Prepared by : Mrinal Kanti Chakma

Paper presented to: THE REGIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT IN ASIA

Bangkok, Thailand, February 22-24, 2000.

Before coming to the point of meaning and process of empowerment, I would like to turn to the conditions of the subject called Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs). Since the beginning of the process of defining the IDPs in1992 there were lots of debates and discussions, inclusion and exclusion and finally the new UN draft on Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement defines the IDPs as:

The very imperative of the word 'flee' in the above mentioned definition reminds the precarious condition or threat to life that compel people to leave their habitual place of residence. The causes mentioned to make this 'flee' are nothing but gross violation of basic human rights. The scale and dimension of violation of basic human rights upon the IDPs are so perilous that survival instinct drives them away from the violators but the reality confines them within the boundary very often protected or controlled by the violators. In a situation like this the IDPs are like trapped birds whose fate absolutely depend upon the wish of the violators. At this stage I wish to have a close look at these trapped peoples whose physical and psychological sufferings to my understanding can not be edified by any mortal word or language.

The exact number of these trapped peoples is not known. However, there is a broad international consensus that the number stands in between 25 to 30 million. Out of this up to 16 million in Africa, six or seven million in Asia, around five million in Europe (predominantly former Yugoslavia and the Caucasus region) and up to three million in the Americas.²

They are found in a wide verity of circumstances. Sometimes they are trapped in snow clad mountain areas in a terribly shivering condition as it happened in case of Iraqi Kurdish in 1991. Sometimes they are bound to take refuge in dense forest to escape the armed conflict or mass killings as the hill people of Chittagong Hill Tracts did in the eighties and the East Timoris did recently. Even in some other situation they move toward the overcrowded city zone as it happened in the state of Sierra Leone where up to half a million displaced people made their way to the capital of Freetown at the height of the country’s civil war in 1995. Similar situations are also found in the urban centers of many war-torn states throughout Africa: Addis Ababa, Khartoum, Kisangani, Luanda, Maputo and Mogadishu, are a few examples of this type.

. Wherever might be their geographical location but their inner self is always haunted by the memories of massacre, inhumane torture lost of their dear and near relatives. In a situation of high intensity conflict the luckier groups sometimes get extensive media focus but in case of protected or low intensity conflict sometimes they are left unnoticed and their sufferings are forgotten. What sort of empowerment does the international community can thing of for these hapless population on earth? Of course, protection and security come at the first place. When this can be ensured only than other provisions of resettlement or reintegration or if circumstances demand a safer passage can be thought.

The question of protection is obviously associated to the question, whose mandate it is? In fact the state under which jurisdiction they are living or compel to live is supposed to be the protector of its citizen. The IDPs are insecure because the very expected protector is either unable or unwilling to protect them. In a situation like this IDPs fall into a vacuum of responsibility with the state. This failure of obligation of the state toward its citizens is the main cause that draws attention and subsequently demands the role of protection by international community.

However, there is also opinion that over-eagerness to promote international involvement may in other way dilute the notion of state responsibility. Hence, rebuilding the state capacity by adopting various measures is also considered as an essential process toward safeguarding the IDPs. The very notion of this process is building up state's responsibility by making the state or government or other actors agree on certain principles at the first step and secondly, make them act in a way that is conducive to prevention and resolution of the internal displacement problem.

The role of civil society, media and NGOs to uphold and promote the state's responsibility in this regard is very important. A collaborative and responsive network of both national and international footings is important to enhance the process of building up state's responsibility. Working toward this, there is a need to chart out a well-planned strategy. Of course, there are lots of obstacles to over come. Though there is a worldwide concern about the gravity of the internal displacement problem but no single agency has the legal or statuary mandate to carry out the responsibility for the IDPs.

The question of internal displacement is also politically sensitive one. The point of state's sovereignty on the issue of its internal affairs works as a barrier to international involvement. In many cases, in fact the governments or revel groups do not want international involvement or do not accept any responsibility toward the displaced peoples. In situations of ethnic conflict or civil war sometimes population displacement becomes a part of military strategy and civilians are used as human shield. At this connection, Dr. Francis Deng, has rightly remarked

Apart from this political barrier there are many others operational obstacles to work with the internally displaced peoples. Sometimes because of ongoing conflict collection of data in the affected areas might become very difficult which might work as an impediment to humanitarian assistance process. Examples of such type of impediments in collecting data are Somalia, Zaire and Liberia etc. Working with internally displaced persons also means working under dangerous conditions, often near or even in the middle of a combat zone - much closer, in any case, to the battlefield than would be any refugee camp⁴.

To overcome such type of hazards there is a need of immense humane potentiality and a well-coordinated work force. A collaborative arrangement among the different relief, development and human rights agencies and NGOs is highly essential to strengthen the protection and welfare activities. There is a need of establishing international information center for systematic monitoring of internal displacement on worldwide basis. Such type of specific information center with a constant feed back from the affected internally displaced peoples' areas will certainly help to make the humanitarian assistance process more effective and meaningful.

Emergency assistance i.e. supply of food materials, shelter and medicines without adequate attention to the physical security of the internally displaced may also make the protection less effective. While the question of physical protection arises there comes the point of adequacy of legal provisions and different options of humanitarian intervention. According to one school of thought existing international and humanitarian laws are detailed enough to cover the interest of the internally displaced peoples. This school of thought suggests that dissemination, development and application of the existing international laws are more important than development of alternative legal instruments or laws. This school also believes that introduction of a new legal standard will weaken or narrow the scope of already existing norms under which the issue of internal displacement can be covered.

Again, another school of thought believes that existing international laws are inadequate and there is a need of development of new legal standard to meet up the specific needs of the IDPs. In fact, after meticulously studying on the subject Dr. Deng pointed out many areas in which international laws are inadequate. He also found some weakness in the existing laws to protect the specific interest of the IDPs. His finding leads us to the new initiatives of filling the gaps in the existing legal framework and addressing more directly the particular protection needs of the internally displaced peoples.⁵

Of course, however precise may be the content of the legal standards or laws it will not protect the internally displaced by itself. The process of making it work is the vital point working toward this. For that, there is a need of dissemination of such legal instruments or provisions to all those individuals and institutions whose policies, decisions and actions would have a bearing on the issue. Perhaps, an intensive process of education, training and public information dissemination is also essential so that the individuals and institutions related to the issue act according to the objectives of these instruments.

The act of protecting the internally displaced and other victims of violence is very complex because such persons remain within the jurisdiction of the state which is unwilling or unable to guarantee the security of its citizens. Thus protection of the internally displaced become directly associated to the question of state sovereignty. This fact leads us to the question whether the job of protection can be substituted by humanitarian organizations in absence of protection of the state? Do the United Nations and other multilateral actors have the rights to intervene in a more assertive or coercive manner? It is observed that the growing tendency is to avoid these difficult issues instead, concentrating excessively on the provisions of emergency assistance to the internally displaced populations. The limitations of the humanitarian actions undertaken by humanitarian and civil organizations raised the issue of whether more assertive form of action and interventions are required. In this connection the UN High Commissioner for Refugees remarked:

"The threat of force, and the will to use it, becomes indispensable where consensual arrangements have no chance of success." "Enforcement," she continues, "is a critical issue. It may complicate the arduous efforts of conflict mediators. It may undermine neutrality and engender risks for impartial humanitarian action. But are strict neutrality and effective protection not often incompatible? Humanitarian responses should serve first of all the protection of people."⁶

However, reality also suggests that humanitarian responses to the protection of the internally displaced populations are often guided by geo-political consideration. In many cases the plights and sufferings of small groups of internally displaced population remained unattended or forgotten- the issue of internal displacement of the hill people of Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) is a case in point. At this stage I would like to draw the attention of displacement problem of this forgotten people.

In fact more than two decades of protected conflict in the form of insurgency and counter-insurgency operation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, south-eastern part of Bangladesh displaced more than 50% of hill peoples' population. During the conflicting period at least twelve massacres upon the hill peoples were committed by Bangladesh armed forces⁷. As result of this conflict a kind of centrifugal and centripetal tendency of population displacement was observed. Just to avoid the conflict and atrocities of government military some groups of hill people silently moved toward the small towns and administrative centers while others moved toward the deep forest and compel to live a kind of nomadic existence. In 1986 at the height of the conflict 60,000 of them had become refugee in Tripura state of India.

A peace accord was signed between the Jana Smahati Samiti (JSS), the political organization of the hill peoples and the government of Bangladesh on 2^nd December 1997. The CHT refugees in Tripura, India also returned to their homeland. But they became displaced for the second time in their life as after returning to their homeland they had found their lands and homesteads are occupied by the settlers. In fact these settlers are brought into the homeland of the hill people from the plain land of the country as a part of counter-insurgency tactics by the government. Though as per the accords signed between the government of Bangladesh and the Jana Samhati Samiti (JSS) and also the Refugee Welfare Association, the government of Bangladesh is responsible to ensure the resettlement of the returnee refugees and the internally displaced hill peoples. But practically none of these agreed provisions are implemented. Though the insurgent groups deposited their arms but the region is yet to be demilitarized as per the provision of the peace accord⁸. There is no independent national or international monitoring or observer group to look into process of implementation of the peace accord. So, the plight of these forgotten peoples remained unattended and their mind is haunted by the question when a person ceased to be internally displaced. The job of 'empowerment' will be completed only then when none on this earth will be haunted by such question.

Japan CHT Committee Homepage

jcchti@alles.or.jp