During his address to the UN General Assembly last month, Jordan’s King Abdullah called on the international community to do more to support the Syrian refugees living in his country as well as Lebanon.
Also last month, Lebanese officials criticised the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, for issuing residence certificates to Syrian refugees housed in their country.
It is becoming increasingly clear that it is time for the UNHCR and other NGOs operating in host countries for refugees, including Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, to fundamentally reconsider their tasks and conduct and establish a new strategy that respects official positions and popular sentiments within the host countries vis-a-vis the refugee crisis.
Entire villages in Lebanon now have Syrian majorities. This, among other things, has led to popular resentment towards the UNHCR, in particular as it is seen to be delivering aid to refugees rather than to the host countries – even though the UNHCR helps support host communities too.
Jordan says it hosts 1.4 million Syrian refugees and close to two million are believed to be living in Lebanon. However, the Lebanese government does not have an accurate count because the UNHCR has yet to divulge the official figures.
It bears mention that the Lebanese government is partly responsible for the country’s ordeal. It refused to build proper camps, which led to the dispersal of refugees into villages and cities, including Beirut, and the mushrooming of informal camps that are outside the law. Regardless of the chaos and the mismanagement, however, the UNHCR has no right to classify who is a refugee or displaced to Lebanon, nor should it be the party that manages Beirut’s response.
Further, government departments must develop a comprehensive strategy to then be executed by the armed forces and the General Directorate of General Security (GDGS) intelligence agency.
While we must view the issue as a humanitarian one, a fresh influx of refugees from Syria suggests there could be some form of co-ordination between Syrian authorities and Lebanese entities such as Hezbollah to facilitate their illegal crossing through the permeable borders. There are murmurs of rampant corruption that includes the enabling of smugglers.
It is also worth asking if the new displacement wave is triggered by economic factors, inadvertently encouraged by some NGOs, given the kind of assistance refugees receive in Lebanon – even as Lebanese citizens themselves suffer from shortages and increasing poverty.
The almost 400-kilometre-long border with Syria is difficult to control, especially as Lebanon’s armed forces are involved in various challenges in different parts of the country. There is neither adequate funding for the technological development of border control nor a political agreement on the demarcation of the border.
The Syrian regime does not appear interested in the refugees’ return and is showing little intent in providing a secure environment for them.
Lebanese authorities have become tired of waiting for officials in the West, particularly in Europe, to act.
Gen Elias Baysari, who heads the GDGS, said in a recent media interview that his organisation has the “right” to “decide on the presence of foreigners in Lebanon”. This is a crucial statement that the UN, its agencies, and European countries and their representatives would do well to note.
Today, there is widespread anger, alarm and suspicion inside Lebanon of the European powers’ intentions. They are being accused of using the humanitarian issue as a pretext to impose the resettlement of Syrians in Lebanon. There are increasingly even calls to close UN offices for overstepping the powers of the state, with some urging the opening of the shores for Syrian refugees to cross into Europe. The continent’s powers, terrified by the influx of refugees, rely on the likes of Lebanon to host them.
What should be done?
Controlling the borders is essential, but even this most basic of principles is a victim to political and sectarian polarisation in a fragmented country.
Hezbollah, for instance, has succeeded in all but dismantling the state bit by bit, and has not expressed any desire to tackle the border issue. This suggests much-required demarcation is unlikely to happen soon.
It is, therefore, worthwhile and necessary to build on the dual approach of both the Jordanian and Lebanese tracks regarding the issue of Syrian refugees, as raised by King Abdullah at the UN.
It is time for Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey to collectively address the UN through diplomatic means. They should send delegations to meet UN officials, including Secretary General Antonio Guterres, pointing to the shortcomings of the UNHCR’s policies and demanding specific and precise measures be taken. These efforts need to be accompanied by smart media campaigns beyond simply airing grievances.
It would be beneficial for the three countries to also address the UN Security Council with carefully crafted draft resolutions, both in humanitarian and political terms. These resolutions should serve as a tool to pressure the Syrian regime into taking serious actions to ensure the safe return of displaced individuals.
The trio must also adopt a unified stance regarding the impact of refugees on their economies.
Ultimately, addressing the crisis requires a global partnership with the host countries to tackle the problem at its roots based on a security situation that allows the safe return of refugees, with shared responsibilities. This should be part of a resolution presented in the Security Council, accompanied by a financial mechanism enabling the relocation of refugees either back to their home country or to a third country.
There needs to be a concerted effort to make the international community act rationally, intelligently and with responsibility. Syria’s neighbours cannot alone bear the burden posed by the refugee crisis. This is also the responsibility of the UN and the EU.
