Humanitarian action is hindered by a variety of factors. In particular, the kidnapping and killing of aid workers threatens access by humanitarian organizations to the most vulnerable and needy displaced persons. Meanwhile, the response of CIS governments suffers from a lack of capacity and sometimes the political will, to manage migration in a humane fashion, and to respect the human rights of refugees and displaced persons.
The CIS Conference in 1996 created a Program of Action that aimed to produce a foundation for a comprehensive approach governing migration, population displacements and related issues. National implementation plans have been prepared, focusing on the need to build governmental capacities to manage migration. However, a variety of “constraints,” in the words in the statement of the Assistant High Commissioner for Refugees, have inhibited attainment of the Program’s objectives.
Given the magnitude of needs, there must be greater reliance on the nongovernmental sector. NGOs are a fundamental part of civil society. Among their many benefits are contributions to pluralism, support for democratic institutions, social stability and the rule of law, as well as social well-being. Vitalizing the independent sector is a recognized objective under the Program of Action. Encouraging the emergence of a network of NGOs in the region could help avert the causes and ameliorate the consequences of forced migration.
It has been two years since the adoption of the Program of Action, yet NGOs are not fully integrated into its implementation. Over five hundred NGOs have been identified in the conference follow-up process. But their potential is still underutilized. This meeting of the Steering Group offers an opportunity to consider ways to encourage greater NGO participation. One approach that deserves support is the reform of legislation and practices that inhibit NGO development.
Many laws throughout the region hinder the formation and operation of NGOs. The removal of these barriers, especially the revision of burdensome registration and taxation laws, could facilitate the expansion of the NGO sector. Despite the recognition given to the internationally recognized right to freedom of association in the statement of principles of the Program of Action, most states of the CIS require NGOs to register with the government to become a “legal person” or “legal entity.” At the same time, most laws do not clearly define the legal status of an unregistered NGO, or make clear the conditions under which a public organization may operate. A few laws prohibit “secret associations,” without defining this term, raising questions of discretionary interpretation.
Russia’s new Federal Law on Public Associations is a noteworthy exception. The law explicitly acknowledges a public association’s right to organize and function without prior government approval or registration. If fairly implemented, this law could serve as a model for other CIS states’ policies.
Taxation policies are also in need of review. The goal should be to encourage, not discourage NGO development. At present, tax laws in CIS countries are often confusing, even contradictory. There are very few reduced rates or exemptions for non-profit organizations. Such special considerations are frequently based not on the distinctive nature of NGOs, but on organizational purposes, or the source and/or use of certain funds, and are sometimes even designated for specific organizations. Tax benefits are likely to be given to government-supported associations, whose public benefit, form, and purpose may resemble independent NGOs, but which are not true independent NGOs.
Another obstacle to NGO development is excessive governmental oversight. Fledgling NGOs often are forced to expend large amounts of precious resources in complying with overly intrusive regulations, thereby having a “chilling effect” on the particular NGO’s functions. Some requirements or prohibitions are so general as to be open to arbitrary interpretation by bureaucrats. Governments also possess the ability to dissolve organizations, sometimes without provision for appeal or review. Even when an avenue for challenge exists, the NGO is at the very least temporarily deprived of its ability to function.
I note that the World Bank has published a draft “Handbook on Good Practices for Laws Relating to NGOs.” This handbook has been criticized, however, as actually encouraging governments to propose regulations that may restrict the human right of freedom of association.
The Working Group on NGO Legislation, of which I am a part, has endeavored to formulate realistic objectives that would energize the emergence of a vibrant NGO regional network. The Working Group has already convened on three occasions prior to these meetings in Geneva with the logistical assistance of UNHCR.
I would like to provide a brief summary of the Working Group’s accomplishments to date. A meeting in Moscow in December 1997 established the Working Group and urged greater dialogue with CIS governments. In March 1998, a gathering in Strasbourg, France, concluded that a key to NGO development is fostering greater government awareness of the potential benefits of a strong independent sector. A meeting in Almaty in May of this year focused on registration concerns, tax laws, and governmental supervision in the five Central Asian Republics. A valuable dialogue between NGOs ensued. Although governmental representatives attended, actual dialogue between NGOs and governments was limited.
The engagement of the authorities must be encouraged more vigorously in future meetings. The logistical weaknesses evident at the Almaty gathering also underscore the importance of proper planning. Upcoming meetings in Kyiv and Tbilisi later this year should be better prepared and supported.
Additionally, I am pleased to report that at meetings in Budapest and Moscow, several NGO experts from CIS countries agreed to prepare a report in 1999 on follow-up to the Program of Action. This positive development may provide the framework for indigenous NGO coordination in the future. The Forced Migration Projects have agreed to publish and disseminate this report, making available to those involved in conference follow-up a useful source of independent information and analysis on the impacts of implementing activities.
To this end, the CIS Conference NGO Working Group on Legislation has developed a 40-page questionnaire that aims to collect information for the report and eventually to facilitate the formation of an NGO network. This questionnaire is the subject of a side workshop meeting of local independent NGOs. We encourage all NGO representatives attending the Steering Group meeting to respond. The information collected from the questionnaire will play a vital role in the future development of a regional network of NGOs in the CIS.
Apart from the need to strengthen the nongovernmental sector, as suggested by the European Union’s statement, governments should reconceive the response to the Program of Action. This gathering of the Steering Group presents perhaps the last opportunity for the international community and CIS states to rethink the follow-up to the CIS conference, in order to achieve what the U.S. Representative termed yesterday “a glass half full,” much less to fulfill the lofty ideals set forth in the Program of Action.
Key governments concerned, including European Union members, the Russian Federation and the United States should insist on greater engagement by international financial institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as the United Nations Development Programme and the UN High Commis-sioner for Human Rights, in realizing the Program of Action.
In addition, an independent reporting mechanism should be developed in order to better evaluate Program of Action implementation. Benchmarks could be established, thus allowing donor countries to assess the productive use of funds pledged, or indicating the need to impose appropriate measures of conditionality.
In summary, if the Program of Action is to be more than a statement of majestic aspirations, a new resolve by key governments will be necessary. New actors, especially international financial institutions, should be brought into the process. Greater steps must be taken to fulfill the potential of NGO activity in the follow-up. Strengthening the independent sector must be elevated to a prime program objective. But NGOs are not a substitute for state responsibility and political will, both of which will be necessary to achieve meaningful reform.
Widgren: We have been following the CIS process from its very inception and have attended most of the preparatory sessions as well as the 1996 Conference in Geneva and the Steering Group meetings. Although recognizing from the very outset the enormous value of the CIS process from an educative and consciousness-raising perspective, we have at the same time always underlined the need for a stronger emphasis on the security and prevention aspect of the whole process. That means, for instance, that the OSCE as such and its Presidency Troika should have been much more involved in the execution of the Conference. We should not forget that at the time of the preparation of the Conference and during the Conference itself the war in Chechnya was in full swing, with mass displacements as a consequence. Likewise, the Presidency of the European Union and the European Commission in Brussels maybe did not feel that the ultimate rationale of the process was sufficiently geared towards basic security considerations, in terms of mitigating potential massive movements inside the CIS area as well as further on.
But on the whole, I think the whole process with all its players—governmental, NGOs, intergovernmental, etc.—has brought about very important results in terms of promoting democratic values and refugee law in the CIS region. Definitely, had this process not been in place, it would have to be re-invented.
Q: What is your appraisal of the European Union’s commitment to the follow-up process of the CIS?
A: As I said, the EU commitment to the process was seemingly weak from the outset and also during the follow-up of the 1996 Conference. This has to do with several factors. One factor relates to the divided competencies among the EU actors in the migration and refugee arenas. There is basically no holistic approach gathering together the Ministers of Interior as responsible for the Third Pillar of the Maastricht Treaty, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs acting on conflict prevention under the Second Pillar, and the funding machinery under the First Pillar (i.e., the European Commission proper).
The poor European Commission funding support to the process probably has to do with the fact that other geographical areas, such as Africa and Bosnia, were given priority by the ECHO [European Commission Host Organization]—roughly $700 million were disbursed by ECHO in 1996. But, as already indicated, I am convinced that the very weak linkage between the structure of the CIS process, with UNHCR, IOM, and OSCE-ODIHR in the lead, and the emerging structures of the EU for handling Central and Eastern Europe and CIS is another important factor. Whereas the EU deals with 10 Central and Eastern European states, including the Baltics, in one enlargement package, and has set enormous PHARE [Poland and Hungary Assistance for the Reconstruction of the Economy] funds at disposal for this, they deal with the CIS/NIS states in a weaker political framework and with a completely separate funding mechanism—TACIS [Technical Assistance to the CIS Countries].
Q: Is the Steering Group living up to its potential? If not, what changes should be made to improve its operations?
A: Basically, I think that the Steering Group provides a good forum for an annual stock-taking. But I have some difficulties with the lack of a truly intergovernmental approach involving on an equal basis Foreign Ministry and Interior Ministry staff. I also doubt whether the dominance of UNHCR and IOM in terms of monitoring progress actually serves the true interests of these two organizations when it comes to further enhancing the implementation. And I also think that the format for guaranteeing a proper NGO input to the follow-up process could be re-assessed.
Q: What realistically can be done to improve the implementation of the Program of Action? What can be done to increase interest among donor governments?
A: To some extent, the answers to these questions have already been provided. When it comes to the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there are already many bilateral financing arrangements of relevance to the CIS process which actually are not acknowledged sufficiently. Moreover, as regards EU funding, the proper links to the EU Tacis program have not yet been established. And as I have already said, the segments of the Plan of Action which relate to orderly movements, the fight against irregular migration and trafficking, border control and readmission issues, have been undervalued in the follow-up of the process. Actually, I think that there would be more funding for the segments of the Plan of Action which relate to humanitarian action and refugee emergencies if there was a more balanced approach with regard to the segments which relate to control policies and the management of flows.
Q: Are local or international nongovernmental organizations sufficiently involved in the implementation of the Program of Action? If not, what can be done to increase the NGO role?
A: There are many ideas on how to enhance the role of NGOs in the follow-up process, but this is not a problem which relates to the CIS process only, as there are equal problems in terms of establishing the proper structures for the interaction between governments and NGOs in terms of the EU enlargement discussions with regard to the 10 Associated States in Central and Eastern Europe. Actually, as I already indicated, the very concept of the CIS region as one distinct region is in contradiction with the geopolitical situation of many of the states concerned. For instance, Ukraine is a very active partner in the Budapest process on the prevention of illegal migration, but that role of Ukraine is carried out in a wider European context and not because Ukraine once was part of the USSR. Hence, there are needs for a better cooperation structure both on the governmental and on the nongovernmental side in the whole region which once was dominated by the Warsaw Pact, and the very concept of the CIS states forming a distinctive region does not correspond to the current geopolitical situation.
Q: At least one Russian official believes that many donor countries underestimate the lingering potential for a migration emergency in the former Soviet Union. Do you agree? Please explain. Is the European Union sufficiently prepared for such an emergency?
A: I agree with the statements of the Russian official. Already in 1995, ICMPD [International Centre for Migration Policy Development] evoked this perspective in a study prepared to stimulate the CIS process. In that study, the following was said: “It seems clear that this lack of direct co-operation with Russia is undermining true Western interests. At a general level it can first of all be stated that the migratory flows taking place within the former Soviet Union now and in the near future are of such magnitude that, if the problems remain unresolved, they are bound to cause tensions and social unrest, thus affecting the general stability and security in Russia. It goes without saying, of course, that the overall stability in Russia is of utmost importance for Western security interests. Hence, contribution to confront the migratory challenge are well motivated even from a purely European regional security perspective.”
In my mind, European governments are much too slow and weak in forestalling political eruptions in the near region which may result in massive displacements. The lessons of Bosnia 1992 have not been learned. The war in Kosovo has started and it will presumably result in a tragic and huge refugee displacement. Around the Mediter-ranean and in the Caucasus there are many hotspots which in the future may result in the creation of similar situations. Therefore it should be in the true interest of the European governments also to take the signs of warning from parts of the Russian Federation and the Central Asian states very seriously indeed.
Editor’s Note: Jonas Widgren served as a Swedish government
official from 1967 to 1987, the last 10 years as secretary of state in
the government of Olof Palme. He was the coordinator of the Informal (Asylum)
Consultations in Geneva, from 1987 to 1992. Since 1993, he has been the
director of the International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD)
in Vienna. ICMPD is an intergovernmental organization working for new solutions
in the migration and refugee field, primarily in the European region.
Back to Top
The second annual meeting in Geneva of the Steering Group—which is charged with monitoring implementation of the Program of Action adopted at the 1996 CIS Confer-ence on migration- related issues—convened on June 17 and 18. Prior to that meeting, about 100 local NGO representatives from the CIS participated in a two-day gathering that focused specifically on NGO-related issues connected with Program of Action implementation.
The gathering of international NGOs, along with donor government representatives, provided an opportunity to unveil plans for the formation of an association of local CIS NGOs. The association concept was developed by an informal group of CIS NGO representatives, working in cooperation with the Forced Migration Projects. The proposed association would seek to strengthen NGO cooperation, thereby placing local NGOs in a better position to assume responsibility for implementing migration-related programs once the Program of Action mandate expires in the year 2000.
“The idea would be for the association to interact with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Inter-national Organization for Migration and donor governments,” said Gevork Pagosyan from Armenia, and one of the NGO core group members.
Organizers are planning to proceed cautiously, stressing that proper planning is vital for the association’s eventual success. The first stage of the association’s formation, due to be completed by mid-October, will involve the dissemination of an extensive questionnaire to local NGO representatives. Information obtained in the questionnaire will be compiled and analyzed, serving as the basis for a detailed report on NGO activity in the CIS Conference follow-up process, which would be published in time for the next meeting of the Steering Group in 1999. The association’s formation would rely heavily on the outcomes of discussion generated by the report.
“The time is right to encourage the formation of a consultation of local independent NGOs on migrants, refugees and displaced persons,” Helton said. International organizations, particularly UNHCR and IOM, have reacted with guarded optimism concerning the NGO association project. IOM’s Denis Nyhill, while expressing support for the NGO association, said that steps should be taken to ensure continued progress by CIS governments in improving capacity to handle all kinds of migration-related issues. “There has been substantial progress made by governments,” Nyhill said. “We should make sure that governments do not get short-changed.”
Meanwhile, Hasim Utkan, who is the deputy head of UNHCR’s Central and Eastern European Affairs Department, stressed the need for a deliberate and fully inclusive approach.
“The post-Program of Action period is something that deserves serious consideration... Follow-up structures are essential,” Utkan told the FMP. “The major question is how to go about” the formation of an NGO association.
“We ought to make sure it is an inclusive process,” Utkan added. “Inter-national organizations have experience and should be involved.”
Despite reservations about the creation of an NGO association, Utkan and other UNHCR officials stated at the NGO meeting on June 15 and 16 that a priority for the organization in the coming year would be to “widen and deepen” cooperation with local NGOs. “We’re moving in the right direction but we are still at the foothills of a mountain,” Utkan said.
In his opening remarks, Assistant UN High Commissioner for Refugees Soren Jessen-Petersen said the CIS Conference follow-up process had “made progress in a number of important areas,” adding that it remained “broadly on track.” Among its accomplishments, Jessen-Petersen said, the Conference had helped CIS governments move towards “the mainstream of the terminology, norms, and practices relating to coerced displacement.” In addition, the Conference had helped regional governments in assessing needs and capacity.
Jessen-Petersen identified a lack of political interest in Program of Action implementation, among both CIS and donor governments, as the major obstacle. Renewed commitment to the process was needed for Conference follow-up efforts to be successful in easing individual hardships created by forced migration.
However, FMP Director Helton maintained that a general rethinking of Program of Action implementation was in order. With political interest flagging, new actors should be incorporated into the process. “Key governments concerned, including European Union members, the Russian Federation and the United States, should insist on greater engagement by international financial institutions,” he said. Among the organizations that could help reinvigorate Conference follow-up are the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the UN Development Programme and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Several government representatives, including those from the EU and
the United States, also urged wider international involvement. “The Program
of Action requires a larger effort to develop civil society in this region—something
more appropriately addressed by the development community,” said the U.S.
delegation statement.
Back to Top
In 1993, the Bahamas became a party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and its 1967 Protocol, agreeing to respect a wide variety of civil, political, economic, and social rights pertaining to refugees. Among the principles enshrined in those pacts is the fundamental right not to be returned to a place of persecution, and, implicitly, a right to a fair proceeding to determine refugee status.
A recent mission to the Bahamas undertaken by the Forced Migration Projects found significant shortfalls in Bahamian compliance with the treaties and its protocol. In particular, conditions at the Carmichael Road facility, the island nation’s main detention center for asylum seekers, were found to be substandard. Many Cubans and Haitians held at the facility were living in squalor as they awaited the outcome of status determination proceedings.
“This transit center has become an inappropriate jail for many asylum
seekers,” Helton said. “Their status is prolonged, their living conditions
are abysmal, and procedures are not in place to identify refugees who should
be released.”
The Carmichael Road facility is so overcrowded that some detainees
must sleep on the floors of trailer-like structures. Sanitation and health
facilities are insufficient, and the quality of the food is poor. Detainees
reported that they suffered from mental strain, citing the excruciating
boredom and high anxiety caused by a very uncertain future.
When the FMP undertook its mission at the end of April, there were 318 detainees at the Carmichael Road center, including 218 Cubans (161 men, 37 women, and 20 minors) and 47 Haitians (35 men, 10 women and 6 minors). While Cubans, Haitians, and others are periodically deported back to their home countries, interviews with detainees showed that a typical stay can last three months or more.
The Bahamas bears primary responsibility for improving conditions for asylum seekers. Yet the international community, including international organizations like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, should stand ready to help with training programs and other measures that could improve conditions for asylum seekers.
In addition, there is a clear regional dimension to this situation that requires a regionally coordinated governmental approach. For example, U.S. Coast Guard vessels regularly interdict Cubans and Haitians in Bahamian territorial waters. This involvement should carry with it a corresponding measure of responsibility to ensure humane treatment in the Bahamian camp.
“This situation of abuse could be ameliorated by a genuine effort at regional burden sharing, whether by providing appropriate levels of funding, or by accepting some of the asylum seekers themselves,” Helton said. “The Bahamas should not have to bear this burden alone.”
Advisory Committee:
Ludmilla Alexeeva
Jeremy R. Azrael
Arthur C. Helton (convenor)
Murray Feshbach
Morten Kjaerum
Aryeh Neier
Barnett R. Rubin
Warren Zimmermann
Staff:
Arthur C. Helton, Director
Justin Burke
Eliana Jacobs
Marie J. Jeannot
Paulette A. Layton
Alexander Lupis
Olena Sydorenko
The Open Society Institute-New
York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the
development of open
societies around the world.
OSI-New York develops and implements a variety of domestic and international
programs in the areas of
educational, social, and legal
reform, and encourages public debate and policy alternatives in complex
and often controversial fields.
OSI-New York is part of a network
of more than 24 autonomous nonprofit foundations and other organizations
created and funded by
philanthropist George Soros
in Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Haiti, and South
Africa, as well as in the United
States.
© OSI, July 1998