UNHCR and Prevention

Introduction

1.         This paper will attempt to clarify certain issues related to the concept of prevention. A framework within which UNHCR activities in the field of prevention could be situated will be suggested. The absence of such a framework has not allowed a delineation of "prevention"-type activities as a regular part of the functions of UNHCR. While numerous activities have continued to be carried out under the name "prevention", there seems to be little agreement on what "prevention" actually means and how the concept can be used to the best interests of the organisation and the beneficiaries of its work.

2.         A recent effort to review the role of UNHCR in prevention activities took place in February 1997. This Consultation on Prevention produced a report that provided a substantive overview of the notion of prevention, the legal basis and political context of any UNHCR activities in the field of prevention and attempted to set out an operational framework for UNHCR involvement in this area. Using this report as a base, the current paper will attempt to move ahead in further clarifying the concept of prevention, and identifying areas where UNHCR can be expected to make a contribution.

Background

3.        "Prevention" is a word that has over recent years become an integral part of international discourse, particularly with respect to violent conflict. One recent collection of essays devoted to this subject starts with a rather emphatic passage:

One of the supreme creations of the human spirit is the idea of prevention. Like liberty and equality, it is a seminal concept drawn from a reservoir of optimism that centuries of epidemics, famines, and wars have failed to deplete. It is an amalgam of hope and possibility which assumes that misery is not an undefiable mandate of fate, a punishment only redeemable in a later life, but a condition that can be treated like a disease and sometimes cured or even prevented.[1]

At first glance, the meaning of "prevention" appears quite clear, filled with the good intention of addressing certain important issues that may cause much harm if they are not dealt with in a pre-emptive manner. A medical axiom is frequently invoked - "prevention is better than cure".

4.         However, finding practical responses to the challenge of prevention has been an elusive task. A consideration of the literature on the issue of prevention reveals a picture of fascinating variety and relative confusion, reflecting the inability of policy makers and academics to arrive at a clear understanding and description of the concept of prevention. To some extent, the medical metaphor of prevention as part of international relations is not as useful as it may seem. Preventive ingredients are not well known or understood since perceived causal linkages leading to violent conflict are not straightforward, creating a situation where there seems to be no comprehensive formulae for finding prevention-oriented solutions. The fact that it is literally impossible to measure successes of preventive activity complicates matters further. This is why a special study by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden on preventing violent conflict writes "no generally accepted definition [of conflict prevention] exists as yet".[2]

5.         The danger that is barely concealed in the vagueness of "prevention" is that it provides sufficient grounds for dismissing the concept altogether. When a phrase comes to mean everything, it no longer means anything. And to the extent prevention means anything, it means quite different things to different people. Consequently, the loose application of the term has not allowed the formulation of specific policy guidelines or recommendations for action.

6.         The notion of prevention of violent conflict is not new, of course. Prior to the end of the Cold War, however, the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity generally dictated that the focus of preventive efforts was on conflicts between states. Threats to international peace and security were, by definition, those with trans-border implications. By contrast, the recent emphasis on prevention has focused on conflicts within states and on multilateral activities that go far beyond traditional mediation. The UN Secretary General's An Agenda for Peace was generally seen as a founding document for multilateral activism to prevent deadly conflict within states.

7.         The issue of prevention as it relates to population movements predates the current debates over conflict prevention in the post-Cold War world order. An attempt to place refugee movements in the context of threats to international peace and security was made in a 1981 Report of the UN Secretary-General, with a focus on early warning as a tool to avert refugee flows. [3] This approach linked refugee flows to human rights and was thus seen as testing the limits of national sovereignty. However, the focus related more to efforts to contain and prevent refugee flows than to measures aimed at resolving violent conflict. Hence, the terminology was "averting" flows. The same understanding prevailed in the 1986 Report on International Co-operation to Avert New Flows of Refugees.[4] 

8.         At that time, UNHCR took the position that dealing with root causes of refugee movements went beyond its strictly non-political and humanitarian mandate. In 1981, UNHCR declined to provide information in response to the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany on international co-operation to avert new flows of refugees, noting that "it cannot concern itself with the circumstances that brought [refugee problems] into existence".[5] The debate over averting refugee flows has had an unfortunate legacy in that it laid the basis for the continued confusion between prevention and containment, between causes and symptoms.

UNHCR and Prevention - Recent Practice

9.         Since the early 1990s, "prevention" has become a familiar part of UNHCR's discourse. Indeed, prevention, along with preparedness and solutions, became an integral part of UNHCR's three-pronged strategy. Such an approach seemed to be the logical response to the changing environment in which UNHCR conducted its activities, connected to increasing strains on the international relief system and to what was considered to be the evolving nature of the refugee problem. The 1992 Note on International Protection stated that "the mandate is resilient enough to allow, or indeed require, adaptation by UNHCR to new, unprecedented challenges through new approaches, including in the areas of prevention and in-country protection"[6], a dramatic evolution in the span of a decade.

10.       The call for new approaches in the area of prevention has, however, produced little agreement on what UNHCR can specifically do in this field, even though the term has been frequently used to describe a whole range of activities. Numerous discussions have taken place about prevention and several special working groups have devoted their deliberations to this issue. Yet questions and misunderstandings persist. As a background note to the SMC retreat in September 1995 cautioned, "the lack of clear definition of the concept [of prevention], together with the failure of necessary complementary action by the international system ... causes confusion. A clearer statement of the limits of our actions are needed to avoid accusations (as in Northern Iraq and former Yugoslavia) that we are party to preventing politically unwelcome refugee movements and assisting civilians to remain in a dangerous conflict area".

11.       An array of UNHCR's activities have now been labelled as prevention. The 1996 conference room paper on prevention prepared for the Executive Committee stated that "a new international consensus has emerged, recognizing that UNHCR�fs mandate to seek permanent solutions for the problem of refugees gives the organization a legitimate interest in the prevention of refugee movements by means of operational activities within countries of origin."[7] The paper groups UNHCR�fs prevention activities into seven principal (and to some extent overlapping) categories:

            - reinforcing national protection capacities

            - addressing the problem of statelessness

            - protecting internally displaced people

            - consolidating solutions in war-torn societies

            - promoting regional and comprehensive approaches to refugee problems

            - organizing mass information campaigns to address broader problems of migration

            - alerting the international community to the causes of displacement.

12.       Other UNHCR activities labelled as prevention include:

            - confidence-building measures

            - promoting diversity and tolerance

            - encouraging conflict resolution activities/skills

            - early warning

            - institution/capacity building.

13         In assessing these various categories of activities under the rubric of prevention, it is important to first establish a strategy that indicates what prevention is (and, by extension, what it is not). There continues to be a confusion over what it is to be prevented. The 1996 conference room paper explicitly justifies UNHCR's activities in countries of origin in terms of "prevention of refugee movements". This formulation is problematical in that one cannot prevent a symptom without addressing the causes. It is a formulation often used by governments with a connotation of containment. Moreover, even when the emphasis is shifted to addressing the causes of refugee movements, there still appears to be a focus more on the management of migration than on safeguarding human security. The report of the UNHCR Consultation on Prevention noted "the danger is that the concept of prevention (of refugee problems) contains no inherent standards as to how it might be achieved, and therefore can be manipulated and used to restrict the movement of populations in need of international protection in a manner which does little to address their protection needs".

Prevention and Safeguarding Human Security

14.        For UNHCR, the strategic objective is to prevent threats to human security, particularly those created by violent conflict, that give rise to forcible displacements. The High Commissioner has noted the need for a further re-thinking of the concept of threats to international peace and security as a basis for collective action, arguing that international and human security are indivisible:

[H]umanitarian action has an important role to play in the comprehensive strategy for peace that we need so badly. Humanitarian action focuses on protecting human beings. Without assuring human security, peace and prosperity cannot endure very long.

15.       Defining prevention as a strategy to prevent threats to human security created by violent conflict that give rise to forced displacement is expansive. For example, one analyst lists the following threats: collapsing states, changing intra-state military balances, political transitions, increasingly influential exclusionary ideologies, growing inter-group competitions, intensifying leadership struggles, intensifying patterns of cultural discrimination, ethnic bashing and propagandizing.[8] In the face of such phenomena, UNHCR's activities would seemingly have little impact. This may well be the case. It must also be remembered that there is little that can be done in isolation: prevention will invariably require partnerships with a wide range of other actors. But the more important point is that whatever activities UNHCR undertakes must be informed by the strategic objective and that such activities be assessed in terms of how they advance the strategic objective, difficult though this may be. It is not sufficient to simply label certain activities as "prevention" in the hope of making established activities appear as innovative.

16.       It is important to ake a distinction between activities aimed at increasing the national capacity of providing protection to people, including norm-based measures such as, for instance, human rights promotion and the strengthening of the rule of law, and activities that are directly related to the prevention of deadly conflict.

17.       The Caregie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict provides a distinction between structural and operational tasks as regards preventive action: structural tasks address the underlying root causes of conflict and imply a long-term approach using multiple strategies to help create and maintain an environment that protects fundamental human rights and provides the circumstance in which citizens can secure a livelihood with opportunities for development and growth. Operational tasks address the risk factors and include immediate steps that could help prevent an incipient crisis from turning massively violent. [9] The distinction between the two sets of activities can be taken further and be described as being directed at, in the case of structural tasks, situations and, in the case of operational tasks, at actors involved in a given situation. [10]Actors in this case are meant to be the key political players that share responsibility for an escalation or exacerbation of a situation of conflict into a potentially violent phase, the actors that would be the object of dialogue, influence or pressure. Yet another way of characterizing the distinction is to think of long-term efforts as structural prevention and short-term efforts as escalation prevention.

18.       For the purpose of developing UNHCR�fs policy approaches, structural measures are activities aimed at strengthening national protection capacities, thereby minimizing threats to human security. A distinction should be made between initiatives aimed at addressing the long-term causes of violent conflict before it occurs and measures aimed at the more specific task of rebuilding war-torn societies.

19.       The role of UNHCR in addressing causes prior to violent conflict will necessarily be limited. There are, however, two notable exceptions. First, UNHCR has a general advocacy role in making the linkages among violent conflict, human security and forced displacement. Second, comprehensive regional approaches to refugee problems can have a long-term as well as short-term preventive impact. For example, the CISCONF process was embarked upon once significant displacement had taken place in Tajikistan and the trans-Caucasus. Yet, the process permitted engagement with states with a high potential for conflict and displacement on issues such as citizenship and statelessness. Thus, comprehensive regional initiatives can serve both structural and escalation prevention. 

20.       The role of UNHCR in preventing the recurrence of conflict in the transition from war to peace can be significant, depending on the nature and magnitude of repatriation movements. UNHCR's policy paper, "Reintegration in the Transition from War to Peace", provides a framework for defining UNHCR's role.[11] Efforts to strengthen national protection capacities is critical to preventing the recurrence of violent conflict. By extension, activities aimed at reconciliation - such as promotion of diversity and tolerance and conflict resolution skills are part of UNHCR's prevention strategy. Also, capacity building projects aimed at strengthening the rule of law and civil society are part of prevention.

21.       As regards escalation prevention, the role UNHCR can play in influencing actors involved in situations that may lead to conflict will vary according to the context and the previously established presence and role of UNHCR. Escalation prevention tends to be of a political and diplomatic nature. Again, UNHCR would have a general advocacy role to play. The role could be more specific and direct where displacement or return play a role in the escalation of conflict. But there has doubtless been a tendency to exaggerate the impact of UNHCR's activities at the time of crisis. Also, a number of UNHCR's activities that have been characterized as prevention - involvement with internally displaced persons, confidence-building measures, and mass information campaigns - focus more on containment of population movements than on the linkage between human security and forcible displacement. The critical role for UNHCR in terms of escalation prevention is presence. It would be rare that UNHCR's presence can directly deter violent conflict and we must be wary of how it can be manipulated by parties to the conflict, but UNHCR can serve as a witness to make public abuses that threaten human security.

Summary

22.        UNHCR's strategic objective is to prevent threats to human security, particularly threats created by deadly conflict, that give rise to forcible displacement. To achieve this objective, UNHCR should focus on three activities:

1)         comprehensive regional approaches that serve both as structural prevention and escalation prevention;

2)         consolidation of war-torn societies through repatriation and reintegration activities is a critical UNHCR activity in terms of prevention of the recurrence of violent conflict;

3)         presence to serve as a witness to threats to human security as part of escalation prevention.

[1] K.Cahill, Introduction in K.Cahill, ed., Preventive Diplomacy, Stopping Wars Before They Start, New York: BasicBooks, 1996, p. 3.

[2] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden, Preventing Violent Conflict, A Study, Executive Summary, and of Recommendations, Stockholm, 1997, pp. 35-36.

[3] United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Study on Human Rights and Massive Exoduses, E/CN.4/1503, 31 December 1981.

[4] United Nations, General Assembly, International Co-operation to Avert New Flows of Refugees, A/41/324, 13 May 1986.

[5] Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations, General Assembly , A/36/582, 23 October 1981 

[6] United Nations, General Assembly, Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme, Forty-third session. Note on International Protection A/AC.96/799, 25 August 1992.

[7] United Nations, General Assembly, Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme, Forty-Sixth session, Standing Committee, Follow-up to ECOSOC resolution 1995/56: UNHCR Activities in Relation to Prevention, EC/46/SC/CRP.33, 28 May 1996.

[8] Michael E. Brown ed., "The Causes and Regional Dimensions of Internal Conflict" in The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996, p. 571

[9] Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, Second Progress Report, New York, July 1996, p. 6.

[10] M. Bertrand, "Vers une stratégie de prévention des conflits", Politique étrangère, Printemps 1997, p. 111.

[11] This policy paper is in line with a recommendation made by the Consultation on Prevention: "UNHCR has a comparative advantage and vested interest in undertaking preventive activities in post repatriation situations. [...] UNHCR should formulate a policy on post-repatriation, redefining its "exit" strategy in favour of a longer-term commitment in the country of origin and a broader vision of objectives to be achieved".