High Commissioner Ruud Lubbers looks back at his first year in office and discusses terrorism, Afghanistan and the 1951 Refugee Convention

REFUGEES: What has been your biggest surprise since taking office?

There was no surprise because I had no expectations. I took the strange decision to go for the job not knowing exactly what it was about. I consulted my wife, but on the request of Kofi Annan only my wife. I just thought this job would be good because it is about people who do not have a government which takes care of them.

How do the jobs of running a U.N. agency and a government compare?

There are big differences. In a way this is more difficult. In government you can have a parliamentary debate and at the end of the day you either win or lose the battle. With UNHCR it's more fluid. There is not a decisive power or outcome. You depend on what governments allow you to do in terms of money and resources.

There have been worrying signs in some recent elections – Australia and Denmark for instance – that the asylum issue was used as a political football to the detriment of refugees and asylum seekers.

This is an uphill battle. Most people think their quality of life is threatened by the phenomenon of refugees, but the challenge is to explain that UNHCR with its refugees is a partner in building a better quality of life. Not all refugees are Einsteins, but certainly Einstein was a refugee. If you exclude refugees it backfires; it fuels criminality, negative forces. We at UNHCR have to convince by arguments. We don't have an army. We are not that rich that we can bribe the people to do good things.

You mentioned in one recent interview a prevailing "law of the jungle" toward asylum seekers.

For sure there is. We preach democracy to the whole world. But the reality is, there are deficiencies in the political systems which create refugees. Then when we have the victims of violence and conflict, we don't provide solutions. This means too many people have to rely on human traffickers. Allowing all of this to happen, we accept the law of the jungle. We need a world based on law, but not on the law of the jungle. Our comfortable global economy allows criminals to continue their violence, but we need to work toward less violation of human rights, fewer conflicts and less violence.

The attacks of September 11 have been a watershed. Governments around the world are introducing anti-terrorism legislation. What effect is this going to have on refugees and asylum seekers?

Certainly it's a different world. However, it also provides an opportunity to seek a world in which people better understand that closing their curtains and doors (to refugees) doesn't help any more. We must build a world in which we are more inclusive in relation to the lack of justice, poverty, and the lack of development. Yes, it's more worrying, but there is an opportunity to build on the element that maybe people start to better understand the problems of refugees.

How will these new developments affect humanitarian-military relationships?

I see no problem with humanitarian agencies using military resources. It goes wrong when the military take over the humanitarian role. We have to be very precise and clear what is needed from the military to do our job. Afghanistan is based on a war against terrorism. We don't have to be neutral in actions against terrorism.

Some governments and politicians have called the 1951 Convention outdated and many appear to be merely paying lip service to it. Is it time for a rethink, a new Protocol?

Even before September 11 we were seeing mixed flows of economic migrants and asylum seekers, creating a perception of refugees as phoney refugees. The attacks added to this negative climate in many countries. After the attacks UNHCR sent the signal to the world 'hey, you think that you have to be tough against us because of terrorism' but it's the other way around. We and the Convention exclude terrorism. We are partners in the concerted action against terrorists.' I see the role of UNHCR growing now. It is no longer just a humanitarian organization. It's an organization which can help prevent to a certain extent the risks of criminality and terrorism. In line with this, we insist that there should be no impunity.

But to enforce that message, do you see the need for any change in the Convention?

No. No. This is clear. The Convention is good. We don't need a changed Convention, but indeed we need to work in a more no nonsense, more practical way on governance of refugees.

Afghanistan: All of its neighbors have refused to open their borders. Isn't this part of a global trend which is undercutting UNHCR's core protection mandate?

Yes it is. This is not good. There is refugees fatigue. It is rather dramatic. In 1938 there was an international conference in Evian (France) and an international attitude of 'Don't let the Jews go out' emerged. Then the drama of the Holocaust happened. We are now at 2001 and at our own crossroads. What are we going to do? Close our borders again?

There has been an international debate for many months now on internally displaced persons and who, principally should help them. This is a central issue currently in Afghanistan. What should UNHCR's role be there and globally vis-à-vis IDPs?

In general we should be available, but limit ourselves to those IDP situations in which UNHCR can make a difference because the root causes are the same, the streams of IDPs and refugees are mixed up. Specifically, in Afghanistan we will take care of certain numbers of IDPs, especially in eastern and southern parts of the country, assisting, monitoring and helping them decide whether and when to go home.

The latest crisis began just when UNHCR had undertaken a painful downsizing. This has happened on previous occasions (the Gulf War). Given the cyclical nature of the refugee business, should we be thinking of new ways to run this organization?

We have become leaner and healthier. We are handling this crisis in a more pro-active manner than earlier crises. Afghanistan means the time is over that we are shrinking. We learned our lesson that we have to perform and do things better. Afghanistan is not just a dark page. It is revitalizing UNHCR.

Where do you expect to see the Afghan crisis at the start of spring?

For quite some time we will have pockets of violence, elements of insecurity. But I am an optimist. Returnees will play a key role in reconstructing the country – that is the key factor. The Afghans will find a way together to make their country more peaceful. But I am not in the business of prophecy. I am in the business of delivering and that is what we are going to do.

On occasion you have been able to pick up the phone and ask former political colleagues in governments for funding. What is UNHCR's global funding outlook going forward?

I'm still very concerned. The alarm bell of September 11 has woken up the need for concerted action against terrorism. It still has not woken up the governments and politicians to sufficiently fund UNHCR. They are still shooting themselves in the foot. And then they complain later about flows of refugees and the lack of long-term solutions. It is dangerous for the world. Those who underfund UNHCR fuel crime.

The majority of victims in Afghanistan are Muslim. Yet the financial support to UNHCR of Muslim nations is disproportionately small. How can this situation be rectified?

It is a problem and it will take time to fix. We went on the wrong track when we globalized the mission of UNHCR, in that we were not able at the same time to globalize it to incorporate different cultures and religions. We have to overcome the shadows of the past. There is a feeling too much that UNHCR is a creation of the West. The time has come, and it is urgent, that the ownership of UNHCR will also include the world of Islam.

What has been your biggest disappointment in office?

There has been no disappointment but I find the job tougher than I thought because of the underfunding and the lack of understanding how important our work is. The U.N. family is good in coordination, but sometimes confuses coordination with the job to be done. But I end my first year on a very positive note.

Source: Refugees Magazine Issue 125: "The September Terror: A Global Impact" (January 2002). Download the complete issue (pdf, 1.2Mb) here