No to Erdogan's resettlement plan

President Erdogan of Turkey wants to repatriate a large number of Syrian refugees. His plan is to create several resettlement camps on the Syrian side of the border, in the “safe zone” his troops control, between the towns of Tel Abyad and Ras al-Ain.

He is putting a lot of pressure on the UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The President wants the Secretary-General to bless the plan and convene a donor meeting to raise money for its implementation. Erdogan met Guterres yesterday and the meeting was vintage Erdogan: either the UN does it, or I will.

Things do not work like that when it comes to repatriation of refugees and the role of the UN. The Secretary-General must make it clear. Repatriation must take place on a voluntary basis, with strong security guarantees, and it cannot disturb the very fragile ethnic balances that define Northern Syria. It is also true that traditional donors are not ready to finance any plan imposed by force. But that is not the key issue. The point is that people must be willing to go back. I am sure that point is not met today.

Humanitarian note

I would not feel good if I did not mention that today is the World Humanitarian Day.

It´s a little window of opportunity to remind ourselves that millions of human beings are currently in desperate need of a bit of assistance. For them, it´s a matter of survival. It is not about poverty and lack of development, it is about dire political and security circumstances that are putting their lives at great risk. They are the best testimony to a world that combines extreme violence in their lands with profound indifference in ours.

The day also gives us a tiny space to remember the enormous sacrifices and tremendous services that thousands of humanitarian field workers provide on a daily basis. Many perform in extreme stressful environments and face multiple security threats. They are part of a multitude of unsung heroes. We are not told about their little personal victories.

But I should also say something more political. Just in passing, as the day is about humanitarian dimensions, not about power struggles and games of influence. On the international political arena, the humanitarian work does not get the same type of attention than the matters of war and peace or the issues of global economics do get. The humanitarian field is seen as a secondary domain, an outer circle of status, not as prestigious as the others. That´s the reality I have seen so many times. And that´s a matter that needs to be reflected upon.

Israel should be reminded of some basic principles of international law

Hamas is certainly an extremist group included in the Western list of terrorist organizations. It needs to be fought and its actions ought to be stopped.

But fighting Hamas is not an excuse for Israel to behave as a State that does not respect the laws of the war, the principle of proportionate force, and the overriding rules about the protection of civilians and the interdiction to inflict collective punishment on innocent populations.

These norms should guide the actions of any civilised State, even when that State is exercising the right of self-defence. In all legislations, self-defence has its limits and needs to be advised by a great sense of restraint. That´s what the modern world is about. 

An archipelago of collapsing States

There is now an “archipelago of collapse” that goes from Mali to Iraq, through Libya, Egypt and Syria. It´s like an oil slick that tends to expand South, through the Sahel and towards Central Africa, and also to keep moving to the East, to Afghanistan and Pakistan. These “archipelago of collapsing States” is about the failure of proper governance in each one of the countries concerned. But it is also, more and more, an indication that the international community, in particular the Security Council and other key international players, need to think again about their role. Their contribution to international human rights, peace, human security and stability is facing very serious challenges. It has to be thought through again. Intervention? What kind of intervention? How to prevent collapse? How to keep different communities together under the same national flag? What is the responsibility of the international community? What are the lessons learned in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere?

This is a debate that is getting more and more urgent. But who is ready to take the lead in the discussion?

The Armed Forces and the humanitarian response

I wrote yesterday that the response to the typhoon disaster in the Philippines calls for a deep involvement of the Armed Forces, both from the country and from outside – US, Australian, Malaysian, Indonesian, etc. The magnitude of the logistical challenges, particularly airlifting of assistance, can only be met by means available within the military. No civilian humanitarian organisation, including the UN, can gather the operational means it takes to bring food and shelter to the large number of victims, some of them in very remote areas.

Some of my humanitarian friends do not like the idea of having the soldiers implicated in humanitarian operations. And a couple of them told me they had serious issues with my post of yesterday. But my answer is very simple: this an extreme situation that fully justifies a very close collaboration between the humanitarian agencies and the Armed Forces. Thousands of lives are at stake and need urgent help. They can only get it if the cooperation takes place. No doubt about it.

And we have no time to waste on doctrinal issues. This is a time to move fast and effectively.