players.

The critical obliteration of the neo-liberal model of world order was largely facilitated by D.Trump, who exerted every effort to rid the USA of binding international commitments in the political, military-strategic, trade and economic spheres, at times detrimental to the interests of American allies. An open encroachment upon the independent role of the EU as a weighty global player is a glaring proof of that. The fundamental principle of Trumpism «America first», which ignores the new geopolitical and geoeconomic realities, becomes a slow-action bomb to destroy any constructive attempts at international cooperation in building the future world order, which would meet the interests of the entire world community. Undoubtedly, the battle on the geopolitical and geoeconomic fronts will get new or modified old centrifugal development. It will thus become much more difficult to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution.

Multilateral partnership and even bilateral ties between allies are becoming more fragile. As international cooperation as a whole becomes more complicated, it can largely be characterized as “competitive”.

The monetization by Trump of relations with the allies has become an integral part of the American foreign policy. At present, few if any would give a clear answer to the question how long this monetization will persist in the post-Trump period  and whether it will affect the future world order.

The coronavirus crisis has made relations between the USA and China more toxic. The US-China acutely competing trade and economic claims have become a signature feature of global politics for long. The two countries’ tough confrontation in the area of international security, originally resulting from inequality of nuclear potential in favor of the USA, will last long as well. But it would be too primitive to tie the final prospects of the currently transforming world order to the new tough bipolarity USA-China. Given the dramatic rise of the geopolitical status of such key players as Russia, India, Brazil, and the EU’s striving towards sovereign autonomy on the international scene,  what is possible is asymmetric polycentrism, that is, realignment of force formats in the global space.

As for Russia, geopolitically, in order to reach parity, or at least, a comparable economic level with the USA and China, the most beneficial position would be ‘in-between’ –  it would enable Russia to pursue a flexible policy with due regard for its own strategic interests and priorities. Russia has already become a significant balancing factor in global politics and international relations. Let’s compare the incomparable: Russia’s geopolitical weight of twenty years ago and Russia’s geopolitical weight today. Though, without a powerful innovative breakthrough Russia will find it increasingly difficult to perform the ever more challenging function of an international balancer.

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

International Law

Civic and Ethnic Nationalism in a Populist World: Behind the Facade of Dichotomies

Rida Fatima

Published

on

The Rise of Anti-System Politics

The walk into the twenty-first century is marked by enormous structural shifts. The rise of neoliberal capitalism and the vulnerability created by financial crises has mobilized the politics of resentment. This process of asymmetrical development has created both the winners and the losers of modernity. The nuanced horizontal and vertical inequalities are giving rise to what Jonathan Hopkin calls the ‘Anti-system Politics’ or simply populism. This phenomenon is marked by the tussle of two homogenous groups; the people and the elite, which are at loggerheads with each other.

However, there is not any stream of anti-system politics; rather it falls at both ends of the political spectrum; left and right. It is marked by the Pink Tide in Latin America, rise of nationalist strongmen in the Central and Eastern European states, Hindu nationalism in India and the white ethnic nationalism in the Anglosphere. And the reason why the materialization of populism is distinctive in the spatial-temporal zones is because all the states have different welfare systems. They have distinct ways of filtering the effects of socio-cultural or economic changes. In doing so, they cushion some groups while exposing others to risks. In such a scenario, populism with its alternative action channel fills in the vacuum through its ‘moralist appeal’ to reclaim power of ‘the people’.

Both populism and nationalism being mass movements hold a focus towards the collective. And the ‘empty heart’ of populism with its ambiguous definition of the people, finds ‘elective affinities’ with nationalism. This profusion has further tangled the varying streams of anti-system politics. However, there are two similarities. First, all anti-system politics is about caching power. And secondly, it acts on myths of dichotomies. In furtherance, when the Kohnian civic ethnic distinction is applied to right-wing left-wing populism, the conclusions become mostly erroneous. It leads to an assumption that right-wing populism is nativist, exclusionary, and ethno-cultural by nature whereas left-wing populism is more inclusive and civic.But both civic and ethnic dimensions of nationalism are the part of populist politics. 

The right-wing populism of the BJP in India, Tea Party wing and Donald Trump of the Republican Party in the US, Le Pan in France and United Kingdom Independence Party in the UK are all marked by an appeal to right-wing populism. But in addition to that, these movements are not ethno-nationalist in the Kohnian sense rather they are ‘ethno-traditional nationalist’.And they instrumentalize the civic nationalist narrative to broaden their vote-base. This is precisely the justification of exclusion carried out in civic terms as the biological language is replaced by an ideological one.

Political Entrepreneurship: Instrumentalization and Mobilization

The political entrepreneurs: in both electoral populism and populist movements, act as an agency for strategically articulating the latent grievances. Thus, both the demand and supply side perspectives are crucial vantage points for a prudent analysis of the populist rise.The demand-side resentment is both addressed and tailored by the supply-side entrepreneurs through the perspective of nationalism.

In electoral populism, dissent is instrumentalized and it is mobilized through nationalistic appeals. Populism coupled with nationalism leads to the radical right-wing politics that it is witnessed in both Eastern and Western Europe, Latin America, and South Asia. Both the ideologies indicate a sense of social closure in one dimension or another. It is done by fixing what Bankim Chandra calls the ‘cultural attitudes’ which limit the sense of inclusivity and pluralism. But the question is why to appeal to the people on national, cultural, or ethnic grounds? Isiah Berlin suggested in the 1960s that nationalism is a core characteristic for the success of any political movement. And as both the ideologies are an antithesis of an open society, their profusion generates cognitive, social, and political rigidities.

The political entrepreneurs utilize these ‘banal’ ideas to introduce their own political agenda. It helps in building a foundation of the new system on the entrenched realities of the old system. A case study of various electorally successful right-wing populist parties like the Swiss People Party in Switzerland, French National Front of France, National Democratic Party of Germany and Pim Fortuyn List in Denmark indicate that populist leader or political entrepreneurs who make use of national ‘symbolic resources’ with a civic appeal perform better in their political system. And the civic nationalism in the West provides the platform to the radical-right populists who attain and maintain their share of power based on civic values without undermining their exclusionary ethno-traditional policies. Civic and ethnic nationalism are the means to attain the ends of populist politics. The political entrepreneurs tactically oscillate between both the civic and ethnic dimension of nationalism by persistently engendering a sense of threatened ‘bounded moral community’ at risk from the outsiders.

Akin to electoral populism, populist movements use grievances as a latent force. But that does not explain why the anti-immigration protests by PEGIDA were not instigated prior to 2014, or why the Occupy Wall Street movement came after the major shockwaves of the Great Recession were absorbed. To explain this there is a need to understand the role of political entrepreneurs as opportunity seekers who articulate the shared grievances when the time is ripe to fulfill their agenda backed with shared resentments.

Populism and Nationalism: A Bi-Dimensional Analysis

In all mass movements, ‘sociological necessities’ are invented and instrumentalized by the political elite. Nationalism and populism are no exceptions. A national myth is invented through a common heritage and mobilized through horizontal differences. Whereas the populist myths are brought back from ‘under the rug’ and mobilized through vertical antagonisms. And when combined, this the bi-dimensional dissidence defines the politics of the new age.

The resentment against those at the top and outsiders are mutually constitutive of the populist politics. The right-wing variant of this infusion criticizes multicultural politics, acceptance of refugees and the elite’s consideration of the indigenous population as xenophobic. This is the prime scene in the European and North American contexts as Hilary Clinton reportedly called Trump’s supporters as ‘basket of deplorables’. Such differences accentuate the need of people’s sovereignty over the state. And because the ethnic/cultural nationalism signifies ‘the people’ over the nation, it is easily juxtaposed with the populist discourse.

The ‘civic nationalism normalization’ strategy is used to disguise the exclusionary cultural politics behind the facade of legitimizing only the interests of the in-group. The Front National (FN) and the Alterative for Germany (AfD) both use a value-laden out-grouping of the Muslims based on their anti-Islamist agendas. And they instrumentalize civic nationalist discourse to legitimize their claims that Muslims are not an outgroup based on their ethnic descent rather on voluntarist reasons as they do not adhere to the democratic values. This is a supply of populist ideas through nationalist channels; covertly ethnic/cultural and overtly civic.

Manichean Myth to Chameleon Reality

Nationalism has its roots in the Greek city states and was crystallized as an idea of organization in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. During the decolonization from 1945-1960, nationalism was at its pinnacle. However, since then it has been on a downward trajectory. But the populist utilization of the nationalist concepts has given it a new color. The entrenched resentments are being voiced not just by the minority ethnic/cultural groups but also the majority who feel threatened by the minority’s rising rights and political participation in what Rawls calls the post diversity era. The Muhajirs in Karachi are a classic example of a chameleon nationalism which has utilized both ethnic and civic strands to widen the vote base. Both the political movements, populism and nationalism are political projects which are in continual process of transition.

Despite modernization, the center-periphery distinction still pertains based on a deliberate exclusion of the peripheral identities to form a homogenous power circle at the center. And the grievances and opportunities created in this gap are mobilized and exacerbated by the political entrepreneurs. And the infusion of populism and nationalism are changed with the changing socio-political and economic contexts to cache the rising opportunities. The right-wing populism is not based on rigidities of objective identities but on the flexibility to catch the opportunity situations.

The ethnic groups too are not homogenous which indicates their divided politics to gain benefits. The myth of groupism is instrumental not factual. In this way they utilize both civic and ethnic nationalist appeals firstly, to cater to their in-group and secondly, to widen their prospects of political ins. In this way their politics becomes amorphous which is easily utilized by thin ideology like populism and the mix generates popular differences.Thus, the ethnic conflicts in the populist world are not the pure outcome of ethnic groups rather of ethnic organizations and populist political entrepreneurs.

Conclusion

Ethnic and cultural nationalism are not primarily nativist rather opportunistic. The populist world has provided nuanced avenues for the articulation of the ethno-cultural resentments which are exacerbated by the modern inequalities. However, the Kohnian civic-ethnic dichotomy is too rigid to explain the anomalous instrumentalist nature of the populist movements which build up on the combination of both ethnic and civic nationalism.

The analysis suggests that the populist world is a juggernaut of various thick ideologies which are used as an opportunistic context to propagate the agenda of the political entrepreneurs. Civic and ethnic nationalism were relevant before and instrumental now. They are both entrenched and tailored, natural, and transitive and contextual and opportunistic. Hence, the idea of nationalism is in a vicious cycle of constructive usage by the populist leaders and not merely a matter of some fixated identities.

Before the coronavirus in late 2019, there was a rise of a counter-populist wave on the fringes as observed through the leaderless protests where the middle class who once supported the populist movements was ‘revolting against the revolt’. However, the rise of the pandemic exacerbated a kind of nationalist populist response.Now the question is about who writes a better political bargain to satiate the rising middle class and that shall determine the course of future politics.

Continue Reading

International Law

Refugees In The Outbreak Of The Pandemic

Parismita Goswami

Published

on

Rohingya refugees fleeing conflict and persecution in Myanmar (file photo). IOM/Mohammed

The COVID-19 today is having an adverse impact on our lives although it has brought exceptional changes in climate and human behavior. The increasing number of refugees and internally displaced persons in the 21st century explains the intensified global scenario. The refugee crisis is the greatest humanitarian crisis the world has ever seen where most of them are internally displaced persons. Yet, they are humans with unique life experiences; they had dreams, children who are dwelling hopes of normal life, and a better tomorrow. The mothers are longing to return home, fathers yearning to work again, and an identity. Leaving behind their homes, being prosecuted from the country, and losing their loved ones; refugees had gone through the worst of time. Refugees are the worst sufferers in this 21st century. Around 80 million homeless people in the world most of them are from Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar, and Somalia. The Syrian crisis reported being the greatest refugee crisis in the world. The United Nations also estimated the women and children to be the worst sufferers.

The refugees were tormented by years of poverty, poor health, and lack of basic infrastructures like education, food, health care, sanitation, social security, and etc. Humanitarian organizations have stretched beyond their capacity to help millions of refugees over the years. The WHO and UN Refugee Agency have signed new agreements to provide health services and benefits to the displaced and vulnerable population around the world. Among the 79.5 million forcibly displaced individuals lacks access to clean water or soap. Despite social and economic setbacks due to the pandemic, health is still the paramount factor affecting the poor and homeless. During the COVID-19 situation around the world food, medicine or sanitary products and even clean water have become inaccessible for many refugees. Social distancing has become a major concern in the refugee camps.

Challenges Upfront

The COVID -19  is severely affecting the education of the children in the refugee camps. In the refugee camps only 63% of refugees are enrolled in primary school and 24% in secondary education where most of the children are left out. The limit in pursuing education continues potentially in the refugee camps and its worsening due to the pandemic. There is a growing possibility of discrimination and xenophobia is affecting the process of socialization in their host country. Nevertheless, an unequal world with challenges to achieve education and skill training for self-development must be ceased.

In Yemen, more than 3 million people have been displaced and approximately 17 million require food. Yemen’s health facilities have either been destroyed or damaged in the conflict and with the unbridled transmission of COVID‑19 in Aden; Yemenis are living through the worst humanitarian crisis. Only a few health centers are operational in Yemen where the numbers of patients suffering from malnutrition, cholera, dengue fever, and injuries of war are very high.

In India almost 18,000 Rohingya refugees are taking shelter where thousands of them live in densely populated settlements in preposterous conditions; a third world country with the second-highest population in the world. India can hardly feed its population and especially it hosts a huge number of Refugees. Tibetan and Sri Lankan refugees have access to certain rights as assisted by the government, while the Rohingyas are still struggling for it. But, in Bangladesh, the WHO is working with governments to secure the health of nearly one million Rohingya refugees against the multiple threats of the pandemic and including natural disasters in the upcoming monsoon season.

The COVID-19 is increasing the needs and vulnerabilities of the Refugees. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) is concerned about the collateral effects of the pandemic among the Refugees. According to the UNHCR’s Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, due to the degrading socio-economic plight of the forcibly displaced people and poverty among them has made them a target to several traffickers that are immorally exploiting and profiteering from their culpability. The adolescent girls and children have become the victims of sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, and organ removal, forced recruitment into armed groups, forced marriages, or forced begging. The COVID-19-related impacts on restricted movements, closures, or availability of proper help, support services are put to constrain. The pandemic has limited the opportunity for the refugees, particularly women to seek legal support for sexual and gender-based violence.

On the World Day against Trafficking, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, UNHCR proposed for support in the prevention of trafficking and response efforts globally. The Governments and humanitarian actors together must ensure and assist the victims of trafficking

mostly among the displaced people where they are in immediate need of protection. A major initiative was taken by the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office (EMRO) to monitor the events and trend of COVID-19 among displaced populations in camps and non-camps settings for their safety.

Conclusion

 Resources are available in scanty, refugee camps and settlements are becoming overcrowded and many are being forced to sleep outside in freezing temperatures during the winters. For those living in refugee camps or camp-like situations, they also face an increased risk of COVID-19. In refugee camps, it is difficult to practice public health measures like frequent hand washing or social distancing. Therefore, it is also the responsibility of the host government to provide aid and essentials to the refugees living in their country. But in many cases, the host governments don’t have enough financial capability but can arrange testing services in certain regions, regardless of whether an individual is a national or a refugee. Secondly, even though high-income countries are currently most affected, they need to assist low- and middle-income countries because those countries don’t have the means to deal with COVID-19. The outbreak of the pandemic in populous and poor countries will put the rest of the world at continued risk.

It’s true of the fact that the world was not prepared for a pandemic and COVID-19 does not respect any boundaries. But, the governments should not use pandemic as an excuse for applying repressive policies. Efforts should be made spread information in every camp that have limited source to reliable information about COVID-19 and measures of protection.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending