Loescher Prelims

CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations xiii

1. The UNHCR at 50: State Pressures and Institutional 1 Autonomy 2. International Recognition of Refugees 21 3. The Cold War Origins of the UNHCR under 50 Gerrit Jan van Heuven Goedhart 4. The Emerging Independence of the UNHCR under 81 Auguste Lindt 5. ‘The Good Offices’ and Expansion into Africa 105 under Felix Schnyder 6. The Global Expansion of the UNHCR under Prince 140 Sadruddin Aga Khan 7. The New Cold War and the UNHCR under Poul 201 Hartling 8. The UNHCR’s ‘New Look’, Financial Crisis, and 247 Collapse of Morale under Jean-Pierre Hocke and Thorvald Stoltenberg 9. The Post-Cold War Era and the UNHCR under 272 Sadako Ogata 10. Towards the Future: the UNHCR in the Twenty-First 348 Century

Bibliography 384 Index 411 1

The UNHCR at 50: State Pressures and Institutional Autonomy

For the past half century, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has been at the heart of many of the gravest breakdowns of social and political order and tragic human loss in recent history. These events have propelled the Office into the maelstrom of world politics. From the1956 Hungarian Uprising at the height of the Cold War to the mass exodus of Albanians from Kosovo in 1999, the UNHCR has been central to the international debates about human rights and international responsibility, conflict resolution, preventive diplomacy, and the delivery of humanitarian assistance. From focusing almost exclusively on protection and humanitarian relief for refugees in host countries, the UNHCR has progressively taken on additional responsibilities that involve it in a myriad of activities for refugees and non-refugees alike. Scholars and practitioners of international relations have been slow to recognize either the rationality or significance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in world politics. Among UN agencies, the UNHCR is unique. It is both an individual, represented in the High Commissioner, and a bureaucracy with its own distinct culture and value system. The High Commissioner has little or no political authority but is vested with considerable moral authority and legitimacy dating back not just the Office’s founding in 1951 but to 1921 when Fridtjof Nansen was appointed as the first High Commissioner for Refugees by the League of Nations. The UNHCR is an organization with its own identity, comprising over 5,000 individuals of different nationalities who share similar values. One cannot fully understand the UNHCR without a knowledge of its organizational culture. There exists no other UN agency where values and principled ideas are so central to the mandate and raison d’être of the institution or where some committed staff members are willing to place their lives in danger to defend the proposition that persecuted individuals need protection. As the UNHCR itself claims, if the Office did not exist, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of refugees would be left unassisted and unprotected. However essential the agency is, it is important not to take the rhetoric and 2 The UNHCR at 50 self-presentation of the UNHCR at face value. While the UNHCR has had many successes over the past 50 years, it has also had many failures. Slow and inadequate responses to refugee emergencies and protection crises have some- times risked the lives of countless numbers of refugees. A number of internal and external constraints inhibit the organization from achieving its full impact. The Office has an organizational culture that makes innovation and institutional change difficult. Some UNHCR senior management are arrogant and insensitive to the real needs of refugees. The UNHCR is confronted with persistent problems of lack of learning and policy effectiveness. The UNHCR also has endemic political problems. The High Commissioner has the almost impossible task of trying to influence states to protect and find solutions for refugees without challenging the prerogative of states to deal independently with their own internal affairs. The UNHCR was created by UN member states to be both a strictly non-political agency and an advocate for refugees.1 From its beginning, it was clear that the agency’s role would be an intensely political one. As defined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, refugees are people who have a well-founded fear of persecution and cannot return to their home countries for fear of placing their lives in jeopardy. The UNHCR’s primary mandate is to protect refugees from government repression. This often requires the Office to directly challenge governments and places the agency in a conflictive relationship with states. However, the UNHCR is not just an advocacy organization; it also exists to facilitate state policies towards refugees. States did not establish the UNHCR from purely altruistic motives, but from a desire to promote regional and international stability and to serve the interests of governments. Governments created the Office to help them resolve problems related to refugees who were perceived to create domestic instability, to generate interstate tensions, and to threaten international security. The UNHCR is an intergovernmental organization and part of the UN system and therefore cannot always act in a strictly neutral fashion. Thus the UNHCR often walks a tightrope, maintaining a perilous balance between the protection of refugees and the sovereign prerogatives and interests of states.

The UNHCR and Refugee Crises at the beginning of the Twenty-First Century As the UNHCR celebrates its fiftieth anniversary, refugee crises around the world continue to create instability, demonstrating the inadequacy of current approaches to dealing with all kinds of international conflict. During the last year of the twentieth century, a series of humanitarian and political disasters shocked most observers and gave the world a foretaste of what is likely to be in store for the international community at the beginning of this century. In The UNHCR at 50 3

Kosovo, over 850,000 people were driven out of the country in a massive and brutal ethnic cleansing the like of which Europe had not experienced since World War II. In Indonesia, gangs of armed thugs, with the active support of the military and police, waged a campaign of terror against the East Timorese people and against UN staff who were stationed there to monitor the refer- endum that would confirm East Timor’s independence. Thousands of people were killed and as many as half of East Timor’s 800,000 population fled their homes. The strategies of the respective authorities in both East Timor and Kosovo were to lay waste to the countries, depopulate them, and let the international community deal with the consequences. One and a half years later, despite large-scale international involvement in both countries, Kosovo and East Timor remained highly unstable. While these examples happened to be the ones attracting the most head- lines at the end of the twentieth century, they were far from the only humanitarian disasters. According to the World Refugee Survey, 35 million people—including refugees and internally displaced people—remained displaced worldwide at the end of the century.2 Conflict and systematic human rights violations were the root cause of most displacements. Many of these displacements attracted little or no international attention. For example, during the past decade, the number of people killed in Colombia was four times the number killed in the Balkans and the number of internally displaced was at least 2 million people. The Russian army’s brutal assault on Chechnya, which forced hundreds of thousands of people into exile, generated only muted Western complaints. Similarly, until recently, the international community ignored the violence, atrocities, and massive displacement occurring in Sierra Leone. As all-out conflict returned to Angola in 1999, 1.6 million people were displaced, with 950,000 civilians having been made refugees during the year. In the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, over 50,000 people were killed and several hundred thousand were made homeless. Four million people in Sudan remained displaced after 16 years of endless fighting. Indeed, the future is likely to represent a period of massive displacement in which most regions of the world will experience forced population movements. Armed conflict is no longer always identified with the clash of armies across borders but often with the assault by a government and its military on its own population or by rebel forces terrorizing their own society. While the crises with which the world has had to deal in recent years are not new,3 conflict does seem to be increasingly brutal, endangering more civilians and aid workers than ever before. Widespread availability of high-powered arms has affected the intensity and duration of today’s conflicts. Currently over 90 per cent of the casualties of armed conflicts are civilians. Wherever there is conflict, the most fundamental tenets of humanitarian law are being flagrantly abused and violated on a daily basis. In such conflicts, international conventions on the laws of war mean very little to the perpetrators of 4 The UNHCR at 50 atrocities. Children and women are particularly vulnerable in these circumstances. In Sierra Leone, rebels cut off the hands of teenaged boys and other children, routinely raped teenaged girls, and trapped families in their houses and torched them. A report by the Fondation de France on the 1994 genocide in Rwanda suggested that almost all women and girls past puberty who had not been massacred had been raped by the militias. In late 1998, the Special Representative to the UN Secretary-General on Children in Armed Conflict, Olara Otunnu, reported that some 9 million children were killed, injured, orphaned, or separated from their parents during such conflicts in the past decade.

The Role of the UNHCR in World Politics

The escalating plight of refugees at the beginning of the twenty-first century underlines the need to re-evaluate both traditional and current practices and the role of the High Commissioner. To clarify the new historical situation facing the UNHCR—and to generate consensus for innovative responses to the global refugee problem—it is essential to trace the roots and earlier experiences of the Office. International policy-makers and programme developers who want to be prepared to deal with future refugee interventions need to be familiar with the experiences of previous interventions and co-ordination efforts in refugee crises. However, surprisingly little systematic research has been done into the past policy responses of the UNHCR to international political and refugee crises.4 Even within the UNHCR there is little knowledge or appreciation of the past 50 years of working with refugees or its impact on present policy and doctrine.5 Much of the UNHCR’s past experiences, both its successes and failures, have been largely forgotten or ignored because of the Office’s preoccupation with more recent refugee crises. As a result, the UNHCR lacks institutional memory and is always reinventing itself. The evolution of the UNHCR has not taken place within a political vacuum. While the international refugee problem has always been linked to the political and security interests of states, the extensive literature on international relations hardly mentions the refugee question at all and attaches little or no importance to it. There does not exist a recent comprehensive and independent history of the UNHCR, its role in world politics, the nature of the pressures upon it, and the impact it has made on the treatment or resolution of the world’s refugee crises since its creation. This gap is all the more remarkable given the rise on the international political agenda of the refugee issue and the complex political, legal, and moral problems of forced displacement with which the organization attempts, and has been mandated, to deal. This book situates the UNHCR within the context of world politics. In the The UNHCR at 50 5 international political system today, states remain the predominant actors. But this does not mean that international organizations like the UNHCR are completely without power or influence. Most High Commissioners have realized that in order to have had any impact on the world political arena they had to use the power of their expertise, ideas, strategies, and legitimacy to alter the information and value contexts in which states made policy. The Office has tried to project refugee norms into a world politics dominated by states driven by concerns of national interest and security. Successful High Commissioners have convinced states to define their national interests in ways compatible with refugee needs. The UNHCR not only promotes the implementation of refugee norms; it also monitors compliance with international standards. Both the UNHCR Statute and the 1951 Refugee Convention authorize the organization to ‘supervise’ refugee conventions. This opens up the possibility for the UNHCR to make judgements or observations about state behaviour under refugee law and to challenge state policies when they endanger refugees. For most of its history, the Office has acted as a ‘teacher’ of refugee norms.6 The majority of the UNHCR’s tactics have mainly involved persuasion and socialization in order to hold states accountable to their previously stated policies or principles. Past High Commissioners have frequently reminded Western states that as liberal democracies and open societies they are obliged to adhere to human rights norms in their asylum and refugee admissions policies. Because the UNHCR possesses specialized knowledge and expertise about refugee law, states often deferred to the Office on asylum matters. This was particularly the case before the 1980s when the UNHCR had a monopoly on information about refugee law and refugee movements. During the early decades of its existence, the Office enjoyed maximum legitimacy as it simul- taneously tried to define the refugee issue for states, to convince governments that refugee problems were soluble, to prescribe solutions, and to monitor their implementation. In recent decades, as a result of increasing restrictionism on the parts of states, the UNHCR has lost its monopoly on information and expertise. Consequently, its authority and legitimacy in the realm of asylum has declined. The UNHCR not only acted as a transmitter and monitor of refugee norms but also socialized new states to accept the promotion of refugee norms domestically as part of becoming a member of the international community. This socialization occurred first in the 1960s and 1970s in the newly independent countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and later in the 1990s in the republics of the former Soviet Union. The political leaders of most newly independent governments in Africa, Asia, and the Commonwealth of Independent States care deeply about their international image and sought international legitimacy through co-operation with the UNHCR. High Commissioners sought to maximize their influence or leverage to affect the 6 The UNHCR at 50 behaviour of states towards refugees, and different High Commissioners have used different strategies with varying degrees of success to accomplish these ends. In addition to exercising moral leverage to gain influence with states, the High Commissioner has repeatedly tried to link the refugee issue to states’ material interests. Material assistance programmes have provided the UNHCR with significant leverage. Many new states were willing to adapt their behaviour to UNHCR pressures for purely instrumental reasons. International humanitarian assistance has provided resource-strapped governments with the means to cope with influxes of refugees. Thus, through a mixture of persuasion and socialization, the UNHCR has communicated the importance of refugee norms and convinced many new states that the benefits of signing the refugee legal instruments and joining the UNHCR Executive Committee—either as a member or an observer—outweighed the costs of remaining outside the international refugee regime. The UNHCR has not just been an agent in world politics but a principal actor. This has been particularly true in situations where there has been a coincidence of humanitarian with political factors. While the UNHCR is constrained by states, the notion that it is a passive mechanism with no independent agenda of its own is not borne out by the empirical evidence of the past half-century. For example, it seems clear that the autonomy and authority of the UNHCR in world politics has grown over time and the Office has become a purposeful actor in its own right with independent interests and capabilities. This was especially the case in the formative phase of the organization but it is also the case that the UNHCR has not been solely an instru- ment of state interests in the last decade of the twentieth century. Rather it is more correct to say that UNHCR policy and practice have been driven both by state interests and by the Office acting independently or evolving in ways not expected nor necessarily sanctioned by states.

Realpolitik of Refugee Policy: The Impact of State Interests on the UNHCR There has hardly ever been a time in the UNHCR’s history when governments’ foreign policies or strategic interests did not affect their stance towards the Office. And there has hardly ever been a time when states offered asylum and accepted refugees without some form of political calculation or discrimi- nation. When the UNHCR opened its doors in January 1951, there was a remarkable symmetry in world politics. In the conflict between communism and capitalist democracy, each camp’s view of good and evil was unquestion- ably identifiable. From its founding, the UNHCR was enmeshed in the international politics of the East-West conflict and refugees were perceived as elements of power in the bipolar rivalry. The UNHCR at 50 7

In some respects, Cold War politics made life easy for the UNHCR and for Western governments. In a Manichaean political world, there was a clarity and simplicity in deciding refugee status. Recognizing persecution and identifying its perpetrators caused no headaches and the grant of asylum was generally used to reaffirm the failures of communism and the benevolence of the West. The UNHCR proved valuable to the West as an agency able to handle flows out of Eastern Europe for resettlement in the ‘Free World’, particularly after the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. International refugee policy not only saved many individuals who were subject to repression in communist dictatorships, but it also clearly served the geopolitical interests of the United States and its allies.7 During the 1950s, Europe was the principal area of refugee concern as the Cold War intensified and new refugee flows moved from East to West. While the Eurocentric orientation of the UNHCR reflected the international political environment, it also reflected the foreign policy priorities of the United States and the other major Western governments. Two things critically affected the lens through which Washington viewed both its own refugee policy and the UNHCR. One was the reconstruction and rehabilitation effort in Europe after World War II and the other was the rapidly developing Cold War. US policy makers considered refugee issues within the same policy framework as national security and even limited refugees by definition as only those fleeing Communism. US generosity of asylum towards refugees from Eastern Europe was in part motivated by a desire to ‘roll back’ or at least contain Communism by encouraging East European citizens to escape their homelands. Refugees became instruments of the Cold War, representing increments of power and sources of espionage and information. Refugees also became important symbols in the ideological rivalry of the Cold War. ‘Escapees’ who crossed over to the West ‘voted with their feet’ and represented a significant political and ideological asset for the West. This, in turn, contributed to the determination of Communist regimes to impose severe barriers on exit. At the height of the Cold War, American leaders considered refugee policy too important to permit the United Nations to control it and they did not want their freedom of action in the refugee field to be constrained by the UN. To this end, the United States sought to limit severely the functional scope and independence of the UNHCR and instead created two other US-led organizations which were parallel to and outside the purview of the United Nations. These were the International Committee of European Migration (ICEM) and the US Escapee Program. The United States was also instrumental in establishing specially created UN agencies in the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula, which handled refugee populations that were located in strategic conflict areas where US geopolitical interests were significant. The United States funded all of these organizations much more generously than it 8 The UNHCR at 50 did the UNHCR, and for a time these organizations provided the United States with a pretext for completely withholding financial support from the UN- based refugee regime. The denial of American financial and diplomatic support directly affected the UNHCR’s ability to define an independent role and to implement its goals and programmes. Even five years after its founding, and despite large refugee flows around the world, governments deliberately kept the UNHCR small and confined it to providing legal protection for displaced persons who had not been resettled by the International Refugee Organization (IRO).

The UNHCR Strives for Autonomy

Despite the opposition of Western governments, the UNHCR began to exer- cise power autonomously in ways unintended by states at its creation. The first High Commissioner, Gerrit van Heuven Goedhart, initially enlarged the scope of his Office by obtaining the capacity to independently raise funds and by assuming material assistance responsibilities. A grant from the Ford Foundation enabled the UNHCR to take the lead role in responding to a refugee crisis in West Berlin in early 1953, thereby demonstrating its useful- ness to the major powers and raising the Office’s international profile. These early successes legitimized the need for UNHCR material assistance to refugees and directly led to the establishment of a UNHCR programme for permanent solutions and emergency assistance. This paved the way for the UN to designate the UNHCR as the ‘lead agency’ directing the international emergency operation for Hungarian refugees in 1956, despite initial American opposition. The Hungarian operation demonstrated the important diplomatic role that the High Commissioner could play in events at the centre of world politics. In the midst of the first major Cold War refugee crisis, the UNHCR played an essential mediating role between East and West involving the repatriation of nearly 10 per cent of the Hungarian refugees. This operation was extremely controversial and was initially opposed by Western governments who considered repatriation to socialist countries unthinkable. Thus, largely on its own initiatives, UNHCR grew from a strictly non-operational agency with no authority to appeal for funds, to an institution with a long-range programme emphasizing not only protection but, increasingly, material assistance. This remarkable transition not only demonstrated the tension between state interests and the drive for relative autonomy on the part of an international organization, but it also underlined the capacity of the UNHCR to have an independent influence on events at the centre of world politics. The UNHCR at 50 9

During the 1950s, the UNHCR took initial steps to lay the groundwork for an expansion of its activities to the developing world. This new approach was the ‘good offices’ formula which involved the UN General Assembly granting the UNHCR the authority to raise funds or to initiate assistance programmes for operations outside its usual mandate. The first major expansion of the UNHCR into the developing world occurred as a result of refugees from the Algerian war of independence fleeing to neighbouring Tunisia and Morocco. The second High Commissioner, Auguste Lindt, felt assistance to the Algerian refugees presented an opportunity for the UNHCR to use the new international support and goodwill it had earned in its response to the Hungarian refugee emergency to confirm its position as the leading international refugee agency. Lindt feared the UNHCR would be accused of discriminatory treatment if it neglected the Algerians, and he did not want to be perceived as the ‘High Commissioner for European refugees only’. He felt that the UNHCR mandate as defined in its statute was worldwide and that his Office had a responsibility for dealing ‘with completely different people and not only refugees from communism’.8 He was concerned that to refuse assistance to Tunisia and Morocco would estrange the organization from a growing bloc of developing nations and would weaken the more favourable attitude that the Soviet bloc had recently adopted towards the agency. The decision to aid Algerian refugees was politically difficult, however, and the UNHCR had to overcome strong government opposition. The French government denied the authority of the UNHCR to give assistance in this case, fearing its involvement would internationalize the crisis. Only through persistent and courageous diplomacy on the part of the High Commissioner was French resistance to UNHCR involvement overcome. Indeed, it was one of Lindt’s most noteworthy diplomatic accomplishments. The UNHCR initiated and capitalized on international political developments to expand its scope both operationally and geographically. In the view of many developing states, the UNHCR’s action on behalf of Algerians signi- fied a turning point in the Office’s geographical reach and function. The Algerian operation was a bridgehead leading to a period of both global and institutional growth for the UNHCR.

The 1960s to the 1980s: the Cold War, the Third World, and the UNHCR

During the 1960s and 1970s the Cold War extended beyond Europe into parts of the third world. Violent decolonization, as well as post-independence civil strife and warfare in Africa, generated vast numbers of refugees 10 The UNHCR at 50 and underscored the strategic importance of conflicts outside Europe. Both the East and West vied for influence in Africa and Asia, trying to minimize the possibilities of their ideological and strategic opponents gaining political advantage in these regions. Throughout the third world, the US and USSR competed to build up local allies and, through economic aid, political support and weapons deliveries, constructed a range of client regimes which included not only governments but also liberation movements. The United States perceived refugee problems in developing countries as sources of instability which the Soviet Union could exploit for its own advantage in extending hegemony in the third world. In the face of an escalating Cold War struggle, Western governments came to perceive assistance to refugees as a central part of their foreign policy towards newly independent states, thus using foreign aid as one of the principal tools in this East–West struggle for influence. International action on the refugee issue was also now viewed as a way to deal with potential sources of instability in the third world. At the same time, a number of newly independent African and Asian member states joined the United Nations making it possible for the UN to pass resolutions that authorized the UNHCR to assist a broad category of people displaced by conflict outside of Europe. Consequently, by the 1980s virtually all of the UNHCR’s activity occurred in the developing world. The UNHCR capitalized on these ‘winds of change’ that heralded the new international political developments in Africa and the rest of the developing world to expand its scope both operationally and geographically. The two High Commissioners during this period were Felix Schnyder and Sadruddin Aga Khan. Both were politically astute and anticipated major political trans- formations in the international system, namely decolonization and the emer- gence of newly independent states in Africa and Asia. Neither was surprised by the mass exoduses of refugees in the developing world. Schnyder and Sadruddin realized that the traditional concepts and legal definitions that the Office had used in Europe would not apply in the less developed countries and took steps to adapt the international refugee instruments to the new environment. After its expansion into Africa in the 1960s, the UNHCR, under Sadruddin Aga Khan, rapidly evolved into a truly global organization during the next decade. Refugee emergencies emerged on all continents, multiplied, and took on numerical proportions hitherto unknown. The UNHCR embarked on new assistance programmes in a number of refugee and ‘refugee-like’ situations around the world. Sadruddin, an expansionist High Commissioner, was deter- mined to make the UNHCR the most important international humanitarian organization and he largely accomplished this objective. In the 1971 Bangladeshi crisis, the UNHCR’s assumed the role of ‘focal point’ for the overall relief effort for some 10 million refugees. This would be the first of many refugee crises in which UNHCR would be called upon by the The UNHCR at 50 11 Secretary-General to act as the UN lead agency for the co-ordination of international humanitarian assistance. As a result, the UNHCR developed an enor- mous agenda and became an indispensable and autonomous actor in many of the major political developments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. During most of the 1960s and 1970s, the UNHCR experienced few of the kinds of asylum problems in the industrialized states that would confront the Office in later decades. Most governments acknowledged the UNHCR Protection Division’s unrivalled specialized knowledge and expertise concern- ing refugee and asylum law and deferred to the Office’s authority on asylum policy. The UNHCR played an active role in the refugee determination procedures of many industrialized states—with the notable exception of the United States—and exerted a considerable influence over government decisions. Hence, the UNHCR’s authority and autonomy was enhanced, and most governments in Western Europe demonstrated a generally liberal attitude towards asylum-seekers.

The New Cold War, Proxy Conflicts, and the UNHCR

The intensification of the Cold War during the late 1970s and the 1980s shifted the structure of the bipolar conflict. The rivalry between the United States and the USSR caused both powers to build up client states across the globe and to arm and supply local and regional conflicts. As a result, internal wars in Indochina, Afghanistan, Central America, the Horn of Africa, and Southern Africa became globalized. These conflicts perpetuated endemic violence which, in turn, generated large outpourings of refugees. Some of these refugees were resettled in other regions or continents but most remained in neighbouring countries from where they continued to actively participate in the conflicts. During the 1980s, ‘refugee warriors’ used refugee camps in Pakistan, along the Thai-Cambodian border, in Central America, in Southern Africa, and in the Horn of Africa to provide themselves with food and medicines, to forcibly recruit new soldiers, and to raise revenue. These refugee warrior communities served as important instruments and proxies both in the interventionist policies of the external powers and in regional power struggles.9 UNHCR involvement with militarized refugee camps presented the Office with considerable headaches. Because combatants were present in refugee camps, the armed forces of sending governments viewed these settlements as legitimate military targets. Relief supplies provided by humanitarian organizations ended up feeding refugee warriors, thus helping to sustain and prolong conflicts.10 The UNHCR under Sadruddin’s successor, Poul Hartling, found it difficult 12 The UNHCR at 50 to maintain an impartial and humanitarian approach to its work. Virtually all of its funding came from Western governments who had a geopolitical interest in supporting UNHCR camps, which housed anti-communist refugees. In a situation similar to the 1990s, states used UNHCR and humanitarian assistance as an excuse for political inaction in resolving long-standing regional conflicts. This cost the UNHCR the relative autonomy it had developed during the Sadruddin era. The UNHCR’s protracted care and maintenance programmes caused annual UNHCR expenditures to explode. The annual budget of the UNHCR doubled each year from 1978 to 1980. Conditions in countries of origin rarely permitted repatriation, either because of conflict or because the refugee-sending state discouraged the return of exiles. In addition, as the ‘second’ Cold War froze political relations between Moscow and Washington, the international community failed to devise comprehensive or long-term political solutions or to provide any alternatives to prolonged camp existence. At the same time, a growing number of third world refugees appeared on the doorsteps of Western countries to seek asylum. Unlike in earlier periods, these ‘jet age’ refugees were no longer confined to their region of origin and now travelled directly to Western countries by air transport. The asylum crisis in the industrialized world further raised the overall financial cost of the global refugee problem for the donor state community. The ensuing asylum crisis put Western governments into direct conflict with the UNHCR, which struggled but ultimately lost the fight to maintain its position as the principal source of legitimacy and influence over refugee and asylum policy in Europe. By the mid-1980s, the UNHCR became identified with costly long-term care and maintenance in refugee camps around the world. To relieve the costs that protracted, large-scale, forced displacements imposed, donor governments began to promote alternative approaches to the refugee problem, particularly repatriation. Governments also appointed a new High Commissioner, Jean-Pierre Hocke, whom they felt could help them break out of this deadlock and to make the Office more relevant to the contemporary refugee problem. Hocke advocated a new strategy that required the UNHCR to deal not only with asylum countries but also with countries of origin and with the ‘root causes’ of refugee exoduses. In particular, the High Commissioner identified repatriation as ‘the only realistic alternative to indefinite subsistence on charity’.11 This analysis of the refugee crisis and the UNHCR’s role presaged many of the policies and practices that the Office would try to put into effect in the post-Cold War period of the 1990s. However, Hocke’s ideas were clearly too far ahead of his time. Throughout most of the 1980s, Cold War politics continued to paralyse diplomatic initiatives to break the deadlock of regional conflicts in most of Africa, Asia, and Central America. Consequently, most refugees were destined to remain The UNHCR at 50 13 trapped in camps for most of the decade. Donor governments soon became disillusioned with the UNHCR and Hocke in particular. This led to a major financial crisis for the agency by the end of the decade.

The Post-Cold War Era and UNHCR: International Security and Refugees

The 1990s ushered in a new era in which humanitarian issues played a histor- ically unprecedented role in international politics. Refugee movements assumed a new degree of political importance in the discourse about global and regional security and were the subject of increasing discussion in political and military fora such as the UN Security Council and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The new security importance of refugee movements, combined with greatly increased global media coverage, forced the international community to focus more urgently on refugee issues. In the early 1990s, a political consensus prevailed for the first time since 1945, which enabled the UN Security Council to support collective interventionist policies previously thought to be impossible. In the 1990s, refugees came to be viewed as posing threats to international security, thus providing a basis for action under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. In northern Iraq, Somalia, former Yugoslavia, and Haiti, international intervention across borders and in the domestic affairs of states was authorized in response to refugee flows. Moreover, forced displacements were also at the centre of crises in the African Great Lakes region, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Albania, Kosovo, and East Timor. In most of these cases, the UN, or regional or national forces acting with UN authorization, directly intervened in intrastate conflicts in an attempt to tackle these crises which led to mass displacement. At the same time, without a clear ideological divide in the post-Cold War conflicts, the major powers, including the United States, were reluctant to become directly involved. This was particularly true in Africa where their strategic interests were limited. Refugees were no longer of symbolic or instrumental value to the US. Rather, refugees were perceived increasingly as burdens, particularly if they made a claim for asylum in the West. In response, governments became more restrictionist and pushed for a comprehensive international refugee policy which sought to modify the causes of refugee flows through conflict resolution, peacemaking, and peacekeeping. At the same time, governments felt compelled to respond to refugee disasters, especially those covered extensively by the media, and therefore repeatedly tasked the UNHCR and other international agencies to provide relief aid. For the world’s most powerful states, the provision of humanitarian assistance was 14 The UNHCR at 50 financially and politically a relatively low risk option because it satisfied the demands of the media and public opinion for some kind of action to allevi- ate human suffering. But it was also used repeatedly by governments as an excuse for refusing to take more decisive forms of political and military intervention.

The UNHCR’s Broadened International Agenda

For the UNHCR, these shifts in attitudes about intervention meant greater involvement in situations of internal armed conflict. The Office was often involved in sharing responsibility with UN mandated military forces for the assistance of displaced people, and a renewed emphasis on encouraging early repatriations despite the uncertainties and dangers for refugees. Under Sadako Ogata, the UNHCR made a concerted effort to frame its policies in terms of state interests in resolving conflicts and refugee problems. The high priority given to humanitarian operations and the increasing recognition of a link between refugees and international security meant that UNHCR played an increasingly important role in international political negotiations and exerted material leverage over states. The High Commissioner showed a sophisticated awareness of the political opportunities that the post-Cold War environment presented her agency. She sought to raise the salience of the global refugee problem, and the Office’s international profile and credibility, by skilfully using the media to affect public opinion and to mobilize government support for her agency. During the 1990s, fundamental changes occurred in the international refugee regime. Many of the changes concerned the way in which the UNHCR operated. During the Cold War, in-country assistance and protection involved violation of state sovereignty and therefore was taboo for UN agencies. In the post-Cold War period, by contrast, the UNHCR attempted to tackle refugee-producing situations at or near their source. This major change in the handling of refugee issues included an increased focus on working in countries of origin—even in countries at war—to reduce the likelihood of massive refugee flows across borders. In addition, the UNHCR was also frequently asked to take part in comprehensive and integrated UN peacekeeping or peacemaking operations that involved political and military actors of the UN. In response, the UNHCR extended its services to a much wider range of people who were in need of assistance including returnees, internally displaced people, war-affected populations, the victims of mass expulsions, and unsuccessful asylum-seekers, as well as refugees. For example, ‘war- affected populations’—people who have not been uprooted but need humanitarian assistance and protection—comprised a substantial proportion of the The UNHCR at 50 15

UNHCR’s beneficiary population during the height of the 1990s Bosnian conflict. As a result, the numbers of displaced people and war-affected populations receiving UNHCR assistance increased dramatically. The number of people of concern to the UNHCR increased from 15 million in 1990 to a peak of 26 million in 1996. Of this total of the UNHCR’s beneficiaries, refugees constituted only about 50 per cent. Consequently, the UNHCR expanded from a refugee organization into a more broadly-based operational agency driven by emergencies. With these momentous changes, the UNHCR became synonymous with large-scale international relief programmes to victims of armed conflict and ethnic cleansing. Successes and failures of humanitarian action were judged primarily in terms of technical standards of aid delivery and in fulfilling the material needs of refugees and threatened populations. Under pressure to ensure the very survival of several hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, the central importance of human rights protection of displaced and threatened populations was frequently neglected. Not only did the new humanitarian emergencies diminish the UNHCR’s core role in affording protection, but they also compromised its scope and effectiveness as refugee crises became more intractable. The UNHCR and other humanitarian actors found themselves enmeshed in highly militarized and politicized situations such as was found in the African Great Lakes after the Rwandan genocide. Critics maintained that, in the former Zaïre, the UNHCR exacerbated the situation there by providing assistance to militants in the camps, thereby contributing to greater humanitarian crises in the long run. In almost every refugee crisis in the 1990s, camps were subject to some sort of military pressure. There was bombardment by the Turkish air force of Kurdish camps in northern Iraq, forced military recruitment from camps in Sierra Leone, which also aided the movement of militias between Sierra Leone and Liberia, raids by rebel forces of Sudanese camps in northern Uganda, and pressured recruitment by the Kosovo Liberation Army of refugees out of camps in Albania and Macedonia. Few active steps were taken to prevent the militarization of refugee camps. The main focus of the international humanitarian response to refugee crises remained material assistance at the expense of the human rights protection of refugees.

The UNHCR and the International ‘Asylum Crisis’

Increasing humanitarian action to respond to refugee crises coincided with a weakening of traditional protection and asylum mechanisms in most states. In the face of growing numbers of illegal migrants and abuse of 16 The UNHCR at 50 asylum procedures, Western governments became increasingly reluctant to grant asylum. They enacted severe controls on immigration which reduced the scope of appeals from decisions on refugee eligibility and erected barriers to those seeking refuge from war and persecution as well as those look- ing for jobs and new homes. The closure of borders to prevent unwanted refugee and migrant influxes became much more widespread than it was during the Cold War. In place of asylum, various forms of ‘temporary protection’ were utilized to deal with those fleeing war and ethnic cleansing. Thus, at the end of the twentieth century, refugees became a symbol of system overload, instead of a symbol of what was always best in the Western liberal tradition. The trend towards excluding asylum-seekers spread to governments in the South as well as the North. For developing countries, the growing numbers of displaced people entering already overloaded economies presented problems that threatened governmental authority. Alarmed by the economic, environ- mental, social, and security costs of hosting mass influxes of refugees, a number of governments across the world took steps to exclude asylum-seekers from their territory and to ensure the rapid—and in some cases involun- tary—repatriation of refugees. Diminishing donor government support for long-term refugee assistance, coupled with declining levels of official development assistance, and the imposition of structural adjustment programmes on many poorer and less stable states, reinforced this attitude and contributed to the hostility towards refugees.

The UNHCR and its Focus on Repatriation as the Pre-eminent Solution to Refugee Problems

Accompanying the ‘asylum crisis’ was a renewed emphasis by states on repatriation as the ‘pre-eminent solution’ to the refugee problem. Governments insisted that refugees return to their homes at the earliest opportunity, often with the assistance of the UNHCR, whether or not conditions were conducive to such returns. Before the late 1980s, the UNHCR’s Western donors actively discouraged repatriation as most of the world’s refugees orig- inated from communist countries. When repatriation did occur, to a large extent, refugees themselves decided when to return and under what conditions. The precondition for the involvement of the UNHCR in repatriations included such factors as ‘fundamental change of circumstances, voluntary nature of the decision to return, tripartite agreements between the state of origin, the host state and the UNHCR and return in safety and dignity’.12 With the ending of the Cold War, repatriation was increasingly perceived as the only effective solution to refugee problems. As the superpowers with- The UNHCR at 50 17 drew from long-standing regional conflicts, the numbers of refugees return- ing home increased dramatically. During the 1990s, some 12 million refugees returned home either on their own initiative or under the auspices of the UNHCR.13 By this time too, governments everywhere were also becoming more restrictionist and were exerting pressure on the UNHCR to encourage and promote the return of refugees to their home countries as quickly as possible. State pressure to promote repatriation was accompanied by new thinking about repatriation within the UNHCR.14 To respond to the new international political environment of the early 1990s, repatriation became a central part of the UNHCR’s new global strategy of preventive protection. In the UNHCR’s eyes it was far better for most refugees to return home at the earliest opportunity to benefit from the UNHCR’s repatriation programmes than to remain in refugee camps that could offer them no future. The Office posited that conditions in the home country did not have to improve substantially but only enough to allow refugees to return home in safety. This shift in termi- nology made it much more likely that the UNHCR would promote repatriations under less than strict conditions of voluntary repatriation. For the UNHCR this was a dramatic shift from its traditional position that repatriation had to be a strictly voluntary decision on the part of refugees. Rather, it would now be the UNHCR and states that would make the assessment as to whether conditions were safe enough for refugees to return. Moreover, there was a growing view that refugee safety did not necessarily and always outweigh the security interests of states or broader peace building and conflict resolution goals. Thus, in the early 1990s, repatriation came to be perceived as part of the Office’s emphasis on preventive protection and encouraging the responsibility of countries of origin toward their own citizens. Unfortunately, repatriation did not always serve refugees’ interests. The return of refugees from Bangladesh to Burma and from Tanzania and former Zaïre to Rwanda and Burundi are only two illustrations of situations in which the UNHCR co- operated with host governments to return refugees home before conditions had become safe. Because the UNHCR focused almost entirely on repatriation during the past decade, it virtually ignored other possible solutions, often to the detri- ment of refugees. With less donor funding for operations other than repatriation and emergency relief, a range of traditional solutions—local integration projects, educational programmes, income-generating projects, and the promotion of refugee participation—disappeared from the Office’s possible options for long-staying refugee populations. Instead, believing that return provided the only humane solution to refugee problems, the UNHCR essentially ran long-term programmes in an emergency mode, which was damaging to the long-term welfare of refugees stuck in protracted camp situations. 18 The UNHCR at 50

The UNHCR at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century

An era of relative simplicity and generosity in refugee affairs has long ago passed and we are in the midst of a more complex and difficult period. The decline in generosity and openness towards the uprooted and persecuted has occurred because of a radically different international political environment and ‘compassion fatigue’ brought about by overexposure to humanitarian crises. The present reality is that the Cold War interest in taking refugees from the Communist world has passed with the collapse of European Communism and has now been replaced by a growing state interest in keeping refugees out, or in sending them back home. This is a worldwide trend. These crises are placing the UNHCR under growing pressure in regard to both its functions and identity. A radically transformed UNHCR aimed at preventing conditions that generate refugee flows, assisting many of those caught in brutal civil conflicts, and promoting refugee return has also emerged in recent years. But these new developments in UNHCR policy directions raise questions about the adequacy of the agency’s mandate given recent changes in international relations. What is the appropriate role of an intergovernmental agency in balancing the protection of individual and group rights against the sovereign prerogatives and interests of states? There is a widespread concern as to whether the UNHCR’s expansion into humanitarian assistance will be at the further expense of protection of refugees and displaced people. Indeed, many persons within the UNHCR, governments, and the non-governmental community fear for the survival of the Office’s traditional mandate, namely the international protection of refugees. Never has there been a more appropriate time to ask fundamental questions about the UNHCR and the future directions and objectives of the Office. The UNHCR functions with an imperfect mandate, under circumstances necessitating competition with other agencies for limited resources, and in political environments that are inhospitable to crisis management and refugee protection. The Office is frequently expected to work within exceed- ingly complex and insecure situations with little or no backing from the international community. The UNHCR has an organizational culture that makes it extremely difficult to learn from past mistakes and therefore some of the same errors are repeated from one operation to another. The UNHCR can occa- sionally act in expedient but irresponsible ways, such as when it coerces refugees by closing down camps or reducing food rations and services in an effort to get refugees to repatriate. The agency is largely unaccountable for programmes and policies that are insensitive or damaging to the protection and assistance needs of refugees. The Office lacks strong policy research and strategic thinking capacities. The UNHCR at 50 19 While there are no simple solutions to such endemic problems, it is neces- sary for the UNHCR to begin to confront these difficulties by examining its history as a refugee protection agency. The following chapters examine patterns of refugee problems during the last half century and how these were addressed by the UNHCR and the international community. The book concludes with an overall assessment of the agency and its High Commissioners and provides suggestions for how the UNHCR might perform more effectively and humanely in the future.

NOTES

1. Statute of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, HCR/INF/Rev.3, para. 2, United Nations, 1950. 2. US Committee for Refugees, World Refugee Survey 2000 (Washington, DC: US Committee for Refugees, 2000). 3. Mark Frohardt, Diane Paul, and Larry Minear, Protecting Human Rights: The Challenge to Humanitarian Organizations, Occasional Paper 35 (Providence, RI: Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University,1999); and Gil Loescher, Beyond Charity: International Cooperation and the Global Refugee Crisis (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993). 4. The last attempt at writing an overall history of the UNHCR, Louise Holborn’s Refugees: A Problem of Our Time: The Work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1975), was published in 1975. However, this is largely a UNHCR sponsored account of the Office’s early operations and not an independent policy analysis. It also does not place the Office within the larger context of international relations. 5. The UNHCR, State of the World’s Refugees: Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) is a welcome exception but it is understandably limited in its criticism of the agency and its operations as well as of governments’ policies. 6. There is a growing literature on the impact of ideas and norms in international politics and international organizations. See: Martha Finnemore, ‘Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s Institutionalism’, World Politics, i/2 (Spring 1996): 325-48; Thomas Risse, Stephen Ropp, and Kathryn Sikkink, eds., The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); and Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998). 7. The economic and employment situation of the 1950s also posed few problems which could not be overcome through greater international co-operation. Economic recovery and productivity were spurred by postwar reconstruction. States in Europe and the New World rebuilding for the future and beset by manpower shortages actively sought refugees and migrant workers. While it has never been easy to promote refugee relief and resettlement, the hostility and 20 The UNHCR at 50

resistance to refugee movements which exist among many states today was nearly unknown. 8. UNHCR interview with Auguste Lindt, Bern, Switzerland, 4 February 1998. 9. For further elaboration of these points see: Astri Suhrke, ‘Uncertain Globalization: Refugee Movements in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century,’ in Wang Gungwu, ed., Global History and Migrations (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997): 217–37; Aristide Zolberg, Astri Suhrke, and Sergio Aguayo, Escape from Violence: Conflict and the Refugee Crisis in the Developing World (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1989); and Peter Koehn, Refugees from Revolution: U.S. Policy and Third World Migration (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991). 10. This was not an entirely new problem for the UNHCR. During the 1970s, the camps for South African refugees in Mozambique and Tanzania, for Rhodesian refugees in Mozambique and Zambia, and for Namibian refugees in Angola were all controlled by their respective liberation movements and were consequently subject to raids by the South African and Rhodesian armed forces. 11. These views were expressed in Jean-Pierre Hocke, ‘Beyond Humanitarianism: The Need for Political Will to Resolve Today’s Refugee Problem,’ in Gil Loescher and Laila Monahan, eds., Refugees and International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989): 37–48. 12. B. S. Chimni, ‘The Meaning of Words and the Role of UNHCR in Voluntary Repatriation’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 5 (1993): 442. 13. Richard Black and Khalid Koser, eds., The End of the Refugee Cycle: Refugee Repatriation and Reconstruction (New York, NY: Berghahn Books, 1999): 3 14. Michael Barnett, ‘Humanitarianism with a Sovereign Face: UNHCR in the Global Undertow’, International Migration Review (forthcoming). INDEX

Aall, C. 244, 341 Albania 13, 15, 277, 328–30 Abkhazia 276, 278 Kosovar Albanians 1, 327–36 Abramowitz, M. 241–2 Aleinikoff, A. 198 Abrar, C. R. 341 Alexander, B. 76, 79, 99, 102–3 Acheson, D. 48 Algeria/Algerians 9, 75, 221, 283 Ad Hoc Review Group 266, 270, 317 and Lindt 91–2, 98, 103 Addis Ababa 134, 221, 281 and Sadruddin 153, 178 Addis Ababa Agreement (1972) 153 and Schnyder 107, 109–10, 130 Adelman, H. 77, 344 War of Independence (1954–62) 81, Aden 182 97, 101, 108, 153 Adenauer, K. 69 Allen, T. 244 Afghanistan/Afghans 11, 257, 263, 268 Allende Grossens, S. 169, 172–3 and Hartling 212, 214–17, 223, Alliance of Democratic Forces for the 226–7, 243 Liberation of Congo 311 and Ogata 275, 281, 303 American Council for Voluntary Africa 5, 9–13, 21, 40, 247–9, 350–1 Agencies in Foreign Service (ACVA) donor fatigue 321–2 47 expansion into under Schnyder 105, Americas Watch 244 108–9, 112–13, 120, 123–7, 135 Amin, I. 164–7 famine, civil war and failed states Amnesty International 269, 371 301–13 and new Cold War 233, 241, 244–5 and Hartling 202, 214, 227–9, 235 post-Cold War era 344–5 and Lindt 91–2, 97–8 and UNHCR’s global expansion and Ogata 274, 291, 322–3, 338 145–6, 165, 199 post-independence struggles 221–3 Amsterdam Treaty (1997) 319 protection vs assistance 117–19 Anatolian Greek refugees 23 refugee problems neglected 335–6 Angola/Angolans 3, 20, 91–2, 214, 223 and Sadruddin 140, 142–3, 147, and Ogata 281, 292, 301, 335 150–1, 165–6, 180–2 responding to refugees from 111–14 sub-Saharan 336 and Sadruddin 154, 161–4, 179 see also Central Africa; East Africa; and Schnyder 111–15, 120–1, 135 North Africa; Southern Africa; animists 114, 224 West Africa Anker, D. 102 African National Congress 161–2 Annan, K. 264, 337, 355, 375 Aga Khan 140 and Ogata 292–3, 306, 341 Aga Khan, S. see Sadruddin anti-Communists 64, 145, 183–4, 216 Agenda for Development 356–7 anti-fascist groups 28–33 Agenda for Peace (1992) 297 Anya-nya guerillas 114–15 Aguayo, S. 20, 134, 136, 196, 243–4 Arab states 56, 98, 114, 182, 216 Ahmed, Z. H. 241 Arab-Israeli war (1967) 178, 182 Aideed, M. 304–5 Arakan state 224 412 Index

Arendt, H. 29, 47 Balkans 3, 21–3, 362, 364 Argentina 40, 86 and Ogata 291, 296, 299, 302, 315, decree 1483/76 175 322–3, 338–9 dirty war and abuse of refugees 172–6 Baltic States 23, 36, 276–7 and Sadruddin 164–5, 168–9, 180, Bangkok 189, 211, 216, 242 198 Bangladesh 10–11, 17, 267 Arias Peace Plan (1987) 253–4, 258 and Hartling 224–5, 245 Armenia/Armenians 23, 25–6, 276–9 and Ogata 273, 283, 285–6, 306, 310, Arnaout, G. 250, 256 341 Arusha Accord (1993) 306 and Sadruddin 154–7, 160–1, 166 ASEAN (Association of South East Banja Luka 296 Nations) 204–9 Bank of Japan 272 Asia 5, 10–12, 57, 71, 248–9, 351 Banyamulenge 311 and Hartling 214, 235 Barber, M. 200, 241–2 international recognition of refugees Bari, S. 246 21, 29 Barnett, M. 20, 340–1, 382–3 and Lindt 91, 97–8 Barre, S. 222, 302 and Sadruddin 140, 150–1, 165, 180 Barutciski, M. 342 and Schnyder 105, 109, 123, 126, Batista, F. 132 134 Battambang 282, 341 see also Central Asia; South Asia; Bay of Pigs incident (1961) 132 South-East Asia Belgium 45, 48, 86, 168, 306, 319 Assam 156 Bellagio 124 Aswan Dam 83 Bender, A. 142 asylum crises 12, 16, 351–3 Benelux countries 44, 53 and confrontation with states 229–40 see also Belgium; Luxembourg; and restrictionism 316–21 Netherlands Australia 58, 80, 86, 152, 178, 316, 333 Benenson, P. 146 and Hartling 203, 207–8 Bengalis 155–6 international recognition of refugees Berkeley 272 29, 40 Berlin 41, 60, 67, 69, 72 Austria 129, 168, 178, 196, 316, 319 Berlin Wall 131–2, 267 and Goedhart 58–62, 64, 66, 69, 72–4 Bermuda 33 international recognition of refugees Bethell, N. 47 23, 26, 32, 35, 44 Betts, T. F. 138 and Lindt 82–9, 101 Bhutan/Bhutanese 273, 322 Austrian State Treaty (1955) 73 Bhutto, B. 216 Austro-Hungarian Empire 23 Biafra 145–7, 247 Avery, C. 198 Bihar 160 Awad, M. 136 Blace 329 Awami League 155–6, 159 Black, R. 20, 270–1 Azerbaijan 276–9 boat people see Haiti; Vietnam Azores 111, 127 Bolivia 172, 176, 180 Bonn 237 Baarda, T. Van 347 Borton, J. 341 Baghdad 326 Bosnia-Hercegovina/Bosnians 15, 166, Baitenman, H. 243 362 Index 413

and Ogata 273–4, 287–91, 307, Camp Clearance Programme 131 313–18, 322–5; failure of preventa- Canada 58, 80, 86, 207–8, 312, 352–3 tive protection 295–301; NATO’s international recognition of refugees humanitarian war 328–9, 332 29, 40 Boutros-Ghali, B. 356–7, 381 and Sadruddin 143, 166–7, 175, 178 and Ogata 297, 300, 302, 306, 310 CAP (consolidated appeals process) 353 Boutroue, J. 344, 382 Carey, J. P. C. 47 Bower, T. 48 Caribbean 132, 180, 183, 188, 234, 366 Bramwell, A. 77 Carlin, J. 197, 200 Brazil 40, 86, 169, 172, 176, 180 Carter, J. 165, 193, 231–2 Bricker Amendment (USA) 55, 77 Cary, W. S. 199 Britain see United Kingdom Castro, F. 132, 139, 184 Brody, R. A. 139 Cater, N. 244 Brookings process 357 Caucasus 362, 364 Brooks, H. C. 136 and Ogata 275–6, 323, 336 Brown, R. 242 CCAI (Argentine Catholic Commission) Brunei 203 173–4 Bruntland, G. 268 Cels, J. 198 Brussels 59, 330 Central Africa 119, 130, 335, 364 Budapest 83, 88–9, 256 Central African Republic 114, 122, Buddhists 285 147–8, 221 Buehrig, E. H. 77 Central America 11–12, 91, 247–9, Buenos Aires 173–4, 176 252–3, 283, 366 Bujumbura 127 building regional responses 257–62 Bulgaria 25, 27, 61, 177–8 and Hartling 202, 214–15, 225–6, 234 Bunche, R. 149 politicization of refugee programmes Burma 17, 224–5, 272, 284–6, 339 219–21 see also Rohingya Muslims and Sadruddin 180, 188 Burundi 17, 91, 221 see also Latin America; South America and Ogata 306, 308, 311–12, 335 Central Asia 274–6, 278–9 and Schnyder 114–15, 117–18, 122, Central Europe 39, 41, 67–8, 366 127, 136–7 Chad 114, 221, 223, 252 Bush, G. 304 Chambers, R. 136, 138 Byrne, R. 346 Chavchavdze, J. 197 Chechnya 3, 276, 279, 327, 336–7, 340 California 320 Cheng, J. 270 University 272 Cherne, L. 192 Cambodia/Cambodians 91, 110, 257, Chiang Kai-shek 93–4 268 Chiapas 219 feeding the perpetrators 217–18 Chile/Chileans 40, 164–5, 168–74, 176, and Hartling 203, 209–17, 219, 223, 180, 197 226, 242–3 Chimni, B. S. 20 and Ogata 294–5, 323, 341 China Free Aid Relief Association 94 repatriation 281–2 China (PRC, People’s Republic of China) and Sadruddin 188–9, 192–4 261, 272, 349, 351 Cambodian Red Cross 189 and Hartling 201, 204, 206, 216–17, Cameroon 221 223 414 Index

China (PRC, People’s Republic of China) Colombo 255 (contd.): Colomoncagua 253, 269 international recognition of refugees Comecon 41 23, 41–2 Common European Asylum System 319 and Lindt 89, 92–6 Commonwealth Immigrants Act (UK, and Sadruddin 145–6, 152, 163, 188, 1968) 166 193 Commonwealth (of Nations) 29, 45, 51, and Schnyder 127, 129–30 92 see also ROC Communism/Communists 7, 18, 256, Chipman, J. 382 267 Chopra, J. 347 and Goedhart 54–6, 58, 60–1, 64, 68, Christianity 25, 114, 182, 224 71–4 CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) 54, and Hartling 201, 204–5, 214, 220, 132, 203 229, 232, 246 and Lindt 82, 96–7 and international recognition of and Sadruddin 152, 163 refugees 28, 37–9, 43–4 CIREFCA (International Conference on and Lindt 83–5, 92–3, 99 Central American Refugees, 1989) and Ogata 275, 283 258, 270 and Sadruddin 171–2, 177, 181, CIS (Commonwealth of Independent 183–4, 189–92, 197 States) 5, 276–7, 279–80, 319 and Schnyder 105, 123, 127–31 Citizens Committee for Displaced Communist Party Persons 40 Cambodian 192 Claude, I. 46 Hungarian 86 Clinton, B. 305 Indonesian (PKI) 145–6 Coalition Government of the Democratic Portuguese 163 Republic of Kampuchea (CGDK) Russian 23 218 Vietnamese 203 Coat, P. 136 Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indo- Cohodas, N. 242 Chinese Refugees (1989) 209 Cold War 7–12, 18, 266, 349–53, 372 CONAR (National Committee for Aid to decline of tensions in Europe 128–32 Refugees) 170 and Goedhart 51, 56, 66, 72, 75 Congo, Democratic Republic of 281, and Hartling 228, 240 335–6, 383 Hocke anticipating end of 249, Congo, Republic of 91, 148 256–62 and Schnyder 111, 115, 117–18, international recognition of refugees 120–1, 127, 135 41–2, 45–6 see also Zaïre and Lindt 82, 86, 89, 96, 98 Congress, US 86, 91, 220, 232, 320 new refugee flows 214–16 and Goedhart 51, 55–6, 59–60, 70–2, and Ogata 286–7, 291–2, 301–3, 314 74, 77–8 and Sadruddin 145–6, 153, 164, 178, international recognition of refugees 183–4 40, 42 and Schnyder 105, 122–3, 126 and Sadruddin 165, 171, 184, 186–7, Coles, G. 31, 47, 194, 196, 269 190 Colmar, J. 135 and Schnyder 128, 132, 138 Colombia 3 Conquest, R. 46 Index 415 contras 219–20 Danish Refugee Council 269, 290 Convention relating to the Status of Dar-es-Salaam 127 Refugees (UN, 1951) 2, 5, 249, Dayal, V. 188 255–6, 352, 366 Dayton Peace Accords (1995) 314–16, Article 33 351 323, 325 and Goedhart 55–7, 65, 76 de Gaulle, C. 107 and Hartling 204, 211–12, 220, Delphi Project 329, 347 235–9 Democrats, US 55 international recognition of refugees Deng, F. 293 43–5 Denmark 86, 167, 263 and Lindt 85–6, 93 Dennet, R. 48 and Ogata 278, 319 Des Forges, A. 343 and Sadruddin 153, 179–80, 183, DHA (Department of Humanitarian 186, 191, 198 Affairs) 291–3, 355 and Schnyder 105, 118, 123–4, 126, Dhaka 157, 285 132–3, 138 Dili 333–4, 347 see also Protocol relating to the Status Dinnerstein, L. 47–8 of Refugees DIP (Division of International Copeland, E. 48 Protection) 11, 249–50, 266, 270 Costa Rica 219, 230, 243–4 and Ogata 274, 288, 311, 318, 320, Council of Europe 52, 58, 65, 69, 176, 324–5 277 UNHCR in 21st Century 363, 365, Council of Ministers 317 376–7, 383 CPA (comprehensive plan of action) Divine, R. 48 260, 262, 270 Division of Refugee Law and Doctrine Crimean Tatars 280 250, 266 Crisp, J. 244, 269, 340, 381 Djibouti 252, 281 Croatia 166, 296, 329 Dniester 276 Crowley, J. 242 Doe, S. 301 Cuba/Cubans 91, 268 donor fatigue 321–2 and Hartling 208, 223, 233 Douglas, H. E. 269 and Sadruddin 164, 166, 178, 181–2, Douglas Home, A. 167 184–5, 187 Dover 321 and Schnyder 130, 132–4, 139 Dowty, A. 46 Cuenod, J. 134–7, 244 DPs (displaced persons) 35, 38, 72 Cunliffe, A. 270, 342, 347 Duarte, J. N. 253–4 Cutts, M. 342–3, 382 Dubcek, A. 177 Cyprus 155, 161 Dulles, J. F. 70 Czech Republic 256 Dunn, J. 347 Czechoslovakia/Czechs 72, 131, 177–8 Duvalier, F. 184–5, 199 international recognition of refugees Duvalier, J. C. 185–6 23, 35,39, 41 East Africa 119 Dade City 186 East Bengalis 153–5 Daghestan 279, 336 East Germany (GDR) 68–9, 131, 160, Dalai Lama 95–6, 103 171, 177, 267 Dallaire, R. 306, 344 East Timor 3, 13, 166, 326–7, 332–6 416 Index

Eastern Europe 7, 256, 267, 275–7, 366 ethnic cleansing 3, 23, 166, 221, 355 decline of and Berlin Wall 131–2 and Ogata 274–5, 296–8, 300–1, 315, and Goedhart 54–5, 60, 62, 72–4 328, 330 and Hartling 233, 246 Europe 97, 212, 367 international recognition of refugees asylum and migration pressures 22, 27, 34, 36–41, 44 235–40 and Lindt 83, 88–9, 100 camps of misery 89–91 and Sadruddin 152, 177, 180, 182–3 and Hocke 247, 250–1, 255 Economic and Social Council (UN) 42, and Ogata 274, 295, 316, 327 155, 355 and Sadruddin 142, 152, 164, 170, Economist 346 176–9, 183, 191 ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council) and Schnyder 105, 108–9, 117, 119, 76, 294 122–3, 128–9 ECOWAS (Economic Community of West see also Central Europe; Eastern African States) 302 Europe; Southern Europe; Western Military Observer Group (ECOMOG) Europe 302 European Commission 317 Edminster, S. 346 European Commission of Human Rights Education Department (USA) 184 270 Egypt 83, 119, 182, 223 European Convention for the Protection Eisenhower, D. 65, 68, 70, 77, 79, 86–7 of Human Rights and El Salvador/Salvadorans 253–4, 283–4, Fundamental Freedoms 198 314 European Court of Justice 317, 319 and Hartling 215, 219–20, 223, European Migration Office 58 229–31, 234, 243–5 European Parliament 317, 319 El-Ayouty, Y. 136 European Union (EU) 239–40, 349 ELF (Eritrean Liberation Front) 221 and Ogata 274, 315, 317–18, 320–1 Elliot, M. 47–8 Evans, G. 340 Ellis, S. 343 Evans, P. 197 el-Mahdi, S. 149, 221 Van Evera, S. 340 Elson, J. 341 Evian Emerson, H. 32 Conference (1938) 32–3 England 51 Peace Agreements (1962) 107 Equatorial Guinea 147, 221 Excom (UNHCR Executive Committee) Eritrea/Eritreans 3, 222–3, 281, 335 5–6, 77, 350, 359, 376, 383 Eritrean Relief Association 221–2 and Hartling 201, 215, 226–8, 246 Esquipulas II peace agreement (1987) Hocke and Stoltenberg 251–2, 256, 253–4, 258 263–8, 270 Estonia 23, 186 and Lindt 88, 90–1, 95, 99, 101, 103 Ethiopia/Ethiopians 3, 34, 147–8, 252–3, and Ogata 283, 295, 297 268 and Sadruddin 164, 174, 194 and Hartling 202, 221–3, 227, 233, and Schnyder 109, 113, 121, 124, 133 246 Executive Branch 172 and Ogata 281, 292, 335 and Schnyder 114–15, 119 Fabian, B. 102 Ethiopian People’s Liberation Front Fagen, R. F. 139 (EPLF) 221–2 Fair Share Refugee Act (USA, 1960) 78 Index 417

Far Eastern Economic Review 195 international recognition of refugees fascism 28 38, 41–2, 44–5, 49 see also Nazism and Lindt 81, 84, 88–9, 92–8, 100, Feldman, A. 342 102–4 Finland 186, 319 Resolution 46/182 291 Finnemore, M. 19, 383 Resolution 47/105 294 FLN (Algerian National Liberation Army) and Sadruddin 144, 153–5, 157 97–8, 100 and Schnyder 106, 112–13, 119, 124, Florida 132, 181, 184–5, 233–4 136, 138 FMLN (Farabundo Marti National and UNHCR’s future 348, 350, 355, Liberation Front) 219–20, 253–4, 377–8 269 Geneva 70–1, 247, 250, 256, 260 FNLA (National Front for the Liberation Accords on Afghanistan (1988) 257 of Angola) 163–4 and Hartling 201, 205–7, 211, 227–8, Foa, S. 290–1 230, 238 Fondation de France 4 and Ogata 273, 279, 288, 292, 308, Food and Agricultural Organization 313, 324–5, 347 (FAO) 282 and Sadruddin 141, 157, 164, 174–5, Forbes Martin, S. 345 178, 182 Ford, G. 171, 190, 193 Georgetown University 272 Ford Foundation 8, 66–9, 71, 75, 94 Georgia, Soviet 82, 276–8 Foreign Ministry (Canada) 210 Germany/Germans 89, 143, 367 Foreign Office (UK) 49, 53, 76 and Goedhart 52–3, 55, 58–64, 67–9, Forsythe, D. 343, 382 74, 79–80 France 9, 51–2, 76–7, 107–9, 207, 241 and Hartling 235–6, 245 international recognition of refugees international recognition of refugees 23, 27–37, 44–5, 48–9 23, 26–35, 38, 44, 47, 49 and Lindt 83, 86, 92, 97–100, 103–4 and Ogata 277, 316–18 and Ogata 307–8, 327, 345 reunification 267 and Sadruddin 143, 152, 170–1, 175, see also East Germany; West Germany 178, 182, 191 Gero, E. 82 Franco, F. 29 Ghana 114, 137, 245, 302, 306 Frankfurt 61 Ghosh, B. 346 freedom fighters 96, 178, 247 Glenny, M. 343 Frelick, B. 345 Goedhart, G. van Heuven 8, 50–80, 85, FRELIMO (Front for the Liberation of 99, 248, 264 Mozambique) 116, 162–3, 282 Gomulka, W. 82, 177 Frohardt, M. 19 good offices function 49, 91, 96, 135 Chinese in Hong Kong 92–5 Gabon 147 extending concept 109–10 Gallagher, D. 345 Goodwin-Gill, G. 47, 49, 269, 347, 380 Gambia 162 Goradze 301 Gandhi, I. 156, 158–9, 196 Gorbachev, M. 256 Ganges Plain 95 Gorman, R. 138 General Assembly (UN) 9, 265, 279, 332 Gourevitch, P. 344, 382 and Goedhart 51–2, 62–3, 69–70, 75, Great Britain see United Kingdom 78–9 Great Depression 29 418 Index

Great Lakes Region 13, 15, 118, 221, 362 Haselman, O. 197 and Ogata 306, 311, 315, 339, 345 Hathaway, J. 246, 382 Greco-Turkish War (1922) 23, 25 Havana 133, 178, 184 Greece/Greeks 89, 129 Health Department (USA) 184 and Goedhart 60–1, 64, 69, 74 Hear, N. Van 270 international recognition of refugees Heidler, J. 137 23, 25, 27, 34 Helton, A. 77 and Sadruddin 161, 165, 179 Henckel, J. 245 Green, S. 195 Hinduism 57, 156, 159 Greenland 183 Hippler, J. 383 Grose, J. 77 Hirsch, J. 343 Group of 77 120 Hmong Lao 203 Guam 190–1 Hocke, J.-P. 12–13, 20, 240, 280, 283 Guardado, F.G. 243, 269 anticipating end of Cold War 249, Guardian 245, 269, 346 256–62 Guatemala City 258 resignation 262–4 Guatemala/Guatemalans 86, 219, 244, UNHCR in crisis 247–65, 269–70 253, 314 UNHCR’s new look 248–55 Guest, I. 174, 197–8 Hohenzollern 22 guest workers 180–1 Holborn, L. 19, 48, 79–80, 134–5 Guinea 302, 322, 335–6 Holbrooke, R. 355–6 Guinea-Bissau 92, 111, 154, 161–4, 179, Holden, R. 163 335 Holocaust 25, 192, 210 Gulf War (1991) 273, 288, 291, 295 Honduras 86, 176, 219–20, 230, 243, Gulf War (Iran-Iraq War, 1980–8) 235 253 Gungwu, W. 20 Hong Kong 165, 259–61 Gypsies 28, 331–2 Chinese in 92–5, 100 and Hartling 203, 206, 208–9, 242 Habibie, B. J. 333 and Lindt 92–7, 103 Habsburg empire 22 Horn of Africa 11, 252, 257, 303 Haiti/Haitians 13, 314, 352 and Hartling 212, 214, 222–3, and Hartling 208, 231–5, 245 226–7 and Sadruddin 184–8, 199 House Judiciary Committee 58, 197 Hambro, E. 94, 103 van Hovell, W. 342 Hambro Report (1955) 94 Howe, G. 261 Hammarskjöld, D. 81, 84, 99, 110–12 Huerta, I. 169 Hanoi 189, 191, 261 Human Rights Watch 371 Hanson, C. 197, 199 Hun Sen 282 Harrell-Bond, B. 137 Hungarian Revolution (1956) 1, 7–9, Hartling, P. 194, 201–46 256, 345 and Hocke 248, 250, 259, 263 and Goedhart 72, 75 Khmer Rouge ‘killing fields’ 209–13 international recognition of refugees new cold war and proxy conflicts 23, 35 11–12, 214, 223 and Lindt 81–7, 90, 96–8, 101–2 Rohingya Muslims forced return to and Sadruddin 154, 171, 177–8 Burma 224–5 and Schnyder 113, 131 Harvard 141 Huntington, S. 138 Index 419

Hutchinson, E. 197 international recognition of refugees Hutus 114, 118, 221, 305–8, 310–12, 42, 44, 49 344 and Lindt 91, 95–7 and Sadruddin 154–60, 166, 168, 196 IASC (Inter-Agency Standing Committee) Indo-China/Indo-Chinese 11, 134, 247 292–3, 356, 373–4 building regional responses 257–62 Ibo 146–7 and Hartling 202–3, 207–9, 214–16, ICARA I (International Conference on 225–7, 233, 240–1 Assistance to Refugees in Africa, and Sadruddin 144, 152, 164, 180–1, 1981) 227–8 188–90 ICARA II (International Conference on Indonesia 3, 203, 206, 332–4, 364 Assistance to Refugees in Africa, and Sadruddin 146, 164–5 1984) 228 Indo-Sri Lankan Peace Accord (1987) ICEM (Intergovernmental Committee for 254 European Migration) 7, 59–62, Ingushetia 276, 279, 336–7 64–6, 84–5, 131, 133 INS (Immigration and Naturalization and Sadruddin 143, 152, 167, 170–1, Service) 320 177, 182–3, 190 and Hartling 230–2, 235, 244 ICRC (International Committee of the and Sadruddin 171–2, 185–7 Red Cross) 24, 145, 362, 379 Interahamwe 306 and Hartling 213, 240, 242 INTERFET (International Force in East and Hocke 247–8, 250, 253, 269 Timor) 333–4 and Lindt 84, 88, 100 Intergovernmental Committee for and Ogata 278–9, 296, 331, 337 Migration 57–9 and Sadruddin 146–7, 160, 167, 170, internally displaced persons (IDPs) 45, 182 144, 362, 373 IGCR (Intergovernmental Committee on debates over 293–5 Refugees) 33, 47 gap in protection and assistance Ignatieff, M. 343–4, 347, 382 354–6 IIRIRA (Illegal Immigration Reform and and Ogata 275, 278–83, 302–4, 307, Immigrant Responsibility Act, USA, 314, 323, 342 1996) 320 International Commission of Jurists 146 ILO (International Labour Organization) International Conference on the Former 26, 59, 122, 277 Yugoslavia (1992) 315 Immigration Act (USA, 1921, 1924) 29 International Court of Justice, The Hague Immigration and Naturalization Act (USA) 94 132, 171 International Covenant on Civil and Immigration and Refugee Act (USA, 1962) Political Rights 198 152 International Covenant on Economic, Immigration Reform Act (USA, 1965) Social and Cultural Rights 198 183–4 International Development Association Indemnity Acts (Sudan, 1966 & 1967) 120 148 International Herald Tribune 345 Independent Commission on International Nansen Office 32 Humanitarian Issues 272 International Rescue Committee 192 India/Indians 57, 110, 254–5, 267, 349 international response issues 313–16, and Hartling 223, 235, 245 368–73 420 Index

IOM (International Organization for Johnsson, A. 243, 259 Migration) 267, 279, 334 Joly, D. 346 Iran/Iranians 178, 248, 263, 273, 281, Jordan 215, 267 349 Juba 150 and Hartling 216, 223, 233, 245–6 Juliana, Queen 63, 65, 79 Iran-Iraq War (1980–8) 235 Justice Department (USA) 184 Iraq 13, 15, 182, 223, 267 intervention as means to contain Kabila, L. 311–13 refugee movements 287–9 Kabul 217, 257 and Ogata 273, 292–3, 295, 313, 326, Kadar, J. 87 339 Kahn, I. 340–1, 382 IRO (International Refugee Organization) Kampala 167 8 Karadzic, R. 314 and Goedhart 51–5, 57–8, 62–4, 74 Kathmandu 110 international recognition of refugees Katzenstein, P. 383 22, 37–43, 48–9 Keck, M. 19, 196 Islam see Muslims Keen, D. 343 Israel 40, 56 Kellogg, Ambassador 186 and Hartling 215, 223 Kelly, J. 135, 166, 245 and Lindt 83, 86 Kendall, H. H. 241 and Sadruddin 147, 182 Kennedy, E. 138, 141, 144, 149, 171–2, Italy 89, 124, 138, 270, 277, 319 197 and Goedhart 60–1, 64, 69, 74 Kennedy, J. F. 126, 130, 132 international recognition of refugees Kent, R. 122–3, 137–8, 195, 381 27–9, 34–5, 44 Kenya 114, 147–8, 303 and Sadruddin 168, 171, 178, 182, Khampas 96 196 Khan, Y. 155, 158–9 Ivory Coast 114, 147, 302 Khartoum 114–15, 126, 148–50 Khmer see Cambodia; Vietnam Jacobson, H. 197 Khmer Rouge 192–3, 203, 218, 282 Jacqueny, T. 241 Khrushchev, N. 82–3 Jaeger, G. 103, 135–7, 139, 195, 200, 246 Kibeho camp 310 Jamieson, T. 120 Kidron, Ambassador 182 Janowski, K. 341 Kigali 306, 309, 311, 314 Japan 34, 203, 272, 274, 316, 349, 378 King, L. 232 Japanese Government Mission to Extend Kingsley, D. 51–3, 57–8, 76 Relief Measures to Cambodian Kirghizstan 275, 277 Refugees 272–3 Kissinger, H. 152 Jehle, H. 195 Kivu province 114–17, 307–9, Jerrell, R. 195, 197 311–12 Jessen-Petersen, S. 341–2 KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) 15, Jews 56, 165, 178, 182 327–8, 332 international recognition of refugees Knaus, J. K. 103 23, 28–36, 40, 44 Koehn, P. 20 see also Holocaust Kojak, R. 197 Johnson, J. 48 Komer, R. W. 144, 194 Johnson, L. 184 Kommers, D. 196 Index 421

Korean Peninsula 7, 41–2, 56–7, 183, Lindt, A. 9, 20, 81–104, 183 203 consolidation of international support Koser, K. 20 82–7 Kosovo/Kosovars 1, 3, 13, 166 expansionism 91–101 and NATO’s humanitarian war promoting repatriation 87–9 327–32 and Schnyder 106, 109, 131, 138 and Ogata 322, 326, 334–6 Lithuania 23 and UNHCR’s future 350, 355, Little, A. 343 359–62, 370, 377, 381 Locke, E. 77 Kremlin 68 Loescher, G. 19–20, 31, 46–8, 139, 269, Kriangsak C. 205, 210–11 345 Kristallnacht (1938) 28 and Goedhart 76, 78–9 Kuala Lumpar 260 and Hartling 241–6 Kukes 328 and Lindt 101–2 Kulischer, E. 47 and Sadruddin 196, 198–9 Kullman, G. 68 Loftus, J. 48 Kuper, L. 46 Lomé 147, 335 Kurds 15, 223, 273, 288–91, 293, 295 Lon Nol 189 Kuwait 267 London 146, 166, 168 Kwong, P. 270 Long, N. 241 Lowman, S. 242 Lacouture, J. 240–1 LRCS (League of Red Cross Societies) 84, Lacouture, S. 240–1 100–1, 107, 112 Laos/Laotians 91, 97, 110, 260–1 Luanda 163 and Hartling 203, 205, 209–10, 240–1 Lundahl, M. 199 and Sadruddin 144, 188–9, 191–4, Lusaka 335 200 Lusaka Agreement (1974) 162 Latin America 5, 11, 58, 71, 86, 126 Luxembourg 182, 319 international recognition of refugees Lyons, G. M. 77 40, 45 overseas resettlement 164–76 Macao 93, 103 and Sadruddin 140, 150–2, 197 Macartney, C. A. 46 see also Central America; South Mace, C. 142, 192–3 America Macedonia 15, 328–31 Latvia 23 Madagascar 109 League of Nations 1, 21, 24–5, 29, 31–4, Madrid 178 46–7 Magyar refugees 23 Council of the Assembly 27 Makarios 161 Leatherman, J. 340 Malakal 150 Lebanon 182, 215, 235, 246 Malawi 162, 281 Lemarchand, R. 136 Malaysia 164–5, 203–7, 210, 241, 259–60 Lennox, G. G. 197 Malloch-Brown, M. 242–3 Leopoldville 114–15 Malta 168 Levi, E. 171 Managua 219 Liberal Party (Denmark) 201 mandate (UNHCR) Liberia 13, 15, 119, 301–2, 322, 335–6 and future 348–50, 355, 358, 364, Libya 182, 223 369, 375 422 Index mandate (UNHCR) (contd.): international recognition of refugees and Hartling 209–13 23, 40–1 institutional gaps and lack of co-ordi- and Lindt 82–3, 89 nation 353–4 Migration and Refugee Assistance Act (USA, and Lindt 86, 94, 99 1962) 130 and Ogata 292–4, 297–8, 304, 308, Military Intelligence Service 73 342 Milosevic, S. 327–8 and Sadruddin 151, 172, 189 Minear, L. 19, 347 and Schnyder 112, 120, 138 Ministry of Interior (Austria) 80 Mannar 255 Mitchell, J. 87 Mao Zedong 41, 93 Mladic, R. 314 Mariel boatlift 208 Mobuto, S. S. 163, 310–12 Marrus, M. 46–7, 78 Mogadishu 305 Marshall Plan 41–2, 55, 58, 63 Moldavia 276 Martin, D. 380 Monahan, L. 20, 31, 198, 269, 345 Martin, I. 344–5, 382 and Hartling 242–3, 245–6 Martin, L. L. 197 Montenegro 328–9, 331 Martin, S. 382 Mooney, E. 342 Marxism 221, 268–9 Moore, J. 344, 382 Mason, L. 242 Moorehead, C. 195, 269 Mauritania 221 Moreno, M. 341, 347 Maynard, K. 346, 383 Morocco 9, 107–8, 153, 182, 221 McAree, D. 241 and Lindt 91, 98–100 McDonald, J. G. 31–2 Morris, B. 77 McDowall, R. 246 Morris, E. 343 McGhee, G. 56 Morris, N. 196, 270, 342 McNamara, D. 269, 365, 383 Morse, B. 58 and Hartling 211, 242, 245–6 Morsink, H. 244 and Ogata 325, 345–7 Moscow 256–7, 276, 278 Mebtouche, L. 270 Moscow Radio 83 Meissner, D. 245 Mostar 296 Mekong River 203 Moussalli, M. 211, 250, 266, 269, 274 Melander, G. 198 and Schnyder 134–5, 139 Memorandum of Understanding 270, Mozambique 20, 92, 223, 262 289, 334 repatriation 281–3, 323 Mendiluce, J. M. 291, 296, 298, 342 and Sadruddin 154, 161–4, 179 Mengistu H. M. 221 and Schnyder 111, 116 Meo Tribe refugees 91 MPLA (Movement for the Liberation of Mertus, J. 382 Angola) 163–4 Mesa Grande 253–4 Mtango, E.-E. 243 Meskhetian Turks 280 mujahedin 216–17, 223, 275 Mexico 176, 219, 234, 243–4, 253 Mukhti Bahini 156, 159 Miami 133 Murphy, R. 101–2 Michelini, Z. 173 Muslims 25, 48, 57, 98, 114, 275 Middle East 7, 109, 182–3, 267, 274, 326 and Hartling 204, 216, 221, 224, and Goedhart 54, 56–7, 62 237 and Hartling 215, 222, 224, 235 and Ogata 285–6, 296, 301, 323 Index 423

Rohingya 154, 224–5, 284–6, 339, and Goedhart 66–7, 70–1, 78 341 and Hartling 216–17, 220, 222, 226, and Sadruddin 146, 156, 160 239 Mussolini, B. 28–9 and Hocke 250–3, 255, 257–8, 261–2 Mustang 96–7 international recognition of refugees Mutual Security Acts (USA, 1951–61) 22, 49 54–5, 59, 70 and Ogata 279, 285, 308–12, 316, 318; relief operations 291–2, Nagorno-Karabakh 276, 279, 340 302–4, 330–1, 337 Nagy, I. 82–3 and Sadruddin 142–5, 154, 157, 167, Namibia 20, 164, 263, 280–1, 323 172–4, 178–83, 186 Nansen, F. 1, 24–7, 32 and Schnyder 110, 114, 121–2, 133, Nansen Office 71 138 Naples 59 Nicaragua/Nicaraguans 154, 257, 263, Nasser, G. A. 83 268 Nation, The 345 and Hartling 202, 214, 219–20, 223, National Academy of Sciences (USA) 87 230, 233, 243–4 National Assembly (Pakistan) 155 Nichols, B. 47, 76, 79, 243 National Committee for a Free Europe Nicholson, F. 347 (USA, 1950) 54 Nigeria 109, 221, 302, 317 National Council of Churches 233 civil war (1967–70) 145–7, 151 National Security Council (NSC) Nile 150 Presidential Review Memorandum Nixon, R. 152, 158–9, 167, 171 (1977) 231–2 Nobel Peace Prize 50, 71, 80 NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Noel, A. 250 Organization) 13, 41, 111, 163, non-refoulement principle 317, 351–2 355 Norbu, T. J. 103 humanitarian war in Kosovo 327–32 North Africa 98–100, 108, 130, 178, 182, and Ogata 288–9, 334 221, 224 Nazism 28, 31, 33, 39–40, 51 North America 23, 119, 128, 229, 247, Holocaust 25, 192, 210 316, 321 Nepal 91, 95–7, 110, 322 North Korea see Korean Peninsula Netherlands 167, 171, 237–8, 318 North Ossetia 276 and Goedhart 51–2, 65, 79 Norway 48, 86, 167, 264, 267–8 New Delhi 110, 154–5, 157, 159 Norwegian Refugee Council 290 New Delhi Agreement (1973) 160 NPFL (National Patriotic Front of Liberia) New York 106, 133, 168, 186, 264 301–2 and Ogata 272, 307, 332 Numeiri, J. 221 New York Herald Tribune 102 Nuremburg Laws (1935) 28 New York Times 77–8, 102, 291 New Zealand 40 Oakley, R. 243, 343 Newland, K. 347 OAU (Organization of African Unity) Newman, L. 77 134, 136, 138, 146 NGOs (non-governmental organizations) Commission on Refugee Problems in 18, 84 Africa 108, 125 and future of UNHCR 353, 356, Refugee Convention (1969) 125–6, 365–6, 370–2, 375 139, 365 424 Index

OCHA (Office for the Co-ordination of and Hartling 212, 215–19, 223, 228, Humanitarian Affairs) 293, 355 243, 245 OECD (Organization for Economic Co- international recognition of refugees operation and Development) 277 44, 49 Office of Refugee and Migration Affairs and Ogata 281, 304–5 (ORM) 171, 187 and Sadruddin 151, 154–60, 166 Office of the US Coordinator for Refugee see also Bangladesh Affairs 231 Palestine 56–7, 215, 226, 246, 348 Ogaden 222 international recognition of refugees Ogata, S. 14, 272–347 29, 33, 42 failure of preventative protection in Paludan, A. 198 Bosnia 295–301 Pan African Congress 161–2 Kosovar refugees and NATO’s human- Paraguay 169, 172–3, 176 itarian war 327–32 Paris new refugee emergencies 326–37 Peace Accords (1991) 281 Project Delphi 324–6 peace agreements (1973) 189 reforms of emergency relief mecha- Pashtun people 216 nisms 289–93 Paul, D. 19, 383 UNHCR as international community’s Pedraza-Bailey, S. 199 firemen 286–93 Penrose, E. 48 warlords and famine in Somalia Perez de Cuellar, J. 257, 264, 267, 295 302–5 de Peron, I. M. 173 oil price shock (1973) 180, 245 Peru 151, 164, 171, 176, 197 O’Leary, T. J. 139 Peshawar 216 Operation Provide Comfort 289 Petersen, M. 246 Operation Salaam 257 Petrasek, D. 341 Operation Turquiose 307 Philippines 165, 203 Orderly Departure Program (ODP) Phnom Penh 110, 189, 193, 212, 218, 259–60 243 OSCE (Organization for Security and PICME (Provisional Intergovernmental Co-operation in Europe) 279, 327, Committee for the Movement of 332, 337 Migrants from Europe) 59 High Commissioner on National Pineau, C. 99–100 Minorities 280 Pinochet, A. 169, 172 Otsea, J. 270 pirates 202, 207 Ottoman Empire 22–3 PL-480 Food for Peace Program 128 Ottowa 168 Plain of Jars 192 Otunnu, O. 4 Plender, R. 47 Ouaddai 252 Pol Pot 193, 209–10 Oxford University 248, 251 Poland/Polish 23, 28, 35–6, 82, 177–8, 245–6 PAFMECA (Pan African Freedom Polisario Front 221 Movement for East, Central and Port-au-Prince 186–7 South Africa) 127–8 Porter, B. 194 Paiva, B. 195 Portugal 92, 221, 332 Pakistan/Pakistanis 11, 57, 134, 247–8, international recognition of refugees 257, 267 28–9, 41 Index 425

and Sadruddin 147, 154, 161–3, 179 warriors 11, 98–100, 115, 159, 202, and Schnyder 111–16, 128, 135 214–15; and regional conflicts see also Angola 223–9 Posner, M. 102 Refugee Act (USA, 1980) 185, 232–4 Potsdam Conference (1945) 35 Refugee Convention see Convention Presidential Decision Directive 25 (USA, relating to the Status of Refugees 1994) 305 Refugee Escapee Act (USA, 1957) 78 Preziosi, F. 117 Refugee Law and Doctrine Division 260 PRODERE (Development Programme for Refugee Relief Act (USA, 1953) 78 Displaced Persons, Refugees, and Reid, N. 244 Repatriates) 258, 270 Reid, T. 341 Project Delphi 324–6 religion see animists; Buddhists; Protection Division see DIP Christianity; Hinduism; Holocaust; Protocol Relating to the Status of Jews; Muslims Refugees (UN, 1967) repatriation 39–43, 88–9, 251–5, 280–6 and Hartling 204, 211–12, 231 Angola, Guinea Bissau and and Sadruddin 185–6, 191, 198 Mozambique 161–4 and Schnyder 124–6, 138 Cambodia 281–2 Proudfoot, M. 48 Mozambique 282–3 proxy wars 11–13, 214, 223 of Rohingyan refugees to Burma Prunier, G. 344–5, 382 284–6 Psychological Strategy Board (USA) 54 Republicans, US 55 Pueblo (US intelligence ship) 182–3 resettlement Pugh, M. 342, 347 and repatriation 39–43, 88–9 Putin, V. 337 Ugandan Asians and Latin Americans Putnam, R. 197 164–76 restrictionism see asylum crises QIPs (quick impact projects) 258, 304, Revolutionary United Front of Sierra 343 Leone 302 Reynell, J. 243 Racak 327 Rhodesia 20, 128, 161–2 Radio Free Europe 73–4, 82 Richards, P. 343, 383 Radio Rwanda 344 Rieff, D . 343, 345, 382 Rahman, M. 156, 159–60 Rio Grande 176 Rakhine State (Burma) 284–6 Risse, T. 19, 196, 382 Rambouillet 327 Rizvi, Z. 213, 240, 242–3 Rangoon 224, 285 Roberts, A. 347 Read, J. 52, 54, 75–6 Robinson, C. 200, 242, 270 Reagan, R. 208, 218, 234, 268 Robinson, V. 270–1 Reagan Doctrine 214 ROC (Republic of China) 93–4, 103 Red Cross see ICRC; LRCS see also China Red Sea 223 Rochefort, R. 49, 52–3, 76 Redmond, R. 341 Rockefeller Foundation 63 Rees, E. 102 Roeder, O. G. 195 refugee 179–81, 318, 380 Rogers, R. 382 international recognition 21–49 Rogge, J. 241 protection 33–4, 351–3, 365–8 Rohde, D. 343 426 Index

Rohingya Muslims 154, 224–5, 284–6, Salazar, A. 28, 111, 136 339, 341 Salomon, K. 47 Romania/Romanians 23, 61, 171, 178, Salvadoran Catholic Church 253 256, 276–7 Sampatkumar, R. 241 Romanov Empire 22 Samrin, H. 210 Rome 61 Sandinistas 219–20 Roosevelt, E. 44, 63 Santiago 169–70 Roosevelt, F. 32 Sarejevo 296, 301, 323 Ropp, S. 19, 196, 382 Saudi Arabia 223 Rorholt, A. 99 Savimbi, J. 163–4 Rose, L. E. 196 Scandinavia 45, 51, 53, 178–9, 378 Rosenblatt, L. 242 Scanlan, J. 46–8, 101–2, 139, 199, 241–2 Ross, M. H. 383 and Goedhart 76, 78–9 Rotberg, R. 199 Schatten, F. 138 RPF (Rwanda Patriotic Front) 306–7, 309 Schengen Agreement (1985) 317 Rudge, P. 245–6 Schengen and Dublin Conventions Rufin, J.-C. 243 (1990) 317 Ruiz, H. G. 173, 269–70 Schlatter, E. 186, 197 Rusk, D. 138 Schnyder, F. 10, 105–41, 183, 215 Russia/Russians 3, 54, 256, 336–7, 349 Algerian repatriation 106–8 international recognition of refugees strategy and programmes in 23–7, 36, 38 developing countries 114–22 Russian Federation 275–7, 279, 319 Schuman, Mr 52 see also Soviet Union Scratch, J. 380–1 Ruthstrom-Ruin, C. 102–4 Security Council (UN) 13, 55, 111, Rwanda 4, 15, 17, 91, 362, 375, 383 348–50, 355, 369 failure to stop genocide 305–13 and Ogata 288–9, 295–314, 327, and Ogata 305–15, 325, 335, 344 332–3, 336–8, 343–5 and Sadruddin 161, 167 Resolution 688 288–9, 341 and Schnyder 114–18, 122, 127, and Sadruddin 159, 196 136–7 Senate, US 55, 91, 103, 127–8, 138, 197 Rystad, G. 47 Armed Services Committee 190 Judiciary Committee 144 Sadruddin Aga Khan 10–11, 140–202, Senegal 119, 162 257 Serbia/Serbs 300–1, 323, 327–8, 330–2 Bangladesh operation 155–60 Shacknove, A. 345 expansionism 150–5 Shah of Iran 216 and Hartling 228, 240, 244 Shaknove, A. 346 initial caution 143–7 Shakya, T. 103 and Schnyder 109, 138 Shanghai 62 and United States 181–8 Shawcross, W. 200, 234, 241–2, 245 and Vietnam 188–94 Sierra Leone 3–4, 13, 15 Sadry, A. K. 148 and Ogata 302, 322, 327, 335–6 safe areas 170, 288–9, 292, 300–1, 307 Sihanouk, N. 110, 189 Saharawi people 221 Sikkink, K. 19, 196–7, 382 Sahnoun, M. 343 Silber, L. 343 Saigon 188–90 Simmance, A. J. F. 241 Index 427

Simpson, J. H. 46 and Hocke 247, 256–7, 260 Sinai Peninsula 83 implosion 274–80 Singapore 203–4, 207 international recognition of refugees Sinhalese 255 21, 23–4, 27–9, 31, 34–45 Sino-Indian border war (1962) 110 and Lindt 82–5, 87, 98, 100–2 Sisson, R. E. 196 and Ogata 273, 338, 340 Sjoberg, T. 47 re-defection campaigns 72–5 Skopje 329, 331 and Sadruddin 147, 151, 160, 163–5, Skran, C. 23, 25, 46 177 Slavs 28, 276, 328 and Schnyder 116, 123, 126–7 Slovak Federal Republic 256 Spain 27–9, 41, 133–4, 168, 171, 178 Solana, J. 330 Special Action Group on the Indo- Soldatov 48 Pakistan Situation (USA) 158 Somalia 13, 248, 253, 262, 350 SPLA (Sudanese People’s Liberation and Hartling 212, 222–3 Army) 221–2 and Ogata 273, 281, 290, 301, 307, Srebrenica 301, 375 314, 335 Sri Lanka warlords, famine and UNHCR and Hartling 223, 235, 237–9, 246 cross-border relief 302–5 and Hocke 254–5, 263, 269 Sommers, M. 347 and Ogata 283–4, 292, 317 Sophia University 272 Stalin, J. 29, 31, 36, 68, 82, 85 South Africa 20, 119, 128, 223 State Department, US 91 and Sadruddin 147, 161–4, 178 and Goedhart 51–2, 54, 58, 61, South America 40, 91, 119 70–8 see also Central America; Latin America and Hartling 230, 232–3 South Asia 110, 202, 224 international recognition of refugees South Caucasus 278 34, 41–2 South Ossetia 276, 278 and Sadruddin 142, 149, 152, 171, South Sudan Liberation Movement 182–7, 197 149–50 and Schnyder 117–18, 126–30, 133, South West Africa People’s Organization 137–8 (SWAPO) 162 Statue of Liberty 184 South–East Asia 259–62, 332, 366 Statute, UNHCR (1950) 44–6, 92, 94–5, and Hartling 204–6, 209, 216, 218, 99–100 224, 234 Cold War origins 56, 66, 79 and Sadruddin 146, 164–5, 188, 191, and expansion into Africa 105, 193–4 111–12, 124, 138 Southern Africa 11, 127, 161, 257, 366 Stein, B. 244 and Hartling 214–15, 223, 226 Stoessinger, J. 48 Southern Cone military dictatorships Stoltenberg, T. 264–8, 271 168–72 Strong, M. 292 Southern Europe 34, 180 Stuart-Fox, M. 241 South-West Africa 161 Study on Human Rights and Massive Soviet Union 5, 9–12 Exoduses (Aga Khan, 1981) 228 and Goedhart 50–1, 54–6 Sudan Army of National Union (SANU) and Hartling 201–2, 210, 214, 115, 127 216–18, 229 Sudan People’s Liberation Army 223–4 428 Index

Sudan/Sudanese 3, 15, 350 Time 291 and Hartling 221–4, 228–9, 240 Tito, J. B. 85, 101 and Hocke 248, 252, 262 Togo 114, 137 and Ogata 281, 283, 292, 335 Tokyo 272 and Sadruddin 150, 153–5, 161, 167 Tolstoy, N. 47 and Schnyder 114–16, 122, 126–7, Toscani, C. 237, 246 134 TPLF (Tigray People’s Liberation Front) UNHCR initiatives 147–50 221–2 Sudetan Germans 46 TPLF Relief Society 222 Suez Canal 83 Transylvania 256 Suharto 145, 332–3 Trieste 61 Suhrke, A. 20, 196, 344, 382 Tripura 156 and Hartling 243–4 Truman, H. 54, 58, 60, 63, 79 and Schnyder 134, 136 Tunisia/Tunisians 9 Sung, V. V. 206 and Lindt 91, 98–100 Sutter, V. 241 and Sadruddin 153, 178, 182 Sweden 86, 316 and Schnyder 107–9 and Sadruddin 143, 152, 167, 170–1, Turkey/Turks 15, 60–2, 138, 161, 182 175 and Hartling 223, 245–6 Switzerland 81, 86, 237–8, 269, 319, 378 international recognition of refugees and Sadruddin 167, 178, 188 23, 25, 41, 48 Syria 23, 182, 223 and Ogata 273, 288–9, 329, 339 Turkmenistan 277 Taiwan 93–5, 103 Turner, R. K. 48 Tajikistan 275, 277–8, 362 Tutsi 221 Tamils 235, 237–9, 246, 254–5, 283–4, and Ogata 306–7, 309–11, 314, 344 352 and Schnyder 114–15, 118, 137 Tampere 319 Twomey, P. 347 Tanzania 17, 20, 161–2 and Ogata 308, 311–12, 326, 335, Uganda/Ugandans 15, 212, 221 339 and Ogata 306, 311, 335–6 and Schnyder 109, 114, 116–17, 119, overseas resettlement 164–76 122, 136 and Sadruddin 147–8, 196 Taylor, C. 301 and Schnyder 114–16, 122, 134 Teknaf-Cox’s Bazar 341 Ukraine 36 Terry, F. 243 Ulbricht, W. 177 Thai Rangers 218 UNAMIR (UN Assistance Mission for Thailand 259–60, 281 Rwanda) 306–7 and Hartling 203–7, 209–13, 215–16, UNBRO (UN Border Relief Operation) 218–20, 241–2 213 and Sadruddin 164–5, 191–4 UNDP (UN Development Program) 122, Thant, U. 142, 144, 146–7, 149, 151, 150, 154, 167, 257–8, 282, 357 157–9 UNDRO (Office of the United Nations Thatcher, M. 261 Disaster Relief Co-ordinator) Thorburn, J. 345 151–2 Tibetans 91, 95–7, 110, 130 UNEPRO (UN East Pakistan Relief Tigray 222, 240 Operation) 158 Index 429

UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for towards the future 18–19, 357–65, Refugees) 2–11, 14–16, 24–6 373–81 Advisory Committees 70, 381 and US interests 126–8, 183–8 Assistance Programmes 66–9, 118 Vietnam, long-term commitment in Bangladesh operation, focal point for 188–94 155–60 see also DIP; Excom; mandate; Statute Bosnia, failure of preventative protec- UNICEF 157, 189, 212–13, 292 tion 295–301 Executive Committee 106 Cold War origins 44–6, 50–7, 61–2, UNITA (National Union for Total 66–70, 79 Independence of Angola) 163–4, collapse of morale 264–8 281 consolidation of international support United Kingdom 109, 210, 255, 261 82–7 and Goedhart 51–4, 57, 59, 69–70, and Cuban Asylum crisis 132–4 77, 79–80 and Cyprus 161 international recognition of refugees expansionism 91–101, 134, 150–5, 27, 31–7, 40–1, 43–5, 49 323–4 and Lindt 83, 86, 92–5, 99 financial crisis 13, 262–4 and Ogata 291, 317, 319, 321 global expansion 141–7, 155–61, and Sadruddin 143, 146–7, 152, 160, 176–9, 183–94 166–8, 171, 178, 196 good offices and expansion into United Nations (UN) 1–3, 7–8, 10, 258, Africa 122–3, 126–8; role in 262, 264–5 developing countries 114–22; Charter 13–14, 146–7, 288, 381 strengthening legal underpinnings emergency relief mechanism reform 123–6 289–93 Hungary 1956 Revolution 82–7 and Goedhart 52, 55–9, 62–5, 68 inauspicious and uncertain begin- and Hartling 207, 211–13, 222, 224, nings 43–6 228, 244 Inspection and Evaluation Unit 325 Human Rights Centre, Geneva Khmer Rouge ‘killing fields’ 209–13 312–14 Kosovar refugees and NATO’s human- international community’s firemen itarian war 327–32 287–94 Legal Protection Division 118, 177 international recognition of refugees new cold war and proxy conflicts 36–7, 41, 43–4 11–13, 209–14, 223–5 and Lindt 81, 89–90, 92, 94, 99 new look under Hocke 248–55 new refugee emergencies 331–7 in post-Cold War era 13–14, 286–93, Office for the Co-ordination of 326–39 Humanitarian Affairs 277, 373–4 Project Delphi 324–6 and Ogata 272–3, 276, 279–82, protection, downgrading 249–51, 299–300, 304–7, 310–15, 322–3, 324–6 342 Public Information Office 290 Refugee Fund 70–1, 74–5, 80, 87 Refugee Fund 182–3 and Sadruddin 149–61, 164–8, 175, repatriation 16–17, 283–6 177, 196, 198 Rohingya Muslims’ forced return to and Schnyder 105–7, 112–14, Burma 224–5 117–23, 125, 133, 137 Somalia 302–5 Third Committee 42, 48 430 Index

United Nations (UN) (contd.): UNTAET (UN Transitional and UNHCR’s future 350, 354–6, Administration in East Timor) 360–2, 370–1, 375, 379, 383 333–4 UNOSOM I and UNOSOM II 303–5 Uruguay 165, 168–9, 172–3, 176 and Vietnam 188–9, 192–3 US Coast Guard 234–5 see also General Assembly; Security US Co-ordinator for Refugee Affairs 268 Council; UNDP; UNHCR; UNKRA; USEP (US Escapee Program) 7, 84, 91, UNPROFOR; UNREF; UNRRA; 129–31 UNRWA; UNTAET and Goedhart 54, 60–2, 64–6, 74, 78 United States 7–13, 349, 352, 378 Uzbekistan/Uzbeks 275, 277 asylum policy and UNHCR 183–8 and Goedhart 50–74, 77, 79–80 Vayrynen, R. 270 and Hartling 202–9, 212, 216–26, Venezuela 86 229–35, 240, 242–3 Vernant, J. 47, 63, 78–9 and Hocke 247–8, 257, 259–61, 263, Vidal, J. 346 265 Vieira de Mello, S. 260, 346 international recognition of refugees Vienna 72–4 29, 32–45, 47, 49 Vientiane 189, 192 and Lindt 81, 83–91, 93, 96–7, Vietcong 144–5, 189, 194 99–103 Vietnam/Vietnamese 97, 162, 164–6 and Ogata 272–4, 304–7, 312–13, and Hartling 203–10, 213, 215–18, 318–21, 331, 345 223, 233, 241, 243 refugee programs 103, 130, 194 and Hocke 259–61, 263, 268, 270 and Sadruddin 141–9, 152, 158–9, Provisional Revolutionary 163–71, 176–83, 199 Government of South Vietnam and Schnyder 105, 109–11, 117–20, 91, 203, 205; and Sadruddin 143, 123–4, 129–34, 137–9 148, 181, 188–91, 193–4 United States Refugee Committee 142 Socialist Republic of (North) 143–4, Universal Suez Canal Company 83 188–9, 200, 259 UNKRA (United Nations Korean UNHCR’s long-term commitment in Reconstruction Agency) 52, 57, 188–94 64–5 Vishnevsky, A. 340 UNPROFOR (UN Protection Force) Vogue 291 299–301 Voice of America 73–4 UNREF (United Nations Refugee Volfing, O. 202 Emergency Fund) 62–6, 74–5, 80 Wain, B. 241 establishment 69–72 Waldheim, K. 151, 154, 160–1, 190, 199, Executive Committee 70–1, 95, 102 211 and Sadruddin 142, 162, 189 Walkup, M. 381 and Schnyder 110, 112–13 Wall Street Journal 269 UNRRA (United Nations Relief and Walter, F. 58, 77–8 Rehabilitation Agency) 22, 35–7, warlords 301–5 40, 43, 48–9, 51 Warren, G. 49, 76, 78 UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agency Warsaw Pact 41, 83, 131, 177 for Palestinian Refugees in the Washington DC 106, 131–3, 142, 168, Near East) 56–7, 64–5 230–1 Index 431

Washington Post 346 World Food Programme (WFP) 157, 217, Washington Star 206 292, 322, 336 Wau 150 World Refugee Survey 3 Weiner, M. 369, 382 World Refugee Year (1959) 90 Weis, P. 86, 102, 135 World War II (1939–45) 89, 91, 109, 267 Weiss, P. 137, 198 Wright, N. 347 Weiss-Fagen, P. 269–70, 345, 383 Wyman, D. 47 Welfare Department (USA) 184 West Africa 147, 302, 364 Yalta Conference (1945) 35, 37 West Bengal 156 De Young, K. 346 West Berlin 8, 68 Yugoslavia/Yugoslavs 13, 130, 171, West Germany (FRG) 86, 131, 237, 251, 245–6 267 and Goedhart 61, 64, 73 and Goedhart 55, 67 international recognition of refugees and Sadruddin 170–1, 178 23, 45 West Timor 333–4, 362 and Lindt 82, 84–6, 89, 101–2 Western Europe 11, 86, 177–8, 256, 267, and Ogata 275, 293, 295–300, 365–7 314–16, 329, 331–2 and Goedhart 58, 60, 67 and Hartling 229, 235, 237–8, 240, 245–6 Zaïre/Zaïreans 15, 17, 116 international recognition of refugees and Ogata 281, 294, 305–13 35, 39–41 and Sadruddin 154, 163–4, 167 and Ogata 274–5, 277, 296, 317, 319 Zalaquett, J. 197 White Russian Army 23, 27, 41 Zambia 20, 162, 281 WHO (World Health Organization) 157 Zarjevski, Y. 136 Widgren, J. 245, 250, 269 de Zayas, A. 47 Wiesner, L. 194 Zayonchkovskaya, Z. 340 Wilkenson, R. 346 Zepa 301 Wine, J. 138 Zia ul-Haq, M. 216 Winter, R. 198, 347 Zieck, M. 340 Wollo provinces 222 Zimbabwe 162, 164 Woodbridge, G. 47 Zolberg, A. 20, 46, 196, 343 Woodward, J. B. 139 and Hartling 243–4 World Alliance of YMCAs 269 and Schnyder 134, 136 World Bank 120, 122, 137, 228, 282, 357 Zucker, N. & N. 242 432