Protecting Refugees in the Era of Globalisation: the Challenges of Africa in the New Millennium!
Ekuru Aukot
Paper Prepared for CODESRIA’s 10TH General Assembly on "Africa in the New Millennium", Kampala, Uganda, 8-12 December 2002.
“The world is getting smaller, let our minds get bigger’ -De Jong, 1998:690
Abstract
The UN just celebrated 50 years since the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees came into being. This paper notes that the original idea of refugee protection was good. But with time that well-celebrated history of law, policies and practice ceased to be in tandem with contemporary changes especially at the ‘domestic level’ of most African nations and in the New Millennium. Consequently therefore, the impact of global processes such as economic globalisation has changed the scenario. This paper identifies with the manifestations of economic globalisation as one aspect of a wider global process, which has resulted in complexities and dilemmas in a developing country to effectively impede the realisation of effective refugee protection. The paper emphasises that refugee protection is a complex matter in the developing world. How do the poor economies in this era of the globalisation of everything cope with refugee protection? Is globalisation a remedy in itself? Can we in Africa use globalisation to suggest a reform of the asylum regime? First, globalization is contextualized and a working definition is offered. Then how globalization is a trigger of flight is explained by mapping out a relationship between the ‘South’ and the ‘North’ to clearly demonstrate the divide by globalization. Consequently how globalization impedes protection at the domestic level is explained. In that respect a discussion of the diminishing role of the traditional Nation State is offered and how that greatly affects the protection of refugees and the enforcement of international refugee law and other legal instruments within the jurisdiction of the Member States. In conclusion an attempt is made to answer the question whether refugee protection in Africa today can be realised in the midst of the global processes and whether it is compatible with the international standards and principles of the Conventions, more so the 1969 OAU Convention on the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa!
1. Introduction
When the international legal regime celebrated its 50th anniversary, it was based on the achievements or lack of any in those five decades. Africa had of course no reason to celebrate with the rest of the world, for its contribution if any, in that period was the manufacturing of refugees to the rest of the world. But that is just one side of the story. The New Millennium (‘Millennium’) indeed poses grave challenges to Africa. Political elections in the world over suggest that the rest of the world do not want refugees from Africa any more. Yet Africa is still needed in the global village for the advancement of humanity. This paper offers a discussion on the flip side of that coin, which is that the Millennium would victimize Africa in the name of belonging to a ‘global village’.
In the first part, the paper highlights the legal regime for the protection of refugees. In the second part, it attempts a definition explaining an aspect of globalisation that impedes refugee protection, namely economic globalization and how globalization triggers flight of people across borders hence refugees. Emphasis is placed on the diminishing role of the nation-state thereby explaining the relationship of globalization to it as the receiving state. It will be explained how at this juncture the State is economically weakened. The paper therefore examines the paradox of globalisation, what it means and what it does not mean. What it does not mean forms its inhibition to the poor states from invoking globalization to redress refugee problems. This reiterates the fact that the concept is alien to the developing world and has thus prejudiced them in various ways e.g. by eroding their sovereignty through dependency to global institutions. Hence, as a western concept, globalization impacts on non-western societies unfairly.
In conclusion I argue that refugee protection and causes of migration are no longer obvious but very complicated and beyond the traditional nation state and so is the protection of refugees. The implementation of globalizing forces like privatisation through Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) all affect forms of migration or if they do not directly have an impact they are bound to trigger the flight of people across international borders, and further impedes the protection of those received. It has created potential refugees.
- The ‘depreciating’ Refugee Protection Regime
Refugee law fall under international humanitarian law, international human rights law, international criminal law and United Nations law. Specifically, refugee protection at the initial stages was based on legal principles enunciated in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (51Convention), and its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. But perhaps a more globalized protection of the refugee is rooted in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). However, at a later stage and owing to differences in circumstances and the diversity of refugee problems, regional arrangements emerged. In Africa refugees are supposedly governed by the Organization of African Unity: 1969 convention on the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa (OAU Convention). Other regional treaties include inter alia, the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, the Cairo Declaration on the Protection of Refugees and displaced Persons in the Arab World of 19 September 1992.
In Africa the OAU Convention allows people to flee situations of ‘generalised violence’, and as a departure from the rather restrictive definition of the 51Convention it effectively expanded the definition of a refugees. This found support from other countries where "...the threat to a country posed by influxes of economic migrants should not serve as an excuse for refusing asylum". This in the context of Africa is where the challenges of refugee protection begin. Because of the en masse flight of people, this has one implication. That resources must be availed by the receiving state for various functions, which include feeding the thousands of refugees, conducting refugee status determination (RSD), provision of shelter, Water, medication, Education, jobs and administration of refugee affairs.
Therefore refugees became legal entities whose rights and protection are sanctioned by legal notions. Over the years and in the advent of the 21st Century these mechanisms faded, and other phenomena dominated the ordering of the world. The resources that would enable the enforcement of the conventions were in danger from globalization. The paradox in Africa became that at the height of globalization, and in the presence of the legal regime, it produced more refugees than any other continent. Africa in the 20th Century led the world in atrocities, in defying international order based on legal notions and human rights. However, this was not solely the work of African political despots as shall be explained below. Nevertheless, in the present century, the international order revolves around globalization. This is the biggest challenge for Africa!
2. What then is Globalization?
Globalization is one of the contemporary world’s most forceful global processes. It is sometimes an enigma that is difficult to define; yet it can be felt. Giddens refers to it as being "largely a myth…or is at most a continuation of long-established trends". The term ‘globalization’ is constantly used by many in different versions hence its economic, cultural, social and political strands. Malcom Waters defines globalization as "a social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding.
For the purposes of this article, I adopt the economic understanding of globalization, which is "widely seen in the developing world as merely the latest stage in the exploitation of the third world by the west-a project by which the rich countries gain at the expense of the poor", hence the anti-globalization movement that has espoused the impact and the fear that ensues between the West and the South. Because of the views on inequality associated with globalization particularly from the third world, perceptions on globalization have become diatribe and resentful. These views normally have in mind economic globalization, and within that free trade.
With the foregoing, others have argued that globalization is replacing capitalism, yet it actually encompasses capitalism, and this affirms theories propounded by Marx and Lenin that the "world is becoming unified not by choice but because of the domination of a single way of producing commodities, the capitalist mode of production".
Giddens further explains, "It is wrong to think of globalisation as just concerning the big systems, like the world financial order". He suggests that there is more to it because "globalisation isn’t only about what is ‘out there’, remote and far away from the individual. It is an ‘in here’ phenomenon too, influencing intimate and personal aspects of our lives". In that case it becomes almost fashionable to use the term when thinking or attempting solutions to world problems. Therefore economic globalization affects the developing world more. Fukuyama defines globalization as a "centrifugal force, pushing towards unification of the world, at the expense of national sovereignty…the development of a homogeneous state where all human needs are satisfied, and activity is primarily economic. Therefore the impact of globalization is a "signal of death of the nation states". On the other hand globalization has been defined as the "the contemporary tendency for persons, corporations and institutions to expand out of the confines of a nation…towards participation in and identification with world community. It is from that premise that I question here that if such a world community and identity exists, which I concur with, then I do not hesitate to state that the problems that affect the world community should be solved together within that global community.
However, Ulrich Beck warns that one of the consequences of globalization is the increase of poverty between the rich and the poor so that "the globality of risk does not …mean a global equality of risk". He recounts that
In the last decade poverty has intensified…the UN says more than 2,400 million people …live without sanitation…1,200 million people have no safe drinking water; similar numbers have inadequate housing, health and education services, more than 1,500 million are undernourished, not because there is no food, or there is too much drought, but because of the increasing marginalisation and exclusion of the poor" (Beck, 1999: 6).
With the above, why wouldn't we witness forced migration? Principally because globalization as a form of "free market ideology has increased the sum of human misery.
2.1. The South-North divide.
This divide is one definitive aspect of globalization, which is a fact we cannot ignore in the world today. The effect of global warming as recently experienced in Europe is a real cause for concern. We witness the collapse of talks because we cannot do without global capital generation. We will soon experience migration to the tropics, because the weather forecast constantly warns that icecaps are now melting elsewhere, some of the islands in the pacific are experiencing strong tides and an increase in the level of water. However, as much as there are benefits we derive from globalization, it is argued that globalization is one of the new root causes of migration for as long as we do not want to use it to globally address the problems that we face together. In that respect it becomes the creation of modernity, which destabilises the tranquillity of a society and that is even more forcefully in the hunt for economic growth.
The paradox of the ‘global village’ is that the world is divided into blocks, the North-South, developing-developed, etc. For Africa, questions need to be asked, does Africa want to be part of the global village? Let us suppose that there is indeed a global village, and that global village has a chief. Let us imagine further that one villager has a problem with the other and the problem is brought before the village elders. If upon determination an individual is found guilty, then customarily he was dealt with appropriately.
True to the above analogy, the US war on terrorism is calling upon all the ‘global village elders’ to solve the problem now facing the village. However although Africa is endemically overwhelmed by her own kinds of terrorism, it is today needed simply because to use a northern expression, the ‘shit’ has hit the fan!
The effective division of globalization of the world into the North and South, has brought dangers and consequences to the planet we all live, which begs for protection because ‘other people’s aerosol sprays have caused a carcinogenic hole in the ozone layer above our heads’, hence endangering our lives. The consequences of this is competing interests of all nations, and in the attempt to bridge that gap, the struggle is captured in a metaphor that views
countries as a series of mountain climbers clawing their way up ‘Mount Progress’. The strongest are near the top while others lag behind hampered by smallness of stature, poor equipment or lack of training. They meet blockages on their paths and cannot easily withstand natural calamities visited on them by landslide and climatic clemency which occasionally throw them further down the mountain…
The foregoing describes the process of globalization and the obstacles refer to the many problems that afflict Africa. I use refugee and unstoppable flow of refugees as one of the reasons it keeps on falling behind. But the metaphor continues that
…the climbers near the top will often throw down ropes to haul the others up. Frequently the ropes are not strong enough because the good climbers never throw down their best ropes and are always selective about which of those lower down will receive help…
The above explains at the general level the North-South relation and the individual relation with specific countries in the North. It is here that bilateral agreements aimed at exploitation and alignment divides the countries further forcing others to wrongly believe in the Northern countries, and on goes the metaphor
…However, most of the strugglers believe that by following in the footsteps of the lead climber they will all get there in the end. There are those who select an alternative route and refuse help from the lead climber but they are not doing nearly as well…
The foregoing further explains the split on globalization, resulting in sceptics and the anti-globalisers. As a phenomenon we begin to relate it to terminologies synonymous to continents, i.e., ‘Europeanization and Americanization’. But they come with incidental, which aim to ‘globalize’ the world. These are inter alia culture, financial markets, TNCs, political domination, and industrialization. Could we too then Africanize the concept? The struggle is still far from over because it lingers on the hope that
…when everyone gets to the summit they will join hands in mutual congratulation because they are all in the same place.
This then result in a ‘global society’, with its list of phenomena that comprise of global communication, industry, the growth of multinational enterprises, the influence of global warming, and international action for human rights (Waters, 1995). But it is from that end that the real drama unfolds essentially because all bring along their baggage, and for Africa I must add to that list the phenomenon of refugees, which now seeks solutions at the global level, but first globalization has its own dangers to Africa.
2.2. Africa and Globalization
Globalization and its impact to any society have been traced through three arenas of social life, i.e., the economy, the polity, and the culture. Does globalization therefore mean anything to Africa? At least it did not seem to in the 20th Century because it was in that century that the West plundered her resources. It was also in that Century that Africa’s problems were not global-ized. It was in that century that more than six million of its population was displaced and forced to flee, their rights violated, millions malnourished and starved to death. It was in the same century that Africa’s problems intensified through the projects of colonialism, religion, and slavery. These projects were responsible for the persecution of peoples hence the proliferation of new states. I am afraid this is the case in the present century. It will be the case if Africa does not play an active role in the global village politics!
Is the world really a global village? The answer to this question is no. However, globalization and its impacts are factual and not based on any abstract policies and neither is it easy to regulate or control. It is like the spread of bush fire. Africa, it appears does not need globalization because it cannot meaningfully relate to it, as 15 developing countries meeting in Egypt condemned the developed world. Said President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria,
Our societies are overwhelmed by the strident consequences of globalisation and the phenomenon of trade liberalisation. The options open to us have narrowed as our increasingly shrinking world imposes on our countries a choice of integration or the severe conditions of marginalisation and stagnation.
Hence globalisation it further seems is not welcome in Africa until "the promised high living standards" are yet to be realized, and issuing a communiqué to the developed world, the 15 member states expressly stated that "this has not materialised. We are convinced that it will not until international community redresses the asymmetries and imbalances in the global economy".
In that respect Africa’s problems and specifically refugee protection today needs solutions and the language, which seeks those solutions, needs to change too. The language of globalization is herein used rather fashionably. Of course there are instances when globalization directly affects refugee protection and as well as directly causing the flight of people. Perhaps in post-modern terms it is remotely connected to the whole issue of refugee protection. In Africa, and Kenya in particular, it is difficult to discern the direct contact with refugees, but influences of globalizing forces such as privatisation, IMF/WB lending conditionalities e.g. through SAPs are felt within the protection paradigm. This needs to be addressed because the circumstances that partly affect refugees are the growth of corporate social ir-responsibility. That has arisen because states have compromised their role as protectors, which has in turn resulted to avoidance of responsibility in international law. One reason for this is the wider effects of the influences of globalisation. As a factor that has transcended state boundaries globalization in itself therefore, wields immense influence to any State of the world today so that, as writes, Pendleton, "…no sovereign state, whatever its political or ideological orientation, can successfully insulate itself against foreign influences in the modern world" (Pendleton, 1999: 2055).
Therefore the environment in which a refugee resides, in Africa today is borne in the era of globalisation, where the language is that of meagre or diminishing resources. In that case refugee protection and the causes for migration are no longer obvious but very complicated and beyond the traditional nation state. The campaign for globalizing forces dictate forms of migration or if they do not directly have an impact they are likely to trigger flight of people across international borders. These global processes have created potential refugees e.g. in West Papua New Guinea with intense mining activities by Rio Tinto/McMoran companies.
Globalization and its agents today are present in Africa. Examples include Rio Tinto Zinc, Monsanto, effects of Chiquitta International and the Lome IV Convention and the Privatization of the Zambia copper Mines. The works of Transnational Corporation (TNCs) are seen in their manipulation of the economic resources, of the legal systems even when they cause damage to the citizens of African countries. The asbestos cases in South Africa and Namibia; the Angola mines are all but examples that are central to the uprooting of people.
Although many African states are to blame for the problems of the refugees especially in the period after colonialism, the 20th Century saw the rise of other forces that influenced the running of affairs in many individual African states. It is contended that although the ‘opportunistic and venal African leaders’ did little to develop their societies and to emancipate their people, they were not alone because
…the expansion of corporate dominance has accentuated the steady descent into near economic strangulation and political chaos. Many transnational corporations (TNCs) have acted as economic predators in Africa, gobbling up national resources, distorting national economic policies, exploiting and exchanging labor relations, committing environmental despoliation, violating sovereignties, and manipulating governments and the media. In order to ensure uninterrupted access to resources, TNCs have also supported repressive African leaders, warlords, and guerrilla fighters, thus serving as catalysts for lethal conflict and impending prospects for development and peace.
We witness in Africa today how the involvement of the TNCs has ‘generated fierce conflicts over resource control’. In the midst of all these states produce internally displaced persons (IDPs), refugees and stateless persons. Hence the success of globalization through TNCs is guaranteed by dictatorial regimes in Africa, which are authoritarian and corrupt. And the money received from the TNCs are used for the wrong reasons as noted
…many African leaders have used revenue to reward political pals with bogus contracts for white-elephant projects that contribute nothing to development. In the late 1990s, for example, President Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya built an airport-which handles almost no traffic-in his home town of Eldoret…
The upshot of the above is that the huge amounts of revenue received by governments in Africa could be used to build infrastructures and avail services both to its nationals and aliens as well. These services are health, shelter, education, employment, and food, which are in the heart of refugee protection. Hence one of Africa’s greatest challenges in this Century is not just globalization, but finding ways of coming around the fact that globalization and its forces are diminishing the state machinery and the effects of this sweeping force has ‘crippled’ the state apparatuses rendering the state incapable of fulfilling certain functions to its nationals and aliens in general.
With TNCs in full operation in Africa, its economy is endangered. It has become subject to deregulation through the activities of such global institutions as Generalized Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO) as well as the IMF. In particular the IMF SAPs require "African sates to freeze wages, devalue currency, remove public subsidies, and impose other austerity measures…these policies have caused considerable turmoil in Africa".
The challenge of Africa in this Millennium is to re-invent itself and its statehood. Evidence of the collapse of the state machinery is evidenced in inter alia, the privatisation of the Zambia copper mine, the collapse of the KCC industries in Kenya, the manner in which the modes of production are dictating the ownership of land e.g. in Zimbabwe, the plunder of resources in the DRC, etc. This fits into the bill sought after by TNCs, which include inter alia "low production costs, poor working conditions, and abundant and easily exploitable resources, where profits can be maximized and repatriated with out legal constraints".
The foregoing however, will not necessarily take place if it were not for several factors that are still predominant in the world today, which give credence to globalization. The first is the fact that of the 100 biggest economies in the world, more than half are corporations. Secondly, these TNCs have enormous powers to transform the world political economy. Thirdly, and in particular Africa has vast resources, cheap labour, huge populations, and an expanding market, which are crucial to the plans of the TNCs. But even more imperative is the presence in Africa of a weak political leadership, which is corrupt and ready to be compromised.
3. How Globalisation triggers flight.
It has been stated that one of the five interlinked processes that undermine the patterns of life is globaliszation. Others include individualization, gender revolution, underemployment and global risks (Beck, 1999:2). Therefore, refugee situations respond to globalization in various ways because first, globalization is a trigger of flight in modern times. That is due to the economic deprivation of the other, people look for survival elsewhere. For instance the implications of the Banana case to the economies of some developing countries could have been the result of economic-related migrations to the North, its backdrop being actions of Chiquita international.
Global agencies target the weakness of the State and effectively aims to deplete local resources, the stifling of local or ‘indigenous’ industry, and subvert the fragile democratic process. It is through the subversion of the democratic process that partly results into forced migrants, either as economic refugees or enemies of the state that has become undemocratic. Refugees could result when they demand redress for the activities of the TNCs as supported by the state, and in some cases this has even prompted calls for secession as the situation has been in the oil-rich Niger Delta region. This happened in Nigeria during the regimes of Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha, who hanged Ken Saro-Wiwa and others for crusading against the government and the oil companies.
In Angola the global trade in diamonds, otherwise known as "blood diamonds" or "conflict diamonds" sustained a 20-year old war where revenue generated wherefrom financed the UNITA rebels hence prolonging the war. In spite of the atrocities caused by the wars TNCs like American Mineral Fields (AMF), Oryx, and De Beers continued their activities in the region. This came with a toll of more than three million deaths. These corporations also corrupt regimes in waiting as in the case of the late Laurent Kabila in which his war against Mobutu was financed by AMF’s principle shareholder who later secured exploration contracts worth 600 million pounds of cobalt and three million pounds of copper. This is the same story in Sierra Leone where the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) led by Foday Sankoh financed its war from "conflict diamonds".
It is also reported that the other way in which the corporations ensure their continued stay in Africa is through the supply of arms as well as training in conflict areas. The TNCs then import their privately owned security firms to offer training, and this is marked in the early 1990s by growth of the corporate private security sector in Africa. A good example is the work of Executive Outcome in Sierra Leone in 1995, in which the Sierra Leonean government paid it $40 million in cash.
It is therefore notable that the catchments area for refugees includes nations where the TNCs have had a great deal of involvement in search of such resources as oil, diamonds, gold, copper and cobalt among other things. Therefore economic gloablization implies economic deprivation and forced migration has a new factor, globalization. This is exacerbated by the nature of agreement signed between the south and the North e.g. in the case of the Cotonou Agreement, where the ACP countries are required to uphold rules of good governance as defined by the European governments.
The role of developing countries in protecting refugees is made more difficult in the recognition process, which according to the OAU Convention that paved way for the recognition of refugees en masse. This seems to also apply to those who are under the risk of loosing their lives because of economic impoverishment. This is because there is no international legal system for the assistance of economic migrants. The flight of one to safety is for fear of death. Central to this argument is the growth of economy as a globalizing force, the agents of which are TNCs, and WB/IMF. The means via which these forces destabilise the state are through privatisation. In that sense the organisational structure of the state is disturbed. It becomes chaotic and people begin to flee in search of security. Globalization is now pitted against the nation state and its sovereignty to its citizens. International law is no longer primarily with the sovereign state and it has triggered hostility between citizens and their states. Consequently it has caused the erosion of national sovereignty and "blurring the difference between domestic and foreign affairs" (Pendleton, 1999:2055).
Once people have fled due to effects of globalization, their flight is then described differently especially in the West/North. In the Banana case for example, many Caribbean people sought to move to Europe. The only way they could be allowed in is by claiming asylum. In fact even international refugee law does not prevent an asylum seeker from lying if that will give him audience to explain his case. At this stage, we know the reason why people flee. It is not easy to be protected if you are just an economic migrant. Often, one would claim refugee status. But the origin of their flight is originated from an activity of the TNC directed from the western society. So if globalization is celebrated in terms of the exploitation of the natural resources, why then do we in the West tighten our asylum laws?
Therefore the impact of globalisation to the developing countries is generally negative and has left them economically devastated. This is because the management of the current ‘global economy’ is volatile, political and oppressive. It is a diversion of the poor economy resources. Globalization has created an economic imbalance. Consequently, refugees become a product of modernity (Adelman, 1999:); they become victims of corporate violence. Globalisation affects refugee protection at both levels. It could cause flight and can impede protection itself.
4. How Globalization impedes refugee protection
Since the concept of globalization became an issue, a lot has been associated with it. First, globalization is less discussed with regard to its impact on refugees, but to its impact on Human wrongs generally and in terms of economic exploitation of developing countries. The language that has always been adopted is that of corporations influencing the developing world. This way there is a co-relation on the influence of globalization to refugee patterns. Furthermore it is not disputed that the world’s highest number of refugees is from the poor developing countries and more so Africa.
The impact of globalization is generally felt by developing countries, defined as "one that has insufficient access to capital to facilitate development" (Pendleton, 1999:2068). Therefore globalization does not give equal chance to trade in the world markets hence creating dependence. The effect of globalization to a poor country without resources to feed its own citizens makes the system of refugee protection to collapse. Sometimes these poor countries have resources that are unexploited but could only be exploited by TNCs from developed countries, which relate here to the relationship between the north and the south. However, this is always viewed as the good side of gloablization. So that globalization also brings with it as a positiveness of sorts the bundle of rights such as right to international security, movements across borders and the rights to trade across these borders.
Global processes, as noted above do not only challenge the relevance of refugee law but are also the cause through the new factors- global warming, privatisation, and globalization. It is noted that while we refer to global processes, it is still taking the debate into the abstraction of international, regional, and national planes. Global processes pre-supposes trans-national networks. Yet refugee protection is within the territory of the receiving state and in that respect the intra-national networks become relevant. In a nutshell, what global processes suggest is the existence of victims, who are disadvantaged in the process, and ‘victors’ who do not want to share in their success or shoulder the result of their success.
It is concluded that contrary to public international law, (which refugee law is part of) nations can no longer be regarded as sovereign states and are not so regarded by most of their Citizens (Pendleton, 1999: 2094). However the imperative issue is that their sovereignty is diminished yet refugees rely on them for protection. One such phenomenon is refugees, who claim protection while they are in these states. However, it is wise to note that central to the protection of refugees is the nation state. It is also important to note that global processes affect the nation state. The effect of this is that the nation state is unable to implement international refugee law within its borders.
Globalisation comes in various forms, the impact of which is partly to disable the poor states with no resources in competing in the current global economy. The result of this is that these countries are unable to meet their Convention obligations. This is because global economic governance shrinks their resources. A country like Uganda was largely voted for the better part of the 1999/2000 as doing very well economically. What we were not told about Uganda for instance was that it was servicing its IMF/WB debt. Yet her protection of the refugees is poor just like the rest of other African countries. For example, Kenya’s problems intensified in 1997 when the IMF and the WB cut the Aid to Kenya and since then her concentration has been towards endless re-negotiations with the institutions for the resumption of aid. Its infrastructure collapsed, its governance was now an issue in the agenda for the resumption of aid. One wonders how such a country afflicted by global economic woes can indeed protect refugees. I need not explain that a common feature of refugee protection in developing countries is the involvement of UNHCR, which conducts status determination, runs the camps and keeps on lobbying the governments to comply. The state is basically toothless.
The above has resulted in the terminology of donor community, which in turn creates the terminology of ‘donor fatigue’ because even the North sees it resources diminishing. This gives Africa a stronger bargaining chip, as her resources are today the reason globalization is a topical subject. The initial assumption was that every country had enough resources but during and after colonialism that plunder institutionalised the poor economies of these countries, resources have been so diminished that they cannot meet their international obligations. It is therefore at that stage that the UNHCR and its partners stepped in.
Globalisation, I belief is a new cause of refugee problems that is not addressed and ignoring it further would cause irreparable state of affairs. In fact UNHCR has noticed the danger of this by engaging with the corporate world, the agent of globalisation. Therefore economic globalisation becomes the key aspect because the economy of a country will tell what amount of resources should be allocated towards protecting refugees and other services like status determination.
4.1. A diminished role of the state?
It has been noted, "if globalization is a reality…and if globalization genuinely takes effect, the nation-state will be its chief victim". Therefore today’s global-ized world speculates about the diminishing role of the traditional nation-state or others in fact refer to its death following suggestions that the nation-state is facing its end, and in its place has emerged regional economies. This happens because globalization tends to encompass relations between economics and culture, deliberately bypassing political agencies. This has effectively created the dependency to the ‘other’. It is argued that whereas such is a contentious and debatable issue, the focus here lies with the incidentals that come with that diminishing role. Is there any danger for the protection of those within that diminished state? If the nationals see very little of their governments in terms of service provision, what then really becomes of the foreigners, especially the refugees?
The said incidentals of globalization affect the role of the State, which is primarily to enforce refugee law for their protection. In that regard, the impact of globalization to the receiving states can be approached from two levels. First is the general level where all countries see globalization as a new form of identity in the global and international plane, and the motivation for the countries to join the fray of globalization is to be seen to be compliant with the economic tempo. This comes in the form of industrialization, privatisation and the influence of the corporate world into the internal affairs of the State. The effect of this is to invite globalizing forces to the territories of the member states, which reduces it to nothing but a host of global conglomerates. Finding a weak state, they are lured into attractive revenue earnings from the resources. Sunday notes that this coincides with that of the TNCs, the latter’s interest in maximizing profits conflicts with the welfare of the citizens. Thus, the state is caught between protecting a vital source of revenue, and defending the rights and privileges of its citizens. Too often, the state, in order to ensure an ongoing flow of revenue, sides with the TNCs against the citizens.
An example would be the conflicts between the citizens in the oil-producing Niger Delta region with the corporations on the one hand and the governments on the other hand. The neglected citizen then becomes an enemy of the state, and may be forced out and become a refugee. On the other hand, if such a state receives refugees from another country wanting protection, it not would be able to protect them.
At the second level, the impact of globalization is felt at the national level where some actors or globalizing forces have affected a section or part of the country’s tranquillity such that it might trigger the flight of people or simply displace them. The examples of these could be drawn from the activities of TNCs where their exploitation has caused environmental damage, developmental neglect, human right abuses, economic oppression, and inequitable resource allocation.
I contend that the plunder of the resources of poor countries disables them from setting aside certain resources for the protection of refugees. Whatever activity in refugee protection, be it administrative process, status determination, provision of services all requires resources. In fact, TNCs as agents of globalization do exacerbate this need. If globalization is used as a means of liberating the economies of the world, why can it not be used in addressing refugee problems? It is doubtful whether globalization is internationalization of refugee protection. We can no longer speak the language of internationalisation of the world’s problems, because the current quagmire we are in was a foundation of that internationalisation, namely, international law in, which refugee law squarely rests.
The result of globalisation and in particular economic globalisation is that, the South will keep on relying on relief aid to help the refugees. This is the language of donor fatigue. What is easily forgotten is the role of the TNCs, which primarily enrich those countries. If fairness was admissible in globalization, they should not be heard to even refer to the word ‘donor fatigue’. On the other hand, while it looks 'samaritanian' on the part of the developed world to assist, developing countries will be forced to focus their efforts elsewhere in servicing their IMF/WB debts. The consequence being that whereas they are doing that the condition of the refugees deteriorates rendering them incapable of fulfilling their international obligations.
The upshot of the ‘single global economy’ is that the nation state will never revert to protecting refugees because of its pre-occupation to meet the requirements of certain standards for economic advancement, and refugee or human rights protection is not one such requirement. If developing countries do not like those conditions at face value, hegemonic countries like the USA have always resorted to bilateral agreements. This was the result of the involvement of Chiquita international, reported to have had the support of the Clinton administration, and because of this particular TNC, the US is described to have gone crazy over a product it did not even grow!
It will not therefore be wrong to speculate that although TNCs are the principal agents of globalization with the main objective of maximizing wealth, which effectively impoverishes a particular state in the South. This is of course facilitated and with the full support of the Northern countries-through bilateral trade agreements, aid projects etc.,- who are the architects of globalization. In this respect the intention of making the world a ‘global village’ becomes a hoax! The power that the corporate world wields towards state has in fact been acknowledged even in the UN circles. This points to the realisation that the traditional causes of refugeeism are outmoded. This is a pointer towards the wider debate of restructuring refugee law, but more specifically, a rethinking of the refugee definition. It does not prevent one from therefore asking that in the globality of world problems, could globalization perhaps be of some use to the refugees? Or to what extend can globalization contribute to the reformulation debate?
5. Reformulation or a globalisation of refugee protection?
Refugee protection, it has been suggested is now a global dilemma, which has prompted proposals towards a global partnership for their protection’. However, not all countries have ratified the 51Convention and therefore not developed a national refugee and asylum legislation, consistent with international refugee standards and principles. This raises the question of whether enactment of refugee legislations is indeed a viable option today.
Today the normative international system that deals with refugee crisis refocuses on the sources of their production hence a need to tackle the problem at the global and regional levels (Adelman, 1999:97). Most often, the root causes that are referred to are the traditional ones-civil wars, military conscription and human rights violations. Global processes have now overtaken these old factors, and the language of the law seems untenable and old-fashioned.
5.1. Is it a question of reformulation?
I contend that notions of reformulation as already advocated have not borne any fruits so far. I propose a different terminology in addressing the refugee problem. This is because reformulation takes us back to the international principles that have not really exhibited desired results. Even as we speak of these notions, refugee protection in the developing world is deteriorating.
In employing some aspects of globalization e.g. cultural globalisation, it is time we decide asylum applications on the basis of some of the global principles e.g. democracy, civil and fundamental freedoms. This is because persecution does not necessarily mean physical, rather it could be psychological, or simply from ones belief. In Applicant A and B v. Minister for immigration and ethnic Affairs, asylum was sought on the grounds that the couple's opposition to the country’s population control policies rendered them refugees under article 1(2) of 51Convention. The court held that the couple did not qualify as refugees because they could not be considered to be members of a particular social group. I contend that the court erred by narrowly interpreting the definition. The victims definitely believed in more than one child and on the basis of that belief they would have been persecuted. Hence the Western court came to this conclusion because it did not share the cultural practices of the Chinese even though we are in a globalized village. If he had directed his mind to what would be the situation in the west, asylum would have been granted. This goes to prove that what are global processes or values are not shared by all ‘globally’. In contrast Secretary, department of health and community services v. JWB and SMB (Marion’s case) the court held that
[E]ach person has a unique dignity which the law respects and which it will protect. Human dignity is a value common to our municipal law and to international instruments relating to human rights. The law will protect equally the dignity of the hale and hearty and the dignity of the weak and the lame.
The above decision focused on Western values. The gist of the argument is that when the values of the West and the south meet, the West takes credence. This is the upshot of the processes of globalization, which are self-defeating..
5.2. …Or is it a question of globalisation?
The interrelation of states under the concept of economic globalisation impacts on the world so that; no country can address its problems independently. Harris reiterates, "Internal refugees are the result of the breakdown of the state system and the capacity of-or willingness-of governments to protect their citizens". This is why some have referred to globalization as a new human right (Pendleton, 1999). Elsewhere, "refugees are the product of modernity. Their plight became acute when the processes of modernity became globalized". It is explained that,
The twentieth century became the century of refugees, not because it was extraordinary in forcing people to flee, but because of the division of the globe into nation-states in which states were assigned the role of protectors of rights, but also that of exclusive protectors of their own citizens, including the role of gatekeeper to determine who could become new citizens. When the globe was totally divided…those fleeing persecution in one state had nowhere to go but to another state, and required the permission of the other state to enter it.
It cannot therefore be denied that the entire world is undergoing a process we now call globalization, or if not the tide is so strong that all are joining the caravan to globalise their problems in the name of a global village. This concept brings with it advantages and disadvantages, which are both subject to interpretation from within one’s locality depending on their impacts.
Globalization therefore promotes notions of global law and governance of the world problems including refugees. Hence economic globalisation has changed patterns in migration. In Africa for instance, South Africa has depended on migrant economy from Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Zambia. Modern trends and increase in refugee population affect the already established asylum regulations and policies that had for instance been developed as a response to the cold war, colonialism, and politics.
In contemporary times, every regime seems to be a potential refugee producer hence pointing towards the need to globalize refugee problems and hence protection. For example the international community was criticised in the handling of the Kosovo and Rwanda crises. It appeared in the West there is a close global dealing of refugee problems than it is in Africa.
The relation of refugees to globalization may appear a far-fetched idea. However the impact of globalisation is evident. Globalisation presupposes the interconnectedness of the world in all aspects including the law. This is true when refugee protection is discussed in the language of ‘international protection’, which ought to be really universal. If the situation were to be left at the national level, then we will not need the mobilisation at the UN circles.
Globalisation has made the world to appear smaller in the last fifty years, as evidence by the role of transnational actors, which are a globalizing force. What globalization has done is to enhance the concept of debordernization the result of which is evident with the peoples’ desire to maximally benefit from a ‘village-like-environment’. This language of one village seems tenable in the notions of economic globalisation where "mankind was supposed to be transformed into economic animals". However, when it comes to the movement of people, we see restrictions in the nature of tough immigration/asylum laws, economic emigrants. De Jong challenges this double-faced aspect of the concept that
…You cannot encourage people always to take the most economically advantageous decisions, but tell them to forget about it when they conclude that emigration to another country would be the best option. If the world becomes smaller, we should be inclined at least to accept some migratory movements. Since there is nowadays hardly any possibility left of becoming a legal immigrant in any countries, countless individuals have turned to the asylum instrument or to illegal ways of immigration.
In this global environment therefore, two factors have emerged to explain the refugee problem. Those with the potential to cause migration pressure e.g. poverty in Africa and Asia. Then there are those that actually trigger migratory movements e.g. turmoil, wars, repression and violation of human rights, unemployment, and environmental degradation. These factors coupled with globalization are the challenges of Africa in this millennium.
In the context of Africa, colonialism plundered its resources and it affected its current institutional organisation. This scenario has further been exacerbated by globalization, which has weakened the nation-state in mobilising its resources in order to carry out its international obligations. Not even the African hospitality is spared by the strain caused by scarcity on resources. In this age of global economic governance, most developing countries remain highly indebted to the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) because they are always servicing their debts and refugee protection within their jurisdiction becomes unnoticeable in terms of provision of services. Due to this difficulty African leaders began a campaign for debt forgiveness. This was immediately countered by the language of ‘relief by the IFIs even when it was clear that globalization had already constituted the world as one village.
In Africa therefore refugee protection becomes superficial and the legal as well as the physical protection becomes cosmetic. This is commonly characterised by first the grant of land, and secondly the emphasis on creating camps, which are managed by UNHCR. The effect of this is that the camps rely on donor communities and agencies all situated in the North.
Refugee protection therefore is an item in the global governance, which is today beyond the domestic jurisdiction. Should the idea of globalisation not solve the problem of the world refugees it is worth to attempt a compromise definition considering the disparity between developed and developing countries in globalization terms
There is justification for changing the definition to align it to human rights principles. This is because the very definition of a refugee for purposes of asylum is based on saving lives. For example where famine poses a real threat to human life, there is need be address it by all means including the global community. It is common sense that aid cannot be administered in the middle of two warring groups hence it is imperative that those who cross the border under such circumstances be described differently. For example in 1996 it was reported that 4 million Sudanese were internally displaced and 465,000 fled the country, 40,000 of who went to live in Kenya; the Somalia catastrophe was equally atrocious to humankind. The question is how just is it to stick to the definition of a refugee under such circumstances? It does not have to be the term refugee that is employed. A term such as people in need would be suitable, as the term ‘refugee’ can be dehumanising and stigmatising. Nevertheless, as we consider those existing notions of treating refugees, we are now faced with new phenomenon, which equally frustrate our efforts in offering proper protection to refugees.
Current developments point towards the reformulation of refugee law. The language has emerged that attempts to circumvent the traditional definition as reality has dawned on the nation states, on the one hand that that they are not actually protecting ‘refugees’ stricto sensu but people in need of refuge and safety. For example in Iraq, the creation of ‘safe havens’, ‘zones of tranquillity’ for the Afghan returnees, the ‘open relief centres’ for the would-be Sri-Lankan refugees and the ‘not so-safe havens’ of Srebrenica and Zepa in Bosnia and Herzegovina point towards this development. On the other hand, states are almost taking second stage in the social process within their societies and owing to the rise of supra-national structures states are becoming bankrupt. The states have therefore resorted to selling their assets, such as forests, public enterprises to legal persons. These legal persons enjoy immense powers than the state. The effect of this is that the roles change with repercussions to the people.
6. Conclusion
As noted earlier, globalisation is not a policy but a fact of life in this 21st Century. It will be naïve to deny that globalisation does not affect our lives. Perhaps it is time we must exploit the very idea of globalisation, which can be both good and bad. Let us use the good side of it to arrest some of the problems we face together as a globe. It is inevitable that, either we address the problem collectively or we face the consequences collectively, because whether one part of the world breeds problems, the outcome is likely to affect all of us in one way or the other. Recent examples of global terrorism have taught us that what begun in Saudi Arabia as a family feud has culminated into the coalition against global terrorism. If America cannot check the rate of its gaseous emission to the atmosphere, they too can expect dire consequences and the world will not be a safe place to live in.
The impact of globalization begs solutions to Africa’s problems at the general level. The first challenge Africa must tackle is to tame globalization, and one way of doing this is by checking global institutions. We now need to ask ourselves whether we must really privatise everything? Are we not capable of managing our resources for our common good? Secondly, if Africa is to prosper and even be able to tame globalization, it must stop conflicts. One way of doing this is through a global-ized perspective to the causes, and particularly by ‘arresting’ the gun and the bullet factory and to ultimately close the market for these weapons, which are of course produced in the West. Thirdly, Africa must finalise the many peace talks to bring order to its people, and by doing that it would unite this divided African continent. In particular Africa must address the Oromia question, Somalia, Sudan, Saharawi, Kaprivi, the DRC, Burundi among others. Finally, the AU should take a political stance and suggest a ‘recipe’ for the African leader, if need be to ‘interfere’ in the domestic affairs of the neighbour because whether other African states do not interfere or not they would shoulder responsibility any way.
Refugees, I cannot reiterate any further are the world’s problems. Perhaps due to the globality of the problem suggestions have been made for an international refugee welfare regime (Adelman, 1999). We are witnessing the failure of voluntary repatriation (Rwanda), continued wars and famines (Sudan, Eritrea-Ethiopia, Congo etc.) military regimes (Sierra-Leone, East Timor, Pakistan, Afghanistan). Not even domestic legislation seems helpful. It is time the UNHCR’s mandate too was changed to reflect the global changes.
An outcry from the developing world has argued for the scraping of the debts owed to IMF/WB because the weaknesses of their economy affects the administration and compliance of any law whether domestic or international. In that regard, the donor community should increase the funding either to UNHCR or through host governments. Developing countries need resources if they must set out special procedures for refugees during status determination, courts and appoint specially trained magistrates to handle refugee matters, free legal counsel to the refugees, promotion of local integration.
In the interim, the work of UNHCR is encouraged but the emphasis should be at economically empowering those poor states in throwing their weight behind refugee protection. As long as a refugee is not ready to avail himself of the protection of his country of origin, then he is solely the responsibility of the receiving state. Therefore both protection and relief assistance to refugees in developing countries is imperative but only at the point of influx. Considering problems in the developing world compounded by global capitalism, it is difficult for developing countries to guarantee protection in accordance to international standards.
African states should critically examine the wider impacts of the refugee in their Jurisdiction because a lot has changed since the idea of protecting refugees beyond their borders was founded more than fifty years ago. Whatever suggestions we put forward now, they must bear in mind the effects of such concepts as globalisation. However, in today's global economy, any attempt to address the problem of refugee from a purely legalistic perspective fails because of the economic weakness of the present modern receiving states. States are increasingly becoming less powerful. Transnational corporations are taking over the control of the states' economy. Parliamentarians in these states only enact laws that serve the interests of the global agents without necessarily benefiting the electorate they represent. Refugee laws are not considered beneficial to the states as opposed to privatisation laws where the state gains in terms of employment, revenue through income and investment tax, improvement of its infrastructure and social amenities. All these are the effects of today’s global processes and their effect to human life and more specifically to forced migrants is enormous.
On the foregoing there seems to be very little we can do to contain the situation. However, I wish to suggest four things that receiving states in Africa must do in this era of global processes. First, they should start by practising good governance by simply being able to control all that is happening within their jurisdictions including regulating global processes. At the heart of that control should be the welfare of the citizens. They should hold at all times those corporations that are responsible for the displacement of people and impose punitive measures against them. Secondly, they should forward this state of affairs to the UN so that the accountability of those corporations under international law is specified. Thirdly, those TNCs should be required to re-invest in those countries. This must be monitored, as lack of that is what weakens them economically so as to disable them from delivering services not only to their own nationals but also to those needing their protection. Fourthly, it seems an old debate revisited here, that IMF/WB should re-consider writing off, as bad debts the debts already owed to developing countries that host refugees.
This paper attempts to show that globalization is capable of affecting the social, economic and political arrangements within the nation state in the negative. Secondly, although the state can be affected, it could make a resounding come back using the ‘polity’ aspect of globalization. In this Millennium therefore, Africa could have a strong bargaining power and could indeed shape the things to its advantage because we have all that it takes to actively participate because as writes Sunday Dare
From the oil fields of the Niger Delta in Nigeria, to the diamond and copper fields of Sierra Leone, Angola, and Liberia, to the rich mineral deposits of the Great Lakes region, to the mountain ranges, plains and tourist havens of the East African countries, the continent of Africa is undoubtedly blessed.