Finding our sphere of usefulness
Laurel Townhead writes about current work on refugees and migrants at the Quaker United Nations Office in Geneva
‘Rich countries must not become gated communities, their people averting their eyes from the bloodstains in the driveway,’ said Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN high commissioner for human rights, in reference to the refugee and migrant situation. He went on to ask: ‘What can we do?’
As Friends in Britain are grappling with the question of how to respond to the current scale of displacement, so, too, is the international community. On 19 September a UN summit brought world leaders together to agree new ways of working to respond to large movements of refugees and migrants. Their conclusions contain commitments to launch a global campaign against xenophobia; a process for the UN high commissioner for refugees to develop better responses to large-scale displacement; and a process for states to negotiate new ways to manage large movements of migrants. As the result of difficult political negotiation, it is not all that we hoped, but does avoid some things we feared.
As the current refugee and migrant situation has unfolded, we have asked ourselves the same question posed by Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein: ‘What can we do?’ How do we use our presence in Geneva to act on Friends’ concerns at the United Nations?
The Quaker United Nations Office has long worked on the issue of refugees. The call to answer ‘that of the Light in all’ is a call to uphold the dignity and worth of every individual. It is a call to humanity and a call to protect human rights. The level of forced displacement now exceeds the displacement that caused the international community to develop the refugee protection regime after the second world war and which was in the minds of those who began drafting international human rights law. The scale of displacement and the resulting media attention are not the reason we work on these issues, but they do provide new openings and challenges for us to help defend those who have been ignored, vilified and denied their rights. They are bringing an impetus for the international community to act.
Exploring these new possibilities has not been an easy process; there is discomfort in feeling that we are not doing enough, but strength and clarity have come from a truthful openness that we do not have all the answers. Our processes of testing and discernment are at the heart of how we have found our way through the personal discomfort and distress in uncertainty to a place where this is not a failing but a means of staying open to the possibilities. In terms of actions, this has led to our usual array of activities, which include informal meetings, advocacy for raising the standards through resolutions and declarations (such as the New York Declaration) and open meetings.
Has everything we have done so far been successful? No, but some of it has. Are all of our suggestions acted upon? No, although many are. Are the meetings we co-sponsor going to end the suffering tomorrow? No, but this is not the intention. We are aware of the possibilities and the limitations of the fora we work in. Are these activities going to contribute to change? Probably. Are they helping refine our ideas and define our next activities? Yes. Are they helping us build and strengthen the relationships we need to bring about change? Definitely.
In this way we continue to find and explore our ‘sphere of usefulness’ – as Elizabeth Fry called it – and, upheld by Friends, we create space for the individuals working in diplomacy and international institutions to respond to that in each of them that calls them to put aside state interest and self-interest and to work together to build a better world.
Comments
Please login to add a comment
