EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- The Sick Madness of Tom Friedman's Culture
Popular content
Today's Top News
Global Warming to Multiply World's Refugee Burden
BEIRUT - If rising sea levels force the people of the Maldive Islands to seek new homes, who will look after them in a world already turning warier of refugees?
The daunting prospect of mass population movements set off by climate change and environmental disasters poses an imminent new challenge that no one has yet figured out how to meet.
People displaced by global warming -- the Christian Aid agency has predicted there will be one billion by 2050 -- could dwarf the nearly 10 million refugees and almost 25 million internally displaced people already fleeing wars and oppression.
"All around the world, predictable patterns are going to result in very long-term and very immediate changes in the ability of people to earn their livelihoods," said Michele Klein Solomon of the International Organisation of Migration (IOM).
"It's pretty overwhelming to see what we might be facing in the next 50 years," she said. "And it's starting now."
People forced to move by climate change, salination, rising sea levels, deforestation or desertification do not fit the classic definition of refugees -- those who leave their homeland to escape persecution or conflict and who need protection.
But the world's welcome even for these people is wearing thin, just as United Nations figures show that an exodus from Iraq has reversed a five-year decline in overall refugee numbers.
Governments and aid agencies are straining to cope with the 10 million whose plight risks being obscured by debates over a far larger tide of economic migrants -- and perhaps future waves of fugitives from environmental mayhem.
HARSHER CLIMATE
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which marks World Refugee Day on Wednesday, says the global political climate for refugees has already become harsher.
"They used to be welcomed as people fleeing persecution, but this has been changing -- certainly since 9/11, but even before then," said William Spindler, a UNHCR spokesman in Geneva.
"Growing xenophobia, intolerance, political manipulation by populist politicians who mix up the issues -- the whole debate on asylum and migration has been confused," he said.
People fleeing threats at home and those seeking a better life could be in the same group washing up on a Spanish beach, but Spindler said it is vital to keep the distinction between them to provide effective protection to those who need it.
Whatever their motives, migrants deserve to be treated with dignity and as human beings, he added. "We have seen people in the Mediterranean in boats or hanging onto fishing nets for days while states discuss who should rescue them."
Before sectarian violence exploded in Iraq last year, global refugee numbers had been shrinking. The Taliban's overthrow in Afghanistan, along with peace deals in trouble-spots like Congo, Liberia, Angola and southern Sudan, had allowed millions to return home -- although 2.1 million Afghans have yet to do so.
"I'm not suggesting that life is all beautiful in those countries, but there have been advances," said Joel Charny, vice-president of Washington-based Refugees International.
"The big exception is Iraq, the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world," he said. "Everyone's fleeing. It's really broad-based insecurity displacing people in Iraq and outside."
The UNHCR says 2.2 million Iraqis have fled abroad and over two million have left their homes inside the country, where they are much harder to track or assist than those overseas.
INTERNALLY DISPLACED
Around the world, nearly 25 million people are internally displaced -- fleeing for the same reasons as refugees, but lacking international recognition or protection.
While Iraq and Darfur often hit the headlines, aid officials worry about the "forgotten crises" that uproot people within national borders, often far from television cameras.
"Hardly anyone is concerned about the Central African Republic," said Sarah Hughes, UK director of the International Rescue Committee (IRC). "And in Chad for instance, refugees from Darfur get three times more provision than Chadian displaced."
Recognizing the scale of internal population upheavals, the UNHCR last year took under its wing some 13 million displaced people, many of whom had to be reached in conflict zones.
"In Darfur, the problem is not funding but security and access to the people we are trying to help," said Spindler.
The bloodshed in Iraq has made it a virtual no-go zone for international humanitarian staff, but aid workers also grapple with violent environments anywhere from Afghanistan to Colombia.
"The biggest challenge is security, the shrinking of humanitarian space," said the IRC's Hughes.
HOSTILITY
Refugees may also feel the world has less room for them as they try to cross borders into countries where hostility to migrants of all sorts has grown, compared with the Cold War era when fugitives from communism won sympathy and asylum.
"The reaction now is skepticism," said Charny. "It's: 'Who is this scam artist trying to get a job in our country?'"
North Koreans fleeing to China or Zimbabweans crossing illegally into South Africa are widely treated as economic migrants though many may also be escaping persecution, he said.
"We have to maintain a refugee protection regime that doesn't just assume everyone is an illegal economic migrant," Charny added. "That tendency exists in the industrialized countries and in the wealthier countries of the global south."
With those escaping environmental upsets likely to swell flows of migrants and refugees, any quest for legal definitions tying governments to new obligations might prove tricky.
"That's not to say that practical arrangements can't be found to deal with this," said the IOM's Klein.
The focus should be on contingency plans for nightmare scenarios that could prove all too real, Charny agreed.
"How will we approach displacement when, say, the Maldives go under?" he asked. "We have to plan for it, but in a way that doesn't lead us all to start jumping out of windows."
© Reuters 2007.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

9 Comments so far
Show AllThis will be one of the major crises of the 21 century but really its a structural crisis. Throughout history people have always been migratory. The problem occurs because of the archaic structure of nation states -- a throwback to feudalism maintained in a smaller world due mostly to market concerns. Nationalism and xenophobia are promoted by the business interests that are in themselves multinational but the wages and proscribed currency values (mostly an outgrowth of 19th century imperialism) from which enourmous profits are extracted are what is most protected by these invisble and adjustable borders that define the present construct.
A new system of regional authority subservient to a world body of states would be a solution though I can't see the US giving up the illusion of being "king of the hill." The future of civilization may require a global cooperative. It's time to talk about it.
Gore/Nader, Green Party, 2008.
I quote someone from a different thread here on CD, "Have one child and adopt another." Until and unless people choose to control their fertility the problem is going to get far worse.
michael,
the article is not describing a population problem, it's describing an environmental crisis. fertility is not the issue here. when the climate of countries become too harsh to sustain life we're all screwed--childbearing and childless. also consider who's doing most of the consumption globally. poor people (especially those in the southern hemisphere) consume less. middle class north americans (even those with no kids) consume a hell of a lot. in terms of impact on the environment, consider who the real culprits are. blaming the world's marginalized for reproducing can become a convenient way to avoid thinking about how all of these things piece together--like the relationship between our affluence, environmental deterioration, and the mass suffering that can be seen in the world.
The UK Green Party have similar policies to those that Nader and Al Gore espouse. Here, the migrant/refugee issue is met at best with disregard and even worse by the popular press and tabloid papers with calluse scape-goating for any social problems. Racism and xenaphobia abound. The very people that climate change is and will affect the most, are the very people who are the least cause of it!
When we respect all children and the work that they and their Mother's and Grandmother's do thus making sure that the true worth and value is put on all of womens unwaged work and remunerated, particularly in the Global South, will the true value of a healthy environment, food grown locally and our carbon foot-print diminished; infact nothing short of a revolution in how we think, act and relate can we hope to ameliorate the man-made climate changing effect.
With my second husband and between us we have five children one biological Grandchild and two adopted Ugandan Grandchildren, all loved and inrinsically valued.
This will be the catylist to a party realignment if not in 08, then for sure 2012!
Gore/Nader Green Party 08 would be a fabulous thing indeed!
Has anyone asked Ralph Nader if he would be willing to partner with Al Gore? Or even asked Gore if he would run as a Green?
ayasha June 18th, 2007 8:21 pm
There would be no man-made environmental crisis if it were not for the presence of so many humans on this planet.
We already need three earths to support the world's population at anything much better than subsistence. If the world's population were sufficiently small, there would be bolt-holes where distressed peoples could move without coming into conflict with others.
You read far too much into my post. Nowhere was I assigning blame - but we in the west sure as hell could and should do everything in our power to reduce our predation of the environment. However, corporate greed and control of so much of the political agenda has ensured that the rape of the planet has continued unabated. The probability that the consequences will be disastrous grows with each passing day. Either we fix it or nature will do the job for us without regard to all the suffering that will ensue.
The elite has determined that the refuges are subhuman and can be killed or prevented from interfering with their life of power and privilege. They think their ability to hire mercenary killers will not be limited.
They also believe that the vast majority of the population can be subdued, corrupted, or paralyzed with fear. This has never worked. In the end the Romans, English, Fascists, and a thousand other dictators and ruling classes have fallen.