The road to Refugia

Yazidi families fleeing an attack by the Islamic State near the Iraq border. The number of forcibly displaced people today stands at over 59.5 million - roughly equal to the population of Italy. Photo credit: Reuters

Can we carve out a piece of land that refugees can call home? That’s a question that many are discussing, thanks to the buzz created around the idea by real estate millionaire Jason Buzi with his Refugee Nation project. What makes this discussion so urgent is the fact despite advances in the spheres of economy, technology, human rights and academics, the number of refugees around the world has just kept on growing. That number of forcibly displaced people today stands at over 59.5 million – roughly equal to the population of Italy.

The immediate demand for attention and action comes as thousands feel outraged and perhaps helpless as they see a colossal people crisis unfold in various parts of the world. A substantial number also feel threatened by the same. The crisis in Europe may have gotten maximum attention, but similar issues in Southeast Asia or other parts of Africa are no less significant or pain-striking. And hence comes forward the idea of a refugee nation, as Buzi puts it.

That idea has perhaps long existed in fiction. Talk about the eco-refugees in the movies Mad Max or Water World or the idea of a new-age Noah’s Ark built by rich nations with tickets sold to the elite in the movie 2012. Well, for all its purposes, wasn’t the actual idea of Noah’s Ark also to provide refuge in a time of environmental disaster? These examples, irrespective of their existence in fiction, point to two types of insights when it comes to a refugee crisis – temporary and permanent.

While eco-refugees, like the ones climate change is perhaps creating, need permanent solutions today; the idea that a safe, temporary solution should be sought in the time of need is what perhaps guided the creation of Noah’s Ark, either in reality or as a myth. That’s the approach refugee camps take, don’t’ they? They are meant to serve as temporary shelters until the refugees can be granted permanent citizenship elsewhere or until conditions turn favourable for their return to their home country. But these are desired scenarios that seldom arrive, and often at snail’s pace, giving those temporary shelters permanent attributes.

Where these shelters exist, how they are sustained and how they evolve to integrate with society as refugees become citizens are the key questions then. Currently, they exist in recognised states like Jordan, Italy, Greece, Tanzania among many others. They are supported by the national governments, international organisations like the United Nations and non-governmental bodies and charities. The maximum stress, however, is often on the national government and these resources often don’t match the demand.

A refugee society-state

What this idea of a refugee nation does is that it answers these questions in different ways while also throwing up possible scenarios. The assumption is, those shelters – now permanent in nature – must exist on a separate territory that can be used to form a new state.

Further, this territory and the people should be sustained with the help of donations from the rich – states, people or companies, while the refugees take up tasks most attuned to their skills, for refugees are also people with skills and education, and some are doctors and engineers too. We tend to club them homogenously and often also mistakenly just call them migrants. So they can work there, earn a living and form a part of a refugee society that evolves into this accommodating, cosmopolitan society that takes in refugees with ease, as and when they arrive in the future (ideally that number will organically go down). Buzi is aiming for a permanent, sustainable and universal solution with this idea. So, this would be home then. Essentially, adding to the meaning of the word refugee – for now Refugia (a term coined by Professor Robin Cohen of the International Migration Institute) is a permanent home for the refugees. So either, the nature of the way we use the word changes or its meaning becomes larger.

People from the Rohingya community collect water to drink at a refugee camp in Myanmar. While the crisis in Europe has gotten maximum attention, the people's crisis is unfortunately much more universal than it appears. Photo credit: AP 

But what else changes?

A change in the usage of the word will more importantly correspondingly change the way we respond to it. While, the idea of a refugee nation is stimulating, it must grow into much more than a survivor’s camp. Can it have a permanent structure by itself? Should it?

In fact, what is primitively essential to acknowledge is that, in a lucid form, a nation as such already exists; for a nation is a large body of people with a shared history or culture, inhabiting a particular territory. Currently that territory is fluidic and is dispersed across states around the world. To consolidate that territory into one mass, and to bring those people to that mass is a legitimate response to mitigate the crisis, but it seems unlikely to be a long-term solution to it. There’s need for innovation in responses to this bludgeoning refugee crisis, and as the ‘Airbnb for refugees’ initiative shows, that innovation is happening. It is imperative to recognise that these innovations help deal with the crisis, not solve it at the source. And the problems at that source arise from hardships entrenched in socio, political and economic grounds, among others.

But for immediate responses, I vote for the creation of a refugee station, rather than a refugee nation. Without pre-conditions, it should be welcoming and serve as a platform to provide urgent security of all kinds, support to re-integrate with society and confidence to find home in the long-term. A station that is born under the aegis of the United Nations rather than as charity of a private kind, as Professor Cohen suggests. While the funds can come from donations, the efficacy in its functioning can only be derived from a principled approach embedded in perhaps a partnership of the public and the private. They’ll need to be a setup of governance quite akin to the one of federalism for self-governance to flourish or else this may end up being just another refugee camp. Freedom is what people are after – political, social and economic – let’s not forget that.

Where will this territory be and how will it be procured? These are questions that need much discussion, to ensure ease of accessibility and sustainability as well. Also, this Refugia must not just serve as the mirage of an oasis that attracts refugees, but be a station to help and assist the ones in need, irrespective of existing state or creed. Validation would be another major process again, hurting the pace of settlement. This is an area that needs urgent innovation and rethinking.

Perhaps the United Nations could finally nail the search and finally become a wholesome, combined nation in itself. And would that not be tangible proof of a post-national world? It’ll have to be – post-national and transnational. And when it comes to opening the doors of this station, it must be important to acknowledge the meaning and difference in the words migrants and refugees and to recognise that both these words, at the end of the day, comprise people.

The perils of proposal

As Alexander Betts points out, the premise of the idea of a refugee nation is exclusion, not inclusion. What a blow could that be to the notion of refugee integration and what signal would it send to the perpetrators? One that they can create havoc, force people out and be rest-assured they’ll find their way to this safe, welcoming place? The creation of such a nation/station will have to go hand-in-hand with that of fighting the causes at their roots, aggressively. For this station will also serve as the best incubation pad to come up methods to tackle the crisis at home.

There are more threats. Would the shared experiences of the refugees create harmony and brotherhood, or could the disparate cultural and religious understandings lead to conflicts that threaten the existence of this land of peace? Also, would it not create another class across the world? A class of people that donates and thinks of itself as saviours of this oppressed refugee class. But this one may not be that big a problem in the future, for such corrupt attitudes to charity already exist, promoting what Slavoj Zizek calls cultural capitalism.

Would you help form it?

Despite the perils, if an agency were to ensure the sustainability of such a station to mitigate this people’s crisis, I would. Would you, as long as you are assured of the transparency and accountability of the project? Accountability towards refugees, and you, and states too. For those national governments where these people are coming from shall continue to have stake in this crisis. But would this idea also not raise doubts about the promotion of this charity industry? Those questions are as valid as the search for responses to the crisis, and until we find them, such innovations must not only be debated but also implemented methodically with caution, perhaps with institutional help.

For whatever the nature of world politics, innovation and constructivism are what shall see us through. How we define and employ them may ultimately seal the deal. For, it’s not possible to imagine my thought processes if I were a refugee (it may also be a cruel test), but if I were to attempt to respond to the idea of this refugee station, the answer would be a definite, “Yes, take me there”. But then, I would still seek my home, and there are reasonable doubts if Refugia will be able to provide one in the long-term.

Not just mirroring development banks

While Western values may seem to have been spreading their tentacles everywhere over the last century, the Asian values syndrome that roped in the idea of cultural determinism came up in the 1990s as a retort to the West from the leaders of Malaysia and Singapore, and the idea found widespread acceptance in China and other Asian countries. It almost illustrates Newton’s Third Law of Motion – every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

The coinage of the phases was praised by many and denounced by some. Some called it the perfect answer to Western values, others said it may also be an attempt to unify the region that was home to varying value systems under different religions. The idea this theory pushed for is that from human rights and tolerance to land laws and development, the definition and applicability of these terms changes with the lens you use to look at them under. While in the West, human rights were/are made to appear paramount, under the Asian values lens their understanding was said to be different to counter allegations about human rights violations, working conditions and tolerance. The debate around these variations in perspectives and universality of values has been highly informing over the years.

Founding members of the AIIB. Two institutions that directly take on the World Bank and IMF are taking final shape this year. This may change world politics profoundly. Competition in development funding and economics was long due too. Photo courtesy: AIIB 

But what’s new?

All this has been said about a million times before, if not more. What’s new? Well, most significantly it’s the setting-up of the New Development Bank (NDB) or the BRICS bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). While these are perhaps the first institutional challenges to the Bretton Woods system that ushered in the age of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), what’ll be interesting is to see how they will function. While both banks appear to have multilateral approaches, they are being led by China. The NDB is headquartered in Shanghai and AIIB in Beijing. Will the New Development Bank really embrace a Global South-enriched approach that’s true to its founding team then or will the framework and working borrow heavily from the IMF? Will it be true to it’s name – will it work in a new way? Will AIIB spread an Asian value system then, like the IMF and the World Bank pushed for liberal democracies (or Western values) through institutional or structural changes?

Examining the agreements of the banks

BRICS Bank or the New Development Bank

Article 21 of the agreement that was signed on July 15, 2014, in Fortaleza, Brazil, underlines the operational principles of the bank. There’s a marked shift in the way it talks about the power of the bank and there's an absence of any language that would push the member states to make structural changes. This is what the article says:

Article 21 (ii): The Bank shall not finance any undertaking in the territory of a member if that member objects to such financing.

Article 21 (iii):  In preparing any country program or strategy and financing a project… the Bank will not deem to have intended to make any judgment as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

Article 21 (v) The Bank shall place no restriction upon the procurement of goods and services from any country member from the proceeds of any loan, investment or other financing undertaken in the ordinary or special operations of the Banks.

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Article 13 of the AIIB agreement that was singed in Singapore on June 29, 2015, is what deals with the operational principles of the organisation. Representatives from over 50 states – from the UK and Italy to Australia and New Zealand – along with other states from the developing world signed it.

Article 13(3) of the AIIB agreement uses the exact same words of article 21(ii) of the NDB agreement. It says, “The Bank shall not finance any undertaking in the territory of a member if that member objects to such financing.”

Article 13(8) also echoes Article 21(v) of the NDB agreement. “The Bank shall place no restriction upon the procurement of goods and services from any country from the proceeds of any financing undertaken in the ordinary or special operations of the Bank.”

Another significant change in the aim and vocabulary of the agreement is the recognition of the importance of regional cooperation to sustain growth, that is mentioned under Article 1(1) of the agreement.

What did the IMF say then?

The IMF agreement was adopted at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in the US, on July 22, 1944. It’s been amended a few times since. As per section 1 of Article IV of the agreement of the IMF, member countries are obligated to: 

(i) endeavour to direct its economic and financial policies toward the objective of fostering orderly economic growth with reasonable price stability, with due regard to its circumstances;

(ii) seek to promote stability by fostering orderly underlying economic and financial conditions and a monetary system that does not tend to produce erratic disruptions;

(iii) avoid manipulating exchange rates or the international monetary system in order to prevent effective balance of payments adjustment

While the wording of the agreement suggests it is an advisory, what it effectively does is to force nations to alter their monetary and fiscal policies and annual budgets so as not to promote high debt – a relative figure decided by the IMF. This essentially leads to budget cuts and structural changes in terms of a reallocation of resources and a social services overhaul among others, in order to maintain coherence with the liberal democratic or neoliberal model promoted by founders of the IMF and the World Bank.

Obligation: 75 vs 23+ 27

Another criterion, though abstract, is to judge these agreements on basis of the occurrences of the word 'obligation' in them. While the word is often used when talking about authorised and subscribed capital of the members states and the immunities of the employees of the bank, it was also used in the IMF agreement to set aside the general obligations of members in terms of policy changes needed for loans. What also needs to be kept in mind is that, while the IMF agreement was formed in 1940s, the other two mentioned agreements are products of evolving world politics in the 21^st century. But then again, Google Ngram shows us that the popularity of the word has seen only a marginal decline over the last few decades. So, even with such reservations, it is still useful to count the number of times the word was used in the three agreements.

So, essentially, while the World Bank and the IMF funded a lot of development projects, helping economies grow, they also helped spread neoliberal values. The aim of this blog is not to criticise and evaluate the good and the bad these institutions did or do, but to point towards the change the AIIB and NDB appear to promise.

However, it is still imperative to note that, development banks, irrespective to their operational principles that may or may not demand structural changes from the countries accepting loans, still do tend to influence the political worldview of the recipient state. While the world has been edging towards a time when internal mechanisms of developing countries may be beyond intrusion for major world powers and developments banks led by them – something that the NDB and the AIIB agreements illustrate – the evaluation of how these changes affect the transfer of political knowledge across borders can only be undertaken over the next few years. The growing influence of transnational companies is another matter though. 

A core principle of Chinese foreign policy is non-intervention in another state’s internal affairs, and with the Asian giant leading two development banks that are the first to legitimately counter the established Bretton Woods institutions, these institutions hold the power to change the broader narrative around developmental funding and South-South and regional co-operation, in a constructive way.

KV Kamath (L), president of the New Development Bank, with other officials at the official launch of the bank in Shanghai on July 21, 2015. Photo courtesy: NDB BRICS 

The Dollar-dollar bills

Another aspect these agreements highlight is the acceptability for the US dollar across regions, irrespective of the US not being a member of any of the two newly formed institutions. It had in fact opposed the establishment of AIIB. Even though Article 19 of the AIIB agreement says that there must be no restriction on currencies being used, for all matters, the primary currency being used is the US dollar. While choosing another currency would have clearly caused problems across the numerous countries that have become founding members of the AIIB and NDB, the fact that there was no negotiation also to push for an alternative highlights the long-term vision of the founding members and the ability to prioritise development and co-operation over immediate currency wars.

The establishment of these development banks may literally be a watershed moment in world politics, especially if they are able to promote South-South and regional co-operation while aiding development across developing nations and emerging markets. It is clearly more than just mirroring the established development banks in an Asian or South-South setting.

It could also the precedent global institutions have been looking for to break away from West-dominated structures and working methods, for good or for worse. Think about the commotion around the International Criminal Court and it’s denunciation by many African states. Some may see this as the beginning of chaos and disorder with movement away from established rules, while others, like this blogger, view this as adding to the multi-polar understanding of the world that needs a new constructive rule book to play a new game, that’s not zero-sum. How do you see it? Could this be that special moment in International Relations evolution that the world may have needed?

What's the most (ab)used word in foreign policy?

During the third week of May, while India and China were working on building their “strategic trust”, Mongolia and India issued a joint statement about their “strategic partnership”, and as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi concluded his tri-nation tour in South Korea, the countries agreed on upgrading their relationship status to “special strategic partnership”. 

Modi became the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Mongolia. Before visiting the land of Genghis Khan, he was seen inspecting the terracotta warriors in China. A day later, he was in South Korea. About a month before, he flew over the Atlantic to visit Canada, stopping by France and Germany. He was then in Russia after a visit to some Central Asian states. There were many visits before, and many more will follow.

Modi, even before the end of his first year in office, had visited 18 countries, engaging and re-engaging with the world and its leaders – he may even have ended up topping a global list of politicians with most selfies. However, the chorus on all these foreign trips has a common word that’s sung, repeatedly, and sometimes out of tune. Strategic. And while he may have, as many claim, revitalised Indian ties with world, that s-word has remained.

From strategic focus to strategic convergences and strategic dimensions to strategic perspectives, the s-word had over 500 mentions in a document outlining India’s foreign relations for the year 2006. By 2012, the Indian government had found more words as suffixes, including strategic co-operative dialogue and strategic priority. And as Modi and his government ride the wave, the word refused to give way as Modi’s speech on the India-Germany strategic partnership showed.

Talk about stating the obvious. Nobody doubts the emphasis on strategy when it comes to diplomacy, but haven’t we got enough of the word? Or have all government decisions, before we stumbled upon the s-word, not been strategic?

Well, whatever the answer to that question is, strategic is a part of almost all global bilateral, trilateral or even multilateral arrangements. From the US-Poland strategic dialogue to the China-Chile strategic partnership. So, is it not the most abused word in foreign policy or can we wait for the coronation?

The Oxford English Dictionary describes strategic as a word relating to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests. Some of its synonyms are calculated and deliberate. So then again, did diplomacy that pre-dated the love affair with the s-word not take a long-term view or do we just don’t want to keep it simple enough?

Reinforcing realism?

The context the word is always used in also reinforces a global worldview. It tends to tilt towards realism – a theory that broadly says that, in terms of international relations, the world is anarchic and states or countries will take selfish approaches for survival. Certainly, diplomacy involves hard politics, but the s-word leaves little space for constructive approaches by ensuring that the state’s interests are defined by default – ‘strategically’. While agreements may be mutually beneficial, they appear to be made in a realist world. And realism, arguably, tends to pollute the debate around climate change while constructivism struggles to liberate it. Perhaps, we should sometime discuss the vocabulary of a realist and a liberal among others.

If you search for images for the word 'strategic' on Google, chess boards and the game is what shows up the most. And chess is a zero-sum game. There can be draws, but it's never win-win. Doesn't that backfire on a constructive approach then, reinforcing realism?

If we consider the history of the word, strategic appears to be a relatively new find. At the cost of being termed an armchair historian, it’s still apt to follow the graph on the popularity or usage of the word as plotted by Google Ngram. Most web information needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, but even with that this curve is rather steep – and for all you know government statements and media reports that followed contributed heavily to that climb. Plot that graph against big global events and you find that the word appears to have really taken off around the time of World War II. A post-war realist attitude to diplomacy, especially in a world that saw two poles of power – the US and the Soviet Union – seems to have given it a boost. And then perhaps, it trickled in elsewhere too; jargon, it appears, crosses borders quite fast, like ideas that it can further cement. 

What the excessive usage of the word does – apart from reducing its meaning to zilch – is that it also keeps international relations from reaching the masses. Yes, foreign policy, more or less, continues to be largely informed by an elitist argument, but what ensures that it fails to be discussed about by many who could contribute to the debate, is the usage of words like strategic that add complexity to statements, but little meaning. Strategic to foreign policy may be what, by many standards, development is to some Indian politicians. Not asking for a ban on the words, but why not keep it a little simpler, silly?