October, 07 2015, 08:45am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Attila Kulcsar, Oxfam Rights in Crisis and Humanitarian Media Officer
Mobile: +447471 142974, attila.kulcsar@oxfaminternational.org, @attilalondon
Joelle Bassoul, Oxfam Media Advisor, Syria ResponseÂ
Mobile: +961-71525218, jbassoul@oxfam.org.uk, @jobassoul
Utterly Inadequate International Response for Syrians Both in and Outside Borders, says New Oxfam Report
Oxfam launches new refugee response program on European mainland
LONDON
The international community is proving utterly inadequate in helping Syrians both inside and outside their country. Oxfam's damning verdict is in a new report today Solidarity with Syrians that analyzes the "fair shares" of rich and powerful countries to provide money, resettlement places for refugees and leadership to end the bloodshed.
The report (pdf) coincides with Oxfam's decision to start a new humanitarian program in Serbia - aimed at around EUR1m - to help some of the thousands fleeing to safety, including many Syrians, who will soon face a Balkans winter with few resources to cope. Oxfam works in the top nine countries of origin for refugees around the world as well as countries like Lebanon and Jordan which border Syria.
Solidarity with Syrians
Oxfam says the international community's efforts to stop the violence and solve the crisis look cursory and insincere, especially with the war now intensifying. In addition, aid flows are woefully inadequate for Syrians to live in dignity and safety, and many countries are simply paying lip-service to their commitments to give safe haven for those who have managed to flee. Only 17,000 Syrians have been so far resettled in a third country due to lack of political will to honor the pledges already made.
Some countries are performing better than others but it is hard to find champions beyond Syria's near neighbors and the laudable exceptions of Germany and Norway. The report shows that while some donor countries might perform relatively well in some areas, many are failing badly across the board.
"Refugees from Syria and other countries have the right to be free from violence, to aid for basic needs and dignity, and to a welcome of safe haven," said Oxfam Executive Director Winnie Byanyima. "They are being short-changed on all three fronts. There will be no end to the suffering of people from Syria until action is taken on these issues."
- The international community is not preventing the escalating violence or doing enough to ensure civilians are protected in Syria. And only a handful of countries can say they are doing their fair share in providing aid and resettling refugees: Russia (aid 1%, resettlement none) and France (aid 22%, resettlement 5%) have registered poor results on both counts.
- The United Kingdom, the United States, and Kuwait, while giving considerable funds (the percentage of their fair share in aid is 229%, 72% and 538% respectively) have been less than generous in their offers to welcome the most vulnerable refugees (the percentage of their fair share is just 26%, and 8% while Kuwait has not resettled refugees. Germany and Norway lead the way, giving generously in terms of aid (percentage of their fair share is 75% and 186% respectively), and resettlement (percentage of their fair share is 112% and 293% respectively).
- By comparison, Jordan, a host country, is estimated to have spent $870m a year in relation to the Syria refugee crisis - which represent 5,622% of its fair share.
As the barrel bombs, massacres, air strikes and mortars continue inside Syria, aid is drying up and living conditions in neighboring countries are toughening. The Syrian displacement crisis is spreading and deepening. Oxfam says that unless addressed, these failures - along with a continuation of the bloodshed and fear - will intensify the Syrian refugee crisis and entrench it for a generation.
Andy Baker, who heads Oxfam's Syria crisis response, said: "The aid response is faltering due to lack of funds - or more accurately, the lack of political will to loosen up funds. Rich countries have ignored repeated alarm bells. The most vulnerable refugees, who make up 10% of the registered Syrians, are in urgent and desperate need of resettlement places"
"The violence in Syria is intensifying, fuelled by a divided international community and the transfer of arms and ammunitions to warring parties. Faced with this grim situation, many Syrians are literally jumping in the water to seek a better future."
Oxfam's new Serbia program
Oxfam will be distributing materials to help those who have reached Serbia to cope with the coming winter. It will focus in Sid, near the border with Croatia, Dimitrovgrad near the border with Bulgaria and in Presevo/Miratovac, near the Macedonia border. Oxfam will provide toilets, showers and water points and is looking to raise EUR1m for this program.
Riccardo Sansone, Oxfam's Humanitarian Coordinator in Serbia, said: "People are arriving here exhausted, hungry and thirsty and often in need of urgent medical attention. They are traumatized and have often been abused by the smugglers and human trafficking networks. Water and sanitation facilities are insufficient along the whole migration routes because Serbia was not expecting such numbers."
Sansone commended efforts made by the Serbian Government to prepare for refugees and said they should be strengthened and supported. Serbia has called for international assistance. Refugees already face the prospect of a bitterly cold winter. "Families with small children are sleeping in the open air in parks, bus and train stations and in the bush at crossing points. They are highly exposed to the risk of robbery, sexual violence and other abuses," he said.
Additional notes
- This press release is available in Arabic
- The full fair share analysis for funding and resettlement pledges received to date is available here. Download previous fair shares for 2014 and 2015.
- Oxfam's report looks at two key indicators to help guide the level of commitment that each wealthy country should make in order to fairly alleviate the suffering of those affected by the Syria crisis:
- The level of funding each country makes available for the humanitarian response, relative to the size of their economy (based on gross national income);The number of Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries that each state has pledged to provide sanctuary through offers of resettlement or other forms of humanitarian protection, again based on the size of the pledging state's economy. This does not include the numbers of people who have claimed and been granted asylum, as states have specific international legal obligations related to individuals who arrive on their territory seeking asylum.
- The number of Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries that each state has pledged to provide sanctuary through offers of resettlement or other forms of humanitarian protection, again based on the size of the pledging state's economy. This does not include the numbers of people who have claimed and been granted asylum, as states have specific international legal obligations related to individuals who arrive on their territory seeking asylum.
- Resettlement is an option whereby a third county (i.e. not the one the refugee has fled from, or the country of first asylum or habitual residence) offers refugee status in its territory to an individual. For example, this could mean a refugee from Syria living in Jordan being offered status, and related reception and integration support, in the United States of America.
- Relocation refers to the transfer of asylum-seekers from one European Union (EU) Member State to another. It is an intra-EU process, in which Member States agree to process some of the caseload of States who are receiving a large number of asylum-seekers on their territory.
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
LATEST NEWS
South Korean Court Hears First Asian Youth Climate Case
"Carbon emission reduction keeps getting pushed back as if it is homework that can be done later," said one plaintiff's mother. "But that burden will be what our children have to bear eventually."
Apr 23, 2024
One of South Korea's two highest courts on Tuesday began hearing Asia's first-ever youth-led climate lawsuit, which accuses the country's government of failing to protect citizens from the effects of the worsening, human-caused planetary emergency.
Nineteen members of the advocacy group Youth4ClimateAction filed a constitutional complaint in March 2020 accusing the South Korean government of violating their rights to life, the "pursuit of happiness," a "healthy and pleasant environment," and to "resist against human extinction."
The lawsuit also notes "the inequality between the adult generation who can enjoy the relatively pleasant environment and the youth generation who must face a potential disaster from climate change," as well as the government's obligation to prevent and protect citizens from environmental disasters.
"South Korea's current climate plans are not sufficient to keep the temperature increase within 1.5°C, thus violating the state's obligation to protect fundamental rights," the plaintiffs said in a statement.
South Korea's Constitutional Court began hearing a case that accuses the government of having failed to protect 200 people, including dozens of young environmental activists and children, by not tackling climate change https://t.co/XRIGE23KGMÂ pic.twitter.com/snvqBaGGe9
— Reuters (@Reuters) April 23, 2024
Signatories to the 2015 Paris agreement committed to "holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C."
According to the United Nations Environment Program's (UNEP) most recent Emissions Gap Report, the world must slash greenhouse gas emissions by 28% before 2030 to limit warming to 2°C above preindustrial levels and 42% to halt warming at 1.5°C. UNEP said that based on current policies and practices, the world is on track for 2.9°C of warming by the end of the century.
A summary of the lawsuit notes that South Korea is the fifth-largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, and that the government is constitutionally obligated to protect Koreans from the climate emergency.
Instead, the plaintiffs argue, the Korean Parliament "gave the government total discretion to set the GHG reduction target without providing any specific guidelines." Furthermore, they contend that the government's downgraded reduction targets fall "far short of what is necessary to satisfy the temperature rise threshold acknowledged by the global community."
Lee Donghyun, the mother of one of the plaintiffs, toldReuters: "Carbon emission reduction keeps getting pushed back as if it is homework that can be done later. But that burden will be what our children have to bear eventually."
The South Korean case comes on the heels of a landmark ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which found that Switzerland's government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to heed scientists' warnings to swiftly phase out fossil fuel production.
The ECHR ruled on the same day that climate cases brought by a former French mayor and a group of Portuguese youth were inadmissible.
Courts in Australia, Brazil, and Peru also have human rights-based climate cases on their dockets.
In the United States, a state judge in Montana ruled last year in favor of 16 young residents who argued that fossil fuel extraction violated their constitutional right to "a clean and healthful environment."
Meanwhile, the Biden administration is trying to derail a historic youth-led climate lawsuit against the U.S. government.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Rights Chief Demands International Probe of Mass Graves Near Gaza Hospitals
"Hospitals are entitled to very special protection under international humanitarian law," said Volker Türk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights.
Apr 23, 2024
The United Nations' human rights chief on Tuesday called for an international investigation into mass graves discovered at two Gaza hospitals that Israeli forces recently assailed and destroyed, further imperiling the enclave's barely functioning healthcare system.
Volker Türk, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said in a statement that he was "horrified" by the discovery of mass graves at the Nasser and al-Shifa medical complexes, which the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reduced to ruins.
More than 300 bodies were reportedly discovered in the mass grave near the Nasser facility in Khan Younis, Gaza, and eyewitnesses said Israeli soldiers executed civilians during their two-week-long raid of al-Shifa last month.
Türk demanded an "independent, effective, and transparent" probe into the killings and mass graves, adding that "given the prevailing climate of impunity, this should include international investigators."
"Hospitals are entitled to very special protection under international humanitarian law," he added. "And the intentional killing of civilians, detainees, and others who are hors de combat is a war crime."
"Every 10 minutes a child is killed or wounded. They are protected under the laws of war, and yet they are ones who are disproportionately paying the ultimate price."
The IDF's destructive attacks on Nasser and al-Shifa were part of a broader Israeli assault on Gaza's healthcare system. An analysis released Monday by Save the Children found that the rate of monthly Israeli attacks on healthcare in Gaza since October has exceeded that of any other conflict around the world since 2018.
The group estimated that Israel has launched an average of 73 attacks per month on healthcare in Gaza—and at least 435 attacks total since October.
"After six months of unimaginable horror, the healthcare system in Gaza has been brought to its knees," said Xavier Joubert, Save the Children's country director in the occupied Palestinian territory. "Healthcare workers are risking their lives daily to give Palestinian children a chance at survival. The constant attacks on healthcare are simply unjustifiable and must stop. Palestinian children must have unimpeded access to services, including healthcare and education."
Türk also used his statement Tuesday to condemn Israeli forces' killing of women and children in airstrikes on the southern Gaza city of Rafah in recent days. The human rights official noted that Gaza doctors rescued a baby from the womb of her mother as the latter succumbed to head injuries from an Israeli strike.
"The latest images of a premature child taken from the womb of her dying mother, of the adjacent two houses where 15 children and five women were killed—this is beyond warfare," said Türk. "Every 10 minutes a child is killed or wounded. They are protected under the laws of war, and yet they are ones who are disproportionately paying the ultimate price in this war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shameful': UK Conservatives Push Through Plan to Deport Asylum-Seekers to Rwanda
"The U.K. government could literally pay every refugee a £30,000 annual salary for life, and it would be cheaper," said one critic. "We're burning money just to enjoy the cruelty."
Apr 23, 2024
Legal and human rights experts on Tuesday said the British Conservative Party's decision to push through a bill allowing the government to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda—effectively overriding last year's Supreme Court ruling—represented a "desperate low" from lawmakers eager to exploit migrants ahead of elections expected later this year.
"A lot of this is performative cruelty," Daniel Merriman, a lawyer whose clients have included some asylum-seekers whom the Tories tried to deport after it first introduced its plan in 2022, toldNPR. "The elephant in the room is the upcoming election."
After a prolonged debate, the unelected House of Lords cleared the way to pass the Safety of Rwanda bill early Tuesday morning, after dropping several proposed amendments including one that would have required independent verification that the central African country is a safe place to send migrants.
The House of Commons then passed the bill, and King Charles III is expected to formally approve the legislation in the coming days.
The bill requires courts and immigration officials to "conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country" to send asylum-seekers, even though the Supreme Court ruled in November that people deported to the country would face a significant risk of refoulement, or being sent back to the countries where they originally fled persecution or violence.
The Conservative government signed a treaty with Rwanda last December to strengthen protections for asylum-seekers, including a provision that partially bans Rwanda from sending people back to their home countries.
But the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) called on the U.K. to abandon the plan and instead "take practical measures to address irregular flows of refugees and migrants, based on international cooperation and respect for international human rights law."
"The new legislation marks a further step away from the U.K.'s long tradition of providing refuge to those in need, in breach of the Refugee Convention," said Filippo Grandi, the U.N. high commissioner for refugees. "Protecting refugees requires all countries—not just those neighboring crisis zones—to uphold their obligations. This arrangement seeks to shift responsibility for refugee protection, undermining international cooperation and setting a worrying global precedent."
"The U.K. has a proud history of effective, independent judicial scrutiny," Grandi added. "It can still take the right steps and put in place measures to help address the factors that drive people to leave home, and share responsibility for those in need of protection, with European and other international partners."
Dorothy Guerrero, head of policy and advocacy at Global Justice Now, noted that "disastrous foreign and economic policies of successive governments have contributed to the need for people to seek refuge."
"These same people's lives are continually used as a political football, after years of being scapegoats for bad government decisions," said Guerrero. "Statements from politicians are now even more blatantly devoid of any pretense of care for human rights. We will not stop pushing for a change of course, with safe routes to seek asylum in the U.K. so that people no longer have to risk their lives in the Channel."
"The passing of the Rwanda Bill is a shameful day for the U.K.," she added.
Hours after the legislation was passed, French officials announced that at least five people, including a seven-year-old child, had been killed while attempting to cross the English Channel, bound for the U.K. in an overloaded inflatable boat.
At The New Statesman, associate political editor Rachel Cunliffe wrote Tuesday that the tragedy reveals "the flaws of the Rwanda plan," which proponents say could deter migrants from seeking refuge in Britain.
Proponents of the Rwanda plan will inevitably point to today's disaster as further evidence that strong measures are needed to address the issue of Channel crossings. They will accuse Labour and opposition parties of ignoring the human cost of letting this crisis continue and argue that lives are at stake if the government does not act.
[...]
The reality is that a substantial number of people who pay people traffickers large sums of money to crowd them on to a tiny boat do so because they feel they have no other option. Fleeing war and persecution, they are desperate. And so they are prepared to take desperate measures. Measures that sometimes lead to tragedy, but which are deemed necessary given the hopelessness of their situation.
It is hard to see how the threat to send a tiny fraction of those who arrive (Rwanda has said it will only take 150-200 migrants) changes this calculation.
The Labour Party, which is leading Conservatives in polls ahead of the expected elections, has vowed to scrap the legislation if it wins control of the government later this year, and critics have expressed doubt that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak will actually secure deportation flights before Britons vote.
One flight was grounded in June 2022 after the European Court of Human Rights intervened, and on Monday the OHCHR warned aviation authorities that they would risk violating international law if they allow "unlawful removals" of asylum-seekers to Rwanda.
Critics have also pointed to a finding by the National Audit Office that the deportations would cost £1.8 million ($2.2 million) per person.
"The U.K. government could literally pay every refugee a £30,000 annual salary for life, and it would be cheaper than sending them to Rwanda," said David Andress, a history professor at the University of Portsmouth. "We're burning money just to enjoy the cruelty."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular