United Nations High Commission for Refugees: briefing

Meeting report

HOME AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
19 October 2004
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSION FOR REFUGEES: BRIEFING

Chairperson: Mr H Chauke (ANC)

Documents handed out:
United Nations High Commission for Refugees briefing
UNHCR Summary of Strategic Plan 2002-2004: HIV/AIDS and refugees
UNHCR Declaration from African Parliamentary Union Conference in Benin, June 2004

SUMMARY
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) briefed the Committee on the history, mandate and principles governing the Commission and their work in South Africa. Clarity was provided on the different categories of refugees and on the conventions that South Africa had signed. The Commission gave detailed experiences of refugees in South Africa and the challenges facing the key stakeholders. There were then Committee discussions on when a refugee ceased to be a refugee and the implications for the host country. Department backlogs were also discussed, and the UNHCR support for its turnaround strategy. The issue of xenophobia was raised as a serious concern because it came from officials and ordinary South Africans. The UNHCR agreed to assist the Committee and Parliament so that refugee legislation could be more informed.

Discussion
The Chairperson explained that the meeting was part of an ongoing programme to deal with refugees in South Africa. The Committee had visited refugee centres around the country. In the budget vote, the Department had mentioned prioritising information technology and producing a 'smart card' for refugees. The Committee wanted to get a more direct perspective from an organisation that dealt directly with refugees, in order to better deal with the problems identified. The shortage of staff, inadequate information technology and weak infrastructure at the Department, were named as major problems.

UNHCR briefing
Ms B Donkoh (Regional Representative) explained the history, mandate and principles of the UNHCR. Ms Donkoh presented the various issues that the organisation dealt with and clarified the various actors providing protection and solutions. She discussed how Parliamentarians could assist. The definitions of refugees and stateless persons were presented. The Commission did not assist economic migrants and refugees from national disasters. Illegal immigrants were also discussed.

Discussion
Ms N Gxowa (ANC) asked how the UN and governments determined when refugees' needs had been met.

Ms Donkoh said that this was a question of cessation. Conditions were listed in the Conventions signed in 1954 and 1967. This was covered in Article 1c. Basically, if there was a regime change and a new dispensation, then refugees could return. They would no longer have refugee status.

Mr K Morwamoche (ANC) asked for a definition on a 'stateless person'.

Ms Donkoh gave examples, such as the Banyamulenge people living in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) but who were Tutsi. DRC legislation provided that one had to have Congolese ancestry to be a citizen. Thus the Banyamulenge were not covered by the legislation. This issue was part of the war in that region.

Ms N Mathibela (ANC) asked about the Palestine Convention of 1948. Did this allow assistance to known criminals?

Ms Donkoh explained that a Palestinian UN Agency had been set up to take care of refugees from Palestine and the 'Near East'. If they fled outside that area, the UNHCR would assist them.

Mr W Skhosana (ANC) asked, given that the UN had decided on a global approach to refugees, were there continents that had implemented their own approach? He also asked about South Africa's observer status at the African Parliamentary Conference held between the UNHCR, the African Parliamentary Union and the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Cotonou, Benin.

Ms Donkoh explained that the meeting was a union of Parliaments in Africa made up of national Parliamentarians who pursued the same interests. She said that continents used their own approach and the Organisation of African Unity's (OAU) action in 1969 is testament to that. They did not throw away the universal approach; rather they included African experiences. The definition used by the UN was a narrow definition and the OAU merely expanded the definition to include categories that were not covered. If this had not been done it would have led to problems and, for example, there would be debates as to whether the 300 000 people in Chad were refugees.

Mr Chauke asked what the role of UNHCR was in repatriation. He asked about Mozambique and Angola in particular. The war in both countries was over so what would happen now?

Ms Donkoh said usually there was mass voluntary repatriation. She said that in the case of Mozambique some people had stayed in South Africa for two decades. In the early 1990s, Mozambiquans were able to return home. Between 1993 and 1996, the South African authorities and the UN agreed on voluntary repatriation. Some remained in South Africa because they felt that they had cut off links with their home countries. South Africa had agreed on criteria to regularise the stay of these refugees. There was no law prior to 1996 that allowed these refugees to become permanent residents. She admitted that there were still pockets of individuals that were unable to take the offered opportunities. This was because they were unable to prove that they had been in South Africa for a long period of time because they had been living clandestine lives as refugees. Mozambique no longer had refugees because there had been a window to return and facilities were provided. The UNHCR had made a proposal to South Africa that Mozambique was no longer producing refugees. This was a declaration of cessation. Individuals could still claim and the case had to be looked at specifically but not as a condition of war.

The same process would apply to Angolans. After a long period of fighting there was now peace and there were conditions of return. The program for voluntary return had been started not only in South Africa but also in Zambia, Namibia, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Botswana. These agreements were called Tripartite Voluntary Agreements. An agreement had been signed between South Africa, Angola and Zambia in 2003. Circumstances allowed for the safe return of Angolans. These agreements allowed for refugees' safety and dignity and married nationals to return with other nationals. All issues can be catered for in the agreements. Since 2003 there had been one tripartite agreement. A second meeting was needed to agree on the entry point and what would happen on arrival. The process had been very slow and the second meeting had not taken place. An issue raised by Angolans in South Africa was doubts of returning because they had seen another peace initiative that had failed. They wanted to see the elections occur before returning. Ms Donkoh pointed out that there was a difference between urban refugees (mainly in South Africa) and rural refugees (mainly in Zambia). Some refugees had walked home and this caused a dilemma for the UNHCR because they wanted to wait. People would not wait to set up basic measures of life. A few had gone back from South Africa. The UNHCR were currently publishing a program of return. The 1^st phase would be voluntary. Refugees were being given opportunities by governments to return. She made it clear that refugees should not be forced to return to their home countries. After this stage they would look at exceptional reasons for those who wanted to remain as refugees. They would then move to normal immigrations visas after the declaration of cessation.

Mr Chauke asked about Zimbabwe. He said that when the Committee had visited Lindela, the majority of those repatriated were Zimbabweans. He said that those being repatriated were 100% Africans. He wanted to know what the majority of white Zimbabweans were doing because they were never in Lindela. Some white people were waiting for their status but they were never being sent back. He wanted to know if Zimbabweans were economic or political refugees.

Ms Donkoh said that the issue of Zimbabwe was a complex one. She said that in the mixed flow there were some genuine asylum seekers and economic refugees. She said that they could not say broadly that people leaving Zimbabwe were asylum seekers. Many Zimbabweans were not interested in making the refugee claim. It was a question of economics. They were trying to get relief from economic depression. She said that Zimbabweans should be given the opportunity to explain their reasons because it is a wrong impression that all Zimbabweans were economic migrants. She said that the UNHCR and the South African government had to monitor the situation in case it did escalate. This was covered in the 1969 convention.

Mr Chauke said that they wanted to know how many Africans were applying and whether it was difficult to get status because of this. Were white Zimbabweans given preference? To his knowledge no white Zimbabweans had been sent home. Lindela was entirely black. They had to understand countries producing refugees.
Ms Donkoh said that there were no white Zimbabweans seeking asylum. She suggested that this was because most white Zimbabweans had dual nationalities either with South Africa or Britain. As a result they had options. It was recognised that people should take the safer nationality.

Mr A Mbilinyi (Regional Representative: UNHCR) informed the Committee that in 2002 white Zimbabwean farmers had applied for asylum in Cape Town. They were recorded as South African refugees. The UNHCR advised the Department that the recording was incorrect. They were removed from refugee status and advised to find other methods of status. He said that the highest number of deportees was to Mozambique. The introduction of visa requirements would diminish the problem. He said that most Zimbabweans in Lindela had come for a short shopping spree or to find employment for a short time. He said that in South Africa there was freedom of movement whereas in Botswana there were different asylum requirements. He agreed that multiple nationalities were a factor for white farmers.

Ms Donkoh said that there were currently 26 000 refugees in South Africa. The highest number came from the Great Lakes region followed by the DRC, Rwanda/Burundi, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, a few from Liberia, Sierra Leone and Angola. These were 'refugee producing' countries. Ms Donkoh said that they had to rely on the Department of Home Affairs records because they were not part of the processing. The Department needed to improve when it came to processing. This need was part of the turn around strategy. The UNHCR had offered to assist in this regard. There were still 90 000 applications pending from countries such as India, Pakistan, Bulgaria, Ghana and Kenya.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) was astounded by the number of refugees from the DRC, Ethiopia and Sudan. Why did they pass so many countries to come to South Africa? It made him think that they were economic refugees.

Ms Donkoh said that the most concentrated numbers of refugees was next door to people's own countries. She said Zambia and Tanzania had sheltered refugees from many countries at war in that region. She explained that the majority of Ethiopians and Somalis were concentrated in Kenya. What South Africa experienced was a trickle of the numbers. The framework of protecting refugees was based on what was reasonable. If refugees did not find sufficient protection they moved on. Economic prospects may have little to do with it but that did not mean that they were not refugees. Sustaining situations were something that governments and the UNHCR grappled with. How did you make a person's life worth living when circumstances provided did not meet minimum requirements? She personally did not want to stay in a camp. Refugees were allowed to move to secure protection. It was a question of what was reasonable and a real necessity. They had to look at the question of why they moved when there was no need to because it was hard to send them back. It was a challenge that the UNHCR was facing. The solution was to make sure that there was not a weak link so there would be no reason for refugees to move on if the conditions were the same. The UNHCR did not take economic interests into account.

Mr Swart wanted to know if the UNHCR assistance to refugees included a financial contribution to the upkeep of refugees or was this the responsibility of the host country?

Ms Donkoh said that it was the role of the UNHCR to give assistance to government in taking responsibility for refugees. Alongside with giving input into legislation the Commission had trained most of the officials dealing with refugees in the Home Affairs departments in most of the major cities. They funded US$25 000 to the Department in 2002 to remove the backlog of 60 to 65 000 that was there from 2000. This failed because whilst this was happening another backlog was growing. More could have been done such as the hiring of more staff. She repeated that the Commission was very happy with the Home Affairs Department's turnaround strategy and they had offered assistance to train officials. A large part of the Commission's work was to capacitate government and non-governmental organisations involved in this work.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) wanted to know about co-ordinated assistance to refugees. How was assistance given because the systems were not the same? He raised a concern that some of these countries were not at war, so how were the people classified as refugees?

Ms Donkoh said that the UNHCR's ultimate aim in South Africa was to open up opportunities for refugees in social assistance and primary education. They wanted to ensure funding for the most vulnerable refugees. The UNHCR currently funded some refugee centres around the country and entered into partnerships to provide access to health care and food parcels. The whole area needed a co-ordinated approach. The Commission had made inputs into legislation such as the childcare grant. Currently there was no concerted effort or assistance coming from government. South Africa's experience was made up of camps but the country did not use the camp system. This was purely a management issue. Freedom of movement was a crucial issue and the South African government had not wanted to further remove human rights from refugees. She pointed out that most African countries had camps.
Mr S Vundisa (ANC) was also concerned about people crossing many countries from Ethiopia. The fact that people were not being forced to go back was a problem. He referred to Angola as a serious problem because there was no war but they were allowing Angolans to flock to South Africa and add to the unemployment rate. He said that the fact that they wanted to wait for their elections was a problem. What strategy did the UNHCR employ to force governments to engage these problems?

Ms C Ludwabe (ANC) commented that when people left South Africa in the 1960s they went all over Africa and in most cases they went through the Presidents of those countries. The South African government was ten years old and millions of South Africans did not have the child support grant. Refugees had to go and be dealt with by Home Affairs.

Mr Chauke stated the Committee had to engage with the treatment of refugees in South Africa and the conventions that South Africa had signed to ensure effective solutions. The lack of understanding on the part of the Committee would perpetuate xenophobic attitudes. He ruled that a meeting would be held with Home Affairs and the UNHCR about the recording of refugees and what was happening with the 90 000 applications.

He said that another issue that had to be discussed was the integration of refugees in society. A proper system was needed because local government would have a role in the provision of housing and social development would be a player in terms of social grants. The Committee had to unpack the role of Parliamentarians as suggested by the UNHCR. He said that refugees and immigrants could not be separated. He expressed concern about xenophobia and its perpetrators. Not only were dark Africans the recipients of prejudice but also the transportation of deportees was leading to corruption. The government was spending millions of rands on deportees only to have them return the next day. A meeting would have to be held to capacitate Members about current trends, legislation and conventions. The Committee might have to change the Refugee Act but it was clear that they had not reached that level as yet. There were many challenges and a structured program would have to be designed to deal with the problem in a more detailed manner. The UNHCR had to encourage governments to deal with the problems of refugees.

Ms Donkoh thanked the Committee for the opportunity. The practice had to be kept of not sending refugees back to their countries. The UNHCR would act as a resource for the Committee and would comment and advise on legislation. She added that they were involved in the 'Role Back Xenophobia' campaign and that South Africa was not unique in the problem of xenophobia. She recommended that the Committee work on improving the reception centres mainly in Limpopo, but also around the country. She concluded by saying that the country had to remember that refugees added a beneficial dimension of life to South Africa.

The meeting was adjourned.