Ethiopia is an East African country, which like many of it neighbours, has been caught in a deadly web of armed conflict and civil unrest for many years. Nevertheless, the Ethiopians are a proud people like many of their East African neighbours. They are proud to have been the only ancient African country never completely ruled by foreigners. They are proud to be Ethiopian-the civilisation that they refer to as the cradle of civilisation. Thus for an Ethiopian to leave her own country and go into exile is not an easy decision. It is usually a choice only taken when the alternative is a threat to existence itself. The throngs of Ethiopians that have been murdered or forced into inhumane conditions that threaten life by the armed conflict and civil unrest attest to the fact that even death is sometimes accepted over exile.
The choice between an inhumane life or death at home and life abroad is one that no human being should be forced to make. But realising that there will be people-like many Ethiopians--who are forced to make this choice, the nations of the world have created several legal regimes to protect these people. For Ethiopians two of these regimes are important.
The first regime is that created under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) and centred upon the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. It provides for the protection of individuals fleeing persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. This protection is to be effected by the country to which the refugee flees.
The second regime is that created under the auspices of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Although it provides similar protections, it applies to a wider group of individuals because it also protects individuals fleeing from "events seriously disturbing public order." This second convention is, by its very terms, the "effective regional complement" to the 1951 Convention.
Both the UN and the OAU refugee conventions are binding on states parties and United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees is mandated to contribute to providing protection under both conventions. More particularly, both conventions apply to Ethiopian refugees who have fled to Sudan.
In 1989 the number of Ethiopians who had fled their country because of war and persecution had risen to almost one million. However, even as war and persecution continued according to the human rights reports of international bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, many of these had returned by 1998.
Those who stayed abroad usually did so because they had achieved a better standard of living or because they still feared return. Those who remained in Sudan, where almost exclusively in the latter category because the standard of living in Sudan for Ethiopian refugees was below what they could have achieved at home all things being equal. In Sudan, they are not able to find work because security officials-contrary to the law-constantly ensure employers do not hire refugees; they were often grouped with Southern Sudanese minorities and discriminated against because they are a majority of Christians and not Muslims; and they are often treated as second class human beings by many of the national and international bodies who are suppose to assist them.
In short, for an Ethiopian refugee to survive in Sudan is not easy. They must find work. Since legal employment is restricted they are forced to find casual work as guards and household help, often at wages that are only a fraction of the already meager wage that Sudanese nationals earn. As a consequence many Ethiopian refugees seek to migrate to third countries. However, this is usually impossible as third countries only accept applications through UNHCR and, if the complaints of several dozen of the refugees are to be believed, UNHCR will usually only forward applications for which a 'special fee' has been paid.
While UNHCR has consistently denied this type of corruption within its ranks, even these denials have sometimes raised suspicions. For example, a former county representative of UNHCR Sudan once tried to explain away the allegations by relating a story in which he had exercised blatant favouritism.
UNHCR's lack of concern for the human rights of Ethiopian refugees is not new. During 1975 and 1976, when millions of Ethiopians flooded the Sudanese border fleeing war, political oppression and famine, UNHCR denied that they were deserving of refugee status. It was only after an Oxfam report exposed the plight of these de facto refugees that UNHCR finally felt compelled to change its argument to the claim that it is a non-operational organisation--another excuse why it should not assist Ethiopian refugees. With this background, it should not be surprising that UNHCR has mounted repeated objections to Sudanese and international lawyers who sought to ensure protection for the human rights of Ethiopian refugees in Sudan.
A major part of UNHCR's strategy to deny these refugee full protection has been its failure to allow refugees to be legally represented by lawyers who have been willing to volunteer their time. In addition, UNHCR has refused to provide refugees with copies of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its Protocol or to provide refugees or their lawyers with copies of papers from the refugee's own files. Many of these papers were the only existing copies or originals of document vital to refugees claims for protection. Futhermore, many refugees had intially surrendered these documents to UNHCR after being told that they must supply UNHCR with these papers. Together, these actiosn by UNHCR have all created an appearance of unfair treatment of Ethiopian refugees.
In 1999 the situation worsened. First, UNHCR announced that it was invoking the cessation clause of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Accordingly, all the Ethiopian refuges in Sudan would no longer be considered refugees. This action was taken in concert with the government of Sudan and in the mist of the pressure that was being put on UNHCR to do more to secure the rights of these refugees by making representations to the government of Sudan. Instead of increasing pressure on the government of Sudan to respect the human rights of the estimated thirty to forty thousand Ethiopian refugees who remained in the country, UNHCR merely decided to jettison these individuals from its responsibility.
In September 1999, this was announced by UNHCR Sudan and a circular was posted in the name of UNHCR and the government of Sudan that stated that all Ethiopian refugees who did not leave Sudan by 1 March 2000 would be subject to forced repatriation to Ethiopia. As both UNHCR and the government of Sudan continue to ignore the urging of Sudanese and international human rights defenders to ensure that no Ethiopian refugee is deported without a full and fair hearing at which they may be legally represented, thousands of Ethiopians face the imminent danger of being forced back to the country in which they fear lose of life and basic liberties.
In response to the invocation of the cessation clause an urgent request was made to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights to contact the government of Sudan with the view to ensuring that forced repatriations that may lead to the violation of Ethiopians human rights do not take place. In addition, government missions in New York and Geneva were asked to contact UNHCR to get more information on this matter and to try to understand how UNHCR could act in such direct contradiction of its mandate to protect refugees.
In May 2000, Dr. Doebbler, a representative of almost 300 Ethiopian refugees in Sudan visited Geneva and tried to raise this question with UNHCR. In inital contacts, several high ranking UNHCR officials who were not familar with UNHCR's policy as concerns Ethiopian refugees in Sudan, agreed that it was not feasible or legally permitted under the Convention Concerning the Problems of Refugess in Africa to return Ethiopians to their country while it faced both famine and war. These officials agreed to arrange appropriate meetings for Dr. Doebbler to discuss this policy with the appropriate person in UNHCR. After consulting their colleagues, however, the UNHCR officials reported that no meetings were possible as all the individuals responsible were either out of Geneva or refused to meet with anyone about this subject.
As of June 2000, a report is being perpared on this matter for the EXCOM meeting that will take place in late 2000. The report calls on UNHCR to take action to protect the rights of Ethiopian refugees and to ensure their protection. The report also calls upon EXCOM member states to hold the relevant UNHCR officials responsible for their already damaging failure to act and UNHCR's invocation of the cessation clause based on apparently wrong advice.
Realizing that the members of EXCOM may in fact be sympathetic to UNHCR's inaction as they strongly support the containment of refugees in their country of origin, action is also being take in Sudan and with selected governments and internaional bodies that are sympathetic to upholding the rule of law and less influenced by political expediency.
Refugees in Sudan
To concentrate on the current plight of Ethiopian refugees in Sudan is not to ignore the many other refugees in the country that lack appropriate respect for their human rights.
Perhaps the largest number of refugees without any protection by UNHR or otherwise are those in southern Sudan--Congolese, Ugandans, Chadians, Central Africans, and others who have fled even worse conditions in their own country into the mist of the civil war in southern Sudan. These refugees often fall outside the remit of UNHCR because this programme of the UN claims that it cannot get access to refugees in parts of southern Sudan--a claim which often is often supported by reports of the government of Sudan or the SPLA denying access to areas of southern Sudan.
There are also others like the three hundred Congolese families around Khartoum State, who in May 1999 were displaced from their homes and are now living in makeshift homes having lost most of the little property they had. Neither UNHCR nor the government of Sudan nor the international community has seemed very concerned about these people.
I represent a very small number of the refugees in Sudan who face a daily battle to have even a minimum of their human rights repected, but there are many more who need much more assistance.
The full text of the public announcement posted on the UNHCR compound gate in Khartoum in September 1999:
INFORMATION ANNOUNCEMENT TO ETHIOPIAN REFUGES IN THE SUDAN
The Government,(sic) of the Sudan represented by the Commissioner for Refugees (COR) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) would like to inform all the Ethiopian Refugees in the Sudan of the following:
Sudan has a longstanding and established tradition of opening its boundaries to whoever feels persecuted and victimised by war. In the passage of years thousands and thousands of people have found security and refuge in this country. The refugees are normally expected to return to their country of origin when the conditions permit.
Concerning the thousands of Ethiopian Refugees, after the fall of the Mengisto regime, the atmosphere was conducive for voluntary repatriation of all Ethiopian Refugees. In the Sudan, a triparte agreement was signed between the Sudan Government, UNHCR and the Ethiopian Government in February 1993 stipulating that the thousands of Ethiopian refugees should be assisted to return to their country. This extended from February 1993 for six years until the end of June [the word July is crossed out] 1998. During this period, all Ethiopian Refugees all over the world weer given the chance to repatriate, but inspite of this, considerable number decided to remain in the host countries as refugees including Sudan.
International and regional conventions on refugees do not entertain unlimited and continuous refugees status without end especially where there are no convincing reasons for that.
Ever since the collapse of Mengisto's regime in 1991, the causes which led the ethiopians to take refugee(sic) have become non existent after that.
For thee reasons and based on this fact, UNHCR declared a "cessation clause" [hand written above this are the words "ceased circumstances"] in September 1999 to be applied to all Ethiopian refugees all over the world including Sudan.
All Ethiopian Refugees outside Ethiopia after 1 March 2000 will lose their legal refugee status. This means all th legal rights granted by international, regional and local regulations which guarantee refugee status or condition as stipulated in the 1951 Geneva convention generally governing the status and treatment of a refugee etc...., the legal status in respect of resolving individual cases and the right to appear before the courts etc..., the right to acquire employmet and the guarantees, the issue of comprehensive guidance and supply of shelter, health and treatment, education, food, social security, etc.... and in conslusion, the various administrative assistance, and permits like travel permits, emplyment permits, driving licenses, identity cards, residence and travel documents for travelling abroad and commercial licenses etc...; all will cease to exist forthwith.
-In light of this new situation, any Ethiopian refugee who decided to remain in the Sudan after 1 March 2000 will bear fuull responsibility of the consequences which may follow as the result of the forfeiture of his entitlements which he used to enjoy as a refugee before 1 March 2000.
-As a result of these new developments and considering this new condition, the Sudan Government represented by COR and UNHCR is ready to assist all those refugees in the Sudan who are interested to return to their country before the application of the cessation clause on 1 March 2000. Those interested in repatriation should register and the registration exercise will be announced through the mass media and publications to be pinned in various places. All issues cocerning commitments or harvesting or afterservice beenfits etc. should be finalised beofe 1 March 2000.
-To avoid unnecessary problems, which will occur as a result of your illegal stay in the Sudan after 1 March 2000, we request your to seriously consider the circumstances which will assist you in taking a reasonable decision to guarantee your safety and that of the future of your family.
What YOU can do to help these people!
1. Contact your local UNHCR office and the Embassy of the Government of Sudan and request them to ensure that no person will be repatriated without the chance to have their case heard by an impartial tribunal and with representation of their choosing. You can also write to: Mr. S. Ogata, The High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, 94 rue de Montbrillant, 1202 Geneva SWITZERLAND and Dr. A. Elmufti, Rapporteur to the Advisory Council on Human Rights, P.O. Box 302, Khartoum, Sudan.
2. You can write the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights to request the above assurances from the government of Sudan at Attention Mr. J. Essombe-Edimo, Legal Advisor, African Commission of Human and Peoples' Rights, Kairaba Avenue, P.O. Box 673, Banjul, The Gambia or telephone: +220-3929621/4 or fax: +220-390764. A petition has been filed with this body on behalf of the Ethiopian refugees in Sudan who face forced repatriation. Dr. Curtis Doebbler is the lawyer for the refugees, please copy all correspondence to or from the Commission to him at human_rights_lawyer@writeme.com.
3. Volunteer your time to help work to protect these people by contacting Dr. Curtis Doebbler at human_rights_lawyer@writeme.com or telephone +1-202-248-1411. I need people to send letters (i.e. donate postage), make telephone calls to Ethiopia, Switzerland and Sudan (from your telephone, i.e. donate telephone costs), print materials (i.e. donate printing services), organize information campaigns, and to translate documents from Arabic and Amharic and Oromoo to English. If this problem interests you please contact me.
4. Finally, anyone with access to a cheap or free airline ticket to Khartoum, Banjul, Addis Ababa or Geneva, who could donate this ticket to me or provide it at low cost would enable me to raise this issue more forcefully with the Khartoum government, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights and with UNHCR.
