I have recently been collaborating with my colleague Amanda on a Response Plan for the 'temporarily protected people' from Syria, who have been living outside the camps, in the urban and rural areas of Turkey. It was while we were being briefed on our project, that I realized for the first time, what a problematic term 'refugee' can be; especially when examined against the larger context of international politics. The Syrians who have fled their own country and sought refuge in Turkey, are not, in fact, 'refugees'. They are 'temporarily protected people', whom the Turkish Government has agreed to provide for, till the end (and assuming there will be an end) of the Syrian Crisis.
For the purpose of this post, let us refer to the Syrians -- albeit erroneously -- as refugees. UNHCR predicts that by the end of this year, there will be close to 1 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, of which 300,000 will be living in the camps, while the remaining 700,000 will be living in urban and rural areas all over the country. So far, the Turkish Government has done nothing to provide direct aid to the urban 'refugees', but I am inclined to believe that they are now beginning to at least think about them. Perhaps that is why we have been asked to formulate a preliminary approach for Needs Assessment among the urban refugee population. During one of the brainstorming sessions, I wanted to know what the ultimate objective of such a response plan would be. Are we seeking to integrate the urban refugees into the Turkish population, or are we to strictly treat them as outsiders who are being temporarily provided for by the government and other agencies? It turns out, that as a humanitarian organization, we can never independently aim to 'integrate' the urban refugees into the host population. They are looked upon as outsiders, or guests, if you will, whose needs are to be taken care of, until they are ready to return to their country. They are not refugees, because that is a "deeply political issue". They are 'beneficiaries', who are entitled to receiving aid and international protection, but who cannot enjoy the same rights granted to refugees by the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Before coming here, I always referred to the Turkish situation as the 'Syrian Refugee Crisis', assuming that the registered Syrians were granted refugee status, which allowed them to seek to domicile in Turkey. I feel more aware of the technicalities now. Just because hundreds of thousands of people are seeking asylum in another country, they cannot be considered refugees or asylum seekers. Only the host governments can decide what status and rights they are entitled to.
For the purpose of this post, let us refer to the Syrians -- albeit erroneously -- as refugees. UNHCR predicts that by the end of this year, there will be close to 1 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, of which 300,000 will be living in the camps, while the remaining 700,000 will be living in urban and rural areas all over the country. So far, the Turkish Government has done nothing to provide direct aid to the urban 'refugees', but I am inclined to believe that they are now beginning to at least think about them. Perhaps that is why we have been asked to formulate a preliminary approach for Needs Assessment among the urban refugee population. During one of the brainstorming sessions, I wanted to know what the ultimate objective of such a response plan would be. Are we seeking to integrate the urban refugees into the Turkish population, or are we to strictly treat them as outsiders who are being temporarily provided for by the government and other agencies? It turns out, that as a humanitarian organization, we can never independently aim to 'integrate' the urban refugees into the host population. They are looked upon as outsiders, or guests, if you will, whose needs are to be taken care of, until they are ready to return to their country. They are not refugees, because that is a "deeply political issue". They are 'beneficiaries', who are entitled to receiving aid and international protection, but who cannot enjoy the same rights granted to refugees by the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Before coming here, I always referred to the Turkish situation as the 'Syrian Refugee Crisis', assuming that the registered Syrians were granted refugee status, which allowed them to seek to domicile in Turkey. I feel more aware of the technicalities now. Just because hundreds of thousands of people are seeking asylum in another country, they cannot be considered refugees or asylum seekers. Only the host governments can decide what status and rights they are entitled to.
No comments:
Post a Comment