The Washington Post

Sunday, May 4, 1997

OP-ED

A Haven for Refugees

Sadako Ogata

As we all know, genocide, characterized by the intent to destroy

national, ethnic or religious groups, is the most violent and

pernicious form of human rights violations. Yet in the decades since

the Holocaust, we have not been able to prevent or halt even the most

brutal forms of violence against whole groups of people.

It is true that the INTERNATIONAL human rights movement and

especially the end of the Cold War have brought progress.

The allied intervention in northern Iraq protected the Kurds there. The

humanitarian interventions in Somalia and Bosnia saved people from

starvation. In many other conflicts U.N. peacekeepers prevented new

outbreaks of violence. Numerous lifesaving relief operations were

mounted. All these attempts were unthinkable some decades ago. They

are very positive, but not enough.

Why did it take until August 1995 before the people of Sarajevo

and other besieged cities in Bosnia were saved by NATO and peace was

pushed through? Is neutrality morally and practically viable in the

face of widespread atrocities? Why was no country prepared to step

into Rwanda at the height of the genocide in 1994? Why was the

multinational force that had been authorized to come to the rescue of

hundreds of thousands of refugees in eastern Zaire canceled in

December of last year? Thousands of peoplehave perished in eastern

Zaire since then. The answer to these questions seems clear.

It is because the major powers perceived no strategic interests or

because their interests did not converge. In that sense the

situation does not fundamentally differ from the Cold War years when

political interests, stemming from ideological confrontation, were a

cause for not halting the killing fields of Cambodia.

In my view there can be no true globalization, if it is only

economic, if we do not even reach out to halt genocidal situations.

While respecting cultural diversity, true globalization means

universal respect for human rights, of the positive side of man, of

the responsibility to provide protection against evil. That lies at

the heart of refugee protection. Now, we have to take it one step

further and be prepared to halt the worst evil at its source. That is

my hope at the threshold of the next millennium. We need determined

political leadership. We need citizens who are prepared to look beyond

the domestic horizon and who can spur reluctant politicians into action.

I understand why they want to avoid risks involving soldiers in

a faraway land. One of the reasons why we need an energetic and

effective United Nations is to mitigate these risks through

INTERNATIONAL burden-sharing. It is also why I advocate the

establishment of an early and rapid deployment capability to intervene

in the worst crisis situations. Such a capability would prevent

escalation, would save money and, what is more important, would save

lives.

We need a strong United Nations human rights machinery to prevent but

also expose violations of human rights. We also need an

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. The potential Pol Pots of this world --

yes, the planners and not just the perpetrators -- must be deterred by

the prospect of CRIMINAL justice. And is it fair and realistic to

expect the survivors to forgive and to cooperate if there is no

justice? In the absence of justice, private revenge may prevail.

Let me now turn to another question. If we do not or cannot

prevent massive human rights abuses, are we at least offering a safe

haven to those escaping and knocking at our doors?

In looking back, the refugee issues of the 1930s and 1940s

seem simple. While some desperate Jews were admitted to safety

abroad, there were also many more who were stopped in their tracks.

In light of the current debate in the United States about asylum-

seekers without proper documents, I must note that those who managed

to escape often did so by using fraudulent documents, issued and

accepted by sympathetic officials. It may not be so widely known that

the Japanese Consul in Estonia, Chitoshi Suhigara, issued hundreds of

visas to allow Jews to leave Europe. Also Consul Ryoichi Manabe

provided residence permits to Jewish refugees to protect their stay

in Shanghai. You know, of course, about Raoul Wallenberg. These

episodes of personal courage are important reminders that individuals

can make a difference.

From our vantage point in the 1990s, this haunting memory

of people trapped behind borders was simply part of the world's

larger moral failure to confront persecution and genocide. Yet at

the time, the issues seemed to be as complex as they appear today.

High rates of unemployment, suspicion toward foreigners -- especially

those with unpopular religious beliefs or political views, exaggerated

fears of the floodgates being opened, and foreign policy

considerations had a higher priority than the lives of the persecuted.

In our own time, these concerns are very similar.

The end of the Cold War has meant that refugee protection

no longer dovetails so neatly with strategic imperatives.

Nevertheless,the need for asylum has not diminished. On the contrary,

the persecutors, torturers and warmongers of the world have

flourished in the current state of flux. But the doors are closing

around the world. Refugees are seen primarily as a political, economic

and environmental burden. They also represent security hazards.

In the developed world, while we realize that there are

some economic migrants who abuse the asylum system, we must

insist that each asylum-seeker has his or her case duly considered and

that the refugee definition is not stripped of its meaning by a

restrictive interpretation. One month ago, a new expedited removal

procedure was instituted at U.S. ports of entry for those arriving

without proper documents. Many refugees will have trouble articulating

their claim under the conditions of detention andthe short time frame

that are now in place. The new fast-track procedure will be

particularly difficult for survivors of torture and other extreme

trauma. In the meantime, interdiction of boats at sea continues,

bringing to mind the voyage of the St. Louis.

We should work to prevent the deportation of Bosnian

refugees who cannot yet return to their own homes. It is wishful

thinking to assume that my office can make repatriation possible if

political leaders in Bosnia are allowed to pursue their heinous

policies of ethnic division and if shelter is not reconstructed more

quickly. Premature returns will cause great human suffering and may

destabilize a fragile peace.

Elsewhere it is vital that the civilian and humanitarian

nature of refugee camps be maintained. The Rwandan refugee camps in

Zaire and Tanzania were controlled by armed men, many of whom were

probably guilty of genocide. We asked for INTERNATIONAL help in

getting these people out of the camps. No country offered to get

involved. My staff had to continue feeding CRIMINALS as the price for

feeding hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children. We should

not have been left in that position. Unarmed relief workers are expected

to face increasing danger in many situations.

Why do we still care about asylum? Because, as in the

past, it is the safest mechanism when all other human rights protections

fail. I have three pleas. First, while managing immigration as a

legitimate concern, do not shut out those fleeing for their lives and

freedom. Unlike others, refugees do not have a choice.

Second, I urge opinion leaders to de-dramatize and

de-politicize the asylum debate. Do not let racists and

xenophobes set the agenda. Asylum issues are manageable, particularly in

western countries. The total number of asylum-seekers in the West

has been falling. It is neither necessary nor helpful to invoke an

atmosphere of crisis in setting refugee policy.

Third I would ask you to maintain perspective. Throughout the

ages, many refugees have enriched societies. Einstein was a

refugee. Madeleine Albright was one. And refugee problems can be

solved. Millions of people do find refuge and millions eventually do

go home. Most refugees want desperately to go home, and their return

is the most gratifying sight I see as I travel the world.

The writer is United Nations high commissioner for

refugees. This article is adapted from a speech she delivered at the

Holocaust Memorial Museum April 30.