Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Refugees

Refugees

On the verge of Statelessness

by

By Prachi Aryal

People from the state of Assam stand in que to verify their documents. Source: PTI

Hannah Arendt in her book ‘The Origin of Totalitarianism’ raised citizenship as the “right to have rights”. In the Indian state of Assam, over 1.9 million people are being denied citizenship, and thus rights, after the Government of India on August 31, 2019 released the National Register of Citizens (NRC) . The list ostensibly attempts to identify illegal immigrants especially those who percolated through the porous border with Bangladesh. The NRC’s update in the state was the first since 1951, following long-standing demands from the indigenous Assamese people.

Historical Significance of the NRC

The partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 was a crucial event that signified the end of colonialism, the birth of two nations and the emergence of varied national identities for its residents. The cartographic solutions of post-colonial countries have impacted the language of citizenship as they grapple with regulation of the movement of people across territories that are contiguous and porous.

The Northeast region of India is tucked away in a remote corner of the subcontinent wedged between China, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar. The mass exodus of people from Bangladesh (then East-Pakistan) following the Liberation War on 1971 to the state of Assam has fostered a political climate in which questions of ethnic identity, language and migration are central. During the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, East Pakistan seceded from Pakistan and became the independent country of Bangladesh, the Assamese fear of influx of immigrants was accentuated. The rising fear of threats to Assamese identity and indigeneity led to an anti-immigration movement in 1980s. This period witnessed heightened communal riots and bouts of violence that led to the Nellie massacre, killing almost 1800 Muslims. The movement ended with the signing of the Assam Accord in 1985.

The Assam Accord was a Memorandum of Settlement signed by the Governments of India and Assam, and the All-Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP) in New Delhi on August 15, 1985. It established a system that used date of entry to India as the basis of determining citizenship. The Accord legitimized the citizenship status of those who had entered Assam from then East Pakistan before 1 January 1966, while a provision for 10 years of disenfranchisement was set for those entering between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971. The accord further recommended that people who had entered after 24 March 1971 would be deported as illegal migrants.

The implications of the NRC

The August 31st list has left 1.9 million on the brink of statelessness, of these many are amongst the Muslim minority. The people excluded from the list do not have an alternate Bangladeshi citizenship and are mostly people who come poor backgrounds without access to proper paperwork.

The Indian Ministry of Home Affairs has amended the 1964 Foreigners (Tribunal) Order to establish tribunals across the country to monitor the complaints of people excluded from the NRC. If they are declared foreigners by the quasi-judicial courts, they can make an appeal to the State High Court or the Supreme Court.

The quasi-judicial courts have been criticized as being led by inexperienced people who often hold bias against Muslim communities. Moreover, the long battle of litigation puts immense pressure on the minorities in Assam.

With annual flooding and calamities hitting the poor in the state of Assam, the reliance on nearly 50-year-old documents as the basis of their citizenship renders them uniquely precarious. The NRC exercise is the worst-case scenario of how in a weak capacity state like Assam, where documents are poorly distributed, excessive reliance on paper to mediate citizenship works as an instrument of exclusion. The people who are unable to prove their citizenship will either be deported or placed in detention camps.

The Problematic created by NRC and CAA

At the heart of the problem of statelessness is the geneses of the NRC and the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA). The CAA mandates that Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan will not be treated as illegal immigrants. Instead, they will be eligible for citizenship after six years of residence in India. This is in accordance with the fear of many constitutionalists and observers that the laws, rule and jurisprudence on citizenship in India has become increasingly inflected by religion.

As highlighted by N.G. Jayal, there has been a transformation from the jus soli or birth-based principle of citizenship to a more jus sanguinis or descent-based principle in India. The enactment of CAA signifies a conspicuous deviation from the religion-neutral conception of citizenship contained in the constitution, thereby undermining the principle of jus soli.

Rizwana Shamshad mentions how the current popular discourse of Hindu nationalists in India advocates for the citizenship for Hindu Bangladeshis whilst demanding deportation of Muslim Bangladeshis. This results in the false narrative of identifying Hindu Bangladeshis as ‘refugees’ whilst labelling the Muslim Bangladeshis as ‘infiltrators.’ These narratives are then used for advocacy and campaigning during elections to secure votes by resonating with ‘hyper-nationalist’ emotions.

Furthermore, by rendering people stateless, India stands in violation of various articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantee freedom to choose residence and enshrine equal rights to minorities. Exclusions by the state based on race and descent also violate the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The uncertain battle ahead

The geneses of the NRC and CAA set out a path of uncertainty for the many minorities in the region of Assam. Through the CAA those who are excluded from the NRC and identify as any religion other than Muslim can get the status of refugee and hence seek citizenship in India. However, the Muslim population will not have any legal recourse to claim refugee status and will be labelled illegal immigrants. The immigrants face risk of indefinite detention and deportation.

The plight of these 1.9 million people has been overshadowed by the current pandemic. With minimal resources and in constant fear they risk being detained indefinitely without the access to legal recourse. The concern remains that the move to continue with the NRC, the poor from a weak capacity state will be the most disadvantaged. In trying to maintain popular support along the religious lines, India might create a new cohort of stateless people.

 

Prachi Aryal is an MA student in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. Her research interest is inclined towards Gender, Human Rights, and Cross border conflicts in transitioning nations and how visuals from conflict zones play a role in communicating the realities of conflict to the broader world. She completed her BA in Journalism from the University of Delhi, India.

War’s Invisible Killer: We Must Not Forget Populations Affected by Conflict during COVID-19

by

by Charlotte Hooker

A Syrian boy poses for a picture during an awareness workshop on coronavirus at a camp for displaced people in Atme town in Syria’s northwestern Idlib province (Image Credit: Aaref Watad/AFP)

 

Governments across the globe are acting on the informed assumption that deaths related to COVID-19 will rise so long as the number of cases exceeds the capacity of domestic healthcare services. The necessary response is compulsory social isolation and strict hygiene measures. In China, Europe, and the US, public places have been closed, mass gatherings banned, and public awareness campaigns have been initiated to offer guidance on how to wash one’s hands effectively. But in war-torn countries, where governments and healthcare systems have collapsed, running water is scarce, and soap is an unaffordable luxury, these measures are near impossible to implement. COVID-19, just like the countless diseases before it, will “ruthlessly exploit the conditions created by war.” Without a collective global response that accounts for the needs of conflict states and its displaced populations, the consequences of COVID-19 could be catastrophic.

The connection between war and disease is well documented in history. Before the 20th Century, combatants were more likely to die from disease than they were from battle wounds. In the Crimean War, for example, British soldiers died from sickness almost eight times more than they did from conflict-induced injuries (Pennington, 2019). As medicine advanced and basic hygiene practices improved, the emergence and spread of infectious disease amongst combatants was curbed considerably. However, this did little to contain the influenza pandemic of 1918–1919. The pandemic coincided with the mass migration of soldiers back to their home countries and resulted in the death of between 20 million–100 million people worldwide. This highlighted the burden that war placed on the health of civilian populations, which has only worsened as densely populated urban settings have become the primary hosts of major hostilities (Haraoui, 2018).

In Syria, healthcare services became an integrated part of the conflict. Between 2011 and 2014 alone, 57% of public hospitals were damaged and 160 doctors were jailed or killed. Vaccination coverage fell from 91% in 2010 to 45% in 2013 contributing to the re-emergence of polio, measles, and cutaneous leishmaniasis in Syria and neighbouring countries, particularly amongst displaced populations. COVID-19 presents the greatest threat to these people.

According to the UN High Commission on Refugees, there are currently 70.8 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, most of whom live in deplorable living conditions. On the Greek island of Lesbos, the Moria refugee camp “has one water point for every 1,300 people and one toilet for every 200 people,” says Apostolos Veizis, Director of Medical Operational Unit at Doctors Beyond Borders for Greece. In Idlib, refugee camps in north-western Syria, there are 1.4 doctors per 10,000 people, only 100 adult ventilators and fewer than 200 intensive care unit beds. Fatima Um Ali, a Syrian refugee, and her family have avoided death on multiple occasions since fleeing the Syrian conflict, “but what now,” she says, “we are going to be afraid of [COVID-19].” Without running water and soap, and no chance of isolating her family of 16 in the crowded settlements of Idlib, it will be difficult for Fatima’s family to dodge death once more.

Displaced populations are often dependent upon humanitarian assistance for survival. This is because healthcare services in conflict zones have long since collapsed, and any remaining government regime usually lacks funds or geographic reach to mobilise the necessary health, food, or economic resources. Bangladesh, for example, relies upon youth activists to educate Rohingya refugees from Myanmar on the importance of proper hygiene. Even in camps that are better off, conditions are ripe for COVID-19 to run rampant. According to Muriel Tschopp, Jordan Country Director at the Norwegian Refugee Council, the quasi-lockdown in Jordan in response to COVID-19 has grounded all Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), preventing them from providing daily service assistance, and reducing cash opportunities for refugees as local organisations are forced to halt business.

That is not to say that action has stopped entirely. In a recent interview, Muriel Tschopp explains that they have been using existing mechanisms, such as their database of refugee contact details, to contact those living in temporary settlements to provide guidance on how to limit the spread of disease. Similar action has to be taken by other NGOs. Doctors Beyond Borders representatives explain that they have been working with displaced peoples living in the camps to ensure the populations have access to information that will prevent disease spread and reduce panic. But this is not enough.

What is required is an international commitment to the protection of basic needs and care of conflict-affected populations. In a virtual press conference on March 23, 2020, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for “an immediate global ceasefire in all corners of the world.” Warring parties in some states, including Yemen and Cameroon, have agreed to the ceasefire in order to allow focus on the fight against COVID-19. This is a good start. Now, states across the world must mobilise funds to support the provision of basic resources such as water sanitation systems, hygiene kits, and food over the coming months, with immediate effect—if there is one lesson the world can learn from the 1918 flu, it is that early and sustained action saves lives.

Some believe that it is the duty of the government to prioritise its own citizens. The Trump Administration is proposing a USD$3 billion cut in funding for global health programmes, including halving its funding for the World Health Organisation who currently leads the fight against COVID-19. But if we turn our focus inward, and let fear be used as ammunition to stigmatise those who are not ‘one of us,’ we will have failed the test of humanity. A failure to address the basic needs of conflict-affected populations will mean thousands of needless deaths and this will not be contained to displaced populations. Disease knows no borders, so the only way to prevent the spread across temporary settlements, neighbouring states, and beyond is to ensure universal preparedness. A collective global response that accounts for all human life is crucial in the fight against COVID-19. The world has come together in the past to fight common evils. We can do it again.

Charlotte is studying for a MA in International Relations at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. Prior to postgraduate study, Charlotte studied Politics and Economics BSc at the University of Southampton where she was awarded the highest dissertation mark in the discipline. During her undergraduate studies, she completed a Year in Employment at Ofgem, supporting work on domestic energy policy. Her research interests include space security, cybersecurity, energy security and the role of industry in the fight against climate change, and the international political economy and security implications of a rising China.

IDPs in Iraq and the progress of the Islamic State: An interview with Hebatalla Taha (IISS)

by

By: Jack Curran-Persell

The UN estimates there are now over 3 million Internally Displaced Persons in Iraq with that figure only set to rise further. http://www.geo.tv/article-167331-Displaced-top-2-million-as-winter-hits-northern-Iraq
The UN estimates there are now over 3 million Internally Displaced Persons in Iraq with that figure only set to rise further. http://www.geo.tv/article-167331-Displaced-top-2-million-as-winter-hits-northern-Iraq

Hebatalla Taha is a Research Analyst for the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London where she focuses on the Middle-East and North Africa.

Jack Curran-Persell: Earlier this month, you wrote a very interesting article for IISS on the situation for IDPs in Iraq. With the UN estimating over 3 million Iraqis have been displaced, could you explain what the current situation is like for these people?

Hebatalla Taha: Conditions for IDPs in Iraq have been dire. In the article, I focused on how ISIS in particular limits the movement of civilians in areas under its control, but there are actually various armed groups and actors across Iraq that make any movement across the country quite difficult. This is especially the case for IDPs in Anbar province, who represent 40% of displaced people in Iraq. Many head to Baghdad, which has one of the highest IDP populations alongside Anbar, but some are unable to enter and remain trapped in Anbar province. In Anbar there is humanitarian presence due to the high security risks, which restricts assistance to IDPs there. Other IDPs from provinces such as Diyala or Salah al-Din tend to go to Kurdish areas and Kirkuk.

According to the International Organisation for Migration, 70% of IDPs are living in private settings, such as homes that they are renting, with families, or hotels; 19% are in ad-hoc buildings, and another 8% in camps.

Funding for Iraqi IDPs is also becoming an issue. The UN’s 2015 appeal for Iraq is still 90% underfunded, and because of this, it has had to shut down, or scale back, various programmes assisting IDPs. Such conditions are related to the decision by many displaced people to flee the country altogether, whether to Europe or elsewhere, seeing no prospects for improvement.

What is the attitude of the Baghdad government, ISIS, and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to those fleeing conflict in Iraq?

Regarding the attitudes towards IDPs, the government is worried about ISIS-linked infiltrators within refugee groups-especially in Baghdad which tends to have the highest number of monthly fatalities due to frequent bombings, many of which claimed by ISIS. Therefore the Baghdad government has implemented heavy restrictions and background checks, and the process often requires a long wait and sponsors. The Bzeibiz bridge between Anbar and Baghdad is mostly closed, according to UNOCHA, and only people who require medical treatment are actually allowed to cross into Baghdad.

The KRG is similar in that it is worried about ISIS operatives launching attacks in its territories, but it also cites economic reasons. The KRG says it is cash-strapped and doesn’t have the resources to deal with the influx of refugees. The situation is exacerbated by the KRG’s own rivalry with the Baghdad government; it feels that Baghdad is not sharing the burden. The political dynamics between the KRG and Baghdad are also affecting ‘contested’ areas such as Kirkuk, where the Kurds fear ‘Arabisation’ by IDPs and both sides are suspicious of one another’s actions in Kirkuk.

ISIS has tried to prevent people from leaving the territory under its control, placing explosives around cities, confiscating identity cards, and executing people who are caught trying to flee. Its bureaucracy has allowed people to leave in the past but under particular conditions, such as leaving their families hostage, giving up their homes, or paying large sums of money. ISIS is using the plight of the displaced people as a recruitment tactic. It uses images of Sunni IDPs struggling to enter Baghdad in its audio-visual material with the message, lamenting their inability to enter various provinces, including their own capital. It tries to depict itself as the only actor defending Sunnis and therefore they should to their homes in areas under ISIS control, or even volunteer to join the group.”

So Sunni people fleeing undermines ISIS’s image of a cohesive Islamic state-building project?

Very much so. And you can see this in recent propaganda videos directed at refugees leaving Iraq. A recent video urged refugees to join the ‘caliphate’, rather than fleeing to what it regards as a xenophobic Europe. Indeed, the fact that many people are fleeing ISIS contradicts the image of itself as a coherent state which it has been trying to project. Having people to govern over is essential for ISIS’s vision.

You mention at the end of your article that fleeing has become increasingly difficult because of a crackdown on internal resistance groups. How effective have groups such as the Mosul Brigade been and what types of resistance have they been putting up?

Information on resistance groups in Mosul is difficult to obtain and verify; this is the case with most of the information coming out of Mosul in general. That is why is it’s difficult to assess the impact or magnitude of such an internal resistance, or to speculate as to whether it is an organised resistance movement, Some claim they are coordinating with the Iraqi security forces and the coalition, but others appear to be individuals reacting to the violence perpetrated by ISIS or settling scores with ISIS fighters.

My guess would be that it is a combination of both. One of the main indicators that there is significant internal resistance in Mosul is that ISIS has actually instigated these heavy crackdowns in Mosul, executing hundreds of people (some sources have cited figures as high as 2,000). The make-up of those who have been executed is also telling: most are linked to the Iraqi security forces, who are thought to have been behind many of the attacks against ISIS fighters.

It has been exactly a year since the first UK airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq. How effective have these US-led air strikes in Iraq and Syria been?

The airstrikes on their own do not have a decisive effect, but combined with ground operations, they have assisted Kurdish groups in regaining significant swathes of territory in northern Iraq and restricting expansion by ISIS. In the operation against Tikrit in March 2015, for example, which was led by the Hashed al-Shabi militia, the belated airstrikes by the US-led coalition were in fact key in expelling ISIS from the city. The airstrikes have not been as effective in Syria, aside from assisting Kurdish groups in the north, such as the well-known battle for Kobani. This is linked to the more complicated dynamics of the Syrian crisis: there is a lot more happening than just ISIS.

What do you make of the recent Russian military commitment to Syria in order to support Assad supposedly against ISIS?

It is a disturbing development especially since the conflict contains many actors beyond Bashar al-Assad and ISIS, and, as you were suggesting, the first airstrikes didn’t target ISIS, but rather, rebel groups.

Tragically, I think this will most likely only enable the war to drag on longer, with severe humanitarian effects—ones that we already witnessing and that will not simply go away.

Away from Iraq and Syria, how much progress are ISIS making in areas such as Libya or Yemen?

In Yemen, ISIS-linked groups that have slowly emerged throughout the past year appear to be making progress in the chaos of the current war. A recent report from a journalist based in Aden noted that ISIS seem to be more organised than Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and has been successful in directing some of Al-Qaeda’s recruits and infiltrating its support bases. This is important because it suggests that the situation is changing. Earlier, ISIS-linked groups (which usually call themselves ‘Wilayet Sanaa’ or ‘Wilayet Aden’ or others based on the province) did not seem to be as organised as AQAP and were unable to challenge it. Most of the attacks by ISIS-linked groups in Yemen have been against the Houthi or Shia mosques in Sanaa, although there have been other smaller-scale incidents elsewhere, such as in the south.

In Libya, ISIS-linked groups are one of many groups vying for control, including various jihadi organisations and Islamist groups. ISIS-linked operatives have taken advantage of the chaotic war to establish a presence there and create a ‘jihadi front’ in North Africa—to which many foreign fighters have fled. It is important to emphasise that although the group has expanded due to foreign fighters, it has failed to gain many recruits from within Libya. So overall, within Libya’s military and political context, ISIS remains quite marginal.

In Egypt, the situation is different because there is a functioning state and a functioning army, but the ISIS-linked group, Wilayet Sinai in North Sinai has posed a serious threat, and its capacity has continued to grow, despite escalating crackdowns by the army.

While many of these groups have adopted tactics used by ISIS, such as beheadings, they don’t merely reflect an expansion by ISIS into these territories. Both sides effectively benefit from this partnership. ISIS can give the impression that it is unstoppable, undefeatable, and is everywhere. Its local affiliates - predominantly opportunistic groups – gain notoriety by leveraging ISIS’s name, which helps them win over recruits and possibly get funding or weapons. This is also discernible in who the ISIS-linked groups view as the main adversary in each of the different contexts, i.e. the army in North Sinai in Egypt, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Libya Dawn coalition in Libya.

In your opinion, how does a state like Libya which is effectively a failed state benefit groups like ISIS?

Armed groups such as ISIS thrive in that atmosphere of a political and security vacuum, and their emergence is fundamentally linked to the state of war. This state of war provides obvious logistical advantages, such as the ability to smuggle foreign fighters into the country, and the lack of a functioning security apparatus enables them to organise, expand, etc., but they also benefit from the political reasons that lead to the descent into a failed state. ISIS-affiliated groups, as I mentioned, are not created by ISIS, but are informed by the political crises governing each of the countries.

Thank you.

Jack Curran-Persell is currently completing an MA in Conflict, Security, and Development within the War Studies Department at King’s College London.