|
Protection enters another sphere of discussion when we address the issue
of economic (or otherwise) migration and internal displacement; where do
these two differ and do they? There is a significant link between the
two as economic migration and the movement of IDPs has often occurred in
the same direction, i.e. from rural to urban areas.
This movement not only hinders and complicates efforts to promote return
and reintegration as a durable solution, but also sees both the
‘recipient’ end (urban areas) and the ‘original departure point’
(rural areas) suffering. With the former there is a concern over:
increased competition for opportunities; the formation of marginalized
communities; increased deprivation amongst the poorest; increased
vulnerability for those entering the new areas and having to separate
from their families.
The International Framework on Internal Displacement notes three durable
solutions to ending displacement: return to place of origin; local
integration in the areas in which IDPs initially take refuge or
settlement in another part of the country. Furthermore in order to be
considered durable they must be based upon long-term safety and
security, restitution of or compensation for lost property and an
environment that sustains the life of the former IDPs under normal
economic and social conditions.
If one were to look at the global picture of internal displacement, the
majorities of countries suffering from internal displacement, and
therewith armed conflict and in more rare circumstances natural
disasters, are developing nations. Such nations are already suffering
from significant levels of poverty, deprivation and inequity. The very
nature of engaging in armed conflict/war is derivative of inequality,
competition for resources, marginalisation, lack of opportunity and
seeking opportunities through desperate and unjust measures.
The persistence of conflict is thus in line with the struggle against
underdevelopment, and the two are seen to give rise to |
|
the other. There is then a natural tendency for discriminatory practices
to arise between groups of people as well as through policies and
practices. The challenge is thereby to move towards positive
discrimination in a development context from a rights perspective, with
the prospect of sustainability and progress at the centre.
Peace
In the absence of peace agreements, return for IDPs is never a
real option. Governments should thereby be taking the necessary steps to
improve the living situation of marginalised communities (IDPs become
communities after years in displacement), yet in some nations this has
not been the case and the legal status of an IDP is noted as 'IDP' on legal
documentation and so forth. This is a detrimental state to be in and it
is passed down from generation to generation. This is the case for many
conflict-induced IDPs in the northern peninsula of Jaffna, Sri Lanka,
where communities have been displaced for almost 20 years. They have
accepted their status as IDPs, yet their children are suffering as a
result in terms of seeking higher education or employment as legal
documents note them as 'IDP'.
The truth of the matter remains that achieving peace is inextricably
linked to resolving internal displacement. Yet to end the latter is
difficult where peace agreements disregard displacement-specific issues.
A cynical perspective may be it is quite simple to acquire peace without
addressing displacement, it would be a matter of allowing those IDPs to
simply remain displaced and marginalised from mainstream society.
However after conflict has ended, if the causes
of displacement have not been removed -such as militias/terrorist groups
and landmines, IDPs will not be willing to return or they may return and
end up being displaced again due to insecurity. If IDPs are
|