Refugees and displaced people in 2021

Dr Jeff Crisp

Hello, everybody, and a very warm welcome to this Chatham House members’ event, which will focus on the issue of “Refugees and Displaced People in 2021”. My name is Jeff Crisp. I’m an Associate Fellow with the Chatham House International Law Programme, and I’ll be moderating the event today.

It’s my enormous pleasure and privilege to introduce our guest speaker today, Miss Gillian Triggs. Gillian is UNHCR’s Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, she was appointed in August 2019. Gillian is a highly renowned expert in international law, who has held a number of eminent appointments in service to human rights and the refugee calls, including most recently, as President of the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow and Emeritus Professor at the University of Melbourne, in Australia, and we are very grateful that she has been able to find time in her very busy schedule to join us this morning.

Before we begin our conversation with Miss Triggs, let me just quickly go through a few housekeeping issues. Firstly, I’d like to point out that this conversation is on the record and will be recorded, and that recording will be available to Chatham House members in due course. I’ll be in conversation with Gillian Triggs for the first half of the session, and the second half I will open it up to questions. If you’d like to submit a question to Miss Triggs, please do so through the Q&A function at the bottom of your Zoom screen. If you want to make any broader comments or observations on the conversation that we’re having, please use the chat function, so questions through Q&A and comments and observations through the comment – through the chat function. So, as I just said, in the first half of the hour – one-hour session that we have today, I’ll be in conversation with Miss Triggs, and then the second half, I’ll be opening up to questions and comments from the audience.

So, without further ado, let me welcome Gillian Triggs to this meeting, and perhaps I could start with some initial questions about the current state of refugee protection. Now, the Global Compact on Refugees was established in 2018, with the intention of providing the international community with a broad set of principles and objectives when dealing with large movements of people across international borders. It was a compact endorsed by the vast majority of UN member states, and it was also strongly endorsed by your own organisation, UNHCR. Indeed, your predecessor as Assistant High Commissioner for Protection described it at the time as “a paradigm shift, a milestone for global solidarity and refugee protection, and even a minor miracle.” My first question is to ask, to what extent have those expectations of the Compact actually been met in practice? Isn’t there actually some evidence to suggest that the state of refugee protection has actually deteriorated in the three years since the Global Compact was established?

Gillian Triggs

Well, thank you very much, Jeff, and it’s a huge pleasure to be with you and to be back at Chatham House, where I spent a great deal of my professional time in my – an earlier job in London. To answer your question as best I can, the evidence is absolutely clear that the state of refugee protection has deteriorated significantly in the last three years and all the evidence that we are now gathering demonstrates exactly that point.

Of course, the position of refugees has significantly declined as a direct consequence of COVID, where, of course, we’ve seen countries move internally to protect public health and I think at the height of the pandemic, we saw 168 countries closing their borders, nearly 100 of them making no exceptions whatever for refugees. So, the point being that the fundamental principles of the Refugee Convention itself, and we’re celebrating the 70th anniversary this month, the fundamental principles of the right of access to territory to seek asylum and the absolute prohibition on the return to a place of danger or persecution, those principles are at risk, there’s no question about that.

Now, your – you began by talking about the Compact. The Compact was extraordinary, an amazing achievement, 181 countries have approved the – and committed to that agreement. As you know, it’s not a legal document, it’s written in plain, good English, it’s a good read, it’s – but it adopts an aspiration and a vision that countries will equitably share the burden of – and responsibilities for refugees. I think it’s certainly a milestone for solidarity and I think that countries have signed up to it in good faith, but I think the – COVID has had a significant impact, with a very mixed result in terms of protection.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Okay, thank you very much. As you’ve just mentioned, we’re currently commemorating the 70^th anniversary of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Now, in recent years, a number of states have either challenged the continued relevance of that instrument or have, in fact, chosen to ignore it in practice. Do you think we may be reaching a point where some governments might start to demand that the convention be rewritten, and if so, how would you respond to such requests? Do you actually think that the convention could usefully be modified in any way?

Gillian Triggs

Well, my first answer is as an International Lawyer, I’m sure many, many colleagues will say of course, any treaty that’s 70-years-old, brought into being in the years after the Second World War, when it was clear that there were about 2 million people displaced would have to say that here, 70 years later, with 82 million people displaced as a mini – at a minimum, the treaty needs to be reformed, to be redrafted, or we need more protocols. That’s the answer at a sort of, purest legal perception, from that point of view.

The harsh reality is there is virtually no political will to do anything of the kind. We would like to see hard law and enforceable law, but we are not in an environment where that can possibly be achieved. So, the real point is, and I’m sure you understand this, Jeff, very well, it’s not only about hard legal principles; it’s whether the community respects those principles, and at the end of the Second World War, most people, particularly in Europe, understood why those principles were there in the aftermath of the Holocaust, of the horror of the Second World War. We are rather forgetting that, it’s fading into the distance because, at least from the European perspective, they’re not seeing the numbers or understanding the personal tragedies in Europe.

I think one point, though, that I would like to make, given that we’re talking about normative ideas, how much do people really value these principles and believe in them? Whenever I speak to a Minister for Immigration or a Minister for Home Affairs or a Foreign Affairs Minister, they will always assure me, they will always abide by the principles of the Refugee Convention. That is an astonishing achievement in itself, that no state will explicitly declare that it’s not going to be bound by those provisions, so that I know we’ll doubtless be talking in – about the UK position now, the proposals, the Danish positions and the positions of the United States and Australia, but the – it – all these countries will say that they are abiding by the principles of international law. And there’s something in that, and I think that that gives it – gives the Refugee Convention its enduring value, that we have to fight very hard today to ensure that those fundamental principles are remembered and understood.

Dr Jeff Crisp

As you know, there’s quite a strong lobby of people suggesting that the convention might be extended to include people displaced by the climate crisis and does UNHCR have a position on that particular issue?

Gillian Triggs

Well, at the moment, and again, this is a Lawyer’s answer, at the moment, the Refugee Convention does not include those who might be displaced for a climate-related reason, but the law takes – often, is a bit behind where public thinking and where jurisprudence is developing. And I think I could point, for example, to the Human Rights Committee in the Kiribati case, which – where, although the matter failed, it was a Pacific Islander seeking asylum from New Zealand, which was denied.

And the Human Rights Committee said, “Well, in the circumstances, we accept the validity of that decision, but we readily accept that climate change is a – is mixed with other elements. In the Sahel, you have climate degradation, environmental degradation, loss of grass for – of agricultural possibilities. That leads competition over water, leads to violence, discrimination, persecution, that leads to movement either within the Sahel region or across national boundaries.” So, the Human Rights Committee recognised that where a government is not able to protect the lives of its people for reasons that are related to climate displacement, then there would be a credible argument for asylum status as a refugee.

So, I think what I’m saying here is that, at the moment, technically, there is not a basis in and of itself for refugee status, but I think there’s every chance that over the coming years, we will see climate displacement as a multiplier with other elements that will lead to the protection being available with international law.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Hmmm hmm. I think it’s worth pointing out that the Refugee Convention has actually proven to be a remarkable flexible instrument in the sense that groups of people who are able to claim refugee status today were not really envisaged at the time of the Convention’s establishment. So, for example, victims of female genital mutilation, victims of domestic violence, child soldiers and victims of trafficking, would all have an opportunity to seek asylum, whereas that wasn’t envisaged back in 1951. So, I think I would very much agree with you that we could look forward to the work [audio cuts out – 12:51] rather than a changing in the wording itself.

Gillian Triggs

Well, I think we all know – if I can interrupt for a second, that we all know that constitutional documents, the law, of course it moves and changes, and if I may say so, that’s been the miracle of the common law from the United Kingdom. Each case builds, so nothing is ever fixed in stone, and one that you didn’t mention but is becoming increasingly important, is the LGBTIQ community, and now that they are now recognised, of course, within the Refugee Convention as being part of the social group, and we now have very, very strong support for recognising them as refugees.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Very good. Now, one of the most serious protection trends that we’ve witnessed in recent years, and it’s a particularly topical issue at the moment, is the process that we describe as externalisation, whereby states take measures beyond their own territories to avert the arrival of refugees and asylum seekers, and indeed, it was a policy that was pioneered, to some extent, by the Australian Government, which introduced a strategy of intercepting refugee boats at sea and sending people to remote, offshore locations such as Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. Now, you’ve been very vocal on this issue in recent weeks. Perhaps you could explain to us what your main concerns are with respect to this process of externalisation and perhaps also say something about the possible avenues that exist for challenging that process and perhaps even reversing it.

Gillian Triggs

Hmmm, well, thank you. At UNHCR, we are absolutely dismayed that some of our strongest supporters, historically, are now playing with this idea of externalising their responsibilities. I – well, you began by mentioning the Global Compact. The key idea of the Global Compact is equitable sharing of responsibilities, and 85/86% of forcibly displaced people globally are hosted in some of the poorest or developing countries, without resources, and the point of the Compact was to ensure that there be a sharing of that responsibility.

What we’re finding is that Western developed and wealthy countries are now not sharing responsibilities but shifting burdens to these poor countries. Now, of course, in the Australian context, we’ve seen that to two poor countries, dependent on Australian resources, Nauru and Papua New Guinea, with disastrous consequences, over many, many, many years, and people literally detained for years without hope of ever finding a solution. Mercifully, and I should perhaps mention that the Trump administration described the – their willingness to take these refugees as a bad deal, but with all power to the Americans, they lived up to the deal, and they’ve taken most of them. But to see the US, under the former administration, now Denmark and now the United Kingdom, looking at the same ideas, is a matter of deep concern to UNHCR, because of – because we see it as almost a neo-colonial approach. You pass it off to North African countries, to African countries, and you wash your hands of it. You might pay a lot of money, you might have MOUs that give benefits to those countries, as well, but nonetheless, to shift the burden in that way without the safeguards is a problem.

But can I say that this is not to deny the opportunities for sovereign states to agree between themselves that they will share, in a way that has safeguards, they will share the responsibility, and we’ve seen examples of where this can happen. And we – so it’s a line, that there’s no doubt at all, frankly, that the Denmark example, and now we see the United Kingdom introducing legislation to the same effect, we are deeply, deeply concerned for the future of the asylum system, because if we push back at the borders and we do not allow a claim to be made at the border, you’ve pretty much undermined the entire asylum system.

Dr Jeff Crisp

And would you go so far as to say that the externalisation process, if allowed to continue, represents an existential threat to the whole international refugee protection regime?

Gillian Triggs

We believe it does. We believe it’s a profound threat to the future of the regime. I don’t believe that it will be successful in the case of Denmark and the United Kingdom. They are having a great deal of difficulty finding partners. It takes two to tangle – tango, and that’s not happening here, so I’m act – I actually think that we have to be – we have to warn against it, but at the same time, I think we have to be realistic that countries that are being approached to be part of these schemes are saying, “Under no circumstances.”

And if I may also mention that the Commissioner Johansson for the EU is – has come out very strongly, as have others in my own dealings with European Commissioners and Ministers, very strongly in the public arena against these forms of externalisation. So, I’m actually quite optimistic, but I do think it’s our role to draw attention to the – of course, sadly and ironically, in the year we want to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Refugee Convention, that has been so adaptable, it has saved millions of lives, that to see our partners that have been so supportive of the UN Refugee Agency and of the principles of refugee protection, should now be taking these steps.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Now, in terms of challenging the externalisation process, one strategy available to us is to speak up, which is what you’ve been doing very forcefully in recent weeks. Are there any other avenues to pursue, litigation, for example?

Gillian Triggs

I think that that’s an interesting one, and we will pursue – I, you know, I think a civil society, in particular, will pursue whatever legal options they have. We, of course, are concerned about the rule of law. We want to see domestic litigation enforcing, because if a country signs up to international treaties, particularly in the human rights area, they must be called to account. We see other countries and their political leaders being brought before international criminal tribunals for gross breaches of human rights.

I think we have to remember that one of the legacies of the Second World War and the Nuremberg Trials was that we hold responsibility individually, as well as nationally, and I think we have to be – we have to keep reminding ourselves as this – of this, and certainly, I think efforts to engage our independent courts and tribunals around the world is going to be an important part of the strategy. I hope it doesn’t come to this, but it may very well do so in countries like Australia, like the United States, we’ve seen a huge amount of litigation there, very favourably, and we’ll probably see it in Denmark and the United Kingdom, as well.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Okay, thank you very much. At the recent Refugee Law Initiative Conference in London, a number of eminent speakers called for an independent body to be established that would monitor and report on state compliance with the Refugee Convention and they argued that UNHCR was not in a good position to fulfil that role [audio cuts out – 20:45] [pause] given its close relationship…

Gillian Triggs

Jeff, you’re breaking up for me here in Geneva. I don’t know whether you can hear me, but you have raised the Refugee Law Initiative Conference that I was taking part in. I hope that this inter – this…

Dr Jeff Crisp

Could you [audio cuts out – 21:24]…

Gillian Triggs

…Chatham – can you hear me?

Dr Jeff Crisp

[Audio cuts out – 21:28].

Gillian Triggs

I’m afraid you’re…

Dr Jeff Crisp

And…

Gillian Triggs

[Pause] Jeff, I’m afraid you’re breaking up, I really can’t hear you at all now [pause]. Hello, are we back together [pause]? Hello, Jeff, are you able to connect?

Tom Chappell

[Pause] Hi there, Gillian, hi, apologies and apologies to everyone. We’ve got some, as I’m sure you can understand, some issues with Jeff’s connection there. We’re just looking to…

Gillian Triggs

Yeah.

Tom Chappell

…get him back on. I think he might be dialling in shortly.

Gillian Triggs

Good.

Tom Chappell

But, yes, I don’t know if, Jeff…

Gillian Triggs

There he is.

Tom Chappell

…you can…

Gillian Triggs

Good, hmmm hmm.

Tom Chappell

I think you might be on mute just at the moment, Jeff.

Dr Jeff Crisp

[Pause] Yeah, I’m sorry about that, I lost my connection. Okay, I’m back now. Sorry about that.

Gillian Triggs

Okay.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Okay, perhaps we could turn from the Refugee Convention to UNHCR itself, which is also celebrating its 70th anniversary this year. Looking forward to the next three or four years, what would you see as the top priorities and main challenges and opportunities confronting the organisation?

Gillian Triggs

Well, I think, you know, you’ve raised climate change, and I think that climate displacement is going to be – over the next few years, is going to be one of the biggest challenges that we will have to work with governments on. I think the other is the nature of mixed movements. Some movements are not mixed at all. I’ve recently come back from Bangladesh with a million Rohingya. They’re not – that’s not a mixed movement, they’re not migrants, they are refugees in the highest of category, if you like, fleeing the horrific acts in Myanmar. Syrians fleeing, they’re not economic migrants, they are fleeing a war and bombing by a government of its own citizens. There – and there are other examples, displacement, for example, in Mozambique, where I’ve recently returned from.

Now, however, there are others, particularly coming up from Africa, through North Africa to – across the Mediterranean, to Europe, or from Eastern Europe, through Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, into Europe. These will be, maybe even as a majority, people moving as migrants and that is a big challenge for us because, in some respects, where they are not able to have regular pathways to migration – and who can blame them? I mean, I’m certainly not going to blame a young man seeking a better life, or a young woman, but the – but for the integrity of the asylum system, we must be able to have a fair and faster system so that we can quickly identify those in need of international protection and with a legal right to international protection from those who are migrants, and those who are migrants judged not to be in need of international protection must be returned.

And that’s a difficult thing, of course I don’t want to bring harm at all, of course, to those who are migrants, but the mixed movements where those seeking migration are actually using the asylum system for their purposes diminishes the credibility of the asylum system, and it’s something we’ve really got to work with Europe to find out what are the difficulties of returns, why can’t we do it more effectively, and how can UNHCR support governments in strengthening their asylum systems to make sure we get rapid results?

So, I think they’re two key areas, mixed movements and climate change, but I think – well, something we’ll be advocating for and really working on is to achieve with the – as COVID lifts, we hope, and subsides, as it surely must, that we really start to put concrete bones on the concept of responsibility sharing, and that means moving into the development and peace nexus and field. I’m using UN language, of course, which I’m – I’ve only been with the UN system for two years and I’m already using that language, but what I mean is that we start to work with the World Bank, with the international financial institutions, to deal with root causes.

And wherever I’ve been on missions, and we’ve been travelling a lot in the last few months, we all know that the root causes are the same: inequality, particular gender inequality for women and girls, persecution, racial, religious, ethnic identities, sexual orientation, poverty of extreme kinds, leading ultimately, to violence, conflict and ultimately – so working with the banks to help governments address these problems of poverty and infrastructure and inequality. I think that probably is the most important challenge in the sense that it’s the only way we’re going to address these mounting numbers that just every year they go up by X million, and in the end, the numbers become so huge that nobody can really relate to these numbers, and all we see are pictures of boats crashing up on rocks, drowning children on beaches, I mean horrific pictures, but nonetheless, we need to bring the public with us.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Now, as you’ve mentioned already, UNHCR’s mandate has evolved and broadened considerably over the last seven decades, and from what I can see, the organisation now appears to be rebranding itself as an agency for all people who have been forcibly displaced, which is around 80 million people, according to your figures, rather than the 20 million refugees that fall directly under the UNHCR mandate. So, the question I’d like to ask is does UNHCR really have the capacity to cope with such a large and expanding caseload? Are there not other agencies that could assume responsibility for groups such as the internally displaced and so-called climate migrants? Is UNHCR, in fact, biting off more than it can chew?

Gillian Triggs

Well, I think the answer to this is we certainly have a huge numerical mandate. We have 82 million displaced people, forcibly, and we have 26½ million refugees. Do we have the resources to respond to that? No, we don’t, we – but we have – we are reasonably well-resourced, but not resourced for those numbers. In other words, our funding is going up at a very tiny rate relative to the needs. There’s no question about that.

As for our mandate in legal terms, we, of course, have a mandate for the 26 million refugees but we also have a mandate for all forcibly displaced people through the Inter-Agency Standing Committee, which, with others, has mandated UNHCR to deal with ref – internally displaced. A more practical answer to you is we have 550 Field Offices in operations in the world and my observation is, not always but very often, we’re the only ones and certainly the first on the ground. When I got to Cabo Delgado a few months ago, two or three months ago, with my colleague, Raouf Mazou, we were the only ones there, and this – these were people whose – who had fled their villages, they were being burned, instances of decapitation, people with no food, no milk for the babies, grandmothers caring for children where the parents had been executed and killed. UNHCR is on the ground doing what we can, but the World Food Programme was unable to get its food in, other agencies were struggling to get – to move as quickly as was necessary, of course, and we were struggling, as well. I’m not suggesting we were, you know, moving any faster, but we were there, and that is a key feature of UNHCR’s work, we are on the ground.

Now, would we like to be better resourced? Yes. If there’s another agency that can pick up these emergency situations, we’d be more than happy to see them, but we are given this mandate by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee within the UN structure, and we take it as part of our responsibility, but if there were other solutions, other mechanisms efficiently able to respond, we would be very happy to do so.

But can I say, and a point that perhaps isn’t made a lot, but I’m sure, Jeff, you’re aware of this, people who are internally displaced in their own country, we refer to them in UN speak as IDPs, these are citizens of those countries. The responsibility for them rests with the country, with the government themselves, and I actually try not to use the word – the words IDP or internally displaced, these are citizens of the country. So, the Mozambicans who were displaced nearly 800/850,000 of them, were citizens of that country. So we need to give that country as much support as we can when they’re fighting an insurgency but they have a primary responsibility to their citizens and they need support in meeting that, and that’s true in many other countries of the world, particularly, of course, in Africa.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Now, taking up your point on Mozambique, if we go back to the World Humanitarian Summit 2016, there was a kind of, an emerging consensus that the big UN agencies and big NGOs such as UNHCR, basically, have too large a part of the pie and that resources should be more equitably distributed, and that particularly, locally based organisations should have much better access to resources. Is that a position that UNHCR sympathises with?

Gillian Triggs

Oh yes, and indeed – oh, and we’ve known this, of course, for a long time, but COVID has really demonstrated to us that the first responders and the ones best able to respond are, in fact, the local communities, faith-based groups that we’re now working very strongly with, but also, of course, the local NGOs. Of course, they need direct pipelines to the funding, and they are often the, you know, the best placed. So, we are working very, very strongly with them now. I think we always have done, to a degree, but now, with COVID, sometimes we haven’t been able to get in to remote areas, but the local NGOs, the local faith-based and community groups, they don’t go away when the money runs out. They stay and deliver, which is what the Secretary-General’s asked us to do, and we’ve tried to do that, as well, in our 550 or so operations. But no, I’m – we’re right with you, the more funding that goes to these groups, the better.

And can I perhaps add to that, one of the healthiest signs that we’re seeing in recent months has been the rise of leadership amongst the refugee community itself. In other words, it’s not only the NGOs, but we need direct routes to the refugee community who can speak up and speak for themselves, and that is one of the things we’re trying to do with developing our call centres, developing the technology to reach remote groups, but to give refugees themselves the technological and financial ability to speak up and to say what they need, and not for us to try and diagnose the problem.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Thank you very much. I’d like to open the floor to the audience in a minute or two. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the chat function on my screen at the moment, so while we’re sorting that out, perhaps I could ask you a question relating specifically to something you’ve already mentioned which was your recent visit to Bangladesh.

Gillian Triggs

Hmmm.

Dr Jeff Crisp

And as you said, you’ve recently visited that country, which has admitted up to a million refugees, Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, 700,000 of them in 217 alone. Now, from the beginning of that particular refugee emergency, there’s been a broad consensus, both within the international community but also amongst the refugees themselves, that repatriation is the most effective and equitable solution to their plight. But given recent events in Myanmar over the past six months, particularly since the military coup in that country, isn’t it now time for that assumption to be reconsidered to recognise that voluntary repatriation is not going to take place in the immediate or near future and that alternative solutions might have to be considered?

Gillian Triggs

Hmmm hmm. Well, we completely agree, and you – and I’m sure you understand, we all do understand, that most refugees overwhelmingly want to go home. And I remember standing on a little hill in Cox’s Bazar with some refugees, and if you look from that hill across a very small watercourse, you will see Myanmar, and the refugees, with their hand on their heart, were saying, “We want to return to the motherland.” They want to go back, the Bangladeshi Government wants them to go back, we totally support it, but the harsh reality is that they are not going back. There’s no realistic prospect of them returning. The prospect of them returning was dim before the coup three months ago, but it’s now almost completely disappearing. Some may find a way back, but unfortunately, the laws against the Rohingya people continue to be in place, they will not be recognised as citizens, and if they do go back, it’s still going to be a deeply prejudiced position.

So, to come to your point, yes, we do have to look at alternatives. The government itself, of course, has got the alternative of Bhasan Char, the island, where they’ve already transported 20,000 people, and we went to visit that island, we can talk about that later if there’s time, but the key point – the question you are asking and is a critical one is what are the options now? Voluntary repatriation, if we can possibly achieve it, Bhasan Char, if it can be developed within the principles of protection, but we need to look at others, one being resettlement. There will be an opportunity for a small number to be resettled, but we need to look at it as part of a package. What about looking more closely at employment opportunities, livelihoods, at educational opportunities, family reunion, community sponsorship programmes, but probably, and I know this is not well received everywhere, probably the real solution is integration and inclusion, and this is true across the world. Most people will not be going home, most refugees will not be resettled, most will live out their years in the place in which they’ve found protection, and that is why we need support for host countries. Bangladesh has been supporting the – a million or more for the last four years, but they have done historically, over many decades, in various and different contexts. We need to support Bangladesh, but the reality is that these people probably will need to be better included in that society, because that’s really where the future is.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Okay, a quick follow-up to that question. As you’ve mentioned, one of the more controversial elements of the refugee response in Bangladesh has been the government support for a programme to relocate refugees from the mainland to a rather remote island called Bhasan Char, which you just mentioned, and you were there very recently, and I think that you probably heard from some refugees that they were not particularly happy with conditions on the island. I’d be interested to know what was your own assessment of conditions there and do you think, looking to the future, that it’s likely that UNHCR will become operationally involved in the relocation programme?

Gillian Triggs

Well, firstly, the government has used its own funds to invest 350 million in safeguarding the island, building facilities, that look on the surface, to be very good, at least to have potential, there’s no doubt about that. But my colleague and I did meet with, we think something in the order of a thousand people insisting on seeing us, which of course we wanted to do, and they all said pretty much the same thing, they came voluntarily, which was a key issue for us, but they said, having arrived, they were virtually trapped on the island, no ability to leave it, no opportunity for livelihoods, not even a small amount of cash. They are given cooking oil, rice, and lentils. They have no – nothing to be engaged in, any kind of local community, and only the most rudimentary access to education.

So, what they were saying to us is they weren’t against the idea of going to the island, I mean, the conditions are better, of course, apparently, than on Cox’s Bazar, and I say apparently because it looks like good infrastructure, but it’s – but what the government has done is failed to understand they’re dealing with human beings who need livelihood, who need a purpose in their lives. They’re not going to sit in concrete bunkers on an isolated island and that that’s not a life.

So, we see potential in the opportunity, and I say that and I’m sure that you can understand that I’ve stood against these externalised exercises, putting people on isolated islands, for many, many years, but there is potential if it’s done properly, and what we’re doing now is working with the Bangladeshi Government on a framework agreement that we hope will allow us to be operational on the island and to bring the NGO community with us. Now, whether that happens or not, I don’t know, but it has potential, particularly if the people were allowed to engage in livelihoods with other islands, with the other communities on the mainland, there is some potential for a future, along the lines that I was describing earlier of inclusion and integration.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Thank you very much. Unfortunately, I still can’t access the Q&A function, so I’m going to ask you another question and perhaps the technology can be sorted out in the meantime. Perhaps we could turn our attention to another, kind of, current hotspot, which is Libya and the Mediterranean, and as you know, people trying to leave Libya by boat are being intercepted at sea and returned to abusive detention centres by the Libyan Coastguard, which is being provided with boats, equipment, training and intelligence by the European Union. Do you feel that the time has now come that the EU should withdraw the support that it provides the Libyan Coastguards and find alternative ways of addressing the situation, and if so, what constructive alternatives can you offer?

Gillian Triggs

Well, firstly, I think it must be acknowledged that the Libyan Coastguard has saved probably thousands of lives rescuing at sea, and that’s not, you know, that’s not to be taken lightly. That’s a significant commitment by a trained Coastguard. The difficulty and the real problem here is exactly the one you’ve raised, Jeff, and that is that they go back to a country that is unsafe, but where very many of them will find themselves back in arbitrary detention, and I say arbitrary deliberately. It’s not just – these aren’t benign reception centres where they’re safe for a period until a solution can be found. They are held in cruel detention facilities, where they are subject to inhumane treatment, and in some instances, torture.

So, our position is that the EU, while we appreciate that funds have gone towards training up the Libyan Coastguard to save lives at sea, maybe some money should go into reinforcing the institutions within Libya itself and to ensure that the reception facilities are humane and that alternatives are found. So, we would like to see the EU investing a little bit more on the humanitarian side, as well as the other. But the basic answer is, firstly, people have a right to seek asylum, they may not be prevented from doing so, that’s a fundamental point, and this shouldn’t be seen as a mechanism for the EU to prevent access to asylum, that’s fundamental for us.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Although I should…

Gillian Triggs

What – yeah.

Dr Jeff Crisp

I should add that despite all of the human rights training which the Libyan Coastguard has supposedly received from the European Union, there was some dramatic film footage shown at the weekend, last weekend, of a Libyan Coastguard boat actually shooting at a boat with refugees and asylum seekers on, so the training that has been provided doesn’t seem to be having its intended effect, and…

Gillian Triggs

No, we’re still looking to confirm the – that, but that evidence, amongst other evidence, does demonstrate that this is a dire situation and in gross breach of the rights. And of course, very troubling where the principles of search and rescue at sea and then disembarking at a – at the nearest safe port, these are principles centuries old, and yet, we find that even today, it’s difficult, countries are refusing to disembark, whether in the Mediterranean or the Andaman Sea. And you’ll remember the case of a boat that was adrift for, I think, seven months, before it was finally allowed to disembark in Aceh in Indonesia, but many lives had been lost in the meantime and lives continue to be lost by the refusal to rescue at sea. So, we need a coherent EU approach to resear – search and rescue and not this highly individual, and in some cases questionable, approach by particular Coastguards.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Now, continuing to focus on Libya, as an emergency measure, UNHCR started to evacuate some of the most vulnerable refugees from Libya and relocating them to transit centres in Niger and Rwanda. Are you confident that this programme is working effectively and that you will be able to find long-term solutions for the evacuees? In other words, it’s great to get them out of Libya to a relatively safe place, such as Niger or Rwanda, but what happens to them next?

Gillian Triggs

Yeah, well, firstly, of course, this programme, this emergency reception centre, for example, in Rwanda, this has been a – has been saving lives and has been very effective. It was suspended for a few months but is now working again, and we have numbers, they’re smallish, but the people are coming out, they’re being brought to Rwanda and then moving on. It’s an emergency, yeah, this is not intended as some, you know, long-term solution, but what is happening is that people are being resettled from these emergency facilities with – particularly through humanitarian corridors to Italy, for example, which still generously takes people in. These are the most vulnerable of the most vulnerable people one can imagine, and countries are taking them. I don’t think it’s really a long-term solution, but it’s an emergency solution, and we of course, are really looking for much, much better durable solutions, but for the moment, it saves some lives, it helps some people.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Turning to Europe itself, last year, the EU introduced a new pact on migration and asylum, which has been quite heavily criticised by NGOs and by human rights organisations on the grounds that it seeks to prevent many asylum seekers from submitting refugee claims in Europe, and because it places very strong emphasis on the return of asylum seekers to their countries of origin, with Frontex, the EU’s controversial border agency, playing an important role in that process. And in that context, I would be very interested to know why Filippo Grandi, the High Commissioner, has offered his full support to the pact. Does UNHCR have any reservations about it, at all?

Gillian Triggs

We have – speaking for the UN Refugee Agency, I think it’s true to say that we support the pact, but we support the pact with reservations, and I believe our response to the pact, with our reservations, is on the public record. So, this is not a fulsome, enthusiastic response to the pact. What we’re saying is we think it’s the best on offer at the moment. It’s an effort at solidarity. It – we do support efforts to return in safety, in dignity. Where an individual has had proper due process and there are no international protection needs, then we fully support the EU in returns, it – as I say, in safety.

So, we do support it, but we have very severe reservations in relation to safeguards, and we hope to continue to talk to the EU about it as they resume their efforts, we hope, in the autumn. But, you know, we are concerned that it’s tak – we hoped, of course, that there would be an outcome many months ago, that’s not happening, and in the meantime, of course, numbers continue to rise and that’s a great – of great concern to us. We really want to see this principle of solidarity.

I recently have been with colleagues to Malta, Cyprus, Greece, and this Sunday, I leave for Bosnia, Herzegovina and Croatia, and I hope to come up through the Atlantic to the Canary Islands and Spain, but to get a sense of the frontline states that are clearly bearing the heaviest burden, and I think that within the EU, there does need to be much more solidarity with these frontline countries within the EU system than perhaps they’re receiving at the moment.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Thank you very much. I – unfortunately, I still don’t have access to the ‘Q&A’ function. I’m going to ask Tom Chappell at Chatham House whether he has access to any questions that could be posed to Miss Triggs?

Tom Chappell

Hi there, yes, we do have a couple of questions that have come through, I’ll read the first one out if that suits, we have a couple here. The first one we have is from Dina Mufti, and it is, “According to international law, Israel is illegally forcing displacing Palestinians from their home and displacing Palestinians from home. What can the UNHCR do to protect Palestinians?”

Gillian Triggs

Well, thank you for that question, and it does arise a lot because there’s a little bit of perhaps confusion that UNHCR, as the UN Refugee Agency, does not work in the field of Palestinian refugees. They are particularly for the United Nations Refugee Agency for the Palestinians. So, the mandate for that is held by UN – what’s called UNRWA, and they handle all of these matters and are advocates for the very situation that’s being described in this question, the taking over of properties and land, of course, in the context of the contrary views of the International Court of Justice. It’s of course, a matter of concern to us, we’re well aware, but it – but they are not within our mandate. Thank you.

Tom Chappell

Fantastic, thank you very much, and we do have a couple more, so I shall certainly try and get through as many as possible. The second question we’ve got here is from William Crawley. “Largescale migration, whether of refugees or economic migrants, usually provokes a backlash in the recipients or potential host countries. What advice does the UNHCR offer from 70 years’ experience on how this reaction can be mitigated?”

Gillian Triggs

Well, that’s a very, very important question because we find, time and again, and perhaps I could mention Bangladesh again, where in – the Rohingya were welcomed with great generosity. All over Bangladesh funds were brought in, gifts, all sorts of support to the Rohingya people when they arrived. Four years later, that support dissipates, and of course, you could imagine Turkey has been remarkable. They have 3.7 million Syrian refugees. Lebanon, in its extraordinarily challenging and difficult circumstances, also hosting significant numbers along with Jordan, where I’ve recently been. But you do find, perhaps particularly in Lebanon because of its own difficulties, a decline in support amongst the host communities.

Do we have an answer to this? I think the answer must lie in solidarity, in sharing of responsibilities, rather than leaving it to those host communities to shoulder the burden. There must be a sharing, and that is what the Compact is about. It’s a very inspiring and important document, but of course, it’s one thing to agree to the words in that Compact, it’s quite another to deliver, and that’s where I think we – the biggest challenge, as I was saying to Jeff a moment ago, that the biggest challenge is to give real, concrete meaning to the idea of equitable sharing of responsibilities. We cannot leave some countries to shoulder the full burden, with all the cultural and integration issues that arise, overcrowding of schools, needing access to healthcare in the context of COVID has been a huge issue, and these countries, who are so generously hoping – helping refugees, need to be supported, and that’s the challenge.

Tom Chappell

Fantastic, thank you very much, and we’ve got another question here from Nicholas Bass, and it’s quite a lengthy question, but I will certainly read the bits and pieces here that are very, very pertinent. So, the first part here really is, “Is it time to emphasise the positive contribution refugees can bring to host countries, even if their circumstances are involuntary?” There’s a reference here to a Chatham House report detailing this earlier this year, and “Uganda recognised this years ago, it has a model that is relatively progressive.” So, yeah, I’ll certainly put that question to you first, Gillian.

Gillian Triggs

Well, I – yes, and, in fact, thank you again, this is a terrific question, because we do tend to emphasise those things that are going wrong, of where, you know, where we’re not sharing the responsibility, but we’d much rather talk about what it is that refugees contribute to their societies. And we – all the evidence now, the research is showing us that refugees tend to be much more exciting entrepreneurs, highly motivated. Their children, once they get into school, they’re the ones that are going to university and becoming our next round of professionals. They bring cultural richness, intellectual richness. And of course, I should mention sport, we – with the opening days of the Olympics coming up, we have a special Refugee – UNHR Refugee group, both for the Olympics and for the Paralympics, and of course they get such a rousing reception from the community, this was before, of course, COVID, I don’t think we’re going to be seeing that this time around. But yes, we really want to emphasise the contributions that can be made, and we – I think it’s – we’ve seen it in the context of COVID. Refugees, particularly those professionally trained healthcare workers, Medical Doctors, Nurses, etc., have come right to the fore and assisted in care homes, in hospitals, in local communities, and I think that that needs to be recognised and we need to show that.

Tom Chappell

Again, thank you very much, and we’ve got time, I think, for a couple more questions, and one here from, apologies if I’m pronouncing wrong, but Odgan. Again, quite a lengthy and very interesting question, but I’ll jump to the main crux here, which is, “The lives of many settled in Turkey were disrupted by, obviously, many events recently, particularly at the Greek-Turkish border. What is the UNHCR’s plan for preventing such anomalies that weaponize refugees, in the future?”

Gillian Triggs

Well, we’ve seen examples of this, you know, from Morocco to Spain, for example, Ceuta. I think these are disgraceful abuses of human beings and there’s no question of that. There – it’s being done for political reasons, obviously, to really remind the EU that some countries can, quite simply, turn on the tap, and I think that that should at least be a wakeup call, that the relatively small numbers of people that come to Europe can be managed by Europe. They’re very small numbers, they’re nothing comparable to what is happening in Africa, in the Middle East and in North Central America, and I think we – Europe does need to get things into proportion.

Nobody likes, you know, irregular arrivals, they upset us all. We all have a bit of a passion for the queue. There isn’t a queue, of course, but we like to see regular pathways, and I think UNHCR is arguing as strongly as we can to persuade governments to improve their migration policies so that people can, in their home countries, make applications for migration, to improve those opportunities, improve what we call, you know, complementary pathways, labour mobility, education, family reunion, and community sponsorship, which is rising in popularity.

In my experience, communities are very, very supportive of refugees, because you’re with them in the community, you’re – the children are there, the – you’re meeting someone in the supermarket, you’re working with refugees. That support is clear, but it’s – and that’s where we need to develop regular pathways, using those welcoming communities. But I think all around the world, people are deeply distressed by irregular arrivals, along with all the criminality that goes with it, the people smugglers, the traffickers, crime groups who are just preying on these movements of people. So, I think we have to work a lot harder on getting better migration policies so that people are not using the asylum system inappropriately. So, those are the options that we’re trying…

Dr Jeff Crisp

Thank you very much. I’ll move…

Gillian Triggs

…to work on as advocates.

Tom Chappell

Fantastic, thank you very much. I’ll hand back to Jeff now, as I know that we’re…

Dr Jeff Crisp

Yeah.

Tom Chappell

…approaching 12 o’clock.

Dr Jeff Crisp

I know that you have another meeting at the top of the hour, Miss Triggs, so I think we need to bring this session to a halt. I think it’s very good that we’ve ended up on a positive note, in the sense that the whole notion of community sponsorship refugee resettlement is very much on the agenda at the moment. It’s one of the most positive things happening on the whole refugee scene, and perhaps that’s an issue that Chatham House might want to delve into a little bit more detail, to look at its applicability to a range of other countries. Of course, it’s been pioneered by Canada.

Gillian Triggs

Yeah.

Dr Jeff Crisp

Many other countries are now looking at this model, and I think it will be a very constructive way of looking at the refugee issue in the weeks and months to come. So, with that, let me thank Chatham House for organising this session, let me thank Gillian Triggs very much for finding time in her agenda to be with us, and with that, I’ll sign off and say thanks and have a great day. All the best, goodbye. Bye.

Gillian Triggs

Thank you, Jeff. Thank you all very much. Bye, bye.