Improving the Plight of Internally Displaced People

Citizens flee war-torn East Congo in 2008

Africa is a continent which as a whole has faced widespread criticism for a lack of concern for its citizens and adherence towards the upholding of human-rights. Often the well-being of people in need is subsidized through the generosity of other nations. A significant step towards improving the plight of these people was however taken on December 6th when an African Union treaty came into effect known as the Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa. The treaty, which is the first international legislation of its kind, lays out the framework for assisting IDP’s and is intended to provide protection, aid, and assistance to any person who is internally displaced within their native country for any reason, such a rights violations, famine, natural disasters, or war/conflict/violence, the latter of which is obviously a major issue throughout the continent. It also encourages African states to be proactive in inhibiting the displacement of its citizens in the first place. 

The passage of the treaty was a long and arduous process as it was originally proposed over three years ago.  Swaziland recently became the fifteenth country to ratify the treaty which pushed it past the necessary threshold to be implemented. The others who have ratified the treaty are Chad, Togo, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Gambia, Lesotho, Guinea-Bissau, Gabon, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Benin, Uganda, Niger, and Zambia. There are currently 37 countries that have singed but not ratified the treaty and it is hoped that these abstaining states will follow through and unanimous consent will eventually be achieved. When a nation ratifies a treaty this creates legal obligation towards the proposition, whereas signing a treaty is essentially tacit and non-binding consent. 

There is a difference between the internally displaced individuals that this treaty seeks to help and refugees. A refugee is someone who has been forced to leave their country all together whereas an internally displaced person is someone who is forced to leave their home but remains within their own country’s borders. According to the treaty, an IDP is, “Persons or groups who have been forced or obliged to flee their homes, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border.” There are already laws and systems in place to help refugees, but not for IDP’s, this despite the fact that there are roughly four times as many internal displaced people within Africa then there are refugees. The largest IDP populations in Africa are found in the DRC (2 million) Somalia (1.4 million), and Sudan (4.3 million), and about 12 million IDP’s, roughly half of the world’s population of IDP’s, reside in Africa.  There are currently an estimated 10 million Africans who are displaced because of violence alone. While most prevalent in Africa, internal displacement is found throughout the world, notably in the Middle East.

Some see IDP’s as one of the major unrecognized humanitarian issues in the world and this treaty is an important and unique vehicle through which the problem can begin to be remedied. In response to the enactment of the treaty, Chaloka Beyani, the UN Rapporteur on IDP’s said, “I believe that the significance of the Kampala Convention goes beyond Africa – as an international model this comprehensive Convention represents the culmination of over two decades of work during which Governments, civil society and the international community have sought to improve the way we address the plight of millions of internally displaced persons across the globe.” While the humanitarian considerations were the motive behind the treaty, I think this treaty could also have additional positive effects as the presence of IDP’s can adversely affect a country’s prosperity and stability.

One potential issue that I see going forward is for the countries which have agreed to the treaty to uphold their commitment and also to implement the necessary laws to ensure that it will work. It’s one things to agree to something but actually following through is obviously a much larger task. This is especially true given the amount of dysfunction and corruption, and the poor financial states of many African nations. Obtaining funds and then getting the help to where it's needed may prove to be difficult. In 2006 for example, faced with a growing amount of individuals displaced in the wake of Joseph Koney’s insurgency, Uganda came up with a policy meant to help IDP’s and while it has helped the issue some, its overall effect has been weak. The simple presence of a law does not represent the end of an issue, there must be commitment towards upholding it and the will and flexibility to amend it in the future to ensure it represents the best possible solution to the problem. Regardless of the treaties ultimate influence, this action taken by the African Union at the very least signifies a stronger commitment towards the championing of the human rights of Africa’s citizens. 

Sources: 

 http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-06/world/35638215_1_treaty-african-countries-norwegian-refugee-council

http://unhcr.org/4ae1e09d9.html

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/dec/07/african-convention-internally-displaced-persons

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43692&Cr=internally%20displaced&Cr1=#.UMkCW_ndfq4