REFUGEES: How would you characterize 2003 overall?

LUBBERS: It was a positive year, tainted by the Baghdad tragedy. We continued both repatriation and reintegration operations in Afghanistan despite the problems which persist there. In Africa, a major repatriation operation began in Angola, a similar programme continued in Eritrea, there were continuing discussions to solve the Congo crisis and in Liberia we saw the departure of [President] Charles Taylor and renewed hope for that country.

You also began a series of political initiatives to broaden and strengthen the agency's activities.

Yes, there was support among member states which approve UNHCR's activities (The 64-member Executive Committee) for our Convention Plus policy (an initiative to help strengthen the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention by improving protection, so-called 'burden sharing' between donors, countries of asylum and poorer states which host the bulk of the world's displaced persons, and a more vigorous search for permanent solutions for the world's uprooted people). A draft resolution was presented for approval to the General Assembly on the UNHCR 2004 process (a review of its capacity to carry out its mandate with recommendations for the agency's next 5-year mandate period).

Any other good news?

Yes, we were better funded (after several years of difficult budgetary constraints).

But all of these positive accomplishments were overshadowed by the Baghdad bombing?

There was the personal tragedy of losing so many colleagues. But there were also the broader security ramifications going forward and how to deal with all these new dilemmas and pressures – the increasing anti-Americanism in the region, the anti-U.N. feeling, the overall security concerns for an agency like UNHCR which does the bulk of its work in the field. All in all, however, it was a good year in a bad world.

So how can UNHCR forge a distinct and separate identity which will allow it to continue its field work in such a dangerous environment?

We must of course work closely with the overall U.N. security apparatus, but we also need to forge a distinct identity of our own. I cannot see where all the U.N. is in the same kettle and that kettle is seen as an American kettle. We need our own eyes and ears on the ground and do our own homework. We must show our face and be 'out there' for everyone. In Afghanistan, for example, we talk to those with power on the ground as well as the government and other actors. We are not part of this overall government and international machinery. We have a different role. We are an operational field agency, but we must have the field intelligence to be able to judge not only when to go into operational zones, but also when not to go.

Following the Baghdad bombing you said UNHCR could not work 'out of a fortress.' All U.N. international staff were subsequently withdrawn. What now?

Heads of agencies were recently asked what should be our priorities. I told the Secretary-General we must diminish the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. We have to be aware there is a schism in the Middle East, and this legitimizes violence in the eyes of many other people against the humanitarian community in other parts of the globe. That's why I say we live in a bad world.

Are we looking at an indefinite stalemate in Iraq vis-à-vis humanitarian operations?

Our hands are tied currently, but we must exploit all possibilities. We must continue to train our local staff and take every opportunity to liaise with Iraqi authorities. We can maintain our contacts with local operations from Kuwait in the south and maybe we can do the same thing via Turkey in the Kurdish north.

Until the 1990s, the majority of UNHCR operations were conducted on the periphery of conflicts rather than at their centre as is often the case today. If the security situation continues to deteriorate, can you foresee a situation where operations are again confined to so-called safe countries?

I do not see a situation where we can allow ourselves to be on the periphery. We do have to be prudent and minimize the risks. In Liberia, for instance, international staff were briefly withdrawn for safety reasons. But they are now back hard at work and this type of operation is a key mission for UNHCR.

There is a great deal of uncertainty about the future direction of Afghanistan. The number of people returning home this year, for instance, is lower than UNHCR's predictions.

The number of returnees is below our target, but is still substantial. I'm not disappointed. And we will change our approach next year to a more regional solution. Afghans will still go back home, but also Afghans may be allowed to stay permanently in Pakistan and Iran. I do not think these two countries will push out all Afghans as long as there is a continuing effort on our part to repatriate everyone who wishes to go home. (There are still an estimated 2.4 million Afghans in the two countries). Remember, Pakistan's Pashtun population are originally from Afghanistan and they are productive members of society there.

You recently suggested a new approach to help the estimated 112,000 refugees from Bhutan living in Nepal. But some international agencies accused you of assisting Bhutan, which does not want the majority of these people back, in so-called ethnic cleansing.

We do not help these people by just continuing year after year to assist them in a refugee camp, no matter how exemplary the operation may be. So step by step we will diminish our assistance to these camps. Therefore, we also aim to maximize returns under a bilateral process between Nepal and Bhutan, though we are not a direct party to this process. We need to find permanent solutions for these people, and we need to keep our eye on that ball.

European countries are continuing to try to harmonize their asylum policies. Are you concerned that the overall end result may be a lowering of safeguards?

There is some anti-foreigner sentiment in Europe and a downward trend, but let us also acknowledge the positives. The number of asylum claimants is going down and that's good. It reflects that other permanent solutions are being found for people. We are trying to improve the overall climate by agreeing that manifestly unfounded asylum claims cannot be accepted and we can be instrumental in finding solutions. There is more understanding that development assistance can be effective in regions of origin, helping host communities and refugees and therefore reducing the asylum pressure in Europe. And one country after another is starting to embrace the idea of accepting increasing numbers of people for their labour markets. So let's add refugee resettlement places to their immigration quotas.

But globally, the number of resettlement places for refugees is down sharply.

Yes. There is a long way to go. The Ambassador of Chile was here recently and he proudly described the resettlement of Afghans in his country. I asked how many. Five. This is encouraging, although just a drop in the ocean.

The United States takes by far the largest number of resettlement cases, but since the terrorist attacks there, the number of actual acceptances is far below the official targets set.

The United States is concentrating on security considerations for now. But there are a lot of opinions in Washington and I can only applaud the Americans for continuing to hold to their stated ambitions of accepting around 70,000 persons annually. (Last year, the U.S. accepted 26,300). Let's hope they live up to their own promises.

Resettlement is a major plank in your efforts to find permanent solutions for the world's refugees. Last year some 41,000 were resettled. What is a realistic global goal in the future?

In five years time, I would like to see 150,000 per year.

Last year you said UNHCR expected to stay in Bosnia and Herzegovina for perhaps another year and in Serbia for a little longer. What is the situation in the Balkans today?

Things are going well in Bosnia and in Croatia. But ethnic Serbs are still not returning to Kosovo. We now know that quite a few ethnic Serbs currently living in Serbia cannot return. We need to promote their integration in Serbia. But I'm disappointed with the attention of European countries to this issue. It's too limited. It's not fair.

What is the overall situation for refugee operations in Africa?

Less bad than a year ago, but not particularly good. Our recent appeal for new funding was not well received. Angola, for instance, is under-funded. Donors say Angola is oil-rich and can fund itself. But Iraq is also rich in oil and they don't say the same thing there. There remains a double standard.

What will be the agency's major challenge in the next 12 months?

To continue to try to solve longtime crises such as those in Afghanistan, Africa and Nepal and help the estimated 20 million people of concern to us to restart their lives.

Source: Refugees Magazine Issue 133: "Afghanistan – The Most Important Operation" (January 2004). Download the complete issue in pdf format: low-resolution (520Kb) here or high-resolution (1.8Mb) here