Donald Steinberg reviewed protection and assistance in support of internally displaced persons (IDPs) during conflict. He noted that there are currently 25 million IDPs, with at least one million in Sudan, Colombia, Congo, Uganda, Iraq, Algeria and Turkey. IDPs are among the most vulnerable populations in their countries, often coming from disadvantaged ethnic groups and poverty-stricken communities. He also proposed avenues for reform of the international humanitarian system.

Steinberg noted that while the response to refugees is often spotty, it is usually light years ahead of the treatment received by IDPs, who enjoy no dedicated resource stream, no patronage among international agencies or donors, and no formal system of legal rights. Host governments are often unable or unwilling to assist and protect them. In many cases, governments responsible for displacement may restrict international donors and NGOs anxious to help, especially during conflict, when aid to the displaced in rebel territories is considered aid to the enemy.

He urged the international community to apply the concept of “responsibility to protect” to IDPs. This suggests that a government can claim sovereignty only if it protects human life and human rights within its border. He noted that a new tenet in thinking about sovereignty is that the international community has the right and responsibility to intervene in extreme situations. Beyond the moral and humanitarian imperatives, the international community has a strategic interest in intervening in cases of mass internal displacement, which can be associated with threats of terrorism; trafficking in drugs, persons, and arms; and other threats to international order. Especially in the post-September 11 world, assisting IDPs and working on permanent solutions is a preventive step to promote global stability and America’s national security interests.

Applying the responsibility to protect to IDPs, Steinberg argued, has gained acceptance in principle from many governments. The question is how to translate that commitment into action. One way to do this is to apply the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. The Principles are an IDP Bill of Rights based on humanitarian and human rights law and analogous rights under the Refugees Convention. The Guiding Principles state the IDPs enjoy all rights of other citizens and should be protected from murder, sexual violence, forced conscription, and other human rights violations. IDPs also enjoy socio-economic rights, such as the right to education, housing, and health care. The Principles have received reasonable international support from the United Nations, regional groups – the OAS, African Union, and OSCE – and relief and development agencies. Colombia, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Angola, and other nations have codified the Principles in national law, although implementation is often less than stellar.

Steinberg noted that there is resistance to the Principles in some quarters, including most developing countries, which view them as a first step toward intervention. He said that adoption of a UN convention on the rights of IDPs was a good idea, but would engender limited support: some countries – including the United States – would resist codifying economic and social rights, while others would reject anything that seems to supersede sovereignty. Any result might be less comprehensive than the Principles themselves. He concluded that a better approach would be formal adoption of the Principles by regional groups; incorporating the Principles into national law, going beyond general references; and insisting on their use on the ground.

Steinberg noted that even where entry is allowed and political will is present, the international community often fails to respond effectively. At the UN, the “collaborative approach” gives all relevant agencies shared responsibility. Too often, this means that no single agency can bring to bear all UN resources, and no single agency can be held accountable. To better address the IDP crisis, Steinberg recommended ways to restructure the response.

The UN Secretary General could designate an agency to lead in each crisis involving mass internal displacement, selecting the agency best able to respond in a given situation – usually UNHCR, UNICEF or the World Food Program. With the Secretary General’s imprimatur and commitment to find resources, the lead agency could draw on contributions from other UN agencies. One problem with this approach is that each agency would have to devote staff and develop expertise on the chance it will be designated to lead an IDP response.

The UN could set up a new agency, but this might duplicate capabilities in current institutions and is unlikely to gain political and financial backing from member states.

Steinberg’s preferred option was to give the mandate to UNHCR, which has proven capacity to protect and assist some 12 million refugees, and already assists 6 million IDPs. This would stretch UNHCR to the limit, and it would have to phase in this duty, focusing first on a set of priority countries. Steinberg cautions that UNHCR would need to ensure that this new role would not weaken its advocacy for keeping borders open for asylum seekers and protecting refugees from forced return.

Within the U.S. government, responsibility for IDPs is sometimes a game of tug-of-war between AID, the State Department, and other agencies when resources and political will are present, and a game of hot-potato if they are not. Steinberg noted that Andrew Natsios has recently asserted AID’s leadership on IDP assistance, citing the Foreign Affairs Manual that gives leadership to the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. AID’s new policy paper says that it will serve as lead coordinator to ensure a coherent response from the U.S. government and the international community.

But Steinberg argued that AID cannot address the full range of issues affecting IDPs because it cannot generally enlist the full force of the government to prevent or end displacement and because there is no dedicated fund in AID for IDPs equivalent to the U.S. government’s account for refugees. There is also resistance within AID to creating an “elite class” of IDPs who warrant special treatment. Instead, many in AID would like to shift the issue from IDPs to vulnerable populations. In addition, AID has focused more on assistance than on protection. Steinberg warned that this can lead to the “well-fed dead” phenomenon, where there are adequate social services but a lack of security that results in violent deaths.

In practical terms, Steinberg called for the provision of funds to AID dedicated specifically to IDPs and the adoption of a legislative mandate for AID on IDP assistance. Steinberg also recommended that AID adopt a more inclusive policy towards working with UN agencies and NGOs. He encouraged AID to work through the question of funding for international agencies with PRM and to raise the status of its advisor for internal displacement to give him the clout he needs to implement AID’s policy paper.

Equally important, there needs to be more political pressure insisting that senior policymakers address the root causes of displacement. The Secretary of State should formally designate a senior official to be the watchdog for potential or existing large-scale internal displacement. This would likely be the Assistant Secretary for PRM, already responsible for IDPs in the former Soviet Union, the Balkans, Colombia, and Sri Lanka. This official should have the power to insist that senior policymakers, especially regional assistant secretaries, are paying attention. The National Security Adviser should also designate a senior director to serve a similar function at the NSC.

Finally, even if we improve the architecture of response, there is still the question of whether there is political will to act. At present, it is possible to build a domestic constituency for internal displacement, but it is hard in situations where there is less media attention than in the case of the present crisis in Darfur. Steinberg recommended the creation of a new mechanism to generate public interest and to provide a conduit for citizens to respond. A “USA for IDPs” could be set up by NGOs, private citizens, student and religious groups, corporations, and other institutions to serve as a pressure group on governments and international agencies, complementing the excellent work done by other established advocacy groups, and raising funds for agencies assisting IDPs.

Donald Steinberg is the former director of the Joint Policy Council in the Department of State. He previously served as principal deputy director of policy planning; deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration; special representative of Presidents Clinton and Bush for global humanitarian demining; special Haiti coordinator in the Department of State; and national security director for African affairs and for public affairs.