THE REFUGEE WORKING
GROUP: CONSTRAINTS AND CHALLENGES OF THE SITUATION
IN LEBANON
Notes for Remarks by Andrew Robinson
Gavel Holder of the Refugee Working Group,
and Special Coordinator, Middle East Peace Process,
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
Canada.
to the PALESTINIANS IN LEBANON CONFERENCE
Minister Lovell, Oxfordshire,
27 - 30 September, 1996
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It gives me great pleasure to participate in this
Conference on the Palestinians in Lebanon. I congratulate
the co-chairs in organizing such a fine representation
of experience and knowledge in one room.
Such "third track" conferences are particularly
vital in exploring where the other tracks, the bilateral
and the multilateral, are unable to tread. I am sure
I speak not just for myself but for the few other
government officials privileged to attend this gathering
when I say that we benefit enormously from such an
event. I hope to leave here with new perspectives
and ideas, as well as with new friendships.
I would like to begin tonight by speaking a little
about the work of the refugee Working Group in the
Multilateral track of the Middle East Peace Process,
of which Canada serves as the Gavel-holder. I will
then go on to identify very briefly what some of our
problems and challenges are, and to exchange ideas
with you on how we might go about addressing them
in the most productive way.
Then, I would really welcome the opportunity to hear
your views, either now or at some other point during
the conference.
As most of you know, the Refugee Working Group, like
the other Working Groups in the Multilateral Process,
was set up in Moscow in January, 1992, to complement
the bilateral negotiation process begun at Madrid,
and to address broad regional issues whose solutions
require coordinated actions and the support of the
international community. Forty one countries participate
in our Plenary meetings.
At early meetings of the RWG we agreed that we should
address our purpose in three ways:: improving the
current living conditions of refugees and displaced
persons without prejudice to their rights and future
status; easing and extending access to family reunification;
and supporting the process of achieving a viable and
comprehensive solution to the refugee issue.
We also agreed that the best way to do this would
be to divide our work into various themes, for which
certain countries would act as "Shepherds".
These shepherds and the respective themes are Norway
- Data Bases, Sweden -Child Welfare, Italy - Public
Health, the USA Human Resource Development and Vocational
Training, and Job Creation, the EU - Social and Economic
Infrastructure, and France - Family Reunification.
In addition, as you have heard Switzerland has subsequently
taken on the theme of the "human dimension"
generally with respect to all five working groups.
I am very happy that representatives of three of these
shepherds, Sweden, the EU and Switzerland, have been
able to join in our deliberations at this conference.
We held our eighth Plenary meeting last December.
It was a constructive and productive meeting, at which
we took stock of developments since the preceding
meeting, and developed a quite ambitious program of
activities for the following period.
I am glad to be able to report that despite the politically
difficult character of the nine months that have passed
since then, we have been able to carry out some of
the mandate given to us. For example, in May there
was a Gavel's mission to Jordan, where an international
team of representative countries participating in
the peace process visited a number of camps in Jordan,
and met with inhabitants of the camps as well as the
government of Jordan and officials of UNRWA. The purpose
of this mission was to increase our dialogue with
the persons and authorities most affected about what
the RWG should be doing with respect to the Palestinian
refugees in Jordan. A report is being prepared for
submission to the Plenary.
Some of you may recall that my predecessor as RWG
Gavel led a similar international mission to Lebanon
as well as Jordan in 1994. That mission drew significant
international attention to the plight of the Palestinian
refugees in Lebanon. The last plenary meeting decided
that it was time for another similar mission to Lebanon,
and one to the West Bank and Gaza. I believe the next
mission to Lebanon could be a very important one in
developing the agenda of the group.
Other activities agreed upon in Geneva have gone
ahead or are going to do so. An intersessional meeting
on Data Bases was organized by the Norwegian shepherd
in Oslo in June, and plans are underway for an intersessional
conference on Public Health, which the Italian shepherd
for that theme is organizing.
Regrettably, progress in the important area of Family
Reunification has been slow. In the context of the
RWG, Israel agreed some time ago to increase the quota
from 2000 to 6,000 individuals per year. The Palestinian
and other participants have been contending that there
should be a further increase in the quota as well
as a relaxation of the criteria, and greater transparency
in their application. These subjects were to have
been addressed in an intersessional meeting sometime
this year, which however has not yet been held.
The mixed success we have had in implementing the
mandate approved in Geneva points to several very
important constraints, which I want to share with
you very openly.
First, consensus: As you know, the multilateral process
works by consensus, and therefore we must ensure that
all the parties see some advantage to what we do,
or at least have no objection to it. This means that
we must try to find "win-win" projects or
activities which can be seen as productive and not
prejudicing the interests of the parties in the bilateral
negotiations. This is also one of our strengths, however,
as I will mention later.
Second, unlike the other working groups, the RWG
is not only intensely political but it has to do with
the fundamental problem which lies at the heart of
the Palestinian question - the incontrovertible existence
of the Palestinian refugees. Because the issue is
so central it also overlaps to a great extent with
the bilateral negotiations. Unfortunately this sometimes
leads the parties principally concerned to view the
multilateral group as a forum for making points or
reinforcing their negotiating agenda in the bilateral
tracks. When however one is already operating by the
first constraint I mentioned, consensus, it is clear
that such tactics can render agreement more difficult,
and we have suffered somewhat from this at earlier
stages of the process.
Thirdly, because the multilaterals are intended to
support and complement the bilateral track, our work
is also directly affected by the political atmosphere
surrounding the peace process in general. When things
are not going well on the bilateral tracks, the multilateral
process is often affected. Sometimes, however, it
has also served as a means of helping to overcome
the problems parties are having in the bilaterals.
Certainly the Oslo process for example received a
helpful start by contacts which were made at the RWG
meetings in Ottawa.
Fourth, we are of course hindered by the absence of
the governments of Lebanon and Syria from this multilateral
group, with regard to which one should assume that
they would have a considerable interest.
Ironic and paradoxical though it may seem, however,
the first two of these "constraints" are
also potential strengths, while the other two relate
to the behaviour of parties - and one can hope that
behaviour can be changed.
The work that we have been able to accomplish in
the Refugee Working Group has reflected these various
factors. At the initial stages, we went for agreement
where it could be most easily established - the need
for increased attention to the humanitarian situation
of the Palestinian refugees in the camps, without
prejudice to their rights or future status. Through
the work of the shepherds, and to a large extent in
collaboration with UNRWA, the RWG has succeeded in
mobilizing millions of dollars of support for projects
in the camps, whether in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or
in the West Bank and Gaza. The work in this field
continues, and it is important that it should continue.
At the same time, the RWG has recognized that we
must be more than just an adjunct to or cheerleader
for UNRWA. The role of the multilateral track is to
support and complement the bilateral track and, as
I said above, to address broad regional issues whose
solutions require coordinated actions and the support
of the international community.
It is in addressing such issues that our constraints
can become our strengths, and particularly the first
two factors that I mentioned, the role of consensus
and the political importance of the issue with which
we must deal. I think there is widespread agreement
within the region, which includes even some of those
who do not support the Madrid peace process, that
if a peace is to be durable it must also be generally
acceptable to all those involved. So when we start
off with the rule of consensus, we avoid the risk
that we could marginalize our political relevance
by adopting positions or pursuing activities which
are nonstarters because they are unacceptable to the
participants.
The second constraint I mentioned, the political
centrality of the refugee issue, at least provides
us with the benefit that it maintains the interest
of the parties concerned, as well as of the international
community. It underlines to everyone, in fact, the
importance of continuing serious efforts to address
this most complex of issues, despite substantial obstacles
related to the other factors I mentioned above.
Beyond the humanitarian aspect, however, the RWG
has played an important role in establishing a greater
level of confidence among the core regional parties
who are participating in it. Over the past year there
has been a growing recognition of the real possibility
of us working together to identify win-win activities
which benefit everyone. This was apparent both in
the constructive attitude of the parties at the Plenary
meeting last Geneva, and a "coordination"
meeting of the parties most active in the RWG, which
we held in Rome in May.
The Rome Coordination meeting enabled us to look
forward at possible directions of activity of the
RWG over the next two to three years. It provided
an opportunity for some imaginative yet realistic
thinking about the future work of the Group. No binding
decisions about the future were taken at this meeting,
but some fundamental points emerged, including a recognition
that the subjects being addressed in the RWG and in
the bilateral negotiations were drawing closer together
as the permanent status negotiations approached, and
that this might open up a variety of ways for the
RWG to be of assistance to the parties concerned.
The situation of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon
was also discussed at the Rome meeting. There was
recognition of the need for donors to find ways to
support those refugees either through dedicated donations
to UNRWA or through other channels. There was also
consensus support for the continuation of the practice
that the gavel-holder should continue to brief the
Governments of Syria and Lebanon on developments in
the RWG.
I would now like to touch a little more explicitly
on the issue of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon
and what the RWG can do to be helpful.
To begin with, I applaud once again the holding of
this conference, which can help us to promote dialogue
in the search for solutions. Indeed it is because
of this that the Government of Canada decided to lend
its financial support, along with several other concerned
governments.
Second, I would like to emphasize the concern of
the international community about the situation of
the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. It is hardly
for me to describe their plight to you, but I would
underline that at every meeting of the RWG their situation
is discussed. The shepherds in particular make efforts
to find ways to address the humanitarian aspects of
the situation. Individual donor countries are also
somewhat frustrated by the considerable limits on
the available mechanisms for delivering aid. While
the government of Lebanon has made it clear that UNRWA
is the acceptable channel for humanitarian aid, many
donors are anxious to use the whole panoply of humanitarian
mechanisms, including NGO cooperation and so forth.
I am sure that the Lebanese government, and the Lebanese
people, already recognize that the situation of the
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon remains a minus sign
against the international image of Lebanon, despite
other efforts to reestablish its reputation. I must
emphasize that there is significant unhappiness in
the international community about the treatment of
the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, and particularly
Lebanon's non-application of international standards
respecting human rights in so far as the situation
of the refugees is concerned. The question which I
believe is not yet clearly answered is whether Lebanon
cares enough about its international image to look
for ways to do something about this, and, if so, whether
the RWG can be helpful to Lebanon in that regard..
Another challenge for the RWG that is particularly
relevant respecting Lebanon is that the purely humanitarian
approach which is mostly what has been possible until
now, does not really allow us to get to the heart
of the issue. There is, after all broad recognition
that the Palestinian refugee issue is not going to
be resolved though negotiations on the bilateral track
alone.
If the international community, through the Refugee
Working Group, is to help with respect to the multilateral
and regional elements of the Palestinian refugee problem,
we will have to engage all the governments of the
region more directly in discussing existing and future
conditions for Palestinians in the region, including
some of the questions we have already been hearing
about at this conference. Of course, this requires
at some stage that the governments of Lebanon and
Syria associate themselves more directly with our
work.
I also believe that we must take into account more
clearly the unique geographic and historic situation
in Lebanon. We need to recognize the important social
and psychological as well as political factors respecting
a country just emerging from 20 years of civil strife
and foreign aggression, an experience which I shared
during the years 1980-82. I believe we must remain
conscious of what Lebanon and the Lebanese have suffered,
and why the situation is as it is.
For my part I believe it would be desirable to find
ways to make an immediate and substantial improvement
in the humanitarian situation of the Palestinian refugees,
including a much more extensive access to the labour
market. But this should not be done in a way which
prejudices their rights or which favours some particular
outcomes over others. An international mission as
I mentioned above may be a good way to explore these
questions with the Government of Lebanon, especially
now after the successful holding of the elections.
While the RWG will remain engaged in Lebanon and
Syria, I feel I must reassure you yet again that there
is no question of secret agendas or of prejudicing
the results of negotiations between the parties. It
is a shame that there is no-one form the Lebanese
side, participating in the work of the RWG, to assure
the Lebanese of this.
Finally, I cannot refer to the issue of providing
humanitarian assistance to Palestinian refugees without
paying tribute to the work of UNRWA. Nowhere has that
work been more critical than in Lebanon, and perhaps
nowhere have the staff of UNRWA had to work in more
difficult conditions. I have just come from a meeting
of UNRWA donors in Amman called to deal with an on-going
financing crisis, and I am glad to be able to say
that donors responded with generosity to address the
immediate situation. Also I can assure you that there
was very clear consensus there on the importance of
the UNRWA role with respect to the Palestinian refugees
in all of the UNRWA fields of operation. While it
is true that last year there was a decision to adopt
a three year horizon for financial planning purposes,
I know that there is a widespread rumour in Lebanon
to the effect that UNRWA is going to be wound up before
the year 2000. That rumour is baseless. Moreover both
the Lebanese and Palestinian sides know that it is
baseless.
I would like to close by encouraging all of you to
be imaginative in your approach to what must inevitably
be a multifaceted solution to the problems posed by
the presence of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.
There is much work to be done as well on the broader
and more future looking multilateral aspects of a
solution. I encourage more research into how the regional
environment could be adapted to facilitate a solution
to the Palestinian question. I welcome your suggestions
or questions, and look forward to a most constructive
and informative dialogue not just here but in the
months ahead.
|