Exodus within Borders: The Uprooted who Never Left Home
Millions flee persecution and war within their borders. The international community should be ready to act when states fail to protect their own.
Roberta Cohen is a Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institution. Francis M. Deng is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and has served as Representative of the U.N. Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons since 1992. This article is based on their forthcoming book, Masses in Flight: The Global Crisis of Internal Displacement.
Tens of millions of people have been forced from their homes during the past decade by armed conflict, internal strife, and systematic violations of human rights, all the while remaining within the borders of their own countries. No continent has been spared. Africa today counts about 10 million internally displaced persons, Europe and Asia some 5 million each, and Latin America up to 2 million. These masses in flight -- who, unlike refugees, have not crossed a border -- constitute the newest global crisis.
Internal displacement always has severe humanitarian implications. These displaced persons are at the greatest risk of starvation, have the highest rates of preventable disease, and are the most vulnerable to human rights abuses. Internal displacement is a symptom of state dysfunction that poses a threat to political and economic stability at the national and international levels. Both the communities left behind and the towns and villages in which the displaced find refuge are often ravaged. In some cases, so many people flee that whole societies are uprooted. Violence and instability can spread through entire regions, forcing neighboring states to bear the brunt of massive refugee flows. Even countries continents away may have to contend with a wave of desperate refugees.
Today's crisis of internal displacement is no less acute than the refugee crisis that confronted Europe after World War II. Then, humanitarian needs coupled with practical political and economic interests brought about a system of international protection and assistance for those displaced outside their native countries. In 1951, the position of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was created and a U.N. refugee convention adopted. Today, UNHCR has a staff of 5,000, an annual budget of more than $1 billion, and 13.2 million refugees in its care.
But those forced from their homes who remain under their government's jurisdiction are not covered by any international arrangements. Although their numbers now exceed those of refugees, no international institution is specifically charged with their protection or assistance. The absurdity is that if these people had crossed a border, they would fall under U.N. protection.
A COLD WAR LEGACY
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The international adoption trade is booming, as more families in the West adopt more babies from developing countries. But it has spawned a sordid black market as well, in which children are bought or abducted and sold. The best way to stop the trafficking is not to ban adoptions from countries that tolerate corrupt rings, but to strengthen the underdeveloped multilateral legal regime that regulates adoptions around the planet.
Dealing with today's threats requires broad, deep, and sustained global cooperation. Thus the states of the world must create a collective security system to prevent terrorism, strengthen nonproliferation, and bring peace to war-torn areas, while also promoting human rights, democracy, and development. And the UN must go through its most radical overhaul yet.
Nongovernmental organizations, activist shareholders, and "socially responsible" investment funds have launched a corporate ethics crusade that has pushed executives to consider more than just the bottom line. Goaded by media interest, however, NGOs prefer to shout solutions rather than engage in objective research. Worse, the symbiotic relationship they are forging with firms could backfire and harm the world's poor.
