Transcript of a press conference by Peter Sutherland, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Migration and Development

Peter Sutherland, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Migration and Development (SRSG): I hope we can have a dialogue regarding some of the issues that must be concerning you, in regard to Geneva, Geneva’s response, the United Nations’ response and the appalling catastrophic situation which we are now challenged by.

I want to start by making a fundamental point which I think has been overlooked in quite a lot of this crisis. The obligation and responsibility to refugees and persons in distress is not defined by their proximity to the place that caused the problem. I think it’s important to make that point, because the burden that is being taken at the moment by Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan, and the burden in European terms, taken by frontline States of the Mediterranean and in particular Greece and Italy, and even the broader responsibility being taken by Europe as a whole, seems to, by implication, define a responsibility related to location rather than to the humanitarian concerns that we have.

In earlier crises, for example Vietnam and the Vietnamese boat people, over a million people were concerned. Or indeed in 1956, the Hungarian Revolution. There was a global acceptance of a responsibility in terms of refugees. I want to explicitly, on behalf of the United Nations, put that back on the table.

At the time of Vietnam, an international conference was convened and responsibilities were taken across the globe. So in a situation where some countries take no refugees, including, for example a number of the Arab countries in the immediate vicinity, or where others argue that financial contributions are the mechanism to be used for their contribution to a dreadful situation, let me say that that, in my opinion, is not enough.

Refugees have to be dealt with as human beings. The broader migrant community, including economic migrants, cannot be dismissed with the wave of the hand, and a simple statement that all economic migrants should be sent home.

The United Nations stands for the dignity of the individual and the equality of the individual. It cannot condone or accept those in Government who say, for example, that refugees can be defined by their religion in the responsibility that is owed to them. That is utterly unacceptable.

Nor can it be acceptable, within the regions, that the sharing is not conducted in a manner which is transparent, fair, and spread through the region – I am talking here about the European Union – in a way which makes sustainable a process of dealing with a catastrophic event. If we have a situation where one, two, three, four, or indeed currently five countries take 72 per cent of the total refugee community, and others take much less, some virtually none, the inevitable consequence over time will be that the political pressure placed on those who are most generous will become more and more difficult. Because of the unfairness of what is happening.

Therefore, the quartet which has been making statements – the High Commissioner for Refugees, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Director-General for the International Organization for Migration, and myself – when the European Commission made its proposal in regard to a fair allocation of refugees both from inside and from outside, resettling some of those who are in the camps outside, and relocating some of those who are inside, notable in Italy and in Greece, where so much of the burden is carried, we supported that proposal even though it is for the competence of the European Union to determine.

The European Union, as we know, will I think on 15 September have another meeting regarding this. Further iterations of that position will develop. And that’s for the European Union. But it’s also for us and the United Nations where points of principle or methodologies for improvement can take place.

I believe that we in the United Nations have to drive, and this has been the essence of what the Secretary-General has been saying yesterday, what’s been said by Mr. Gutérres, a much more proactive response by the international community. We have to find a method, perhaps as we did in 1956 in the Conference that took place then, to get specific commitments from every state in regard to taking refugees and financially contributing to dealing with the crisis which we now face. It’s important to make both points.

The United Nations Refugees Agency (UNHCR) budget, just to take one example, is now overburdened by far. It needs more help. The US$1.4 billion UNHCR budget for the four million Syrians is covered to only 41 per cent of the total amount required. The World Food Programme (WFP) is cutting food assistance to 1.6 million refugees for lack of funds. Schools in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are unable to receive any more children, while the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) cannot maintain its support. The World Health Organization (WHO) support is overburdened, medical facilities dramatically limited by absence of funds. This demands urgent and immediate responses. It also demands structures that allow those responses to be put into play. And those structures can be at the multilateral level and also at the national and regional level.

I’ve been in camps, I’ve seen the issues. I’ve seen also the outpouring of a human response which has been an example to the political response, which has been absent.

How is it that the dreadful, tragic photograph of one appalling incident transforms public policy? We have been talking for months, for years, about the deaths of people in the Mediterranean. Maybe there wasn’t a sufficient photograph to elicit change. But isn’t that a poor reflection on decision-making? I mean, I could roll out a thousand speeches given by UN or other members of the quartet, identifying the numbers that were drowning in the Mediterranean, identifying even that many of them were children, if that was going to be a determining factor in this emotional reaction.

Suddenly, and I commend those who have changed that position and greatly increased their support, often not sufficiently, but at least improved it. But it is a bit of an indictment and a wake-up call about the need for public policy to move on.

And the United Nations is not without its own faults. We’ve different organizations. I am meant to be helping coordinate them, in fact. It’s difficult sometimes. IOM isn’t in the United Nations, but [IOM Director-General] Bill Swing, in my opinion a great guy, is close to us and we are in daily contact and so on. But there is something, there is a job to be done generally on the structures and making them work more efficiently. We are going to make progress on that. But this isn’t the occasion to go into that in great detail.

Coming back to Europe, I suppose as an old European Commissioner, I am a bit conscious of what goes on there, and I am disheartened. Not by the leadership of the European Commission. You see a lot of headlines about ‘what is Brussels doing’, ‘what is the European Union doing’. Well in my opinion Brussels is doing fine. It’s making the proposals. It’s the Member States, and not all the Member States, who are blocking the unanimous – and it has to be – coherence of a policy that will actually work. If some were in and some were out, it creates problems. And it’s wrong. We should have a European response as part of a global response.

If we aren’t joined up in this, it will fail to ameliorate a position which is not going away as everyone knows, but which can be greatly improved. We need structures.

How is it, for example at the moment, that the assessment of whether a person is or is not a refugee, conducted at national level, has widely different results in different countries? Tiny proportions being defined as refugees in one country, substantial numbers in another. We have to have a harmonized system. A harmonized system which the United Nations can help in, UNHCR has an expertise in particular on this, but also can be done at community level.

And what happens afterwards? What happens to the one third, or two thirds, who are determined to be economic migrants? We need to put in place a system where they are dealt with with humanity. Many of them living under dire conditions which fall short of persecution. Many of them having skills that we need on this continent, which is a dying continent. Germany has the lowest birth rate in the world. Italy, Spain all over Europe, there’s actually a huge demand for, and will be in time to come, for people. You could say the same in other parts of the world, for example Japan.

Coherence is going to require leadership. And leadership before we see the destruction of great achievements like the Schengen Agreement. And in Europe, obviously things have to be done, to deal with the broken system which is the Dublin Regulation.

It does seem to me that we have big challenges here, and these big challenges are challenges which have to be publicly articulated. And I’ve been trying to do so rather bluntly today because it is necessary that these issues be debated.

Q: You mentioned the Hungarian and Vietnamese situations, and I believe that these are both solutions where the United Nations or UNHCR had a leading role in helping to come up with a solution that was acceptable. I wonder if you think that the UN could be doing more in this situation, or what you would like to see from the next High Commissioner for Refugees, and what reforms or changes you would like to see in the system from the World Humanitarian Summit next year.

SRSG: I cannot accept that there has been no UNHCR leadership in this situation. I think a great deal has been done by UNHCR. It’s not for me to say more about it. The United Nations undoubtedly does have a role in this and should have a role. But that role has to be in the context of a constructive engagement with the areas in question. And at the moment, there are particularly in Hungary but also in other parts of Europe, discordant positions which do not comply with the requirements of an overall United Nations-led policy initiative which would be necessary.

So whilst conceding that the role of UNHCR has to be pivotal in this, it requires constructive engagement elsewhere. For myself I think that the idea of doing something far more with States in the provision and operation of centres for the assessment of status before people try to cross the Mediterranean, is a key element in reducing the threat to lives and dealing with a more constructive engagement. I think that this requires the participation of a number of players. I think that the United Nations should play a signal role in it. But so also should the European Union.

Part of the problem here of course is that in dealing with the single, harmonized, effective, efficient and fast assessment of status of individuals seeking sanctuary, important though it is, requires the cooperation of States, where it is sometimes impossible to get it in North Africa. But I think that that’s an important element in this.

Q: A follow-up question; what would you like the new High Commissioner to do? What could be done in the future that is not being done now? Do you think Mr. Guterres is doing everything exactly as he should be doing and his replacement should continue doing the same thing?

SRSG: It’s neither appropriate nor responsible for me, even if I could answer that, to provide an examination of the performance of a High Commissioner for whom I have great respect. I am not going to do it, it is not my responsibility and I don’t feel I should make a comment on that. What I do say is that we need massive increases in resources. UNHCR for the reasons which I have already given is in particular need of these resources, and that can only be obtained through the convocation by some methodology of a world community where every country is put on the spot in regard to financial support. At the end of the day what UNHCR can do, and whatever deficiencies there are in what it is doing, if there are such deficiencies, it’s related to the inability to have the resources that it needs. I think that’s the key.

Q: Do you believe that the Dublin Agreement should be scrapped? It seems as if the European Union appears to be more like a European Dis-union. You say that all nations should share the burden. How do you actually go about it? In particular, those countries that have generated refugees in the past, such as Hungary, the former Czechoslovakia, Poland and so forth, are among the first to say no. They don’t want to have anything to do with this. How can you actually force these countries to have a formula that either they accept a quota of a certain number of refugees or they give an equivalent amount of money to finance the resettlement of the refugees?

SRSG: I can’t give a United Nations answer to that but I will give a Peter Sutherland answer to that. In my opinion the only way to get a truly cohesive and coherent European policy is for everybody to be part of it. The fact that three countries had to deal with them first are not subject to the justice and home affairs rules – Denmark, England, and Britain, and Ireland, is irrelevant. It’s not relevant because we are not talking about legal obligations here, in my opinion. We are talking about humanitarian obligations. And one can only hope that all of the Member States follow the leadership which has been given.

Particularly looking at the numbers: I can go through the numbers for you and the numbers are startlingly different, even after the additions which were put on the table by some countries in the last couple of days. The 800,000 that Germany anticipates for this year. The leadership of France and Germany together, which seemed to me to be very evident - the old Franco-German axis of the leadership of the European Union yesterday – gives one some hope that there will be a move towards greater agreement on 15 September. But I can’t say that you are not right. And certainly some countries seem determined to hold to their position.

I find it quite ironic that Hungary, which was so much in the eye of the storm itself in years gone by, should have an attitude which opposes the creation of a European position on this. I think that there are countries who have led the way, on a per capita basis. The Swedes, who took 33,600 last year. All I can say is chapeau.

But history will judge. History will judge this as a defining moment for Europe, a Europe that proclaimed itself to be created on the principle of values. If those values are jettisoned by Member States, a number of Member States, they will not be jettisoned by all. And Mrs. Merkel, I think, deserves credit for what she has said and is doing in the teeth of some opposition. Others should follow.

On the issue of scrapping Dublin [Agreements], well again, where angels fear to tread, but I suppose I have to. I think that Dublin doesn’t work. I think it creates a burden on, let’s take Italy, that every person with regard to the huge proportion coming into Italy and Greece where even more are coming in, to be the country to define and give the asylum. This has to be a community responsibility. It should be organized at a community level. It should be a harmonized system, and there should be a relocation process which allows for a fair sharing of those who are determined to be refugees. I am not alone on that, Mrs. Merkel seems to think it’s broken too.

Q: I was struck by a couple of your comments, in particular you mentioned that every country needs to be put on the spot. I find it interesting we have heard here for a number of days about how the European Union isn’t doing enough. I would like to hear from you about what the United Nations has been doing, specifically in bridging the connections between the European Union and other countries which are not part of the European Union. You mentioned the centres that need to be developed. Has the United Nations done anything to coordinate between Turkey and the European Union so that those centres could be on the terrain in Turkey before these refugees start crossing the Mediterranean? What have you done in that regard?

In terms of funding, you also mentioned that there needs to be more funding. There are a number of countries you also alluded to, the Gulf States in particular, which haven’t taken many refugees or necessarily given much money, at least to my knowledge. What have you said to those countries, what has the United Nations said to them? And what has the response been?

SRSG: Well, countries are being put on the spot individually and consistently. I don’t think it is appropriate for me to go through who was spoken to bilaterally. In so far as my involvement has been concerned I have said it publicly, I have identified publicly for some time the need for greater contributions from the Middle East. I have spoken to consistently and been involved with the Turkish situation and how it’s been dealt with. I have spoken to the Europeans and spent time in Brussels and so on and so forth.

I think that the United Nations and its role in terms of pointing fingers at those who are failing to comply with their obligations is something which the United Nations is reluctant to do publicly but the heads of the different agencies are doing privately. IOM, outside of the UN but really part of the family that is trying to deal with this, and UNHCR, in particular. I’m a one-man-band and in a somewhat different situation. But yesterday, at our plenary meeting, I identified all of the individuals personally, and I’ve done it before, and said ‘take a message to your capital’ etcetera. What is being done in regards to the camps, I simply don’t know the detail of the answer myself, but UNHCR is providing significant camp support throughout the area although it is running out of money now. Its dialogue in terms of what is happening inside Turkey in terms of camp management, I can’t answer on exactly what’s happening there. I’m more concerned with the macro side which is showing institutional lacunae at all levels dealing with this: national levels, regional levels, and we have our own issues in terms of creating more coherence between a number of different agencies.

Q: If I could just follow up on that, you say that every country needs to be put on the spot. And yet you say at the same time that you won’t call them out publicly but you’ll do it privately. It sounds like you’re not abiding by your own prognosis?

SRSG: No, when I said each country needs to be put on the spot, and I drew the example of when this happened in 1956 when there was a conference, I am saying that we need to set up in one way or another the mechanism which allows for public demand for each country to make its contribution. I’ve also made the point that, and this is my personal view, buying your way out of this is not satisfactory.

Q: Excuse me, but let’s be specific. Who is doing that? Who is buying their way out of it?

SRSG: The argument is, for example, the Gulf States have made their contributions. The United Kingdom has already indicated that it is the second or third highest contributor to Syria. This is highly commendable. There are others, who do the same: the United States which has taken a tiny number of Syrian refugees from the beginning of this problem.

Now I want to make it clear, I don’t link responsibility to historic events. I link responsibility to humanitarian concerns. And that’s all I’m talking about. I’m not saying ‘country X’ has a certain responsibility. I’m saying that proximity doesn’t count, capacity does count. And I do say that taking refugees is separate from giving money. I personally don’t believe, even though the European Union according to some accounts may be coming up with a process to get through this by saying ‘Well we take money from X in lieu of Y’. I personally think that the European situation or elsewhere can only be sustained by a public perception of fairness in the allocation of people.

Q: I was wondering, you mentioned the Conference in 1956. Do you think that we need another conference like that now? Also the centres we were talking about in the region that would determine which people should be considered refugees: how would that work?

SRSG: This seems a little bureaucratic to say this but it doesn’t seem to me that it’s my role to be the one to call for the conference. What I have called for is a methodology, and I’ve given the only example I know of one that works. What I’m basically saying is that there has to be a method, and maybe there is another method that is equally transparent, where every country is held up to the spotlight and asked what they are doing. Conferences are important from different points of view in terms of getting harmony of ideas. Here we are talking very directly about a simple immediate issue. People and money. There are different ways of doing this I’m sure and I can’t make the proposal as to which way is best.

UNHCR can certainly do it [call for a conference] and the Secretary-General may well do it. I’m going as close as I can by saying we have to have a methodology. We have meetings in September in the margin of the General Assembly – a side event which will deal with migration issues. We have the Valetta Conference on Migration coming up in November which I’m also involved in, which is basically a European Union / Africa conference. Events are taking place, concept notes are being prepared, discussions are taking place to move things forward. It’s not as if nothing is happening. And things are happening in the United Nations. Yesterday we had the meeting of the Global Forum for Migration and Development (GFMD) where we had an enormous turnout of countries and talked about a lot of this, which will also come up at the GFMD meeting to be hosted by Turkey in October.

Q: Given your background from the corporate world I’d like to hear your views if you think the corporate world is doing its fair share in this burden-sharing. When we look at United Nations budgets more than 95 per cent comes from Governments and very little from the corporate and charity world. What are your views on that? And I have a follow-up question about Mr. Obama.

SRSG: Over the years one of the most intractable difficulties has been getting the engagement of the corporate world. Because the corporate world stays in general at some distance from the issue of migration. Many countries, until relatively recently some of the most powerful, refused to have international discussion on migration issues. They said this was a matter of national sovereignty and they didn’t want to have multilateral discussion. Other than IOM playing a role, particularly in transporting people back, or UNHCR providing camps and support for refugees. But otherwise many corporations I think took their lead from this and said ‘This is a Government matter we shouldn’t be involved in trying to change national migration policy when Governments are so sensitive they won’t even talk about it in the United Nations’. And for a time they wouldn’t.

In 2006 when we were trying to create the Global Forum, I was thrown out of the room of a very, very well-known Ambassador from a very, very well-known country, in New York. I was told ‘This is none of your affair, stay away from it, and if you try and introduce migration into discussions in the United Nations we will be against you’. Well, he lost and we won. But it wasn’t easy.

So the corporate world should be much more engaged, even for their own self-interest, on the issue of demographics. For an example I think that the situation in Europe, in particular, is so dire, looking at outlooks to 2030, for example where some countries will not be able to function effectively. It seems incredible to me that there isn’t more constructive engagement by business in the area of migration.

Q: Following on your comments earlier that the United States have taken on very few Syrian refugees what is your message to the Obama administration?

SRSG: Well my message to all administrations… I see a shaking of heads here - ‘Sutherland condemns the United States’ - well I’m not going to condemn the United States. I’m going to say simply that all countries, including the ones I have mentioned, have an obligation to take their fair share. That includes the United States, it includes Canada, Australia, Latin America and the Far East. They all have a responsibility. If we don’t act on the basis of spheres of influence - ‘we’re worried about Latin America and you’re worried about the Middle East’ – this is not the way that the United Nations functions. I can’t be more explicit than that.

Q: There is growing discussion about doing away with the Schengen Agreement and essentially creating separate States again. Are you fearful that if the European Union doesn’t get its act together and work together in unity that it might fall apart?

SRSG: Schengen most definitely could fall apart, and probably will fall apart, if we don’t get a common European policy in respect of migration. Schengen is under threat. One of the great achievements of the European Union and one of the most beneficial aspects of public policy to the very States who are refusing to be part of a common European policy, particularly in central and eastern Europe. I find it quite incredible that there is a failure to recognize that retiring behind borders in Europe is a fool’s paradise. It can provide no answers to the migration crisis.

There has to be a combined, unified, European response. Those who abort that policy are going to see the price paid in the restriction of a movement which to date has been very important in the development of the European Union. I think the European Union would survive that as an entity but it would certainly receive a very serious blow.

Thank-you.