In
light of the less than optimal conditions and problems associated with refugee
camps, especially with Syrian refugees, the Human Rights Council passed three
resolutions: resolution 1.1 worked in tandem with 1.2 to combat the structural and
societal problems of refugees, while paper 1.3 aimed to resolve long term
difficulties, focusing on Latin America.
Hungary
summed up the first resolution, which was sponsored by Saudi Arabia, Hungary,
Nigeria, Philippines, Cameroon, and Belgium. He stated that refugee camps
should have all basic necessities such as clean water and shelter, to produce a
“state of well-being.”
The
resolution established a “multi-national framework” to collaborate in handling
the logistical aspects of obtaining money and transporting relief
supplies. Hungary added that the use of
the international community would “minimize the impact on the host countries” that
hold refugees by taking away some of the difficulty in providing for the large
influxes of people that they encounter.
To resolve the criminally unsafe conditions of refugee camps, a
“multi-national police force” was created, which would curb the rampant violence
present in the makeshift towns.
The second resolution was explained
by Saudi Arabia and outlined plans for refugees after conflict in their home
country had abated. It separated governmental actions based on the refugee’s
intent.
He
stated that if they choose to stay in the host country, refugees would be granted
“[political] asylum, citizenship, and permanent residency” and would be
integrated into that society. If the
refugees do not want to stay, then the host country has a right to relocate
them using “reasonable non-coercive” force, but only with UN approval. Each
country would develop their own method for the return of refugees, which must
be approved by the UN.
These
two resolutions were formed out of a compromise between Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Cameroon,
and Bangladesh, who had initially disagreed over the permanency of camps and
the focus of the solutions.
The final resolution, put forth by
Peru, Cuba, and Guatemala, proposed the building of permanent settlements as
opposed to tents in order to “involve and integrate more refugees,” as Peru
said, into the host countries. This
resolution would also provide more long-term settlements for chronically
displaced refugees, a concern in Latin America.
Despite
its passage, Saudi Arabia and Hungary opposed the focus on Latin America in
this resolution. They maintained the position that the refugee situation in the
region did not call for immediate action or UN intervention.
No comments:
Post a Comment