Congressional Hearings
THE U.S. ROLE AND STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS
Congressional Hearings
SuDoc ClassNumber: Y 4.F 76/2
Congress: Senate
CHRG-114shrg34923
| AUTHORITYID | CHAMBER | TYPE | COMMITTEENAME |
|---|---|---|---|
| ssfr00 | S | S | Committee on Foreign Relations |
[Senate Hearing 114-810]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-810
THE U.S. ROLE AND STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: https://www.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
34-923 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
BOB CORKER, TENNESSEE, Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MARCO RUBIO, Florida BARBARA BOXER, California
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
RAND PAUL, Kentucky TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Lester Munson, Staff Director
Jodi B. Herman, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bob Corker, U.S. Senator From Tennessee..................... 1
Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator From Maryland.............. 2
The Right Honourable David Miliband, President and Chief
Executive Officer, International Rescue Committee, New York, NY 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 7
Dr. Michel Gabaudan, President, Refugees International,
Washington, DC................................................. 13
Prepared Statement........................................... 16
Nancy Lindborg, President, United States Institute of Peace,
Washington, DC................................................. 19
Prepared Statement........................................... 20
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Response of David Miliband to Question Submitted by Senator Tim
Kaine.......................................................... 45
(iii)
THE U.S. ROLE AND STRATEGY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Corker, Risch, Johnson, Gardner, Perdue,
Cardin, Menendez, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, and Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
The Chairman. This meeting of the Foreign Relations
Committee will come to order.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here. Nancy,
as I understand it, is tied up in traffic and will be coming in
in a few moments. So we are going to go ahead and get started.
I know we have a vote a little bit later on. We want to make
sure that we get the full benefit of your testimony.
But I want to thank the members for being here.
Today's hearing is the second in a series of hearings
examining the role of the United States in the Middle East.
This hearing will focus on the immense humanitarian crisis
emanating from the region. The images of hundreds of thousands
of men, women, and children fleeing for safety should challenge
every moral fiber within us. These are people just like us that
want only to be able to raise their families in dignity and
cherish the same values and things that we all care about. And
yet, we watch them on television in these desperate
circumstances.
We all know the scale of this tragedy, but it is worth
again outlining the numbers. In Syria, in a country with a
population of 22 million in 2011, more than 4.1 million have
fled the country and more than 7.6 million are displaced inside
the country. So half of Syria's population is not at home, not
living in their hometowns but in some other place.
Some estimates put the number of deaths in Syria at over
300,000--people have different estimates--with the Assad regime
being responsible for over 100,000 civilian deaths. Let me say
that one more time: The Assad regime is responsible for over
100,000 civilian deaths.
In Iraq, 8.6 million are in need of humanitarian assistance
and 3.2 million are displaced.
Solutions must address why people are fleeing. I look
forward to hearing the views of our witnesses today.
Nancy, welcome. You did not miss anything actually.
But I believe that after 4 years of war there is a
perception that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. As
Assad continues to barrel bomb his own people, the Russians and
Iranians continue to ensure that he has the means to do it.
More than 1 year after establishing a global coalition to
counter ISIS, we learned that the main beneficiary, Iraq, has
allowed Iran, Russia, and Syria to establish their own
coalition within a coordination cell in Baghdad. It now appears
that our administration is seriously debating some type of an
accommodation with the Russians in order to fight ISIS.
It is difficult to understand how working alongside the
backers of Assad could in any way stem the flow of refugees who
are fleeing the barrel bombs. It is important to remember that
the war in Syria began with Assad, and he is still doing the
same things today on a daily basis that he was doing at the
time.
I do want to digress and say I know that David Miliband
took a very opposing view to most of the Labour Party when he
at one time served in the Parliament and felt that interaction
inside Syria should be taking place by Great Britain. Many of
us felt the same way, and as crass as it may sound, I think all
of us--all of us--today as we watch what is on television and
see these refugees and the circumstances they are in--all of us
are reaping what we sowed. We did not get involved at a time
when we could have made a difference.
I hope our witnesses can help us understand the scale and
effect of the humanitarian crisis and what steps the United
States and others should be taking to mitigate it.
But I would like to again stress that we cannot simply rely
on humanitarianism alone in this crisis and that it is
incumbent upon us to work toward realistic policies that would
bring back the hope of a normal life to those in need.
Thank you again for appearing before our committee, and I
look forward to your testimony.
And with that, I would like to turn to our distinguished
ranking member.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, first let me thank you
for convening this hearing. This committee works in a
bipartisan way in order to advance our foreign policy
objectives, and I congratulate the chairman for his leadership
in that regard. You and I talked a while back as to what we can
do. We talked about what we can do in regards to the refugee
crisis globally, but we recognize that Syria is an immediate
concern, it is a humanitarian crisis, and there is a conflict
there that needs a solution. It is complicated, of course, by
ISIS's presence in Syria.
So I want to thank you for the manner in which we were able
to convene this hearing to see how the United States Senate and
Congress can advance the goals of the United States in dealing
with this international crisis, how we can take a look at our
traditional tools and perhaps refine them, and look at new ways
that we can energize the United States involvement in the
international community to deal with the humanitarian crisis.
And I would agree with you. We also need to deal with the
political underpinnings of why people have to flee their homes.
For the first time since World War II, almost 60 million
people have been forced from their homes and displaced in their
own countries or forced to flee abroad. We are seeing more and
more conflicts that do not end and result in exponential
increases in humanitarian needs. The magnitude of the Syrian
disaster is perhaps the most shocking. As the war enters its
5th year, the situation is increasingly desperate for both the
refugees and host countries like Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, and
northern Iraq.
Because Syrians are finding it increasingly difficult to
find safety, they are being forced to move further afield. That
is why so many are risking their lives to cross the
Mediterranean. There are currently some 4 million Syrian
refugees plus another 7.6 million internally displaced Syrians
suffering and in need of humanitarian assistance. More and more
families are forced to send their children to work or marry off
their young daughters, just to survive.
It is hard to comprehend the impact of millions of refugees
on Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey. The number of refugees in
Lebanon would be equivalent--by percentage of their
population--to the United States receiving 88 million new
refugees. That is a shocking number for that country. Turkey
has already spent $6 billion in direct assistance to refugees
in its care. That is a huge part of the Turkish economy. At the
same time, we in the West, until very recently, have been
reluctant to admit even the most vulnerable Syrian refugees.
While contributing generously to humanitarian funding, the
United States has only accepted about 1,500 Syrian refugees,
although the White House recently announced it would admit
10,000 Syrians.
We know that the Syrian humanitarian disaster, which has
destabilized an entire region, is not the accidental byproduct
of conflict. It is instead one result of the strategy pursued
by the Assad regime. The United Nations Commission of Inquiry
on Syria has documented that the Assad regime is using barrel
bombs, intentionally engages in the indiscriminate bombardment
of homes, hospitals, schools, and water and electrical
facilities in order to terrorize the civilian population. As
millions of families are displaced multiple times and, as the
chairman pointed out, with the casualty numbers now approaching
300,000, the number of people fleeing the country will only
rise.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. The ultimate solution here
is for Assad to leave. We know that we need to have Assad out
and I believe he should leave for The Hague to be held
accountable for his war crimes. So we need to work on a
political solution. I know the President is in New York today
meeting with world leaders to talk about a political path
forward, but in the meantime, we do have the humanitarian
crisis and there is no end in sight for the people trying to
flee. As you said, what everyone wants is a safe environment
for their families.
In Iraq, the number of people requiring humanitarian
assistance has grown to 8.2 million people. Three million have
been forced from their homes. Half of the displaced are
children.
To the south, Yemen is on the brink of humanitarian
catastrophe. That country was particularly vulnerable even
before this conflict. And now civilians throughout the country
are facing an alarming level of suffering and violence. An
estimated 21 million people are afflicted by the war and
require humanitarian assistance; 1.5 million people have been
forced from their homes and are now living in empty schools or
other public buildings or along highways.
The global refugee trends are indeed alarming. The
international assistance being provided is not keeping up with
the scale of the problem. The United Nations have been able to
raise only 38 percent of the $7.4 billion it says it needs to
care for the Syrians. We need to ask ourselves hard questions
about how we can increase the effectiveness of the assistance.
And now protracted crises seem to be a new normal, with
many refugees displaced for 17 years on average. Let me just
underscore that point. Our refugee program is aimed at looking
at refugees as being temporary, and figuring out how we get
them back safely to their homes. That is what a refugee was
always thought to be. But if you are in some other place for 17
years, the chances of you going back to your native country is
remote. In Syria, some of the communities no longer even exist.
And many others have been transformed to such a point that it
would not be safe anytime in the near future for the Syrians to
be able to return to their homes.
We need to rethink our refugee laws to recognize that a
large number of refugees are not going to return to their
native countries. And the United States needs to look at a
refugee policy that is sensitive to the new norm and that deals
with the realities that people need to find new homes for their
families.
I believe strongly we need to use humanitarian and
development dollars more skillfully so that we are providing
durable and development-like solutions to chronic
vulnerability.
In closing, we must recognize that as these conflicts
proliferate, no corner of the world will be left unaffected. We
must recommit ourselves to work smarter and harder to assist
the world's most vulnerable people. As we seek to win the
hearts and minds in this region, our efforts to provide real,
tangible humanitarian assistance to the people most affected by
this conflict will be more effective than sending more military
assistance or more weapons into a conflict where there is no
pathway for success. Our humanitarian engagement is a moral and
political necessity, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses as to how we can be more effective in dealing with
the humanitarian crisis and hopefully addressing the causes of
why people need to flee their homes.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And thanks for a
lifetime of effort ensuring people have appropriate human
rights.
Senator Cardin. Can I just add one thing, Mr. Chairman?
Most people might notice that our chairman, who is always even-
tempered and always in a good mood, is particularly proud
today. He became a grandfather for the first time, and I know
our committee offers him our congratulations.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. Thank you. No doubt an incredible experience.
And I only wish the people we are talking about today have
similar experiences.
So thank you again for your comments.
Our first witness is The Right Honourable David Miliband,
somebody we all respect, President and CEO of the International
Rescue Committee. Mr. Miliband previously had a distinguished
political career in the U.K. serving as Foreign Secretary.
Thank you for being here.
Our second witness today is Michel Gabaudan. Thank you for
being here, sir. President of Refugees International. Michel
spent more than 25 years at the UNHCR. Thank you for bringing
that knowledge with you today.
Finally, our third witness that we will hear from today is
Ms. Nancy Lindborg, president of the United States Institute of
Peace, someone who we also have seen many, many times, and we
thank her. Nancy has served at USAID and as President of Mercy
Corps. Thank you for that service.
Thank you all for being here. I know you all have been here
many times. If you could each spend about 5 minutes giving your
positions--without objection, your written testimony will
become a part of the record. And if you could just go down the
line and give your testimony, we would appreciate it. We look
forward to questions and certainly your comments. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE DAVID MILIBAND, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE, NEW
YORK, NY
Mr. Miliband. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you probably
heard, but I want to say thank you and that I am honored to be
here.
I want to congratulate you on not just holding a hearing on
the humanitarian situation in the Middle East but recognizing
the links between the humanitarian situation and the
geopolitical situation.
My organization, the International Rescue Committee, has, I
think, a unique perspective on the crisis because we are
working in the conflict zones of Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. We are
in the neighboring states that you referred to, both Senator
Corker and Senator Cardin. We are in Greece on the Island of
Lesvos where half of the refugees arriving in Europe are
landing on European soil. And we are active in the United
States resettling 10,000 refugees in 26 cities across this
country every year.
The roiling conflicts in the Middle East, as both of you
have said, present the most challenging, dangerous, and complex
humanitarian challenge in the world today. And I think they
present a preeminent moral and geopolitical case for renewed
American engagement.
Conscious of your time constraints and the benefit of a
genuine dialogue in the question and answer session, I want to
confine my remarks to four areas that more or less follow my
written testimony and focus less on our analysis of the
situation but what might be done.
First, inside Syria, there is a war without law and there
is misery without aid for the millions of people that you
referred to, Senator. It is driving people to risk life and
limb to get to Europe. And almost worse than the numbers you
recited is that there is no structured political process at the
moment to offer hope of an end to the war.
The number one priority that we would present to the
committee is to turn or help turn the words of U.N.
resolutions, which are good words supported by all members of
the Security Council, into actions that prevent death and
destruction of civilians and their property by barrel bombs,
car bombs, and mines. We advocate as a practical measure the
appointment of humanitarian envoys by each of the permanent
members of the Security Council, distinguished political or
diplomatic figures who are able to work on the ground on the
local access that is so essential to help the humanitarian aid
that is being spoken of reach where it is needed.
Second, the neighboring states, as you both said, are
coping with unprecedented numbers of refugees. It is worth
noting that a World Food Programme voucher is worth $13 a month
for a family in Lebanon or Jordan, a middle-class family that
has fled its home in Syria.
For us, the priority must be for these neighboring states a
multiyear strategic package that recognizes that these people
are not going home soon. These refugees are not going home
soon. In written testimony, we compare the package that is
needed to the Marshall Plan, a multiyear plan which is not just
an aid package but aligns private sector effort with public
sector effort and addresses the economic conditions that people
face not just the social conditions.
Third, I am just back from Lesvos, the island in Greece
where half of the refugees are arriving. I will not dwell on
the responsibilities of European leaders and European citizens.
Suffice it to say that they need to show both competence and
compassion, both of which have been sorely lacking over the
last few years.
The three priorities in Europe are, first of all, to
establish safe and legal roots to become a refugee in Europe.
Without those safe and legal roots, you empower the smugglers
who are currently charging 1,200 euros for the 6-kilometer boat
trip across the Aegean. Secondly, to improve reception
conditions, notably in Greece and on the routes into northern
and western Europe. And thirdly, to implement a robust
relocation plan within Europe to share the refugees between the
different European states.
Just finally, it is worth pointing out that European aid
for the neighboring states does now exceed American
humanitarian aid, and with the 1 billion euros that was
announced last week at the European summit, that European lead,
so to speak, which is currently $200 million will stretch to
$1.2 billion.
Finally, there is an important substantive and symbolic
role for the United States in resettling refugees. IRC has been
doing this for 80 years since Alba Einstein came to New York to
found the organization in 1933. So far, just over 1,800 Syrians
have been admitted, and with the greatest respect, the respect
of someone who is a visitor to your country, even though I work
here now but yet not a citizen, I would say that this 1,800
figure is not fitting for the global leadership role that the
United States has played over a very long period in refugee
resettlement. The administration's commitment to take 10,000
citizens remains a limited contribution to the global effort.
And we recommend three practical steps.
One is to raise the ceiling, the number of Syrians who are
allowed in. And in the course of the questions and answers, I
hope we get to explain why the figure of 100,000 has been
reached, 100,000 refugees to be admitted over the next year,
and how that speaks to the global need.
Secondly, to fund that drive properly, including in the
Department of Homeland Security where we strongly support
effective security screening and can speak to that.
And thirdly and something that has not had proper coverage
I think is the scope for expanding access through family
reunification schemes for Syrian American communities who are
in this country across the country and have grandparents,
cousins, relatives in Syria who want to come and join them.
This is a DNA-based family reunification scheme that I think
could offer a practical and short-term way of circumventing
some of the delays that have plagued the program.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for this opportunity
to speak with you. I deliberately curtailed my remarks and very
much look forward to a real dialogue. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miliband follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Rt. Hon. David Miliband
Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, and distinguished Senators,
I would like to thank you for your decision to hold this full committee
hearing on the epic displacement crisis unfolding in Syria and the
broader Middle East. For the purposes of my written and oral testimony,
I will focus on Syria--the epicenter of the region's humanitarian
crisis--but am happy to take questions on other pressing emergencies in
the region including Iraq and Yemen.
There is urgent need for renewed international leadership in both
resolving and responding to the Syrian crisis, and by necessity that
means deep involvement by the United States (U.S.). The Syrian crisis
has spilled onto the shores of Europe for two reasons: because of the
magnitude of violence and threats to civilians in Syria, and because of
the pressure in neighboring states. The mismatch between need and help
for civilians, both in Syria and in the countries that surround it, is
vast and growing. What was a civil conflict within one state has
evolved into not just a regional human catastrophe of major
proportions; it is also a defining geopolitical disaster for the Middle
East.
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) has a unique vantage point
from which to offer perspective on the crisis. IRC is working inside
Syria; in the four major refugee receiving countries that surround it--
Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey; on the island of Lesbos, which is
the arrival point of over half of the hundreds of thousands of Syrians
and people of other nationalities seeking asylum in Europe through
Greece; and finally, IRC resettles refugees in 26 cities across the
United States, including Syrians who have been given the opportunity to
start their lives anew in this country. We witness the full arch of
this crisis, from Aleppo to Beirut to Lesbos and Los Angeles. I hope to
use the occasion of this testimony to pay tribute to the extraordinary
efforts of IRC staff and our partner organizations, and highlight the
vital contribution of aid workers from all the many organizations
responding to the crisis in Syria, some of whom have paid with their
lives.
Attention to Syrian refugees has peaked in the last month, with
stunning images in the news headlines of people floating at great risk
to safety across the Mediterranean and literally walking across Europe
in search of asylum. While not all of the asylum seekers are Syrian,
they comprise the majority. Their sheer numbers and the perilous
journey they take to escape suggest the Syria crisis is at a tipping
point. IRC, amongst others, has long warned that the barbarism inside
Syria, in which civilians are trapped in a war without law between
government forces, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other
parties to the conflict, would spill over. It has now done so in many
ways, evident in the extreme pressure that hosting 4 million refugees
has placed on neighboring states, in the connections between the
conflict and displacement scenarios in Syria and Iraq, and finally in
the onward journey out of the region to Europe.
inside syria
The figures of death, destruction, and displacement in Syria are
shocking. The brutal, seemingly endless violence that has consumed the
country since 2011, spread across its borders, and sucked in weapons
and fighters from across and beyond the region, has claimed at a
minimum 240,000 lives (the number is widely believed to be twice this
many) and left every second Syrian displaced. Satellite imagery reveals
that just a fifth of Syria's prewar lights remain on--such is the
devastation wrought by shells, rockets and barrel bombs. In places like
Aleppo, that figure is over 95 percent. Half the country's population
have abandoned their homes.
There is a chasm between the needs of Syria's civilian population
and the help they are receiving. It continues to grow. Global
contributions are not keeping pace with needs, which have grown
twelvefold since the beginning of the crisis and more than 30 percent
in the last year alone. While food, water, shelter, health care and
sanitation services are desperately required, last year's U.N. appeal
to meet basic needs inside Syria was only 50 percent supported--down
from 68 percent in 2013. Only 34 percent of need inside Syria in 2015
has been committed so far.
The unanimous adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2139
(UNSCR 2139) in February 2014--no small feat given the intractable
nature of the Syria issue on the Security Council--brought with it much
needed hope for people in Syria and across the Middle East. In the
resolution, the Security Council called for an urgent increase in
access to humanitarian aid in Syria and demanded that all parties
immediately cease attacks against civilians--including through the use
of barrel bombs--and lift sieges of populated areas. In July and
December 2014, the Security Council adopted two additional
resolutions--2165 and 2191--which, among other things, authorized U.N.
aid operations into Syria from neighboring countries without the
consent of the Syrian Government. And yet, whereas 1 million people
inside Syria required humanitarian assistance in 2011, that number now
stands at 12.2 million; among them some 7.6 million people forced to
flee, but still trapped inside Syria's borders.
By blocking civilian movement, attacking aid convoys, kidnapping
humanitarian personnel, and rejecting or miring in redtape official
requests for access, the parties to the conflict are disrupting the
delivery of lifesaving aid to 40 percent of those in need. All told,
some 4.6 million people are currently languishing in areas defined by
the U.N. as ``hard-to-reach''--an increase of more than 1 million from
this time last year. Over 422,000 people are completely besieged, cut
off from food, water, and medicine, their lifelines choked, and escape
routes blocked. A key component of UNSCR 2139--protecting civilians
against indiscriminate attacks--is still sorely lacking, with
government forces' increased use of barrel bombs, and opposition
groups' use of explosive weapons.
IRC's eight decades of work in the world's war zones and disaster
settings have not lessened the shock of what has befallen the Syrian
people and their neighbors. However, what is even more shocking is the
lack of a plan--or effort to create a plan--to bring the suffering to
an end. It is humanitarians' job to staunch the dying, but it is only
political action that will stop the killing. The political will and
diplomatic energy aimed at securing an end to the war--and minimizing
the impact of the fighting on civilians--have ebbed to low levels. Yet
the longer the conflict goes on, the worse the options become. It is
not the place of a humanitarian organization like IRC to advocate on
military tactics. However, we have an intense stake in not only seeing
humanitarian assistance make it to everyone who needs it, but also in
the causes of humanitarian distress being addressed. A policy that
truly puts civilian protection at its heart would leverage all
diplomatic and political channels to curb the violence and bring hope
of an end to the war.
``Friends of Syria'' meetings once drew more than 100 nations.
Today, the forum has been hollowed out to a core of less than a dozen
countries. Early Arab League proposals, former U.N. Secretary General
Kofi Annan's six-point plan, and the Geneva II conference of January
2014, yielded minimal results, but there was at least a sense of
commitment and grim determination. There are a few developing efforts
toward national reconciliation through the establishment of an
``international contact group'' and the efforts of U.N. Syria Envoy
Staffan de Mistura. However, if political and diplomatic vigor is not
placed into these processes over a sustained period of time (and
against all odds), the crisis will further metastasize.
IRC would put forward the following recommendations to the
committee and U.S. policymakers regarding the crisis in Syria:
Protect civilians. There is an urgent need for the U.N.
Security Council to establish a mechanism to track and
publically expose indiscriminate attacks by any means against
civilians, including barrel bombs, car bombs and mines, as well
as the use of besiegement, and to lay down clear consequences
for violators. Ending aerial bombardments of civilian areas was
highlighted by the U.N. Security Council in its resolutions:
civilian protection means turning words into action.
Access the hard-to-reach and besieged. Increasing
humanitarian access to those in need--particularly the hard-to-
reach and besieged--requires constant and unabated attention at
the highest levels. The U.S. and other countries with leverage
on parties to the conflict need strongly and consistently to
press the belligerents to allow unimpeded cross-border aid, and
to allow aid to pass into or through conflict zones.
Humanitarian Envoys--senior diplomats with the backing of their
head of state--should be appointed by permanent members of the
Security Council and regional players to focus relentless
attention to humanitarian access and protection obstacles in
Syria, and actively seek ways to address them through bilateral
and multilateral channels. They would advocate for the full
implementation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and would
work in tandem with all relevant parts of the U.N.
Provide enough aid to meet need. The United States has been
a leader in the humanitarian response to the situation in
Syria. However, the funding provided simply is not keeping up
with the ever-growing need for life-saving assistance. As long
as the crisis goes on and the international community
collectively fails to find a solution to it, ensuring
humanitarian assistance is available to those whose lives have
been shattered by this conflict is the minimum that we must do.
syria's neighbors
It is not only Syrians themselves who have borne the brunt of the
country's conflict, but the neighboring countries which now host over 4
million refugees. In exile for years now, with their economic and
personal assets long depleted, Syrian refugees live on the margins and
are in desperate need of food, water, shelter, and education. There is
often reference to ``refugee camps''; but the vast majority of Syrians
are not in camps. In Lebanon most live in decrepit dwellings or tented
settlements that expose them to the elements and insecurity. In Jordan,
tens of thousands of families live below the absolute poverty line.
Rent accounts for more than half of refugees' monthly expenses, forcing
parents to send their children to work long hours for meager pay. A
2015 assessment found that 86 percent of Syrian refugees outside of
camps in Jordan were living below the Jordanian absolute poverty line
of $95 per person per month.
The impact upon Syria's neighbors of receiving such a massive
influx of refugees cannot be overstated and they deserve great credit
for their hospitality and sacrifice. Turkey has become the largest
refugee-hosting country in the world, and last autumn put the cost of
hosting Syrian refugees since April of 2011 at $4.5 billion--a figure
that will have only grown in the last year. In Lebanon--a country with
a host of preexisting tensions and no official government of its own--
Syrians now constitute somewhere between a quarter and a third of the
population, making it the highest per capita refugee hosting country in
the world. The World Bank estimates that its basic infrastructure will
need investment of up to $2.5 billion just to be restored to precrisis
levels. Jordan, one of the most water-starved nations on the planet,
hosts nearly 630,000 registered refugees; proportionally equivalent to
the United States absorbing the entire population of the United
Kingdom. The Jordanian Economic and Social Council has stated that the
cost to Jordan per Syrian refugee is over $3,500 per year and the
direct cost from the beginning of the conflict is expected to rise to
$4.2 billion by 2016.
The education of Syrian refugee children is probably one of the
best illustrations of the strain that the influx has placed on
surrounding countries and the failure of the humanitarian aid system to
keep up. There are an estimated 400,000 children among the more than
1.1 million Syrian refugees registered in Lebanon. The ability of
Lebanese schools to absorb these children has been limited by the scale
of the task. Most have instituted second shifts to accommodate Syrian
children. But in the 2014-2015 school year, only 37 percent of Syrian
refugee children ages 6-14 were enrolled in school. The Lebanese
Education Minister recently announced a ``Back to School'' initiative--
funded at $94 million by U.N. agencies and international donors--that
will double the number of places for Syrian children to 200,000. This
is welcome news, but leaves another 200,000 Syrian children out of
school this year and on their way to becoming what is frequently
referred to as a ``lost generation.'' International and national
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can continue to play an important
role in providing educational opportunities to many of the Syrian
refugee children who will not be reached by the ``Back to School''
program; they should not only be allowed, but vigorously encouraged and
funded to do so.
Refugee hosting countries' public services, economies, and
resources are creaking under this strain and their social fabrics are
fraying. As a result, neighboring governments are now taking steps to
restrict the flow of refugees into their territory with many of the
formal and informal border crossings out of Syria often closed to
civilians seeking safety. Hundreds of thousands of people are estimated
to be living in camps on or near the borders of neighboring countries,
unable to flee Syria. Increased and costly administrative regulations
to renew residency permits have forced many families to live illegally
and precariously. There are reports of refugees being forcibly
repatriated to Syria, sometimes over missing papers and the space for
refugees within the region--their ability to access essential services,
or earn a living--is shrinking. Lebanon is cracking down on illegal
work; Jordan has halted free health care.
With the asylum space for millions on the line, it is stunning how
poorly funded the U.N.'s humanitarian Regional Response Plan has been.
It was just 64 percent funded in 2014, down from 73 percent in 2013.
The current year seems to be shaping up for yet another decline, with
only 45 percent funding as we head into the final quarter of 2015. As a
result, some services are being scaled back, despite the growing need.
For example, since the beginning of the year, the U.N.'s World Food
Programme (WFP) has been forced to reduce the number of food voucher
recipients in refugee-hosting countries from 2.1 million to around 1.4
million. Last month, 229,000 of 440,000 Syrian refugees living outside
camps in Jordan stopped receiving food vouchers from WFP. The value of
food vouchers distributed to Syrian refugees in Lebanon has been
slashed in half. The maximum voucher amount is now $13.50 per person
per month, down from $27 in 2014.
With much less to feed their families, desperation among Syrian
refugees is rising, forcing them into desperate measures--including
begging, child labor, low-wage and unregulated labor, survival sex,
early marriage and increased indebtedness. IRC would advocate that
currently available resources be provided as much as possible through
cash transfers, allowing refugee families to pay for rent, food,
medical care and other urgent needs as access to public services is
restricted and humanitarian aid programs continue to shrink. Another
critical area of focus is vocational training for youth and creating
livelihoods for Syrian families so they can support themselves.
Finally, it is important to come to terms with the sobering fact
that these refugees will not be returning home any time soon. Given
international assistance has not been enough to meet the needs to date
and is likely only to further diminish as this conflict drags on, it is
of paramount importance that opportunities are made available for
Syrian refugees to work in the countries to which they have been
displaced. Employment laws in the region either leave Syrians to work
illegally in the shadows--subject to exploitation and abuse--or best
case in low levels of employment that are open to them. Not only is it
a waste to let the human capital of these refugees go untapped, but
allowing them to work is a key part of a strategy to make sure they
thrive and contribute to the societies to which they have been
displaced.
IRC recommends the following in response to the influx of Syrian
refugees into neighboring countries:
Aid: Increase international humanitarian assistance. There
are challenges to getting aid to those who need it in certain
parts of Syria, but there is no excuse for it not to reach
those who manage to make it out. Providing this assistance
ensures Syrian refugees who flee danger do not wind up in
situations of abject poverty and exploitation. The U.S. has
contributed $4.5 billion to the Syrian response over the course
of the conflict--this assistance is vital and welcome, but it
pales in comparison to the sheer scope of need generated by the
crisis. The U.N. has called for $7.4 billion for 2015 alone.
Economics: Create a ``Marshall Plan'' for the region. After
World War II, the Marshall Plan pulled Europe out of post-war
devastation and laid the foundations for peace as well as
prosperity. Public and private sector came together in an
unprecedented drive. At that time the U.S. committed
approximately $13 billion, or 3 percent of GDP. The magnitude
of the Syria Crisis necessitates a proportionate response.
Whether by this name or another, the international community
must coalesce around a large scale, multicountry economic plan
to buttress the governments and communities hosting the lion's
share of Syrian refugees. Institutional and infrastructural
support to ensure that these countries can provide basic
services like health care and education without buckling under
the additional strain is a critical part of the mid-long term
strategy to respond to the Syria crisis. This could be financed
through public/private partnerships and serve as a framework to
bring a wide array of actors along--including the Gulf State
governments. The World Bank, U.N. Development Program,
bilateral development donors and other international financial
institutions should reorient their work to support the
economies of conflict-affected states like Jordan and Lebanon
to help them weather the shock. This type of large-scale
support to governments is critical to maintaining the asylum
space for refugees and ensuring that the events in Syria do not
further destabilize the region.
Helping the Most Vulnerable: Take a ``needs-based'' regional
approach to displacement. Iraqis internally displaced by chaos
wrought by ISIS are living side by side with some 250,000
Syrian refugees. Effort must be made to provide support in
these areas based on need--not displacement status--to ensure
we do not end up in a situation with refugees receiving
assistance while Iraqis in a similar or worse situation receive
much less. This includes assisting the communities in the Iraqi
Kurdistan Region--one of the only safe places to flee--which
are currently hosting a massive influx of people from their own
country and their neighbor to the West.
refugee influx into europe
Given the dire scenario outlined above, it should not be surprising
that refugees from Syria are risking life and limb to find asylum in
Europe. The waves of people arriving on the shores of European member
states have made a highly informed calculus on where their chances of
survival are best and determined the perilous journey is their safest
option. An estimated 477,000 people have arrived by sea in 2015, the
vast majority of them in Greece. An estimated eight people a day die
just among those traveling between Turkey and Greece, including
children, which the world was so painfully reminded a few weeks ago
when the photos of Aylan Kurdi surfaced in the world's newspapers and
social media.
I just returned from visiting Lesbos, an island of 90,000 people
where over half of all arrivals into Greece come ashore. In June, 200
refugees were arriving every day. When I visited the figure was 2-3,000
people a day. Last week the figure reached 6,000 on one day. IRC has
established programs there to provide assistance in the form of clean
water, sanitation, information services and transportation. Previously,
families that had often arrived soaking wet and with few worldly
possessions were walking the 40 kilometers north from their arrival
points to register in the capital of Molyvos. Their ongoing journey, as
we witness through dramatic images at train stations in Hungary and in
the face of razor wire fences and tear gas on the borders of European
Union (EU) member states, only becomes more fraught with obstacles.
An estimated 84 percent of the people arriving in Europe are from
the top ten refugee producing countries in the world, including
Afghanistan where the IRC also has programs to address the ongoing
humanitarian fallout from the conflict. However, Syrians represent 54
percent of the arrivals in Europe. Therefore, as the Syria crisis
continues to uproot millions of people and asylum space in the broader
Middle East closes, the arrivals to Europe will continue. It behooves
European leaders to respond with both compassion and competence. This
situation will continue to be a test of the strength of character of
the EU as an institution and its ability to manage a complex crisis in
the light vocal opposition on the part of a few member states. EU
member states should:
Establish safe and legal options for refugees to come to
Europe. Refugees will continue to fall prey to smugglers and
face life-endangering options if more legitimate ones are not
available to them. The tools are wide-ranging and should be
maximized to increase opportunities for safe entry. These
include: more proactively resettling refugees from the
countries surrounding Syria; the flexible use of family
reunification admission; increasing work and education visas;
and private sponsorship schemes.
Improve reception conditions, particularly in Greece.
Arriving refugees must be managed with dignity, especially in
light of the circumstances they have already endured. The
humanitarian response effort in arrival countries like Italy
and Greece and countries of transit like Hungary and Croatia
must be financially and technically supported by EU member
states. The response, including rescuing people at sea, should
be well-coordinated and information should be provided to
arriving refugees on their options.
Implement a robust and well-monitored relocation plan. The
EU's decision last week to relocate 120,000 refugees--on top of
the 40,000 already agreed to--between member states should be
done in an equitable fashion and every effort should be made to
accommodate the wishes of refugees to be with family members. A
proportional distribution plan should be followed to have an
equitable split between member states. States should ensure
refugees are integrated into their societies and that they live
up to the commitments in the plan including those to housing
and social services. When considering relocation of refugees to
states that are reluctant to receive refugees or only receive a
small population, liaison officers must be present to monitor
adherence to asylum standards. Where refugee families are not
housed together in the same country, they should be allowed to
travel within the Schengen zone to visit their family members,
relying on the fact that social support will only be available
in the assigned country for the refugee (ensuring their
return). The same standards of data protection that apply for
all EU citizens should be carried out when biometric tracking
is used with refugees to ensure human dignity and privacy.
u.s. resettlement of syrians
This brings us to the U.S. role in providing sanctuary to Syrian
refugees. While the U.S. can and should encourage its European
counterparts to respond to the refugee influx with fortitude and
compassion, the best encouragement this country can offer is leading by
example. To date, despite its relative leadership in providing
humanitarian assistance to refugees from Syria, the U.S. has admitted
just over 1,800 refugees through its refugee resettlement program. This
is a disappointingly low number for a country which has been the global
leader in refugee protection since World War II and served as a beacon
of hope to people around the world facing persecution and violence.
Resettlement is a life-saving option to highly vulnerable families
living on the margins of survival in places like Jordan or Lebanon.
However, beyond its immediate value to individuals who have suffered so
much, it is a signal of solidarity and shared responsibility to other
countries that have absorbed the vast majority of Syrian refugees.
While a number like 100,000--which is what the IRC recommends the U.S.
take at a minimum in FY 2016 (see below)--is still only a small
fraction of the total refugee population, its value is not lost on
countries like Lebanon, a country of just 4 million which has absorbed
over a million people in the last 4 years. The signal the resettlement
number sends to these countries is a critical part of maintaining
asylum space and provides the U.S. and European countries the
credibility they need to encourage Syria's neighbors to keep their
borders open and improve conditions for those refugees who remain in
the frontline states.
During the last international Syrian resettlement pledging
conference in December 2014, the U.N. Refugee Agency sounded the alarm
bell when it said that roughly 10 percent of the Syrian refugee
population (400,000 people) were particularly vulnerable and needed to
be resettled. This was set as a medium-term, multiyear benchmark. The
U.S. has traditionally been the largest resettlement country in the
world, possessing the geographic and population size as well as the
know-how to absorb larger numbers than much smaller wealthy countries.
As a result, it has traditionally taken at least 50 percent of all
resettlement cases referred by the U.N. Refugee Agency. Given this
tradition, the IRC is calling on the U.S. to provide resettlement for
100,000 Syrian refugees in the first year of a multiyear program, to
ensure that the global community meets a goal believed necessary to
save lives and stabilize the situation in the region.
The IRC has long experience of resettling refugees across the U.S.
Our annual figure is around 10,000. This is a country proudly built on
the labor of refugees and immigrants. It is the same country that
pulled together not too long ago in a massive effort to rescue over 1.2
million southeast Asian refugees through sheer force of political will
when the circumstances demanded it. There is ample precedent for
admitting and successfully integrating refugees on a much larger scale,
when the political will and compassion is present. Large numbers of
inquiries have flowed into IRC's 26 field offices around the U.S. over
the last several weeks from the American public ranging from ``where do
I send the collection we've taken at church?'' to ``how can I open my
own home to a Syrian refugee family?'' This is just one small reading
that demonstrates the compassion and willingness to welcome that is
present in American communities, and that people are hungry to live up
to the principles that make this country great.
The IRC strongly supports effective and efficient security
screening for refugees entering the United States. Refugees are, in
fact, the single most vetted population entering the country, and the
U.S. Government has spared no efforts to continuously improve security
checks to safeguard the integrity of the program. There are ways that
the administration can admit refugees in efficient and expeditious ways
without compromising the integrity of security screenings.
Finally, the U.S. has one untapped option to rapidly and safely
increase Syrian resettlement: creating family reunification options for
Syrian-Americans and other lawfully present Syrian immigrants. Many
Syrians have a relative here in the U.S. who is desperate to take them
in, just as Aylan Kurdi's aunt in Canada was attempting to do.
Currently, only Syrians who arrived to this country as refugees
themselves are eligible to file for family reunification--a very small
number considering just over 1,800 have been admitted to date. Syrian-
Americans, many of whom immigrated to this country decades ago or were
born here, are not eligible to apply for their families through the
refugee program. We are not fully tapping into this option and are
neglecting the opportunity to aid Syrian-Americans in bringing their
family members to join them in safety in the U.S. These families would
play a large role in helping Syrians integrate successfully here and
moving them to self-sufficiency.
The IRC recommends in regard to the resettlement of Syrian refugees
in this country, the U.S. should:
Raise the U.S. refugee admissions ceiling to allow for at
least 100,000 Syrian refugees to enter in FY 2016. The
President should raise the overall U.S. resettlement ceiling to
200,000, allowing the space in the global program for 100,000
Syrians without compromising the urgent protection needs of
refugees from other troubled regions of the world.
Increase resources to make this happen. The agencies and
offices that manage different components of the refugee
resettlement process should be provided adequate resources to
bring in additional Syrian refugees. This includes the
Departments of State and Homeland Security, the Office of
Refugee Resettlement in the Health and Human Services
Department, and other federal agencies that perform security
checks.
Expand access to family reunification for Syrians with ties
in the U.S. In order to make the 100,000 target feasible, the
U.S. should expand opportunities for Syrian Americans and other
Syrian immigrants lawfully residing in the U.S. to bring their
family members to safety. It is time to think outside the box
and use the tools that exist to expand the resettlement program
to include family reunification. There is ample precedent for
this approach, most recently for Iraqis, Haitians, and Central
American minors. This is the single easiest, efficient and most
cost-effective way to bring large numbers to safety.
I thank you and the members of the U.S. Senate for the opportunity
to provide IRC's perspective on the complex humanitarian challenges
facing people in the Middle East and indeed the rest of the world at
this time. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHEL GABAUDAN, PRESIDENT, REFUGEES
INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Gabaudan. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin, and
distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much for
holding this hearing. And we certainly subscribe entirely to
the way you have both framed the question of the Syrian crisis.
The chaos, distress, and drama we have seen on our screens
over the past months are nothing but a reminder that we have
collectively failed to respond appropriately to the needs of
the victims of the conflict in Syria over the past year despite
the tremendous amounts of funding that have been provided. And
I want to thank the United States for being a leader in
humanitarian funding to the Syrian crisis and certainly
Congress for having made the right appropriations to grow
humanitarian accounts of this country.
RI has undertaken 12 missions over the past few years in
all the countries holding Syrian refugees and ones inside
Syria. We have looked at how displacement has evolved, how the
situation of refugees has changed over time, and unfortunately
how the funding has been drying up.
The drivers of displacements are multiple from the actions
of the Shia militias at the beginning. We all remember the
images of Homs and Hama, to the development of tremendous
military operations by the Assad regime, to the rise of
extremist groups, but also to the tremendous deteriorating
socioeconomic situation in Syria which makes life unsustainable
for many people who had to cross outside to find some ways to
sustain themselves.
However, today when you talk to refugees in southern
Turkey, in Jordan on what is the primary reason why they move,
they all had the same answer. It is the barrel bombings over
markets, over schools, over medical facilities. Another NGO has
reported that the month of August saw the largest number of
medical personnel killed by these shellings and barrel bombs.
The response to the crisis in neighboring countries has
been, I must say, remarkable. We have seen very few crises in
the world where borders have remained open for so long, where
governments have accepted the refugees spread out among the
population. There are very few refugees in camps. Most refugees
are living in an urban setting mixing with the local
population. Services have been accessible to refugees. National
services of medical and schools have been accessible to
refugees. And quite remarkably in all the interviews we had
with refugees, there is a rather low reporting of abuses by
authorities. This is not something we experience in many places
where refugees seem to be targeted much more than we have seen.
And I think we all have to recognize that Turkey, Lebanon,
Jordan, Egypt, and Iraqi Kurdistan has done tremendous work in
welcoming refugees.
The international response has adjusted to the urban nature
of the refugee situation. However, that urban nature creates
some particular challenges because the impact of refugees on
host communities is much stronger than when you have refugee
camps which are easier to manage. And we are seeing now that
there is some erosion of the tolerance of the local population
when they see the schools overburdened, access to medical
facilities being dependent on very long queues, the price of
rents for apartments or whatever they find where they can live
going up and up and up, and even the price of basic food
commodities, et cetera going up. So there is an impact on the
local population that after 4 years starts to generate
reactions of rejections or at least tensions with the refugee
community.
The humanitarian needs remain because many refugees are
poor. What we have seen over time is refugees being pushed from
poverty to misery. More begging is happening from Istanbul to
Amman and on the border cities. There are children working
because as the parents are not allowed to work, they do send
their children to work. It is easier for children to work
legally than for adults. We have seen lowering of the age of
early marriage for women, which is a way for families to try to
get some funds, and we see an increase in what we call sex for
food and basically the trading of young ladies to just be able
to feed their family. All these are absolutely the trappings of
the pauperization of the refugee population.
There were not many indications that people wanted to move
until the end of 2013. When we talked to people in the first
years, they said we go back to Syria as soon as we can. It is
only at the end of 2013 that the mood started changing. In
2014, they mostly moved through Egypt and Libya trying to get
the smuggler's boat to Italy, with the sort of disasters we
have seen and tremendous amount of risk for them. But the
numbers remain sort of tolerable perhaps compared to what we
have seen in 2015 where smugglers moved their route through
Greece, probably making it much cheaper and therefore bringing
a much higher number of people who wanted to leave.
The poverty they have suffered, as their own resources were
depleted over time, is certainly a main factor. For many
people, the lack of education for children is also a motive for
trying to move forward to Europe. But also, as I mentioned, the
fact of their welcome is drying up. Governments now realize
that they have a huge amount of people that are getting poorer
and poorer and being like a lead ball on their own
developments. And local populations, as I said, are starting to
react, and we had riots in different countries against the
refugees. That outflow will not stop because either the
Europeans get their act together, which we hope they will, and
then more people try to leave or it stays as it is now. And we
have seen the difficulties they have faced to date have not
really staunched the flow. So unless we go back to the root
causes, which is how we address the situation of refugees in
first asylum countries, I think the regional instability will
keep on.
We have to look at increasing support to humanitarian
funds. It is true that funds have been available over the years
in larger quantities, but they have not kept up with the needs.
And actually what we have seen over the past year is a
proportion of the U.N. appeals that have been funded has gone
down and key services like education, et cetera, have been
actually cut. In Jordan, food rations have been cut by half in
the last few months. We have to maintain support to
humanitarian needs, and we look certainly forward to U.S.
leadership in this field.
But we need to activate a much stronger response to the
development needs of neighboring countries. Most of the
challenge they face cannot be dealt by humanitarian agencies.
They need development money. They need bilateral aid, but the
key drivers of big development are the development banks. The
High Commissioner has done due diligence in trying to approach
the banks, but I think it is time to look at ways for the
governing bodies of these banks to put this sort of situation
as part of their regular mandate. It is not just a question of
humanitarian response. It is a question of guaranteeing the
stability of the neighboring countries to Syria. And I think
this is why we see now these host countries becoming extremely
nervous.
Resettlement is important because it offers an orderly way
of leaving the country. However, even with the highest number
we can dream of, it is going to touch a small percentage of the
refugees and it cannot leave us neglecting the needs on
development that are humanitarian.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, we hear that there are some
attempts to reinvigorate the peace process. We have always
believed that there was no real military solution to the
conflict and that some peace had to be negotiated. I think it
is very important that the people who come to the negotiating
table must make a much stronger commitment to protection of
civilians. Then we must see a stop to the barrel bombings, et
cetera, if we want to be able to talk to people that are going
to be credible in the peace process by the refugees. If this
does not happen, we will not see at any time any possibility of
return.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gabaudan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Michel Gabaudan
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Corker,
Ranking Member Cardin, and the members of this committee for holding
this important hearing today. Refugees International (RI) is a
nonprofit, nongovernmental organization that advocates for lifesaving
assistance and protection for displaced people in some of the most
difficult parts of the world. RI does not accept any government or
United Nations funding, which allows our advocacy to be impartial and
independent.
Based here in Washington, we conduct 12 to 15 field missions per
year to research displaced populations. Our ongoing reporting on the
Syrian crisis includes my recent trip to Turkey to look at both cross-
border assistance as well as birth registration.
Since spring 2011 RI has conducted a dozen missions in the region,
and has been able to witness the evolution of the situation of Syrian
refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, and northern Iraq. I shall
never forget the blank stares of children who fled the horrors
inflicted upon civilians in Hama and Homs at the beginning of the
conflict. Since then the causes of displacement have multiplied, with
heavy military operations, the advent of various extremist groups, and
the seriously deteriorating socioeconomic conditions all contributing
to the largest movement of refugees and internally displaced people in
the last three decades. But today, as many Syrians will tell you, it is
the barrel bombs of the regime, dropped on civilian centers such as
markets, schools, and health facilities, that represent the most
compelling cause for the continued displacement of women, children, and
men from their homes. The conflict has to date has killed over a
quarter million people, displaced more than half of the preconflict
population, and sent over 4 million refugees across the borders.
As we have watched the causes of displacement evolve, we have also
watched with frustration as assistance to the displaced has shrunk
alarmingly over the years and is not keeping pace with the ever-growing
needs, to the point where Syrians are now risking their lives to get
out of the region--and even returning to Syria--in order to find better
opportunities for a future. Funding shortages and aid agencies'
inability to keep up with the desperate emergency needs even 4\1/2\
years on have led to secondary migration flows and the need to work on
emergency aid and long-term stability at the same time, but with few
resources at our disposal.
Countries hosting the largest numbers of displaced Syrians (Egypt,
Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey) have made enormous efforts in
receiving and assisting the 4 million Syrians who have collectively
crossed their borders over the past 4 years. Support for Syrian
refugees is estimated to amount to $7.5 billion from Turkey alone. But
in spite of the scale of the needs, many other countries have not been
able to maintain their support for the survivors of the crisis. The
recent influx of refugees to the European Union has brought some much-
needed attention back to the displacement caused by the conflict in
Syria. But we need to recognize that the European crisis is merely a
symptom of the world's collective failure to respond to the problem
both politically (a peace process is nonexistent) and socially (aid to
refugees and IDPs is well below basic requirements).
Over the course of 4\1/2\ years, assistance by the United States to
the Syrian crisis, which focused on the humanitarian needs of Syrians
both inside and outside the country, has been absolutely critical. Most
recently, the U.S. Government contributed more than $400 million in
additional humanitarian assistance for the Syria crisis. I want to take
this opportunity to thank Congress for supporting core humanitarian
funding accounts, such as Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) and
International Disaster Assistance (IDA). Continued U.S. aid is
essential, because although the world now considers Syria a long-term
conflict and the Syrian refugee crisis a protracted one, Refugees
International's recent work in the region indicates that emergency
humanitarian aid is still a desperate need.
life in host countries for syrians
Until about 18 months ago, most Syrians RI spoke with in the region
were intent on returning home as soon as possible. Even knowing that
their houses and property were destroyed and that it would hard to
build a new life, they wanted to stay as close to home as they could in
order to make returning faster and easier. But as their time in exile
grew longer, people began to say that they saw no future for themselves
in their host countries. This change of attitude happened at roughly
the same time that large numbers of Syrians began leaving from the
north coast of Egypt to make the journey across the Mediterranean to
Europe; some even went over land to Libya in order to get on boats
there. They knew these trips were dangerous, they knew that hundreds of
people who had gone before them had drowned, and they knew that they
could be detained in attempting to leave Egypt. But all of this
appeared to be a better option than remaining in a place where they saw
no future for themselves. During RI's mission to Egypt in spring 2014,
Syrian refugees were saying that taking their chances in dangerous
waters seemed more promising than remaining in Egypt. Some were even
trying for the second or third time to make the crossing by boat.
Another 18 months on, the migration routes and the people on them
have changed. Today, the Syrians leaving for Europe by sea are
embarking mainly from Turkey, but they are coming from across the
region, where it has become more and more difficult to survive.
The neighboring countries hosting so many of the Syrians have long
been feeling the pressure of the influx of huge numbers of people, of
the strain on infrastructure, and of the ever-decreasing support the
world has been able to provide. It is important to note that the huge
majority of Syrian refugees--85 percent--are not living in the camps
that we hear so much about, but rather are in urban and rural areas
trying to get by in the local communities that are often not better off
than the Syrians. Almost 2 years ago in Jordan, RI, visited a rural
area where poor Jordanians and Syrian refugees were living in the same
difficult conditions. Already at that time, the Jordanians we spoke
with had the same needs as the refugees--food, medical care,
employment, children's education, but the majority of the assistance
provided was going to their Syrian neighbors. How could such host
communities reasonably be expected to absorb yet even more refugees?
From the perspective of the Jordanians, at least the Syrians had the
fallback of a refugee camp.
Camps are, in fact, the option of last resort for handling refugee
assistance, and it is commendable that there are so few formal camps
for a population of this size. However, the fact that people are living
side by side with the host communities makes it harder for humanitarian
groups to find those in need, and practically impossible to separate
the needs of the refugees from the needs of the hosts. The
U.S. Government, the UNHCR, and their partners have all shifted focus
to include greater attention to support for those outside of camps, but
the scale of the task is enormous, and the numbers of people in need
increase every day. Refugees and host communities are all sharing the
same resources while facing the same struggles with health, education,
and employment. The sheer numbers of Syrians make this even more of a
challenge.
Over a year ago in Lebanon, a Syrian mother told us about how she
had pulled her teenage daughter from school to put her to work at a
nearby local business. She had not been able to find work herself
because the Lebanese host community where she lived was reluctant to
hire Syrians in general, but children could often be put to work
successfully because they were paid less and had fewer expectations
than adults, either Syrian or Lebanese. Situations like this were
leaving the Lebanese with the feeling that refugees were taking
opportunities they wanted for themselves, even when those opportunities
were far less than desirable.
Inside Syria, despite three Security Council Resolutions supporting
better access for humanitarian aid and the sustained efforts of Syrian
civil society, INGOs, and donors, and as a result of the fluctuating
nature of the conflict, with armed actors constraining free movement
and the safety of aid workers, the efficient delivery of assistance
remains a constant challenge
support from the international community
The financial reality of assisting so many displaced Syrians is
beyond grim. Each year, the United Nations and its partners require
more and bigger contributions in order to help more refugees. But each
year, additional crises around the world demand attention and money
from the same donors who now must somehow provide more aid without a
simultaneous increase in how much money they have available.
The results of this are readily apparent in the aid available to
Syrians. Food rations have been cut, health services have dwindled, and
education programs have been closed down. RI has seen more and more
Syrians each year living on the streets in their host communities or in
inadequate and even dangerous housing. In Lebanon, additional
protection concerns arose with the shortage of aid. In addition to not
having enough food or being evicted for not paying the rent, Syrian
refugees can be arrested or detained for begging in the streets or
working illegally.
Other agencies have reported on increases in child labor as
families run out of savings, in early or coerced marriage intended to
protect young girls whose families can no longer support them, and in
people returning to Syria when the help they need is not available. As
many Syrians have told RI and other groups over the years, ``We can die
here, or we can die at home.'' For the poorer families, as a result of
depleted financial resources and increasing poverty, lack of hope to
settle in first asylum countries, and absence of other durable
solution, more people now appear to be choosing to brave the dangers of
returning home.
Beyond international financial support, the host countries
themselves are worried about their long-term futures as they are being
affected by hosting so many Syrian refugees. While it is not at all
clear that refugees are the economic burden that many have suggested,
it is also not clear how to make the most of the economic benefits they
can bring. This is a main challenge in host countries, where citizens
and refugees are seen to be competing for jobs in tight markets. Work
permission for refugees is a politically and socially fraught issue in
the region, and without an effective plan for livelihoods, those
tensions simply increase. And while an informal labor market does
exist, Syrian refugees in all the host countries in the region have
regularly told RI about the exploitative nature of this option. Most
recently, a Syrian mother of three in Jordan described how she had
taken on several catering projects from home, and her futile efforts to
get the businessowner to pay her after the work was done. She had tried
to get regular work, but people did not want to hire Syrians, so she
resorted to unofficial labor and was taken advantage of. It is a story
we have heard countless times.
The creation of livelihoods is one of several points--but arguably
the most crucial one--where humanitarian aid and development assistance
intersect. While there has been wide recognition over the past few
years of the desperate need of development support for livelihoods in
the main host countries and for the general involvement of development
actors in the refugee response, how to create and implement such
programs remains largely untested. And while these projects are being
developed, refugees are facing more and more difficult circumstances
and taking their next steps, literally.
next steps
The inability to find a living situation that has a sustainable
future appears to be driving Syrian refugees from the regional
countries to more distant destinations like the EU. Tragically, many of
them do not survive that journey across the sea, and those who do are
not always welcome in Europe. This has been of tremendous concern over
the past 2 months, and much has been made of the chaotic situation in
Europe as it involves Syrians.
However, as stated above, we need to recognize that the European
crisis is merely a symptom of the world's collective failure to respond
to the problem.
The most serious situation, and the one that needs the most
attention, is the poorest refugees in the neighboring countries: those
who cannot afford to move and are trapped in growing poverty and
misery, with little hope for the future. Most of these Syrians will
never have the means to move on to Europe or North America. And in
spite of current discussions in the media, most will never be
resettled, or even be eligible for resettlement.
Thus, we need to recast the approach to the Syrian crisis by:
(1) Fully funding humanitarian appeals. The $4.5 billion
request for Syrian refugees is only 40 percent funded, and the
appeal for inside Syria has received even less money--only 33
percent. As I mentioned previously, the humanitarian support
the U.S. gives is essential, and the support it can prompt from
other donors is equally important;
(2) Developing a ``Marshall Plan'' type of development
assistance to first asylum countries in order to ensure
refugees' impact on host communities is mitigated, a
comprehensive plan for educating refugee children is
implemented, and that livelihood programs are developed on a
large scale. The U.S. can play an important role here by using
its considerable governance weight with the development banks,
in particular, to encourage their involvement in the regional
response and reinforce the idea that host country development
is now an essential element of addressing the Syrian
displacement crisis;
(3) Facilitating orderly departure from first asylum
countries through resettlement that must include the Gulf
States as receiving countries, in addition to the traditional
resettlement countries; and
(4) Urgently renewing attempts at a peace process led by the
United Nations, including a dedicated attention to the
protection of civilians by the parties wishing to participate
in the process.
New strategies to this ongoing emergency displacement crisis must
begin now. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lindborg.
STATEMENT OF NANCY LINDBORG, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES INSTITUTE
OF PEACE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Lindborg. Thank you. Good morning, and thank you,
Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, members of the
committee. I know a number of you have traveled to the region,
and I greatly appreciate your focus and attention to this
escalating humanitarian crisis.
I testify before you today as president of the United
States Institute of Peace, which was founded by Congress 30
years ago specifically to look at how to prevent, mitigate, and
recover from violent conflict. And we do so by working in
conflict zones around the world with practical solutions,
research, and training. There is clearly a deep connection
between what we are seeing right now in the humanitarian crisis
and conflict that has spun out of control and become very, very
violent throughout the region.
I agree wholeheartedly with both of my colleagues, and both
of you have, aptly described what is a starkly terrible crisis,
numbing statistics, and heartbreaking stories through the
region. So let me use my time to look at four recommendations
that I would make as we look forward. Most importantly, even as
we seek solutions for the crisis in Europe and the resettlement
that both Michel and David have talked about, I would urge that
we use this moment to expand our commitment to providing
assistance in the region and look at solutions in the region
because even if Europe and the United States take the most
generous number of refugees possible, that will only scratch
the surface of this crisis.
So, first of all, we absolutely must sustain and increase
our collective commitments to meeting the most immediate needs.
As we have heard, the number of commitments have decreased
against the needs. Thank you to all of you for having supported
a very generous U.S. commitment, about $4.5 billion to date
since the Syrian crisis. But this is against a global backdrop
of 60 million people currently forcibly displaced from their
homes. There is a global burden that is stretching the
humanitarian system, straining it to its limits. We need to
ensure that not only does the United States continue its
commitment, but that we get a larger collection of countries to
help shoulder that burden. It consistently falls on a small
number of countries. We need to expand the number of countries
that are providing assistance.
Secondly, we also need to ensure that humanitarian
assistance is as effective and efficient as possible. We have
seen, as Senator Cardin noted, that we continue to treat the
problem as if the refugees will go home when, in fact, there is
a 17-year average duration of displacement. We are often
constrained by our institutional mandates, our structures, and
by stovepiping from doing the kind of assistance that enables
refugees not only to survive but to look for some sort of
sustainable future, as well as providing support for the host
communities who are heavily burdened by the huge numbers of
refugees.
I have recently returned from Iraq where I met with a
number of civil society organizations and Kurdish officials in
Iraqi Kurdistan where one in five people are now displaced.
They have some 3 million displaced Iraqis who fled ISIS over
the last year. Despite a huge mobilization to provide
assistance to these folks, their infrastructure simply cannot
cope, including their water systems, electrical systems,
schools, and clinics. You have people who are sitting in camps
and containers, squatting in apartments, studies interrupted,
no way to make a living. They do not see a future for
themselves. A number of the displaced Iraqis with whom I spoke
want to go to Europe because they do not see a future for
themselves. As one civil society activist told me, we have
seven camps in Erbil. That is seven time bombs as people are
sitting here month after month, year after year, with no work
and no education.
This is something that we need to look at seriously. And it
is far worse as you move into Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey in
terms of the burden and the stretch on their infrastructure.
So our assistance needs to focus more on education, on
employment, on the kind of trauma counseling that can help
people recover and on helping the communities bear the burden
more effectively as we ask them to continue hosting.
Thirdly, we can start now to help people return. In certain
places in Iraq, there are opportunities to return, but we need
to ensure we are helping communities deal with what could
become cycles of conflict because of the mistrust that now
exists between communities in the wake of ISIS. By working with
communities to have the kind of facilitated dialogue that
builds bridges, reduces tensions, and rebuilds social cohesion,
we give people a better opportunity to return home without
repeated cycles of conflict.
Finally, in addition to pushing hard on the kind of
diplomatic solutions that get at the roots of the conflict in
Syria, I would also urge us to look more broadly at how to
increase our efforts to provide the kind of development
assistance that focuses on those places that are most fragile,
whether they are weak, ineffective, or illegitimate in the eyes
of their citizens, that are really the source of the flow of
refugees, not just Syria and Iraq, but Afghanistan, Eritrea,
Yemen, and Somalia, places where you have a web of hopelessness
borne of conflict, oppression, and poverty. By focusing more on
those areas, we have a better chance of managing conflict. At
USIP, we say conflict is inevitable, but it must be managed it
so that it does not become violent, it does not end up pushing
people out of their homes and into the kind of crises that we
see today.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lindborg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancy Lindborg
Good morning and thank you, Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin,
and other members of the committee, for this opportunity to discuss the
U.S. role and strategy in the Middle East in the midst of an escalating
humanitarian crisis. Your attention to this complex and protracted
crisis is important and very much appreciated.
I testify before you today as the President of the United States
Institute of Peace, although the views expressed here are my own. USIP
was established by Congress 30 years ago with the mandate to prevent,
mitigate, and resolve violent global conflict, and we do so by focusing
on practical solutions, research, and training in conflict zones around
the world.
I have spent most of my career working on issues of democracy,
civil society, conflict, and humanitarian response. These experiences
have led me to the strong conviction that we as a nation must invest
more in approaches and tools that help us interrupt the spin cycles of
conflict that engulf so many countries; it is more urgent than ever to
get ahead of crises before humanitarian needs escalate, before conflict
becomes violent and, as we are seeing now, before violence forces
millions of people from their homes.
The roots of the current refugee crisis in Europe are in Syria and
Iraq, as well as in Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, Yemen--all places
where violent conflict, oppression, and poverty combine to create a web
of hopelessness. The journey from there to Europe is long, arduous, and
shockingly dangerous. And yet, according to the European Union's border
control agency, Frontex, more than 500,000 desperate people have made
that journey this year, illuminating the distressing calculus that
drives men, women, and children to risk their lives.
The debate here and in Europe over how many refugees and migrants
to accept hopefully will result in the greatest possible number of
people restarting their lives in safety. We can certainly afford to
absorb many more refugees here in the United States than is currently
contemplated. More than 20 former senior U.S. Government officials from
both parties recently issued a public statement calling upon the U.S.
to accept 100,000 Syrian refugees. However, even if Europe and the
United States collectively take the most generous number of people
possible, it will only scratch the surface of the crisis now stretching
across a swath of fragile and conflict-torn Middle Eastern and African
countries.
As the world focuses on the wave of refugees and migrants arriving
in Europe, we must redouble our efforts in the frontline states. We
must ensure critical assistance is reaching refugees and displaced
people in the region, with an emphasis on building resilience for
populations that may not go home anytime soon and helping those who can
return. That also must include continued support for the countries and
communities bearing the brunt of this crisis. Most importantly, we must
not lose our focus on the roots of this crisis--the conflicts and
oppression born of governments that are ineffective or illegitimate or
both.
I recently returned from Iraq, where I met with Iraqis who have
been displaced since ISIS rampaged through their villages and cities
more than a year ago. They are now living in camps, containers, or
crowded apartments paid for with dwindling savings. Many of them are
from minority communities--Christian, Yezidi, Shabak, and others--and
are terrified of returning home in the absence of security guarantees.
I met with two Yezidi sisters who escaped from their captors after
having been sold to three different men. Now, sharing a container with
another family and without access to trauma counseling or a way to
support themselves, they are sliding into a new kind of hopelessness. I
also met with a young Sunni mother who is alone with her two children,
determined not to return to her ravaged community but rather make it to
Europe, where she believes a better life awaits. There are countless
stories of people with lives interrupted by terror and, now,
uncertainty.
In Iraqi Kurdistan, the strain of hosting so many displaced is
clear. Churches, civil society organizations, and mosques have
mobilized to provide life-saving assistance, but as the numbers of
displaced continue to rise, resources are being rapidly depleted.
Iraq's Kurdish region already had taken in 275,000 Syrian refugees
before the ISIS expansion into northern Iraq drove another 1.5 million
Iraqis toward the safety of the Kurdish region. Now, one in five
residents of Iraqi Kurdistan is displaced, placing an incredible strain
on a region already reeling from plunging oil prices and the constant
threat of ISIS. Many people are unable to find work or ensure their
children attend school. As one civil society leader noted to me, ``We
have seven internally displaced camps here, which equals seven time
bombs, as people sit without work or education for year after year.''
Nationwide, Iraq has more than 3.2 million internally displaced
people crowding into cities, camps, and makeshift shelter.
Infrastructure--water systems, electrical supply, schools, and health
clinics--is all strained to serve far more people than intended. And
now, reports are emerging of cholera in Iraqi cities. Just over a week
ago, the World Health Organization reported that it was supporting
Iraq's Ministry of Health, which on September 15 had declared a cholera
outbreak in the provinces of Najaf, Diwaniya, and parts of west
Baghdad. The agencies are working together to step up measures to stop
transmission and prevent further spread of the disease.
The story of displacement is even more stark in neighboring
countries. The population of Lebanon, with its politically fragile
demographic balance, is now fully one-fourth Syrian. Lebanon, Jordan,
and Turkey have been taking in refugees for 5 years now and together
shelter 3.6 million Syrian refugees, according to the U.N.
Much of the focus is now on Syrian refugees, but there are an
additional 7.6 million Syrians displaced within what is left of their
country, with an astounding 12.2 million citizens inside Syria who need
urgent humanitarian assistance. So as the conflict continues, the
number of people choosing to leave the country is only likely to grow.
Even as we seek solutions for refugees in Europe and the United
States, we must also refocus on determined action in four areas:
Meeting the immediate humanitarian needs in the region to
ease the suffering of millions forced from their homes and
living on the edge of existence;
Recasting assistance to refugees, internally displaced and
hosting communities, to emphasize longer term resilience and
rebuilding of social cohesion for what are likely to be
extended displacements stemming from protracted conflicts;
Enabling a return home for those able and willing to do so;
Redoubling efforts to address the root causes of violent
conflicts that are driving these cascades of crisis.
the most immediate needs
The Syrian war, now in its 5th year, is contributing to a global
humanitarian emergency of record displacement. According to the U.N.,
nearly 60 million people are displaced globally due to violence,
conflict, and repression--roughly equivalent to the entire population
of Italy. Thanks to your important support, Senators, the United States
has been the global leader in dedicating significant resources to the
humanitarian response. Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, the
U.S. has committed $4.5 billion, saving countless lives. But the
sustained level of crises worldwide is draining funding and attention.
The U.N. has only raised 38 percent of the $7.4 billion it says it
needs this year to care for Syrians fleeing the fighting, and only half
of the $704 million requested for Iraqis displaced by ISIS. The World
Food Programme has been forced to drop fully one-third of Syrian
refugees in the region from its food voucher program this year due to
funding shortfalls. The needs in Yemen, Sudan, South Sudan, and the
Central Africa Republic keep falling even further from public view.
Now is not the time to shortchange critical aid programs. Even as
the U.S. Government continues its generous support, it is important for
a broader community of nations to join in the financing of these vital
life-saving programs. Despite significant efforts over the last 5 years
to broaden the donor pool, the primary funding continues to come from a
small group of nations.
There is also an urgent need to augment civilian protection for
those still living inside Syria and facing daily deprivations and
death. Despite a hard-fought effort that resulted in the unanimous
passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2139 in February 2014, to
ease the delivery of aid to Syrians, there has not been a serious
effort at implementation. This resolution calls for unhindered delivery
of humanitarian assistance across borders to those trapped inside Syria
and, most importantly, a cessation of the targeting and killing of
civilians, especially medical personnel. However, this resolution has
never been fully respected, while the barrel-bombing campaigns,
targeting of civilians, and blockage of life-saving assistance
continues.
recasting assistance for longer term recovery and resilience
We also must ensure these assistance programs are as effective and
efficient as possible. It is critical to focus on enabling refugees and
displaced families to access employment, education, and trauma
counseling, with the goal of helping them prepare for a future, not
just survive the present.
In the face of protracted conflicts, the global average for
displacement is now 17 years--it takes 17 years for families to return
home, which is a lifetime for a young man or woman. And yet, all too
often, aid programs, constrained by mandates, types of funding, and
institutional strictures, continue to be administered as if
displacement is a short-term problem.
For those displaced by violent conflict, living in strange cities,
and without resources, it is a daily struggle both for survival and
dignity. Host-country policies often prohibit refugees from working
legally, forcing many into underground economies and unsafe work. And
despite generous efforts by Jordan and Lebanon, there simply is not
enough space in their schools for the enormous number of Syrian
children. Across the Middle East, some 13 million children are not
attending school because they are affected by conflict. And nearly 4
million of the displaced Syrians are children, many out of school for
almost 5 years now. Investing in the future of these children must be a
top priority.
Also vulnerable are the many poor communities hosting the bulk of
the refugees, especially in fragile Lebanon and Jordan. Our assistance
must focus as well on building bridges between host and refugee
communities and shoring up weak infrastructure and faltering economies
that must now meet expanded demands. Again, thanks to your support,
Senators, the U.S. Government has generously provided budget support
and development assistance to the region, particularly to Jordan.
Over the last 5 years of the Syrian conflict, the U.N., the World
Bank, host country governments, and local and international
nongovernmental organizations have made significant strides in seeking
new ways of working together to address the crisis more effectively.
With U.S. support, the World Food Programme and nongovernmental
partners have been able to launch an e-card platform to provide cash on
debit cards for food and essential nonfood items, enabling women to
have a choice and voice in their purchases instead of queueing up for
bags of food, while also injecting critical funding into the local
economy. In Jordan, U.N. agencies have teamed up to use biometric
registration so refugees can use iris scans at ATM machines to access
assistance, which reduces costs and increases accountability. The World
Bank and the U.N. Development Program are supporting local governments
to develop ``resilience strategies'' that chart a development course in
light of the ongoing crisis.
However, there is still much more that needs to be done, especially
to increase education and employment opportunities. We must seize the
opportunity of this crisis to push our assistance strategies to be more
creative, look longer term, and support the resilience and dignity of
those we seek to help.
enabling returns of refugees after conflict
Where there is hope for displaced people to return to their home
communities in the foreseeable future, the international community can
begin preparing the ground now. In Iraq, military forces will drive
ISIS out of occupied areas eventually, but tensions and trauma will
linger. The war has militarized large segments of the society, making
caches of weapons ubiquitous and violence acceptable. We can help
reduce the risk that cycles of conflict will continue by investing in
rebuilding communities to make the way for sustainable returns. Key to
this is support for those working to rebuild the social fabric and
seeking reconciliation at all levels, from the local to the federal.
In Iraq, thousands of families have already returned to Tikrit, a
city in northern Iraq that was wrested from the control of ISIS in
April by a combination of U.S.-led coalition air strikes and Iraqi
regular and militia ground forces. Human rights organizations since
then have documented accounts of retribution in the early days after
that liberation because of outrage over a June 2014 massacre by ISIS of
1,700 Iraqi cadets in training at a military base nearby known as Camp
Speicher. The cadets killed were mostly Shia from the country's south,
and with ISIS touting itself, however disingenuously, as defender of
the region's Sunnis, blame for the massacre extended to entire Sunni
tribes accused collectively of collaborating with the extremists and
taking part in the killings.
But in some parts of Tikrit, USIP partners on the ground were able
to conduct careful negotiations and inclusive dialogue among tribal
leaders connected to the survivors, families of victims, and those
accused of involvement in the massacre. The dialogue served to increase
understanding of the facts and reduce tensions. Shia tribes that
included victims' families, for instance, learned that Sunnis in the
area had actually helped some of the survivors escape, even to the
extent of allowing wives and sisters of Sunni tribal leaders to
accompany the Shia cadets for cover as they passed through ISIS-
controlled checkpoints. The channels of communication opened by those
negotiations allowed 400 families to return, and thousands more have
followed.
In some cases, the process of rebuilding the social fabric can
begin with people even while they are displaced. Facilitated dialogue
involving displaced people and local citizens and officials of their
host communities can enhance everyone's sense of dignity and control
over their lives, and achieve tangible improvements in living
conditions not only for those displaced but also for their hosts. USIP
has learned that effective dialogue--the kind that produces positive
change--requires a great deal of planning and skill. The more complex
and polarized the environment in which dialogue takes place, the more
thought and skill are required. These structured forums can lead to
measures that improve political inclusion on potential flash-point
issues such as government budgeting. They can improve relations between
citizens and police forces still hampered by the legacies of
authoritarian culture and practices. They can prevent electoral
violence, one of the most common triggers of broader violent conflict.
The skills that are learned and practiced in the process--listening,
communicating clearly and openly, negotiating respectfully--can later
be transferred to home communities when displaced people return to
newly liberated areas.
addressing the roots of violent conflict
Finally, there is the pressing need to prevent conflict from
becoming violent in the first place. At USIP, we emphasize the point
that conflict is inevitable, but violent conflict is not. The refugees
we see streaming into Europe are coming from places that have
experienced long-term unrest, repression, and weak or illegitimate
governments. These are well-documented factors that spur violence,
undermine development gains and prevent sustainable peace.
Just a few days ago, we saw the passage of new Global Goals for
development by all members of the United Nations. The successor to the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Global Goals are remarkable
for the historic inclusion of Goal 16, which calls for peaceful,
inclusive societies as essential for sustainable development, with an
emphasis on justice for all and accountable, inclusive institutions at
all levels. This goal acknowledges the centrality of good governance
and state-society relations to meet and sustain fundamental development
goals, with the ability to manage conflict before it becomes violent.
It may seem a quixotic effort, but 15 years ago, we never thought we
would meet so many of the Millennium goals either. Now is the time to
double down on helping those countries willing to tackle the challenges
of Goal 16, and key will be the role of committed, courageous members
of civil society.
Members of the committee, as the international community rightly
assists the refugees who are making their way to Europe, I urge the
United States also to keep our attention fully focused on the regions
that are at the epicenter of the crisis.
Thank you for your continued support for these efforts.
The Chairman. Thank you all very much for not only what you
do but for being here today.
And with that, Senator Cardin has a conflict. So I am going
to, as a courtesy, let him ask questions first.
Senator Cardin. See the conflicts are all over. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the courtesy.
And let me thank all of our witnesses not only for being
here but what you do to help in regards to this international
humanitarian challenge.
U.S. leadership is so desperately needed in multiple
strategies. Yes, in the geopolitical landscape to deal with
resolving these conflicts so people can live safely in their
homes, that is obviously where the United States must put a
great deal of attention.
As has already been pointed out, a lot of these refugees
are going to be in border countries for a long time, and the
cost, is tremendous not only the dollar cost but as it affects
the stability in those countries. And there are international
responsibilities. The United States must be a leader. And as I
pointed out in my opening statement, the United Nations has
indicated that it does not have the money it needs to address
the humanitarian needs.
And then lastly the resettlements. And I just want to talk
a moment about that because there are 20 million refugees. We
know 4 million are now from Syria. And most of these refugees
are not returning home anytime soon. Some are not going to be
able to return home. And regarding our refugee policy numbers,
those caps were based upon the philosophy that refugees would
be returning to their host countries. That is not the real
world today. So for the United States to have a cap at 75,000
or 85,000 or 100,000, does not recognize that there are 20
million refugees worldwide, and that many of them are not going
to be able to return safely to their homes, and many want to
resettle in a place where they can have a future for their
family. To live 17 years as a refugee on average does not give
you a future for your family.
So I guess my first question is: Should we be looking at
the 20 million differently? Should we be realistically
determining how many of these individuals need permanent
placements, particularly those who are recent and do not have
roots in the border country, but really want to reestablish
roots for their families? Should we be looking at these numbers
more realistically today?
Mr. Miliband. Thank you, Senator. Let me just say three
things in response to what I think is a really apposite
question because what we all face is at least 20 million
refugees and 40 million internally displaced people, the 60
million that Nancy referred to. The central question is is this
a trend or is it a blip. Those numbers were a world record last
year, more than at any time since World War II. And my thesis
to you is that this is a trend and not a blip. So your question
is absolutely right. And I think three things are important.
First of all, refugee resettlement is important for the
substantive help that it offers, for the sake of argument, to
the 100,000 people that you mentioned. But it is also a
symbolic value of standing with the countries that are bearing
the greatest burden. No one can pretend that refugee
resettlement into Europe or into the United States is going to
``solve the problem.'' It is not going to involve the majority
of the refugees, but it is a symbolic as well as a substantive
show of solidarity.
Second, a critical point. The vast majority of refugees
live in poor countries neighboring those that are in conflict.
And the Syria case is a prototype. And local integration is
going to be the solution either because we acknowledge it and
embrace it or because it happens de facto. And I think what
Michel Gabaudan was saying is that we have to embrace this
point that there are going to be the majority of refugees in
neighboring states, and the question is do they become economic
contributors or are they simply seen as an economic drain.
And just to amplify his point, he was saying that at the
moment, the World Bank by its mandate is not allowed to work in
Lebanon and Jordan because they are considered to be middle-
income countries. And in the new world that you are describing,
it has got to be a central part of the World Bank's modus
operandi that fragile states, conflict states where 43 percent
of the world's extreme poor now live--I mean, that is the
central challenge for the sustainable development goals that
were embraced last week. It has got to be a central part of the
philosophy of the World Bank that fragile states are its
business.
Frankly--and I hope my colleagues agree with me on this--it
has also got to be a point of reflection for the NGO and
humanitarian movement. We have to recognize that economic
interventions need to sit alongside the traditional social
interventions that we have done, not just health, education,
protection of women and kids, but also economic livelihood
programs.
The third and final point is that already in the course of
the 45 minutes we have been together, it is evident that the
words ``humanitarian'' and the words ``development'' do not do
justice to the policy problems that are faced here. And I would
submit to you that the budget headings, such and such is
humanitarian, such and such is development, do not do justice
to the problem. And the institutions that we have got, some of
them working on humanitarian crises, others on development--
that separation does not do justice.
Just to give you a figure, in the 20 biggest crises last
year, $5.5 billion were spent on the so-called humanitarian
intervention, and $28 billion was spent on development
interventions. Now, the truth is they have to work together,
and that is a major challenge to the international system,
which I think it would be tremendously positive if the
committee was able to engage with them.
Senator Cardin. Let me change gears just for one moment.
The United Nations estimates that there are over 400,000 people
inside Syria who are besieged and who we cannot be reached with
humanitarian assistance. And they are saying there are another
4.8 million that are hard to reach. Do we have a strategy for
dealing with vulnerable populations within Syria that we cannot
effectively reach through conventional means?
Ms. Lindborg. The U.S. Government was the leader in
providing assistance that was going across borders, across the
Turkish and Jordanian borders, to reach those who could not be
reached through the U.N. Damascus-based effort. Many courageous
NGOs were very much a part of that. That has been curtailed by
the incursion of ISIS into some of those areas, although the
work continues and there continues to be extraordinarily
courageous efforts to reach those refugees.
The barrel bombs are equally a problem, as my colleagues
have noted, and despite the provision of a U.N. security
resolution that David mentioned, there is not a serious effort
to provide civilian protection.
So as we look at resolving this conflict, civilian
protection has got to be chief among the goals that we
collectively put in front of the international community. In
the absence of that, people are just being pummeled by both
sides by Assad's people and by ISIS, and that further curtails
the ability to reach them with assistance, and even if you did,
they are threatened with death.
Mr. Miliband. Can I just add a short point on that? The
short answer to your question is, ``No,'' there is not a good
strategy for reaching these besieged areas. The truth is those
people are in a worse position today than when the U.N.
Security Council resolutions were passed. And so our proposal
for the humanitarian envoys who will be on the ground trying to
name, shame, negotiate, organize the delivery of aid is at
least one idea to try and break this terrible deadlock because
at the moment once a month, the U.N. Secretary General reports
to the Security Council that medical aid is being taken off
lories and dumped. And there is no accountability for that kind
of abuse of basic morality, never mind international
humanitarian law. And so I think that your focus on this and
your demand or the implicit demand that this has to be at the
absolute center of any basic approach to the humanitarian
situation in Syria is absolutely right.
Senator Cardin. Well, there is no question that these
individuals who are vulnerable, that we cannot reach, or hard
to reach are going to add to the numbers. They are going to add
to the number of casualties. They are going to add to the
number of people who try to flee Syria for a better life. It is
going to add to the number of refugees. It is going to add to
all the numbers we are talking about. It is just a matter of
how quickly they can find a safe place or leave or they will
become casualties of the war.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Dr. Gabaudan, I think people in our Nation get confused. We
allow about 70,000 refugees into our country right now each
year. And I know the administration has talked about raising
that to 85,000 and then to 100,000 over the next couple of
years. And then there have been statements about, on top of
that, adding 100,000 Syrians into our country immediately not
by the administration but by others who are advocating for
that.
I know we have the chairman of the Homeland Security
Committee here, but is there a way to actually screen and deal
with that, or is that a number that really is one that is not
realistic relative to our ability to screen those coming in?
Dr. Gabaudan. Senator, in terms of the capacity, the United
States has shown in the past that it can admit large numbers.
We saw that with Vietnam. We saw that with Cuba. We saw that
with the Kurds, et cetera. So there is capacity in this
country. There is a question of resources, of course.
I think that the U.S. system has the most serious vetting
system in the world. If you look at other countries who
resettle refugees, they do not come half the way the United
States does in vetting the people which it admits.
The U.S. resettlement program has a tremendous quality,
which is it chooses people on the basis of vulnerability, and
that vulnerability is usually assessed at the beginning by the
U.N. who makes the initial submission to the United States.
When you start looking at people who suffered torture, women,
female of household, et cetera, the sort of criteria the United
States uses, I think you already have a filter deepened by the
work of Homeland Security. So I think there is certainly the
technique and the capacity.
For Syrians, I do understand that it will take some time to
reach the numbers because I was told that the intel that the
Government has on the Syrians is not as good as the one it had
on Iraqis, et cetera.
So there are genuine difficulties that will have to be
overcome. But our experience over the past 40 years in dealing
with resettlement is that this country has the capacity, has
the experience, and has shown the willingness to do it when the
conditions require it.
The Chairman. I know there are some discussions right now
about us working with Russia as it relates to Syria. And I just
want to understand from your perspective--you are dealing with
refugees--are they fleeing Assad's barrel bombs or are they
fleeing ISIS? I know they are fleeing both, but generally
speaking, can you get at, for this discussion, the greater root
or the roots, if you will, of why people are fleeing the
country briefly? And then I want to follow on with additional
questions. But go ahead.
Mr. Miliband. Let me just speak to the experience I had
last week in Greece. Over the course of 2 or 3 days, I must
have spoken to 200 or 300 refugees, the majority of them
Syrian.
The answer to your question is it depends where in Syria
that they are coming from. The majority that I met, they were
from Aleppo, from greater Damascus, or from Deir ez-Zor, which
is out in the east of the country. And it is a different
situation in different parts of the country.
But the point that you made that they are facing a pincer
movement, on the one hand, they have got the barrel bombs of
Assad, and then on the other hand, they have got the terror of
ISIS. And it is almost as they flee from the barrel bombs, they
end up being driven into the hands of ISIS, and that is what is
forcing them out. The particular circumstances in different
parts of the country are obviously a matter detail, but there
is a wider significant point; 95 percent of the barrel bombing
attacks and other attacks that the Assad air force are
undertaking are not against ISIS targets.
The Chairman. If I could, so people understand, these are
just against civilian populations. Right?
Mr. Miliband. And other rebel groups, and some of them are
against other rebel fortifications because obviously there is
Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups. But it is certainly the case
that a very small proportion of the bombing raids are targeted
on ISIS.
The Chairman. Does anybody differ or want to add to that?
Ms. Lindborg. I would just add, having been in Iraq last
week, that it very much differs depending on the circumstances.
For example, I met with a couple of Yezidi sisters who had
recently escaped, having been sold to three different men. They
are now living in a container with another family clearly
dealing with enormous trauma. They do not really have a sense
of what their future is, and they have no ability to imagine
going home, which is true for a number of the minority
populations that have been pushed out of their homes. In the
absence of security guarantees, they are saying they want to be
resettled. They cannot go back unless there is security. So
that is one set of specific issues.
I also met with a young Sunni woman who had been studying
for her university exams when ISIS swept through Mosul. She
fled with her family. She is now living in a very crowded
apartment. She has not been able to resume her studies. It has
been over a year. She is just wondering what is her life likely
to be. She also wants to go to Europe. So there are lots of
reasons that people are desperate to envision a better life.
The Chairman. Let me just ask this question. It is hard for
me to contemplate this even, but if an effort were put in place
to strengthen Assad, which is what Russia and Iran are pursuing
right now, what effect would that have if we were somehow a
part of that or winked and a nod and said that was okay? What
would that do from your perspective based on what you are
seeing on the ground relative to the refugee crisis? I think I
can answer for you, but if you would answer for the record. Mr.
Miliband?
Mr. Miliband. I congratulate you on the precision of your
question, and leading a humanitarian organization, I am going
to have to be extremely precise in my answer.
I think that from our point of view the violations of
international law and basic rights are coming from all sides,
but the majority are coming from the Assad government.
Secondly, it is evident to anyone who reads the newspapers
or follows the debate that significant actions by the Assad
government have bolstered ISIS and have enabled the growth of
ISIS.
Thirdly, any diplomatic or political approach needs to
address both sides of the coin if it is to have a chance of
success.
Ms. Lindborg. I would just add that as we mentioned
earlier, there is a tool, U.N. Security Council Resolution
2139, which was unanimously passed, that has not been upheld by
key actors in the region who are now making different moves.
There is an urgent opportunity to push key actors to take that
seriously. That addresses the targeting of civilians, the
barrel bombing, and the withholding of the humanitarian
assistance.
The Chairman. Mr. Gabaudan--and I know I am running out of
time myself. I would say I do not remember many U.N. Security
Council resolutions that have been adhered to, and it seems
that when they are not adhered to, we just change them to
something that can be adhered to. So I am sorry. I am a
skeptic. But Dr. Gabaudan.
Dr. Gabaudan. No. I fully subscribe to what David was
saying regarding the source of the main drivers of exodus. Of
course, there are changes. Kobani was clearly driven by the
ISIS offensive. But if you speak to refugees on the border, the
majority will refer to the barrel bombing. This is the story we
get on and on and on. And I am talking about Syrian doctors who
work for NGOs that have a 501(c)(3). You know, these are people
who understand where we come from, et cetera. I am not talking
about wild groups, et cetera.
My fear is that any attempt at peace that does not
immediately have an impact over how, in this case, the barrel
bombing are being used against civilians will go nowhere, will
be completely discredited by the large majority of the Syrians
we meet in neighboring countries.
The Chairman. So, if I could, unless the barrel bombing
stops, the refugee crisis will continue to get worse.
And just in closing--I apologize to my colleagues here--are
the Sunni--are any of the Arab countries, Saudi Arabia, some of
those that are working to unseat Assad in certain ways--are
they taking any refugees at present?
Mr. Miliband. They are not signatories to the 1951
Convention. So they do not recognize the status of refugees. If
they were sitting here, they would say there are 500,000
Syrians living in Saudi Arabia and 120,000 Syrians living in
the United Arab Emirates. Some of them have arrived recently;
others have been there for a long time. But their status is not
as refugees. Their status is as migrant workers.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Perdue.
Senator Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you.
I would like to thank our witnesses today not just for
being here today but for what you are doing in the middle of a
huge crisis. We all empathize.
Mr. Miliband, I would like to start with you. In 2011, the
United States created a vacuum in which ISIS began to grow.
They needed land to legitimize the caliphate. They have done
that. In the last few years, we have created a vacuum by not
having a Syrian strategy, and now we just see in the last few
weeks the formalization of Russia's presence there with
military troops and so forth. In the last 5 years especially,
we have seen Iran and Russia supporting the Assad regime, which
we have been talking about today.
My question is what complication does Russia, now showing
up with military presence--and do you have any perspective
being in the region? You talk about development and
humanitarian help coming together. I would like to know how
this development and the lack of a U.S. strategy in the region
complicates your ability to deal with the ongoing crisis? I
have a couple followup questions on that about prevention.
Mr. Miliband. Thank you very much, Senator. I should say
that every time the Senators applaud the work of our
organizations, it is very reinforcing for our staff who are out
there in the field in really the most dangerous places doing
extraordinary work. And I want to thank you very much for what
you said which I see as a tribute to their work.
I think that in respect of the complication I think you
said that is being inserted by the Russian moves over the last
2 or 3 weeks, I have to defer to those who are privy to the
intelligence and to the military optionmaking that is going on.
As the leader of a humanitarian organization, what I have to
keep on stressing is that all decisions, both military and
political and humanitarian, need to be made with the needs of
the citizens at the heart.
What I would point to over the last 5 years is the
extraordinary fragmentation and complexity that has developed
both within Syria and in Iraq as well, and that complication
makes it doubly difficult for us to do our job. So the
negotiation that is necessary to have local consent to deliver
aid depends on engaging with a bewildering array of local
actors whose power changes sometimes on a weekly basis.
The wider point about the Russian role I think has to be
split into two parts. Until the passage of the U.S. Security
Council resolutions, there was no cover for the cross border
work that we and others were trying to do. And so the issue
then was trying to get that cover. Since the passage of the
resolutions, however, we have not actually been able to do more
work. We found our situation constrained in part by the
position on the battlefield but also by the lack of official
backing from those who supported the resolution. I think that
is why the emphasis that Nancy has put on turning those words
and that resolution into action, notwithstanding the history
the chairman referred to, remains very, very important because
a Security Council resolution is only as strong as the nation
states who back it and their willingness to see it through.
Senator Perdue. You know, yesterday--and I want to move
this question now to Assad and Putin's relationship with Assad.
Yesterday he made a comment--and I quote--``refugees
undoubtedly need our compassion and support, but the only way
to solve the problem is to restore statehood where it has been
destroyed, to strengthen the government institutions where they
still exist.''
My question--and I will start with Dr. Gabaudan. Can we
solve this problem as long as Assad is barrel bombing his own
people, targeting open markets, targeting children? The
question then before us is, can we solve this? There are two
levels of this. One is obviously the immediate crisis and then
the long-term solution. As you said, Mr. Miliband, this is no
longer a blip. It is a trend. If that trend is there, then
going back to what Senator Cardin mentioned earlier, we have
got to develop a different strategy. This is not just about
feeding people for a few weeks. It is about education. It is
about training.
So my question is in trying to prevent this now, or at
least getting at the immediate crisis, how should we look at
Putin's comments relative to Assad and also what Iran's
position has been over the last decade with regard to Bashar
Assad.
Dr. Gabaudan. Well, I can only answer this from the
perspective of what I heard from refugees and not from a
politician or a strategist. So I hope you will take my answer
in this context.
I certainly think that if a negotiation takes place with
Assad, it has to be credible with a large number of people who
have fled the country. There should be an immediate stop to the
deliberate attack against civilians. Any process that does not
control that from day one will be doomed and will not lead
anywhere in terms of satisfying the population who have left
this very violence. Now, whether he is prepared to do that as a
precondition for getting into peace negotiations, I do not
know, to be honest, and I am not anywhere close to these
discussions. But I think it is essential that people who are
going to be associated to a peace settlement have to make a
commitment to stop immediately the sort of deliberate attack on
civilians. I know in a conflict there will always be civilian
casualties by the very nature of the conflict, but the
deliberate attacks on civilians is something that is far too
grievous to sustain a peace process.
Senator Perdue. We have all traveled to the region. Senator
Gardner and I were just there this spring in Jordan. They are
overwhelmed. Basically the parallel would if the United States
had accepted refugees, it would be the size of England, for
example. They are overwhelmed. We see that.
What I am really concerned about long-term are the
children. We talk about it being half the problem basically
today. Ms. Lindborg, would you just speak to that and elaborate
just a little bit more about what we can do in the immediate
future and then what the long-term implications of that are?
Because this looks like a breeding ground for dissent, and I
totally understand that. Would you just speak to that and what
we need to be doing now in order to prevent further
exaggeration of this crisis in the future?
Ms. Lindborg. Yes, you are absolutely right. There is an
enormous population of children who are out of school both from
the Syria crisis and Iraq and through the region who are the
next generation growing up without a future, without a sense
that they have something positive to connect to. As we look
regionally at this whole issue of how to counter violent
extremism while at the same time we are not, as a global
community, enabling these displaced kids to connect to
education and something more positive in their lives. This
situation is creating, as the activists in Iraq told me, seven
hot spots, seven time bombs.
There was a very important effort launched 2 years ago
called No Lost Generation, which was an effort to focus across
the humanitarian and development community on education and on
enabling fuller support for kids. One of the challenges that we
have--and David spoke to this--is that we get trapped inside
the differing mandates and stovepipes of the way in which we
deliver humanitarian and development assistance. My hope is
that this current crisis will really catalyze us to move
further and faster on some of the more innovative ways that we
know we can use to provide more appropriate assistance that
gives people a chance to have a living, to get the kind of help
they need to recover from trauma, to get their kids educated.
That is one of the most important things that would enable
people to not leave the region. Otherwise, they have a sense
that only by going to Europe or the United States will they
have an opportunity for those basic ways of having a more
dignified life.
Senator Perdue. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I might just point out the barrel bombs are being delivered
by air. I think everybody understands that. I cannot imagine
what these many refugees and people around the world are
thinking about nations like the United States and others that
know this is happening as we are sitting here in these nice
circumstances and are continuing every day to allow that to
happen, plus the torturing of people in its prisons. And yet,
we are going to the U.N. Security Council and talking about
hollow--hollow--resolutions.
But anyway, Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your testimony, and let me just briefly
join the chorus of voices that have recognized the
International Rescue Committee. I have done work with them. It
is extraordinary work and you should be incredibly proud to
lead them.
As someone who comes from a community that were refugees to
the United States, I have a very strong appreciation of the
willingness of the country to accept those who are fleeing for
whatever the reasons. So I am a strong supporter of broadening
our response. But I also understand that at the core of the
problem, as Ms. Lindborg says in her testimony, that the most
generous contribution of the United States only scratches the
surface.
But at the end of the day, unless we get to the root
causes, we are treating symptoms but not the causes of what
makes people flee from their home. And in this case, in the
case of Syria, the ongoing conflict. The barrel bombing, which
unfortunately in and of itself, is a horrific act, is also
exacerbated by the use of chlorine gas in violation of
international standards, as well as my thought was that when
this committee passed an authorization for the use of force to
stop Assad's use of chemical weapons against his people, that
we would be looking at a permanent stoppage of chemical weapons
against his people. And while I certainly rejoice in the fact
that we did do a lot to relieve the risk to the people of Syria
by a variety of chemical weapons, we have not relieved them
from the total risk at the end of the day. And so at some
point, it is hollow if you do not follow through.
What I wanted to get a sense here, first of all, is on your
statement, the most generous contribution of the United States
scratches the surface, and maybe, Mr. Miliband, you can help me
with this too. In other countries, the numbers of refugees that
are flowing into them--what would be roughly the percent vis-a-
vis the population of their countries that are taking place?
Whoever can answer that.
Ms. Lindborg. Well, I can say it is one-fourth of the
Lebanese population. In Iraqi Kurdistan, it is one-fifth of
their population. These are unimaginable numbers to have
occurring----
Senator Menendez. 20 to 25 percent.
Ms. Lindborg. Twenty-five percent of the population in
Lebanon is a Syrian refugee right now.
Mr. Miliband. Just to follow that, 85 percent of the
world's refugees are in developing countries. So the European
comparison would be Germany has agreed to take 500,000 refugees
or accept 500,000 asylum claims over the next year and for each
of the next 3 years. That is in a population of 90 million.
Italy, a population of some 60 million, has taken in each of
the last 2 years 120,000 refugees. The U.K.--the Prime Minister
has pledged that they will take 4,000 a year in a population of
60 million. So you can see the variation there and the big gap
between the neighboring states in the Middle East and the
European governments. It is worth saying that the United States
at its peak was taking about 180,000 refugees a year in 1979,
1980, 1981 when so-called Vietnamese boat people were arriving
here in very large numbers.
Senator Menendez. So with the administration's announcement
that they will move up to 85,000 total refugees--that is not
necessarily Syrian refugees--that would be about 2 percent of
the American population. So I say that in the context of
understanding the challenges of other countries here compared
to what the United States is looking at. And I say to myself in
that regard, you know, we are either going to choose to help
countries where, in fact, refugees are flooding to in the first
instance and while we are, to be more robust about it, or we
have to think about what is a number that is acceptable here in
the United States as part of an international commitment.
But I want to go to the core question, which is how do we
stop--I would assume--and correct me if I am wrong for the
record--that none of you advocate that in order to stop the
refugee crisis, that we should accept the violators of human
rights and core international principles as a way to solve that
problem. Is that a fair statement? You are nodding. Can you
just say yes or no for the record?
Mr. Miliband. Yes.
Senator Menendez. So if that is the reality, that means in
the case of Syria, moving away from Assad, even if it is in a
transition, but at the end of the day moving away from Assad--
and I only see the circumstances getting worse, not better. We
are doing nothing to stop the barrel bombing, including that
with chlorine gas. We have Russia that is now sending all types
of military hardware and creating an airbase for itself in
Syria. I see at the end of the day that they have been a patron
of Assad and will continue to be a patron of Assad until they
see a solution that protects their interests at the end of the
day. So in the interim, I see them using that force. And
whatever entity they are using that force, again let us say
ISIL for argument's sake, inevitably in a circumstance such as
this, it will create more refugees. And I see Iran that has
continued to support Assad.
So I do not see a lessening of the refugee crisis. There
are still, as I understand it, millions displaced who have not
become refugees. At some point their displacement is going to
lead them to be refugees, and when it leads them to be
refugees, we are going to even have a more significant crisis.
So at the end of the day, is not our goal, while in the
interim, certainly doing everything we can for those who have
sought refuge, to really dedicate ourselves to ending the
violence, stopping the barrel bombing, and getting a transition
in Syria? Because if we do not do that, there is not enough
space, time, money to ultimately meet the crisis in the lives
of these people.
Mr. Miliband. Senator, I think you spoke very powerfully
about symptoms and causes, and you have to treat the causes as
well as the symptoms I think you are saying. And you are
absolutely right.
The way I would put it from my own organization's work is
that we can staunch the dying, but it takes politics to stop
the killing. And that is the fundamental challenge that we
face.
Now, staunching the dying is very, very important. I do not
have to tell you that. And we could be doing much, much better.
We can also be doing more than staunching the dying. We can be
staunching the radicalization. We can be staunching the misery
by much more effective work both inside Syria and in the
neighboring states.
But if your question is, Are there true limits to the
effectiveness or the impact of humanitarian work in the absence
of peacemaking of a serious kind? then the answer has to be
unequivocally yes. And until we stop the killing, we are not
going to be able to be doing justice to the people on the
ground or to the values that we all stand for.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Gardner.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Lindborg, I have a couple questions for you. You
mentioned Security Council resolutions. And I think it was in
2014 a couple of security resolutions passed, Resolution 2139
in February 2014. I think you mentioned 2139, which demanded
that parties promptly allow rapid, safe, and unhindered
humanitarian access, and then Resolution 2165, which has
basically called upon notification not consent for delivery of
humanitarian aid.
You mentioned that not all countries are--violations are
being reported on all sides. Could you go into that a little
bit more in terms of 2139 particularly?
Ms. Lindborg. As David mentioned, there is a monthly report
on progress, and there is a routine where lack of progress is
reported and there are not any teeth in the resolution to do
anything about it. And hence, Senator Corker, your skepticism.
You know, there is not a Chapter 7 provision because there
is not agreement among the Security Council members. For a
number of years, there was a bit of a charade where there was
not even full belief by all the Security Council members that
we had a humanitarian crisis going on inside of Syria.
I think what is going on globally today makes that a very
difficult case for people to still make, for countries to still
make that we do not have a humanitarian crisis of truly epic
proportions. The resolution does provide one tool for forcing
the conversation and forcing the agreement that the killing is
at the root of the crisis.
Senator Gardner. In terms of 2139, what ought we be pushing
with the United Nations right now in terms of perhaps an
amendment or enforcement?
Ms. Lindborg. I am sorry?
Senator Gardner. 2139 in terms of what we should be
pursuing.
Ms. Lindborg. There is no enforcement built into the
current resolution. It was a hard-fought effort to get passage
of it the way it was, and it is without teeth.
Senator Gardner. You talked a little bit about--in response
to the chairman's question--a little bit about barrel bombing
and the pincer movement that, Mr. Miliband, you described. What
would change the refugee crisis if barrel bombing were to be
stopped? How would that change the refugee situation?
Ms. Lindborg. Well, it would certainly decrease the deaths.
As we have heard, the targeting is often of medical personnel,
of clinics, of markets. I mean, we have seen the utter
destruction of cities like Aleppo. People are fleeing often
because their lives are just literally in shambles and their
loved ones killed. There is still, obviously, the threat of
ISIS and of other armed groups. It is a very chaotic situation.
Yet, in pockets there are efforts to still maintain a life, and
there are efforts to still have local administration in parts
of Syria. I would add that we also need to continue and
redouble our efforts to support those who are on the ground who
are seeking to create some sort of ongoing stable lives for
their communities.
Senator Gardner. Mr. Miliband, would you like to talk about
that in terms of putting an end to the barrel bombing, what
that would do as our efforts continue, obviously, with ISIS and
others?
Mr. Miliband. Yes. I think that there are two ways of
looking at it.
One is obviously on the more political side, and that is
something that you will be thinking about as you contemplate
your views about the ultimate resolution of the conflict. But
there is no question that the position on the battlefield
creates traction on the wider diplomatic and political front.
And I leave that to you.
On the humanitarian front, there is no question that the
daily, hourly abuse of international humanitarian law has
created what someone said to me, Aleppo is hell and I had to
escape from hell. And it is as blunt as that.
Frankly, we have had our own people, who were not actually
our staff but were benefiting from our services, go home. We
lost seven of them. They were barrel bombed. Now, this is a
daily reality for people who are, to pick up something the
chairman said at the beginning, giving up hope. And at the
moment they see their chance as putting their fate in the hands
of smugglers and criminals who say they will get them to Europe
as offering them more than staying in their own homeland in
their own country. And that is obviously an indictment of the
global response over the 5 years of the conflict.
Senator Gardner. I am intrigued by Ms. Lindborg. In your
testimony, you stated even if Europe and the United States
collectively take the most generous number of people possible,
it will only scratch the surface of the crisis now stretching
across a swath of fragile and conflict-torn Middle Eastern and
African countries. And I just want to make sure that as we
continue this conversation that we are providing the most
effective support possible because humanitarian aid is not
going to--excuse me--refugee aid--the United States, Europe is
not going to solve the problem alone. We have got to get to the
bottom of the barrel bombing and the continued drivers of this
conflict because we can open up as much as we want, but the
crisis will still exist. And we have got to have a better
strategy than we have right now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the
witnesses for your work and your testimony.
Just to explore, the U.N. Security Council resolution, what
it called for but the absence of teeth to enforce it, has been
incredibly disappointing. And I know everybody worked hard to
get it passed in February of 2014 originally, and that was not
easy. The fact that it was brought up during the middle of the
Winter Olympics in Russia probably make it a little bit harder
for them to throw the veto in as they have in the past with the
eyes of the world on them during that Olympics. But it has been
very discouraging that work has not happened.
Senator McCain was probably the first in this body,
beginning really in the fall of 2013, to start to talk about
the notion of a no-fly zone, a humanitarian safe zone, some use
of military force to create safe space most likely in the north
of Syria near the Turkish border where people could go if they
were fleeing Bashar al-Assad, ISIL, cholera, hunger. They could
go with the thought that the creation of that zone and the
protection of it with military force would allow the cross
border delivery of aid under circumstances where the aid
workers and others would not be jeopardized.
I was originally not a fan of that proposal, but by
probably February of 2014, I came to his way of thinking,
seeing the numbers dramatically increase. My first visit to
Turkey was at a time when there was about 750,000 Syrian
refugees in Turkey in the summer of 2013 and now it is 2
million. Other countries are seeing the same thing, and now we
are seeing it spread not only through neighboring nations but
throughout Europe.
It is not easy. I assume that there is a whole lot of
challenges in doing that. But to me it just seems if we do not
go upstream and try to create some safe area with an additional
nearly 8 million displaced people within Syria, that the crisis
is going to continue. And even if we wave a magic wand and we
say the United States will take 10 times the number of refugees
that we have said we would take, it is still a drop in the
bucket compared to the challenge that is likely to come.
So am I wrong? Is that a strategy that is the wrong way to
go about it? I am not sure you would get a majority of votes in
this body for it. I think the vote that we had about using
military force against the use of chemical weapons against
civilians barely got a majority on this committee, and it was
likely not going to get a majority in the Senate. It certainly
would not get a majority in the House. Still, if the
administration were to advocate strongly for it, there is some
bipartisan support for the notion. But as folks who do this
work, am I looking at this wrong?
Ms. Lindborg. Senator Kaine, I have long wrestled with this
question through this crisis. You know, the history of safe
zones and no-fly zones for humanitarian purposes is fraught
with cases where it did not work well and it is filled with
moral hazard.
At the same time, I think that as the crisis progresses and
the level of killing continues that is prompting this level of
crisis, for us to continue to not take some action that is
forthrightly about civilian protection creates enormous tragedy
for the people of Syria and is not at all consistent with who
we are as a country. It seems to me that as we did in places
like Kosovo, that it warrants a very, very hard look with our
allies or maybe through concerted diplomacy with other actors
who now claim to be interested in putting solutions on the
table, that we look very closely at how to provide civilian
protection. We should ask what is the best way of doing it and
have that be the joint concerted goal of our actions and look
at what military means might be required for a no-fly zone or a
security area.
Senator Kaine. Other thoughts?
Mr. Miliband. I would say two things, Senator, about this.
First of all, I think it would be very welcome if the
debate about no-fly zones moved from slogans to details because
the details really matter.
Secondly, I think NGOs like ours can offer the benefit of
experience of different ways in which governments around the
world have tried to deliver so-called safe areas or no-fly
zones because we have suffered from the details being got
wrong. And I think that immediately you see that a safe area,
which is designed to protect some people in some part of the
country, immediately creates the moral hazard that Nancy
referred to because for us barrel bombing any part of the
country of Syria is an affront not just in parts of it. But
that only is to make the point that obviously the debate about
safe areas engages other questions and merely civilian
protection, a proposal for safe zones most recently in the
Armed Services Committee last week, was for reasons beyond the
humanitarian. And that is why I think our best contribution is
to advise on the humanitarian impact of different models of
military and other action to protect civilians. And on that
basis, I think we have got something to say without taking away
from you the ultimate judgment that you have to make about who
to put at risk and in what ways.
Senator Kaine. But clearly, we are all in a position here
where the existence of a U.N. resolution that calls for cross-
border delivery of aid without the consent of the Syrian
Government and the stopping of barrel bombing, that that
resolution now, you know, a year and a half old with zero
enforcement of it--I mean, the impotence of that and the
message that sends about the impotence of the international
institutions and the unwillingness of the nations that are
members of those institutions to do anything to back up their
words--that is incredibly destructive not only in this
circumstance but more generally. Would you not agree with that?
I do not know the legal precedent on this, and maybe this
is the wrong panel to ask this. But is there a legal precedent
for a group of nations taking action to enforce a U.N. Security
Council resolution that the U.N. is unwilling to enforce?
Mr. Miliband. The closest precedent would be the Kosovo
experience where, obviously, there was not a U.N. Security
Council resolution and the U.S. administration at the time
decided not to put a vote at the U.N. because it did not want a
Russian veto. But the action took place. I cannot think of an
immediate precedent of the kind that you describe.
Senator Kaine. And looking back on that action, what is the
humanitarian sort of NGO's conclusion about that in retrospect.
Was that a good thing to do or not?
Ms. Lindborg. Well, having been with an NGO at the time, I
think there was widespread concern that Kosovo was undergoing
the beginnings of mass atrocities and that without the
campaign, there would have been terrible, terrible loss of life
in Kosovo. With some mixed feelings, there was gratitude that
action was taken that saved so many lives.
Senator Kaine. So action that was taken to save lives in an
ethnic cleansing situation, a huge atrocity, even without a
predicate of a U.N. Security Council resolution calling
precisely for delivery of aid into this area--you know, I know
you can make mistakes and there is risk, there are mixed
feelings about it. But the general sense was gratitude that the
actions were taken.
What projections have your organizations done--I am about
done. But what projections have your organizations done about
the likely pace of continued migration out of Syria over the
next year or two if sort of status quo continues?
Mr. Miliband. Just to finish off on your previous question.
of course, the other relevant example would be the Rwandan
genocide earlier in the 1990s, then Kosovo, about which people
have very strong opinions.
Our projections----
Senator Kaine. And on that, was there a Security Council
resolution but no international action was taken or it was
taken horribly late so that the slaughter was just at dramatic
levels before anybody did anything?
Dr. Gabaudan. I wanted to go back to your first question,
Senator, which is projections. I do not think we have numbers
in mind, but certainly the people who are leaving now are
people with a certain level of education and who have the
resource to pay the smugglers and all----
Senator Kaine. Many do not.
Dr. Gabaudan. That is going to dry off. The people who are
staying in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, et cetera, are those who
are getting to the levels of absolute misery. I mean, I think
these are those we have to retain in our mind.
Mr. Miliband. Sorry. I did not answer you. None of our
projections included a scenario where the German Government
would say 3 weeks ago anyone from Syria can claim asylum in
Germany. And so the truth is what projections we have done,
they need to be revised in a very substantial way.
Now, I think it is only fair to the committee to say both
from within Syria and from within the neighboring countries,
there has been a significant up-tick in the last month or 2
months of people leaving, including people who are staff
members and others. Undoubtedly, there is not just a pincer
movement inside Syria, there is also a pincer movement on the
people from Syria and from the neighbors.
The second piece of evidence I think is very significant is
that the number of people who we anticipate crossing the Aegean
during winter we anticipate to be quite high. I was told when I
was in Lesvos that the U.N. are actually projecting 20,000
people to cross the Aegean in December, which would be unheard
of. And obviously the dangers of hypothermia and other health
hazards are very large.
I think if where you are going with your question is do we
have to prepare for very, very, very significant numbers
leaving Syria and leaving the neighbors in the next year, the
answer would be yes. And obviously what is happening in Europe
at the moment shows the difficulty of playing catchup on this
because Europe has had its eye on the euro crisis. It has had
its eye on the Ukraine crisis. It has not had its eye on the
refugee crisis. And now desperately trying to play catchup
means that it is in a very, very much weaker position. So there
is a warning there about what might happen in the next year.
Senator Kaine. I have gone over my time. So thanks, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. If I could, before turning to Senator Risch,
just to clear something up. You mentioned--Senator Kaine
mentioned the ethnic cleansing that was taking place in Kosovo.
For what purpose is Assad barrel bombing civilian populations
and clinics and others? There is not a military strategy there.
So for what purpose would he be barrel bombing his own
citizens?
Mr. Miliband. I would be interested in my two colleagues.
I think there are only two ways of seeing this. One is
obviously as an assertion of strength and a display of
strength, and secondly is that he is engaged in using air
power, the only Syrian belligerent with air power, to attack
some of the rebel groups. And he is not taking any care as to
where the mortars land.
The Chairman. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, when you look at this, this is a pretty
depressing situation because the solutions that are on the
table--as I understand the U.S. policy, is that number one, the
policy is to return people back to where they came from. That
is the first objective. If that does not work, number two, that
they be kept safely in the years where they are housed. And
only thirdly do you look at resettlement. Well, if you look at
those policies, you wonder if that really works under the
present situation. I think the description of this is epic,
certainly is an understatement probably.
But these people that now have--the number is about 20
million, as I understand it, worldwide. Is that a fair number
that you work with? If you talk about 20 million people who
have left their homeland and essentially people who maybe would
not have left under normal circumstances but now have been
forced out, and once they have been forced out and they see
what the rest of the world is like, they are not inclined to go
back as is the number one policy supposedly that we have of
seeing that they return to their homeland.
So when you are talking about 20 million people, I mean,
that number just is staggering. What troubles me is after this
has happened and people have watched this with the Internet
that we have now and the communications we have now, what is
going to continue to happen in the future to people who look at
this migration that has taken place and have said, well, you
know, I am tired of living where I am? This is not good here. I
am going to move on. And even though they are not forced out,
they are going to make that move and, Ms. Lindborg, as you
noted, the woman that you talked to said, look, there are only
two places to go, the United States and Europe. I mean, this is
a challenge of staggering proportions.
What we have now, which most people do not realize, but
what I think what is coming in the future when people see that
this migration takes place--and you can do it, and you can
become a citizen of another country by simply packing up and
moving.
How do you see this playing out? I mean, this is a problem
that looks to me like it is just going to overwhelm the planet.
Anybody want to take a run at that?
Ms. Lindborg. Actually, and just to make you more
depressed, I think the relevant number is 60 million, which is
the number of people who are forcibly displaced right now, 20
million as refugees, the rest as displaced within their own
countries.
Senator Risch. But probably subject to the same thought
process I just went through.
Ms. Lindborg. Exactly, absolutely.
Senator Risch. We have left our home. Why stop here when we
can move on?
Ms. Lindborg. So I think we have talked a lot about some of
the urgent shorter term solutions that one might employ in
dealing with the roots of the Syria conflict, which is this
raw, bleeding conflict that is driving a lot of people through
the region.
I would put a couple of other considerations on the table.
One is that in Iraq where there is movement right now to clear
ISIS, we have the urgent opportunity to help people return
where they are able to and where they would like to. And USIP
has been working with communities on the ground in places like
Tikrit that are cleared of ISIS, but in order for people to go
home, you really need to work on a concerted dialogue process
that gets rid of the mistrust and rebuilds the social cohesion
so they can go home and live side by side with neighbors who
might be different from themselves. As we look at investing in
our military action in Iraq, we need to ensure that we are
commensurately investing in all of those solutions that do
enable people to go home so they do not join that migration
that you have talked about.
Even longer term, I would note that among the Syrians who
are going to Europe these days, among the 20 million or 60
million, almost everybody is from a country that one would term
as fragile, you know, weak, ineffective, and/or illegitimate in
the eyes of its citizens. And these are the countries that have
the billion people who are living in poverty. They are the ones
that have that mixture of oppression, of violent conflict and
poverty that are driving people to seek better lives.
Longer term, we collectively need to refocus how we think
about development programs, moving development, humanitarian
assistance to work hand in hand with security and diplomacy. We
have just had new sustainable development goals passed in New
York this week where there was the historic inclusion of
something called Goal 16, which basically calls for inclusive
democratic societies with accountable justice for all, which
sounds very Pollyannaish, but every nation has signed off on
this. And it gives us a platform for insisting that we not
continue to have these kinds of bleeding sores around the world
that create these kind of humanitarian crises and keep so many
people in misery and poverty.
Mr. Miliband. Can I just briefly address I think a very
important point that Senator Risch has made, which is to
understand the distinction between someone who is fleeing for
economic reasons and someone who is fleeing for reasons of
political persecution, which is what defines a refugee? It is a
world on the move, and there are 200 million people moving
around the world for economic reasons. And I think one of the
lessons of this crisis is that it is very, very important,
indeed, to maintain the integrity of the status of a refugee,
someone who has a well-founded fear of persecution, and the
erosion of that status has damaging implications for the
politics of this issue and it has damaging implications for the
policy of this issue.
The truth is it is harder to reach America as a refugee
than any other way short of swimming across the Atlantic. The
checks, the vetting, et cetera are far, far tougher to arrive
in the United States as a refugee than under any other visa or
other regime. And in a way you can understand that because
there are rights associated with refugee status that are
earned, that if you have a well-founded fear of persecution,
that you have rights and the state has obligations to you. And
I think it is important that we do not allow that status to be
undermined because when it becomes part of a simple migration
debate--in honest truth, that is what has happened in Europe. A
lot of the problems in Europe are for the confusion of the
migration debate with the refugee debate--then it is very, very
hard to hold the public, never mind to run the policy.
Senator Risch. Interesting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Before I turn to Senator Markey, just to put
things in context, our staff looked up the numbers relative to
the Yugoslav war of a decade, and there were 140,000 people
that were killed and 4 million people displaced. So if you look
at the scale, this one causes that to pale, and yet, again
there is no real action relative to the barrel bombing.
So, Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Miliband, I have been and remain a skeptic of
policy recommendations that increase the risk of
Americanization or Westernization of the armed conflicts in
Iraq and Syria. And I would much rather see us work to
influence parties toward internal compromises necessary to end
violence and work together to establish governments that fully
represent and fairly treat all people.
Most recently, we have heard that U.S. policy may be moving
toward the creation of so-called safe zones, long advocated by
Turkey. Just last week, retired General Petraeus called for us
to create, quote, enclaves in Syria protected by coalition air
power where a moderate Sunni force could be supported and where
additional forces could be trained. Internally displaced
persons could find refuge, and the Syrian opposition could
organize.
But on September 16, here in the Foreign Relations
Committee, we heard testimony from Michael Bowers of Mercy
Corps who told us that such zones cannot be considered safe.
I have been advised that there are three requirements for
true, effective humanitarian safe zones. One, parties to the
armed conflict must agree to the creation of the zone and to
respect it. Two, the zone must be secured by an impartial force
with sufficient capability and size, and it is critical that
this force not be a party to the conflict or a supporter of any
party to the conflict. Three, the zone must be deemed
militarized, meaning that it must not be a base for any
military activity or operations by parties to the conflict, and
this must be rigorously enforced by the impartial security
force.
In August, the U.N. Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de
Mistura, completed a round of consultations that the U.N.
Security Council has endorsed.
Secretary Miliband, could you provide your perspective on
how the P5 and the entire international community can focus
diplomatic support for his efforts? More specifically, how
might such a process create true humanitarian safe zones in
Syria that meet the criteria I just mentioned?
Mr. Miliband. Thank you, Senator. I would say two things.
First of all, your skepticism about military engagement is
widely shared. And I know that you have not been a skeptic
about engagement internationally generally. And I think the
greater the skepticism about the military side, the greater the
responsibility to act on the humanitarian and the political.
Secondly, I said earlier that I thought that in the debate
about safe zones, no-fly zones, it was important to move from
slogans to details, which is what you have done, and also learn
the lessons of history because all of us--actually my
colleagues here with far more personal experience than me can
speak to the different ways in which different tactics for the
establishment of safe zones have worked or have not worked.
Where I can comment--and the well known example of the
Kurds in 1991 who were protected versus the Srebrenica
example--in a way one of my frustrations is that we have got to
go beyond just using those two examples as clubs with which to
beat the argument. We need to get right underneath the details
because the truth to my mind is that the situation in Syria and
Iraq at the moment is unlike anything else that we have seen
before, and we need to learn from history but not be imprisoned
by it.
You asked about the diplomatic and political engagement. I
said in my opening statement that it is extraordinary to look
not just at the numbers of people affected by this crisis but
the absence of political engagement either from the great
powers or from the regional powers on the political front. The
Staffan de Mistura mission does not have the active ongoing
engaged backing on a day-to-day basis of the nations who voted
for the establishment of his office. And that contrasts with
the situation in the Balkans where there were successive
contact groups and other formations of the P5, the permanent
members of the Security Council, and others to try to put
political and diplomatic muscle behind the attempts.
Now, many times those attempts failed to resolve the
Balkans crisis, but nonetheless there was the effort. And I
think I would argue for as inclusive a process as possible
because that reflects the realities on the ground and for a
process as structured and urgent as possible, secondly; and
thirdly, for a process that does not leave the humanitarian
situation last because often in these diplomatic--I do not like
to say ``games,'' but diplomatic enterprises, the humanitarian
situation seems an add-on, whereas to my mind it may well be
that the humanitarian situation provides the way in for a
contact group rather than the conclusion of a contact group.
And it is in that light that I suggested that this notion of
humanitarian envoys appointed by the P5 heads of state but also
by the regional powers to start with what should be unbreakable
rules. And that seems to me to be at least a plausible
hypothesis about a way an international effort could begin.
Ms. Lindborg. If I could just underscore two points.
I would, first of all, emphasize that now that this crisis
has reached the shores of Europe, it does catalyze a renewed
focus, and the humanitarian crisis is an important way in. It
is now the leading edge of this crisis as it presents globally.
Secondly, it is very dangerous to conflate military
approaches with civilian protection. Any approach that
conflates those goals I think is a perilous way forward.
Senator Markey. So you agree more with the three-point
program that I laid out. Do you each agree with that? That is a
better approach?
Ms. Lindborg. Yes, although I would fully subscribe to
David's advice that we have a detailed conversation based on
particulars. But, yes.
Senator Markey. No, no. I appreciate that. But in
principle, the sanctuary for the refugees can also be the
military base.
Ms. Lindborg. Correct.
Senator Markey. You all agree with that. So I think that is
a contract with General Petraeus, and I think it is important
for us to put that out here on the table because that is, I
think, central to this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask an additional question about
Yemen.
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Markey. But I can wait. Is that all right?
The Chairman. Just out of curiosity, since I understand
your point of view and I think David Miliband does too, are you
saying on the other hand that you would support U.S.
intervention to stop the barrel bombing if it was not about
military activity taking place within that safe zone but
protection of civilians?
Senator Markey. Are you asking----
The Chairman. No. I am asking you that, just out of
curiosity. I just heard you all. Because that would be a
breakthrough.
Senator Markey. I think the breakthrough honestly has to be
Obama and Putin sitting down and reaching an agreement on this.
Okay? And I think that is the only way it is going to happen. I
think any other intervention is not going to be effective in
the long run. I think we need a political resolution of this,
and we need everything on the table. And we need the major
powers to get this back out of the cold war framework, which it
is back into. So that is my view.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Miliband. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, before I
get or my organization gets signed up to----
Senator Markey. No, no. Can I say this? You did not answer.
Mr. Miliband. I just wanted to say that Nancy's point about
details really matters. So let us just take the example of a
demilitarized zone. A demilitarized in an area in a country
which is flooded with arms of all kinds is a nice aspiration
but does not speak to the detail of the situation on the
ground. I would suggest that the imperative is to look at what
a detailed proposal actually is and then measure it against the
situation on the ground and the objectives that are set for it
because in the end, it is the application of the principles
that is going to matter. And frankly, the devil is in the
detail, and my goodness, we have seen that in the last few
years in Syria.
Senator Markey. Just quickly, Ms. Lindborg, looking back to
last winter and spring, it seems that we were on autopilot to
reflexively support a Saudi decision to intervene in Yemen
without a full examination of alternatives. What are your
thoughts on this? What do we need to do to assess what we might
have done differently last winter and spring, particularly
diplomatically in the run-up to outside military intervention
in Yemen?
Ms. Lindborg. I would answer it this way. We are seeing
where the military intervention is preventing humanitarian
assistance from reaching populations that were very, very
vulnerable to begin with, and we are already seeing the
beginning of pockets of famine in Yemen. And if there is not an
ability to provide assistance on a more regular basis,
including the ability of ships to dock because Yemen is deeply
dependent upon imports of fuel and critical food supplies--it
is also running critically short of water, as we know--there
will be massive widespread famine. And I think there is an
important conversation to be had with both Saudi Arabia and
Iran as to whether their military objectives are worth that
kind of broad-spread humanitarian crisis.
Senator Markey. What can we do to help to deescalate the
violence so we can get the humanitarian aid into those who need
it? What would you recommend that we do? What is the policy?
Ms. Lindborg. I would increase the pressure to, at a
minimum, create a regular cycle of humanitarian pauses so that
there can be a regularized ability to get assistance in,
including ships that can get in and regularly offload and
onload. There is clearly a need for the bigger diplomatic
resolution of the conflict, but in the absence of that, there
needs to be a way to keep the country from tipping into famine.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Miliband was the leading voice
in Great Britain on climate change, and I know how he knows how
it interacts with food and water crises that then further
exacerbates all these problems. But I know my time has run out,
but I just wanted to thank you publicly for all the work you
have done in your career, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Miliband. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Any additional comments?
I want to thank you and thank all three of you for your
testimony, for the service that you provide to so many people
around the world. Certainly the world would be a very different
place if you and the organizations you represent were not doing
the things that you are doing. So we thank you very much for
your testimony. We appreciate the honest assessment you have
given us on topics maybe outside of what you actually came here
to necessarily talk about. It is much appreciated.
And if you would, there will be additional questions, I
know, and comments from others. I would say to the committee if
we could have those in by close of business by Thursday, and if
you could respond fairly quickly, we would appreciate that. But
again, thank you for your service. Thank you for helping us
understand the magnitude and some of the details relative to
the problem.
And with that, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Response of David Miliband to Question
Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine
Question. During the hearing, you spoke of the need to ``move from
slogans to a discussion of the details'' of humanitarian safe zones.
You also noted that international NGOs should have an important voice
in that discussion given their particular experience and knowledge of
the current situation on the ground and what has worked in the past and
what has not. At the same time, you acknowledged that prior examples of
safe zones in Kosovo and Kurdish Iraq are not perfect precedents for a
situation as unique and complex as the current situation in Syria.
Given that, from your perspective at the International
Rescue Committee, what are the specific recommendations and
what lessons learned would you offer policymakers on the
details of a feasible and effective safe zone to address the
humanitarian needs of Syrian civilians?
What coordination, operational and diplomatic modalities
would be essential for such a zone to be successful?
Answer. Thank you Senator Kaine for your question at the hearing
and your deep interest in responding to the crisis in Syria.
There is a healthy debate around the topic of civilian protection
mechanisms and no definitive guidelines for the best course of action,
reflecting the great variance in context between conflicts. There are,
however, key considerations that the International Rescue Committee
(IRC) and other humanitarian actors would put forward to policymakers
to address in their calculus on civilian protection options. It is by
exploring these questions (and others) that we can begin the process of
``moving from slogans to details'' as I noted at the hearing.
Consent of all parties: The ideal, in order for a zone to be deemed
``safe,'' is that parties to the conflict agree to the terms. Without
this consent--civilians can and will continue to be targeted. In fact
the creation of the safe zone can concentrate civilians and make them
easier targets. This occurred in the case of the six safe zones that
were declared through United Nations Security Council Resolution
(UNSCR) 819 in Bosnia in 1993. Bosnian Serbs did not consent to the
creation of the safe havens or recognize the areas as neutral spaces.
As a result, they moved in and proceeded to slaughter Bosnian Muslim
men and boys, including 8,000 in Srebrenica alone. Hence, there is some
skepticism about ``safe zones.'' That consent, which may lure civilians
into a false sense of security, may also change over time. Such was the
case in Sri Lanka, where civilians were encouraged to move into ``no
fire zones'' in 2009 for their own protection as the government pursued
the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) in the final months of that
country's decades-long civil war. The zones ultimately were bombed and
an estimated 40,000 civilians were killed.
Given the sheer numbers of parties to the conflict in Syria--many
of which have shown blatant disregard to international humanitarian law
and the lives of innocent civilians--and their fractious, ever-evolving
nature, ensuring this consent and maintaining adherence to it would be
extremely challenging.
Defense of safe zone: Without such agreement, safe zones can still
be established. However, they will require some form of defense--
including the deployment of ground forces under a proactive mandate and
clear rules of engagement--to ensure the protection of the civilians
within them. The U.N. Security Council is authorized to act to restore
international peace and security when it determines the existence of a
threat, including through establishing safe zones, even when all
parties do not consent. Such was the case in the situation of UNSCR 891
on Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, as we so painfully learned, the
peacekeeping presence protecting the six cities deemed safe zones was
not enough (only 7,500 strong). Furthermore, the U.N. Protection Force
(UNPFOR) in Bosnia only had a standard peacekeeping mandate that
allowed for the use of force only in the case of self-defense (not to
proactively protect civilians).
While we are not likely to see a U.N. peacekeeping force in Syria,
the point remains that safe zones without the consent (and sometimes
with) the agreement of all relevant parties to the conflict must be
actively protected and attacks deterred. Introducing another military
force (whether backed by the U.N. Security Council or otherwise) into
the equation amounts to creating a new party to the conflict. That can
(and is intended to) alter the conflict dynamics.
The defense of a safe zone may be required not over a period of
months, but years. As the no-fly zone (NFZ) instituted in northern Iraq
in 1991 shows, protection may be needed for a decade or more. This NFZ
is widely viewed as a successful effort to protect civilians, but
evolved over the course of 12 years from Operation Comfort to Operation
Comfort II to Operation Northern Watch. Without a definitive change in
the dynamics threatening the population, it is not possible to define
what the time dimensions and the commitment involved to provide
continual protection to them in a safe zone will be.
Demilitarization: In order for a ``safe zone'' to truly be a space
where people are protected and which is off limits to armed actors, it
would have to be demilitarized. To the extent that parties to a
conflict agree with the concept, their continued support may largely
hinge on the fact that establishing a safe zone is not to the benefit
of any actor. This means ensuring that it is not a space for fighters
to organize or launch attacks. Certainly, the recent introduction of
Russian forces into the theater of conflict complicates
demilitarization, and must be considered very carefully.
It is also critical for humanitarian organizations providing
assistance in such a safe zone to not be involved in a situation where
their actions benefit a party to the conflict by assisting them as they
continue to perpetrate violence--which is in contravention of the
humanitarian principles of impartiality and neutrality.
The establishment of safe zones in 1994 through UNSCR 929 in
southwest Rwanda demonstrates this dynamic well. An estimated 1.2
million people ended up living in safe zones protected by a temporary
multinational force through Operation Turquoise. However, it was widely
understood that Hutu genocidaires were not all disarmed and continued
to perpetrate the genocide from within the safe zone. The protection
and humanitarian assistance that was afforded to Rwandans fleeing
violence was partly undercut by the ability of armed actors to continue
killing people from the safe zones. In an environment like Syria where
arms are circulating freely among a panoply of fighting forces, serious
efforts would need to be made to ensure the civilian and demilitarized
nature of a safe zone.
Incentive to close asylum space: Some people argue that the
creation of safe zones may provide an incentive for the countries of
asylum surrounding Syria--Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq--to close
their doors to refugees fleeing to safety. As I detailed in my
testimony, the social and economic impact of hosting 4 million Syrian
refugees is profound in these countries. Despite the generosity that
has been extended to refugees, this impact has begun to translate into
tightening asylum space, the closing of border crossings and an
increased desire to see displaced Syrians remain inside Syria. These
troubling developments are documented in a report the IRC and Norwegian
Refugee Council published last year called ``No Escape: Civilians in
Syria Struggle to Find Safety across Borders.''
The recent debate (and seeming confusion) between the U.S. and
Turkey about the purpose of the buffer zone being established north of
Aleppo along the border with Turkey highlights this concern. While it
has now been made clear that this zone is not considered a protected
zone by the U.S. Government, there were initial indications that the
Turkish Government hoped such a zone--one from which attacks to defeat
ISIL would be launched--could also serve as a haven for the millions of
Syrians who have fled into Turkey. Beyond the further tightening of the
border for Syrians fleeing, there is concern that establishing a safe
zone may actually result in Syrians being sent back into Syria from the
countries where they have sought safety, under the guise that they no
longer need international protection.
Pull Factors: Establishing safe zones could create pull factors for
people to move from the areas where they are currently located and, as
a result, possibly put themselves at extensive risk to reach them.
Without a mechanism to protect civilians on their way to safe zones,
this may increase the danger they face. In the case of Syria, civilians
face a gauntlet of security challenges across the country and, if they
are able to actually escape the areas where they face threats (as many
as 422,000 people are estimated to be besieged), they face a mosaic of
armed actors, check points and indiscriminate attacks of all varieties
as they move through the country on to safety.
Protection outside of the safe zone: Finally, creating safe zones
somehow indicates that the rest of the country is not safe and that
efforts are not being extended beyond these particular geographies to
protect civilians. While safe zones established with the correct
contextual planning could offer protection to some civilians, it may
detract from the urgency of protecting all civilians in Syria. In a
conflict where there has already been shockingly little progress toward
any semblance of a political solution--let alone agreements to stop
targeting civilians directly or ensure that humanitarian assistance
reaches those who need it--the establishment of a safe zone may provide
a false sense of resolution. Establishing safe zones in a conflict
characterized by massive and widespread violations of international
humanitarian law must be looked to as one step to provide protection
for some people in need, but not a silver bullet. The creation of any
zone must not become an excuse to further political inertia on an
urgent and unparalleled challenge of our time.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
| MEMBERNAME | BIOGUIDEID | GPOID | CHAMBER | PARTY | ROLE | STATE | CONGRESS | AUTHORITYID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boxer, Barbara | B000711 | 8306 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | CA | 114 | 116 |
| Udall, Tom | U000039 | 8260 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NM | 114 | 1567 |
| Isakson, Johnny | I000055 | 8323 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | GA | 114 | 1608 |
| Flake, Jeff | F000444 | 7803 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | AZ | 114 | 1633 |
| Cardin, Benjamin L. | C000141 | 8287 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MD | 114 | 174 |
| Murphy, Christopher | M001169 | 7870 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | CT | 114 | 1837 |
| Barrasso, John | B001261 | 8300 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | WY | 114 | 1881 |
| Risch, James E. | R000584 | 8274 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | ID | 114 | 1896 |
| Shaheen, Jeanne | S001181 | 8276 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NH | 114 | 1901 |
| Coons, Christopher A. | C001088 | 8297 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | DE | 114 | 1984 |
| Gardner, Cory | G000562 | 7862 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | CO | 114 | 1998 |
| Paul, Rand | P000603 | 8308 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | KY | 114 | 2082 |
| Rubio, Marco | R000595 | 8242 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | FL | 114 | 2084 |
| Johnson, Ron | J000293 | 8355 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | WI | 114 | 2086 |
| Kaine, Tim | K000384 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | VA | 114 | 2176 | |
| Perdue, David | P000612 | S | R | COMMMEMBER | GA | 114 | 2286 | |
| Markey, Edward J. | M000133 | 7972 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | MA | 114 | 735 |
| Menendez, Robert | M000639 | 8239 | S | D | COMMMEMBER | NJ | 114 | 791 |
Disclaimer:
Please refer to the About page for more information.