Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm grateful for this opportunity to appear before you today.
As you have encountered in your study, the global refugee regime was created in the aftermath of the Second World War to serve two functions: first, to ensure protection for refugees, and second, to find a solution to their plight. UNHCR as an organization was established to work with states to realize these aims.
Despite enduring support for the norms of the refugee regime and the growth of UNHCR over the past 60 years, the regime is unable to predictably deliver on its core mandate. Around the world, incoherent and ad hoc responses to refugees result in uncertainty and instability for refugees and states alike. Likewise, as the committee would have seen in its visit to Tanzania and Uganda, 85% of the world's refugees remain in the global south in their regions of origin and spend an average of 20 years in exile.
Why do we have this situation? I propose today to give a diagnosis of why we see these challenges with the functioning of the global refugee regime, to highlight some potential uses that the global compact might play in addressing these shortcomings, and then to make some suggestions in terms of roles that Canada might play in building on the opportunity of the global compact to reinvigorate the global refugee regime. I've been working on these issues for about 20 years.
My work on the politics of the global refugee regime leads me to conclude that the regime's inability to reliably fulfill its mandate is the result of three key factors.
First, states retain ultimate control over the quality and quantity of asylum they grant to refugees on their territory. This is fully consistent with the principle of state sovereignty, but it has resulted in inconsistencies in the application of global refugee policy across states. It has contributed to a rise in restrictive asylum policies around the world since the late 1980s. Co-operation within the global refugee regime depends on political will but also leveraging the interests of states.
Second, outcomes for refugees are shaped by politics in policy fields that fall outside the scope of the refugee regime. Outcomes for refugees are now often shaped by decisions made within regimes relating to travel, labour, development and security, each of which can claim authority over certain aspects of refugee movements. In some cases, regime complexity has opportunities. As you would have seen in Uganda, development governance can leverage the participation of actors that can create opportunities to encourage self-reliance for refugees and encourage their contribution to local and national economies, but in other areas, it may enable actors to shift decision-making on responses to refugees into regimes that better suit their interests, thus eroding the authority and efficacy of the global refugee regime. The regime needs the ability to more consistently and effectively engage with related policy fields and to leverage these fields to articulate win-win outcomes, both for refugees and for states.
The third challenge is probably the most fundamental, in that the regime contains no binding obligation on states to co-operate to ensure the functioning of the regime. While countries of first asylum have an international obligation not to forcibly return refugees to a country where they fear persecution, there is no binding obligation on other states to share the costs associated with the provision of asylum. While there's broad agreement by states on the principle of international co-operation and responsibility-sharing, there is no binding obligation on states to co-operate to find solutions to refugees. In the absence of such a mechanism, responsibility for refugees is the result of accidents of geography, with states in regions of refugee origin hosting the vast majority of the world's refugees.
The resulting inequalities raise not only ethical questions but deeper political questions as to how international co-operation can be mobilized in an environment where front-line states cannot rely on support to respond to the arrival and prolonged presence of refugees. In fact, the perceived lack of international co-operation over the past 30 years has prompted several states in the global south to introduce more restrictive asylum policies. It has exacerbated north-south tensions within the refugee regime, and resulted in low levels of trust and confidence between major refugee-hosting states and donor states.
The global compact on refugees, which is currently before the UN General Assembly and is facing difficult passage in New York, presents us with an opportunity to address some—but not all—of the governance gaps currently facing the regime.
First, if implemented, the compact can provide incentives to refugee-hosting states to adopt approaches to refugees that promote protection and solution. Here, it can help rebuild trust between refugee-hosting states and other members of the international communities.
Second, the global compact on refugees includes mechanisms that connect refugee issues with broader discussions of development, policy and practice. This is a necessary innovation that can lead to substantial change.
Third, the global compact for refugees calls for a ministerial-level global refugee forum to meet every few years to mobilize high-level political engagement in the process of resolving refugee situations. This mechanism allows for the building of political will and the mobilization of collective action to respond to a shared issue of common concern. As with global issues such as trade and the environment, refugee situations are best resolved through sustained collective action. Political will is required to ensure that this piece of the rules-based international order is able to effectively address this shared challenge and overcome collective action failure.
The global compact will not address all gaps in the global refugee regime. It remains a voluntary, non-binding agreement and does not ensure that international co-operation is reliable and effective in all situations. As such, it's not a panacea. However, it does provide a potentially important opportunity to demonstrate the value of collective action, to rebuild trust, and to reinvigorate confidence in the rules-based international order.
Is there an opportunity for Canada to lead in the global compact? I would say that Canada has already been leading in the development of the global compact, and I'm happy to talk about that in the question time. I think Canada has an opportunity to lead in the implementation of the global compact, both to enhance the refugee regime and, critically, to demonstrate its credentials as a defender of the rules-based international order.
As I discussed with Canadian missions in Kenya and Tanzania two weeks ago when I was in East Africa, and as I argued at the global heads of mission meeting in Ottawa last May, Canada can mobilize existing immigration, development and humanitarian resources in a way that helps implement the global compact and responds to shared interests with major refugee-hosting states. This would enhance Canada's relations with such states and leverage protection and solutions for refugees.
Where, specifically, can Canadian leadership help maximize impact? I'd point to two opportunities.
First, within the global compact there's a commitment to host a ministerial-level global refugee forum in late 2019 or early 2020. Canada can offer to co-chair that first ministerial-level meeting. Over the next year, Canada could lead efforts to build a north-south coalition of states committed to demonstrating the benefits of collective action. It could rebuild trust in the global refugee regime, and it could leverage a solution for refugees. This is for the benefit of states and refugees alike.
Second—and I think this is lower-hanging fruit—Canada can conduct a review of the immigration, development, diplomatic and humanitarian assets it currently has committed to major refugee-hosting states and regions. Canada should then propose the convening of a platform, another mechanism in the global compact, in situations where Canada can lead with other states in leveraging change through the complementary use of existing resources in co-operation with other states.
This is how Canada led with unlocking the situation with the Lhotshampa Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. A similar logic can be used to roll out this mechanism. This approach has enabled Canada to lead in resolving specific refugee situations in the past. It has resulted in positive outcomes for refugees and the states that host them. It has also significantly enhanced Canada's standing in the international community. We've done it before, and I believe that support for the implementation of the global compact for refugees provides us with the opportunity to do it again.
Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
