Afghans in Pakistan

Afghans in Pakistan: A Protracted Refugee Situation
Written by {ga=nasreegh}
Policy Perspectives , Special Issue Afghanistan, 2008
Abstract
[Afghan refugees have been a protracted problem for Pakistan despite attempts to repatriate
them. The presence of over 2.1 million registered Afghan refugees by the end of the year 2007,
in spite of the massive repatriation program under way since 2002, is a stark reminder to all the
policymakers that other avenues apart from repatriation should be looked into to achieve the
goal. The problem should be addressed in the protracted refugee situations context to find
alternative strategies to this longstanding issue. Author]
The presence of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran is a protracted problem that still awaits
resolution. The belief of policymakers that comprehensive and sustainable repatriation could be
achieved within the time frame of three years, i.e. 20022005, has proved wrong. The
extensions that have been made in the time period of the current repatriation program bring into
question the vision of those formulating agreements for repatriation from Pakistan and Iran.
New deadlines have been set: 2008 by Iran and 2009 by Pakistan. Can the two countries shed
their refugee burden within these new time frames? Given the past failures, it is highly doubtful
that they can.
In the post-Soviet withdrawal period, i.e. since 1989, the presence of millions of Afghan
refugees has been questioned by many in Pakistan. They are considered a huge burden on the
economy, environment and infrastructure of the country. This paper looks at the problem of
Afghan refugees in Pakistan as a protracted situation. Thus far, hardly any study has been
conducted on Afghan refugees in this framework. However, a great deal of research needs to
be conducted from this perspective, as repatriation, the option most favored by the
international community, has not relieved Pakistan of Afghan refugees.
Protracted Refugee Situations

Before discussing the particular issue of Afghan refugees, it is necessary to explain what a
protracted refugee situation is, so as to understand the Afghan case better.
Refugees can be regarded as being in a protracted situation when they have lived in exile for
1 / 40

more than five years and when they still have no immediate prospect of finding a durable
solution to their plight. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines a
protracted refugee situation as one in which refugees find themselves in a long-lasting and
intractable state of limbo. Their lives may not be at risk, but their basic rights and social,
psychological and essential needs remain unfulfilled after years in exile. A refugee in this
situation is often unable to break free from enforced reliance on external assistance.
In simpler terms, refugees in protracted situations find themselves trapped in an indeterminate
state: they cannot go back to their homeland, in most cases because it is not safe for them to do
so; they are unable to settle permanently in their country of first asylum, because the host state
does not want them to remain indefinitely on its territory; and they do not have the option of
moving on, as no third country has agreed to admit them and to provide them with permanent
residence rights.
The UNHCR working definition does not, however, fully encompass the realities of such
situations. A more effective definition of protracted refugee situations would include not only the
humanitarian elements proposed by UNHCR, but also a wider understanding of the political and
strategic aspects of long-term refugee problems. Secondly, a definition should reflect the fact
that protracted refugee situations also include chronic, unresolved and recurring refugee
problems. Thirdly, an effective definition must recognize that countries of origin, host countries
and the international donor community are all implicated in long-term refugee situations.
While the notion of protracted refugee situations is not new, the increasing interest in the
concept is a recent development. It is still evolving, and funds are being poured into various
projects to better understand the dynamics and implications of contemporary long-term refugee
problems. This sudden emphasis on protracted refugee situations is, however, a pointer that
the accepted durable solutions to refugee problems are not working in all the cases, and new
approaches need to be developed. Repatriation, the most preferred durable solution, has not
worked in many situations, leading to the continuation of refugee presence in host countries.
The increase in the number of protracted refugee situations in the world represents the failures
of the responses of the actors concerned, which have contributed in the prolonged exile,
continued
economic, social and psychological suffering, and
unending frustration of refugees.
While major longstanding refugee populations existed in Southeast Asia, Central America,
South Asia, the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa during the 1980s, in the early 1990s, a
number of these longstanding refugees who had been displaced as a result of the Cold War
conflicts in the developing world went home. Throughout the 1990s, given its focus on refugee
emergencies, the international community largely ignored the challenge of formulating
comprehensive responses to protracted refugee situations. There was more emphasis on
2 / 40

repatriation as the preferred durable solution, and the decade was termed as one of
repatriation. Huge numbers of refugees went back to their countries as the Cold War came to
an end and conflicts around the world were resolved. However, new intra-state conflicts
emerged and resulted in massive new flows during the 1990s, which led to a spiraling and
mushrooming of the global refugee population.
At the end of 1993, the global refugee population was over 16.3 million, with 48 percent of
refugees in protracted situations. Ten years later, the global refugee population stood at 9.6
million, with over 64 percent in protracted situations. Thus, at the conclusion of 2003, there
were 38 protracted refugee situations involving 6.2 million refugees. While there are fewer
refugees in protracted situations today than there were in the past, the number of such
situations has greatly increased.
Sub-Saharan Africa hosts the largest number of protracted refugee situations in one region: 22,
involving a total of 2.3 million refugees. In contrast, the entire geographical area encompassing
Central Asia, South West Asia, North Africa and the Middle East hosts 8 major long-term
refugee populations, consisting of 2.7 million refugees. The overwhelming majority are the
Afghans in Pakistan and Iran, who totaled nearly 2 million at the end of 2003.
(For details, see appendix.)
Given the high number of protracted refugees situations, analysts and practitioners need to
come up with solutions that will ultimately reduce, if not eliminate, the problem in the near
future. Lessons can be drawn from the past, as there are some examples of success.
Comprehensive solutions to long-term populations based on the three durable solutions
resettlement, integration and repatriation are not new.
The issue of displaced people in Europe after 1945 was resolved through resettlement. The
international response to the Indo-Chinese refugee crisis in Southeast Asia during the 1980s is
a second important example.
In contrast to the Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indo-Chinese refugees (CPA),
wherein resettlement was identified as the primary durable solution, the International
Conference on Central American Refugees (CIREFCA) convened in 1989 placed the greatest
emphasis on return and reintegration, supported by selected projects on local integration, as the
primary durable solution.
The Case of Afghan Refugees

No major study exists on the issue of Afghan refugees as a protracted refugee situation (PRS).
3 / 40

The recent interest of UNHCR and other related organizations in addressing the challenges of
PRSs and attempting to find solutions provide a new hope for the residual Afghan population in
Pakistan.
Afghans, who have been in Pakistan for over two decades, have found ways of earning their
livelihood, but being refugees they face pressures from officials and the local people in carrying
out their economic activities. They all want an end to their protracted refugee situation, but the
conditions back home deter their return. The political and security situation in Pakistan remains
tense, especially along the border with Afghanistan. Insecurity and restricted access to parts of
the country have hampered UNHCRs ability to assist and protect refugees.
The Geneva Accords of 1988 led to the Soviet troops withdrawal from Afghanistan by February
1989, which resulted in massive repatriation from Pakistan. In 1992, over 1.5 million Afghan
refugees returned to their homeland. However, it was estimated that over two million had not
returned, in spite of the repatriation program under way and the desire of the government and
UNHCR. It was in 2000 that Pakistan started showing signs of refugee fatigue; it prevented
new refugee inflows and reiterated its desire that the refugees return. The reasons given for this
hard stance were declining donor assistance, security threats, including rise in crime, and the
profound impact of refugees on the national budget and the labor market.
A new repatriation program was planned for the period 20022005. Agreements were signed
and a policy adopted by the Afghan government for the dignified return of all refugees and
displaced people. Within this period, over 3.5 million individuals returned from Pakistan, Iran
and other hosting countries to their places of origin or other destination in Afghanistan.
However, continued civil war in the country made it impossible for the entire refugee population
to return, and made the situation more complex for policymakers.
Currently, around 3 million registered Afghan refugees are living in Pakistan and Iran, the
majority of whom are now in their second or even third generation of displacement. In Pakistan,
74 percent of the Afghan population is under 28 years, while 71 percent of the Afghan
population in Iran is aged 29 years or under. Future projections regarding the third generation
suggest that the proportion of Afghans under the age of 5 years will reach 13 percent of all
Afghans in Pakistan and nearly 10 percent in Iran.
UNHCR has asked for about $100 million from donors for its Afghan operations in the years
20082009. The agency will need over $49 million in 2008 and over $50 million in 2009 to
assist 540,000 Afghan refugees who are expected to return, primarily, from neighboring
Pakistan and Iran. Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, stated in the
new funding appeal statement that This 20082009 edition is the first Global Appeal to cover a
two-year period. It corresponds to our new biennial budget cycle which, among other
advantages, should help the predictability of funding. The new funding appeal shows a slight
4 / 40

decrease in UNHCRs budget for its Afghan operations. The UNHCR had a budget of about $52
million for its refugee and internally displaced person (IDP) support activities in 2007.
Repatriation, rehabilitation and reconstruction in Afghanistan requires generous funding from
the donor community. Whether the donor community will retain its interest in the country and the
plight of refugees in the coming years is yet to be seen.
It is also believed by some Western analysts that refugee camps may serve as breeding
grounds for violence and rebellious activities. This is seen to be particularly likely in the context
of the War on Terror. The War on Terror being fought in Afghanistan, and the flawed approach
it follows, have increased the possibilities that some of those resisting the Allied Forces may
use refugee camps for shelter. The tribal areas have been the scene of continuing clashes
between the Pakistan army, extremist elements and tribesmen linked to fighting in Afghanistan.
This forced the Government of Pakistan to close down all the camps in the border area in 2005,
leading to involuntary repatriation. The Pakistani government has announced that all remaining
Afghan refugee camps will be closed by the end of 2009.
The proliferation in roadside bombs, suicide attacks, targeted killings, sustained and significant
aerial bombing raids and military operations have destabilized Afghanistan despite the massive
presence of international forces to protect and reconstruct the country. The situation puts the
entire repatriation process into question, and it has earned criticism from various quarters,
including human rights organizations and returnees. Resentment against the Pakistani
government is increasing among locals and refugees because Afghans do not want to return to
their country.
Pakistani authorities carried out a four-month countrywide campaign from October 2006 to
February 2007 to register Afghans. Officials said the objective of the registration effort was to
develop a basic demographic profile of the Afghan refugee population in order to manage its
development, welfare and, more importantly, phased repatriation with dignity and honor. The
reality was that the government and UNHCR had to come up with a policy to deal with the
residual Afghan population. They needed more time to manage the population. They devised a
policy to register all Afghans and provide them with Proof of Registration (PoR) cards, allowing
them to stay in the country for another three years and giving the officials more time to come up
with solid solutions. The process of registration involved various organizations and agencies
imparting the impression that the government was bent upon repatriating refugees.
Under the $6-million registration drive funded by Pakistan, the European Commission, the
United States and Britain, all Afghans above the age of five who were registered received Proof
of Registration cards, valid for three years (up to 2009), recognizing them as Afghan citizens
5 / 40

temporarily living in the country. Children under five were listed on one of their parents cards.
UNHCR hopes that within the period of the PoR cards validity, it will be possible to find more
durable solutions to this protracted situation. According to the registration, the word refugee is
no longer used for Afghans; on the contrary, they are termed as Afghan citizens, underlining
their non-refugee status. However, terminology has not changed the ground situation;
unofficially, they are still regarded as refugees.
UNHCR clarified the purpose of the registration in order to remove any ambiguities in the minds
of refugees. In itself, the Proof of Registration card is not a work permit or travel document. It is
for identity purposes only, recognizing the bearer as an Afghan citizen temporarily living in
Pakistan. It is a protection tool against harassment, but does not confer any additional rights or
status. The card, which bears the fingerprint and digital photographs of the owner, is also
designed to help the owner receive assistance upon return to Afghanistan.
Although registration of refugees was carried out successfully, it revealed the disturbing fact that
a large number of refugees do not want to repatriate to their country under the present
conditions. The majority of Afghan refugees (82 percent) registered in Pakistan said they had no
intention of returning in the near future. This position was consistent for all Afghans who had
arrived in Pakistan in 1979 and in succeeding years. It also echoed a similar result generated
during the 2005 census. Convincing them to return will be a challenging task for Pakistan,
UNHCR and the Afghan government.
Between March and mid-August 2007, more than 300,000 Afghans voluntarily repatriated from
Pakistan, including more than 200,000 unregistered Afghans who returned home during a
six-week grace period agreed upon by the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Unregistered Afghans are considered illegal migrants in Pakistan. The Tripartite Agreement that
governs the voluntary repatriation of Afghans was signed in August 2007 and is valid until the
end of 2009. Although the Afghan population and the number of camps have decreased due to
repatriation and camp closures, the population remaining in camps continues to need support in
the areas of water, sanitation, health and basic education.
The current developments in both Pakistan and Iran indicate that the two no longer want to host
the protracted refugee population and have stepped up efforts to have them repatriated. Kilian
Kleinshmidt, the Assistant Representative of UNHCR in Pakistan, believes that management of
population flow has always been a crucial task, which has been creating problems for all
stakeholders in the refugee issue. He is of the view that, despite the difficulties of voluntary
repatriation, Afghan refugees will have to go back to Afghanistan and stay there, and this will
encourage others to follow suit, ultimately leading to the sustainable repatriation of all Afghan
6 / 40

refugees from Pakistan. He, however, cautions that the absorption capacity in Afghanistan is a
major challenge in the repatriation process; land, housing, water, health and employment
related issues need special attention. He also stresses the need for more policy debate over the
issue of Afghan refugees in Pakistan as it is creating a negative environment between the two
neighbors. Thus, both Pakistan and UNHCR agree on repatriating Afghans, despite the need to
look beyond the policy of repatriation in the current environment of worsening security in
Afghanistan.
UNHCR launched an initiative known as Afghanistan Plus (Sep 2006) aimed at developing a
broader policy framework within which displacement may be managed increasingly as a
migration and poverty problem, rather than just a refugee situation. This shift in approach gives
a completely new dimension to the presence of Afghan refugees, and is more in congruence
with the concept of approaching and resolving protracted refugee situations. Four issues need
to be addressed: (i) overcoming the poverty that prevents many Afghans from returning home to
conditions of sustainable reintegration and economic recovery; (ii) managing the flow of persons
who are moving back and forth for economic and social reasons; (iii) dealing with the absence
of law; and (iv) responding to the wishes of those Afghans who have legitimate reasons for
remaining in the asylum countries, and identifying those with genuine needs for continuing
international protection. A shift in approach has taken place but implementation remains an
elusive task for the UNHCR and donors. Continued international engagement and support will
be required to develop and underpin such a transition.
With each passing year, however, it may become more difficult to encourage refugees to return
voluntarily to Afghanistan. Those who were most capable of returning did so in the early years;
those who remain have progressively less to return to in terms of houses, livelihoods and
family in Afghanistan. Furthermore, maintaining the high pace of returns will require greater
levels of reintegration assistance to anchor returnees in their homes and help them reestablish
their lives in Afghanistan. Security will also be a major factor in population displacement within
and across borders. According to UNHCR data, the refugees who have already returned to
Afghanistan have spent, on average, less time in Pakistan than those who remain. This may
suggest that those who left for Afghanistan in the early years did so because it was easier for
them: they still had connections with Afghanistan. Those who remain, by contrast, may find it
especially difficult to return to a country to which they have, relatively speaking, few ties.
UNHCR, the UN Development Program (UNDP) and the Pakistani authorities are developing a
needs assessment to address these ongoing refugee issues.
While all agree that eventual return is the best solution, it is likely that many refugees will remain
in Pakistan for years to come. Aid workers like Graham Wood, the head of Ockenden
International, Pakistan, believe that Long-term refugee situations, like Afghans in Pakistan,
require imaginative funding and program work. It is not enough to assume that people will
7 / 40

simply go home when the wider international community says so.

This statement
is rational and valuable in the present context. An effective response to the protracted refugee
situation needs to be developed. Unless there is a shift from the present emphasis on
repatriation towards a comprehensive approach addressing the matter as a protracted situation,
the longstanding Afghan refugee problem will not be resolved. Reliance on a single solution
does not work in protracted situations, therefore, it stresses on integrating voluntary repatriation,
local integration and resettlement whenever feasible into one comprehensive approach.
Furthermore, such an approach must be implemented through close cooperation among
countries of origin, host states, UNHCR and its humanitarian and development partners,
especially NGOs, as well as refugees.
The key to responding effectively to protracted refugee situations is partnership with all
stakeholders to enable astute planning, build ownership and increase available resources. With
refugees, partnership can entail taking a community-based approach; with host governments, it
can encompass joint problem analysis and the implementation of programs that benefit both
refugees and host populations; with development actors, it requires persistence and advocacy
to ensure that refugees and refugee-hosting areas figure on development agendas; and with the
international community (governmental and non-governmental), it involves joining forces to
ensure that responsibilities and burdens are shared. For partnership to be genuine and
productive, UNHCR must be open to the ideas and objectives of others. This applies in both the
political and development spheres, where it is incumbent upon UNHCR to grasp the big picture
in order to be able to effectively insert refugee concerns into these agendas.
The Way Forward
A shift in Pakistans present policy of repatriation is recommended. Pakistan should focus on
addressing the refugee problem within a protracted context. A comprehensive and truly effective
solution to the protracted situation needs to be developed. This calls for coordinated
engagement between a range of peace and security, development and humanitarian actors,
and implies that all actors would have to take some responsibility in ending the refugee cycle.
Coordination and consistent engagement are the keys to such a solution. This approach has an
advantage; Pakistan will not be required to give up its repatriation option. It can pursue it along
with the other two durable solutions, i.e. local integration and resettlement in a third country.
Local integration has not been considered and is less likely to take place in the near future, but
the government has to accept the fact that some Afghans do possess Pakistani national identity
cards, and have married Pakistanis and are carrying out flourishing businesses. They are very
much locally integrated but in a de facto manner. Legalizing their status and developing a
strategy to do so will bear positive results. Stressing the option of resettlement in a third country
will shift some of the burden from Pakistan. Afghans who desire to resettle in another country
should be facilitated in the process rather than prevented through strict asylum and immigration
policies.
In order to comprehend the concept of the protracted refugee situation develop a
comprehensive response approach, there is a need for national debate on the issue in both
Pakistan and Afghanistan. Policy debates are not a common norm in either country because the
governments are not open to criticism. In Pakistan, the government can start the process on a
8 / 40

small scale by arranging seminars on the issue in universities of the North West Frontier
Province (NWFP) and Balochistan, bringing together academicians, refugees and practitioners
to debate the issue. In the capital, UNHCR along with the European Union and other interested
agencies should organize international conferences focusing on policy prescriptions. Policy
debates should not only be restricted to practitioners and bureaucrats, but rather involve a wider
range of actors. The greater the participation of academicians, practitioners and refugees, etc.,
in such events, the more input for policymakers. Critical evaluation of past flawed policies will
lead to corrective measures and adoption of a comprehensive and pragmatic policy that
responds to new developments. Defending its flawed policies will lead Pakistan nowhere. The
initiatives should come from within and should not be proposed from outside.
The development of more systematic and structured responses to longstanding refugee

problems has also been one of the stated objectives of UNHCRs Convention Plus initiative,
which focuses on comprehensive plans of actions in addressing PRSs. Afghanistan Plus has
been initiated with the same purpose. UNHCR has recognized that it cannot resolve the Afghan
issue alone, but it has to play a central role and make Afghanistan Plus a success story,
otherwise the 4 Rs repatriation, reintegration, rehabilitation and reconstruction will
remain elusive objectives, resulting in prolongation of Afghans stay in Pakistan. All the 4 Rs
require handsome funding, which should be undertaken as a policy project by the European
Union, United States, Canada and Japan.
A well-designed strategy is needed for the media to play a proactive role in highlighting the
problems of refugees in a protracted situation and bring awareness and understanding amongst
the people. This will have a positive effect on coping with the residual population, as PRSs do
not have simple solutions and may take years to be resolved. So far, the media has been
reporting developments regarding refugees, but more interest in the issue will bear positive
results for all stakeholders. Refugees will feel that they are not forgotten people, and the
government will be more alert and take pragmatic measures to deal with the problems refugees
face as they suffer in an apparently interminable limbo without any durable solution in sight.
Donors too will become more responsive to the needs of protracted refugees. The media plays
a powerful role in shaping the opinion of the public; if it plays it constructively in this context, all
stakeholders will benefit.
While refugees do not have many choices when a repatriation process is under way, it is
nevertheless important that when they decide to return to their country of origin after a
prolonged stay outside, it should be a well-reasoned decision. Whether the decision is taken
individually or in groups, it should be an intelligent one, looking into the pros and cons of return.
Displacement continues if those concerned do not make appropriate decisions. Sometimes,
such refugees find it difficult to face the challenges back home and try to find ways to reenter
Pakistan.
9 / 40

Recycling of refugees is difficult to check or even detect, given the porous border between the
two countries. However, all those concerned should work out the modalities of how to manage
this. Partial fencing of the long border has started, and Pakistans government has claimed that
the points fenced have brought flows there to a halt. However, fencing the border when the
Afghan government does not recognize the Durand Line (the border between the two countries)
is unlikely to achieve the objective. Legislation is direly needed in this respect. As no such law
exists at present, population movements cannot be monitored the way Pakistan, Afghanistan
and the international community desire. A thorough analysis of the problem is needed before a
policy is adopted.
The Afghan government should take emergency steps to reintegrate its displaced population,
otherwise the cycle of displacement will continue. The tribulations faced by a government in a
post-conflict situation are understandable, but the sooner the government takes independent
initiatives to address its national problems and reduce the interference of others, the sooner,
hopefully, the problems of returnees will be resolved. The main concerns of refugees, regarding
shelter and employment, should be given priority to attract them home. Continuing a repatriation
policy without providing the basic facilities is likely to fail. There should be increased emphasis
on reintegration and post-conflict recovery.
Moreover the Afghan government has to adopt a balanced and integrated approach to make
repatriation durable and sustainable. The essential confidence and will of the people to
overcome the present difficulties and face challenges need to come from within, instead of
depending on strategies worked out in foreign lands to rebuild and reconstruct Afghanistan.
While such externally made policies may have positive intentions, it is a fact that no plan
imposed from outside has never worked for Afghans. Solutions must come from the Afghans,
who have suffered immensely from decades of civil war.
Once they return to their homeland, Afghans should initiate a process of reconciliation, as this
alone will help them to integrate better. While reconciliation is a complicated issue and it
involves the will of the government and power shareholders, returnees can play a very
important role in bridging the divisions that have been created by displacement and political
persecution. They should try to forgive and refrain from taking revenge against those who have
been responsible for their suffering and displacement. The government should take measures
to involve them in the reconstruction process so that reconciliation accelerates and peace
initiatives increase.
10 / 40

References
Betts, Alexander. 2006. The Politics of Human Rights and Security Implications of Protracted
Refugee Situations. Conference Report. Journal of Refugee Studies (Oxford) 19 (4).
http://www.jrs. Oxford journals.org.
Crisp, Jeff. 2003. The Problem of Protracted Refugee Situation in Africa. Refugee Survey
Quarterly
(Oxford
University Press) 22 (4).
Loescher, Gil and James Milner. 2005. Protracted Refugee Situations: Domestic and
International Security Implications.
Adelphi Paper 375.
London: International Institute for Strategic Studies.
. 2006. Protracted Refugee Situations in Thailand: Toward Solutions. Presentation to

the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand, February 1. http://www.refugees.org.
Margesson, Rhoda. 2007. Afghan Refugees: Current Status and Future Prospects.
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for US Congress. http://www.fas.org.
Saito, Mamiko. 2007. Second Generation Afghans in Neighbouring Countries. Kabul:

Afghanistan Research Evaluation Unit (AREAU).
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). 2004. Executive Committee of the
High Commissioners Programme. Protracted Refugee Situations. UNDOC EC/54/SC/CRP 14.
. 2005. Protracted Refugee Situation. Refugee Survey Quarterly 24 (1).
11 / 40

. 2006. Afghanistan Situation: Operational Update. September.

. 2007. Afghanistan. UNHCR Global Appeal 200809. http://www.unhcr.org
(accessed January 13, 2008).
Annex
Major Protracted Refugee Situations
Region/Country of asylum
Origin
UNHCR assistance status
Total
Percentage of assisted
Assisted
Not Assisted
12 / 40

Burundi
Dem Rep of the Congo
13,000
27,000
41,000
32%
Central African Rep
Sudan
36,000
36,000
100%
13 / 40

Chad
Sudan
55,000
55,000
110,000
50%
Angola
43,000
81,000
120,000
14 / 40

36%
Sudan
11,000
34,000
45,000
24%
Rwanda
35,000
15 / 40

35,000
100%
United Rep of Tanzania
Burundi
320,000
170,000
490,000
65%
United Rep of Tanzania
150,000
16 / 40

150,000
100%
Central Africa
and Lakes
670,000
370,000
1,000,000
670%
Djibanti
Somalia
25,000
17 / 40

25,000
100%
Ethiopia
Sudan
95,000
95,000
100%
Kenya
Somalia
18 / 40

150,000
150,000
100%
Kenya
Sudan
63,000
63,000
100%
Sudan
19 / 40

Ernea
73,000
35,000
110,000
66%
Uganda
Sudan
180,000
20,000
200,000
90%
20 / 40

East and Horn of Africa
620,000
55,000
670,000
93%
Zambia
Angola
72,000
87,000
160,000
45%
21 / 40

Zambia
54,000
4,000
58,000
93%
Southern Africa
130,000
91,000
220,000
59%
22 / 40

Cameroon
Chad
39,000
39,000
0%
Corte d Ivoire
Liberia
74,000
74,000
23 / 40

100%
Ghana
Liberia
42,000
42,000
100%
Guinea
Liberia
89,000
60,000
24 / 40

150,000
59%
Guinea
Sierra Leone
15,000
10,000
25,000
60%
West Africa
220,000
110,000
25 / 40

330,000
67
Africa
1,600,000
620,000
2,300,000
70%
Algeria
Western Sahara
160,000
10,000
26 / 40

170,000
94%
Egypt
Occupied Palestinian Territory
70,000
70,000
0%
Iraq
27 / 40

100,000
100,000
0%
Islamic Rep of Iran
Afghanistan
830,000
830,000
100%
Islamic Rep of Iran
Iraq
28 / 40

150,000
150,000
100%
Pakistan
Afghanistan
1,120,000
1120,000
100%
Saudi Arabia
29 / 40

240,000
249,000
0%
Yemen
Somalia
59,000
59,000
100%
30 / 40

Caswaname
2,300,000
420,000
2,700,000
85
China
Viet Name
11,000
290,000
300,000
4%
31 / 40

India
China
92,000
92,000
0%
India
Sri Lanka
61,000
61,000
0%
32 / 40

Nepal
Bhuran
100,000
100,000
100%
Thailand
Myanmar
120,000
120,000
33 / 40

100%
Atta and the Pacific
230,000
440,000
670,000
34%
America
Azerbaijan
50,000
190,000
240,000
34 / 40

21%
Serbia and Montenegro
Bosnia and Herzegovina
100,000
100,000
100%
Serbia and Montenegro
Croatia
190,000
35 / 40

190,000
100%
Europe
340,000
190,000
530,000
64%
Total
4,500,000
1700,000
6,200,000
36 / 40

73%
Source: United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCR) Annual Statistical
Report 2003.
Refugee situations numbering 25,000 or more persons by the end of 2003 which have been in
existence for 5 or more years. Industrialized countries are not included. Numbers rounded to
two significant figures. Totals may not add up due to rounding. (UNHCR, 2004, Executive
Committee of the High Commissioners Programme, Protracted Refugee Situations, UNDOC
EC/54/SC/CRP.14. June 10.).
UNHCR 2004.
Crisp 2003.
Loescher and Milner 2005, 14.
According to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, there are three
durable solutions to refugee problem resettlement in a third country, integration in the host
country or repatriation to their own country.
For example, in Southern Africa, huge numbers of Mozambicans, Namibians and others
repatriated. Large numbers of Afghans from Pakistan returned home. In Indo-China, the
Cambodians in exile in Thailand returned home and Vietnamese and Laotians were resettled to
third countries or were repatriated. With the conclusion of conflicts in Central America, the vast
majority of displaced Nicaraguans, Guatemalans and Salvadorians returned to their home
countries. In 1993, in the midst of the resolution of these conflicts, there remained 27 protracted
refugee situations, with a total population of 7.9 million. (Loescher and Milner 2006)
Loescher and Milner 2005, 15.
37 / 40

Ibid., 13.
The most important host countries on the continent are Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia and
Guinea.
The given figure of Afghans in Pakistan and Iran may be debated as, at that time, Pakistan
had not carried out census of Afghans in its territory. In other parts of Asia, there exist 5
protracted situations involving a total of 670,000 refugees in China, Thailand, India and Nepal.
In Europe, there were three major protracted populations, totaling 530,000 refugees, primarily in
the Balkans and Armenia.
Following UNHCRs appeal to major Western governments to provide funds and resettlement
quotas, this protracted refugee problem was finally resolved by the mid-1960s. This durable
solution is an oft-forgotten precedent for addressing the needs of refugees for whom neither
local integration nor repatriation are viable options. (Loescher and Milner 2005 , 72)
In response to public outcry at the dire conditions of thousands of boat people who had fled
Vietnam, and those who had left Cambodia and Laos overland, and following dramatic steps by
other Southeast Asian countries to prevent the arrival of the asylum seekers, concerned states
gathered at an International Conference on Indo-Chinese Refugees in July 1979. Western
states agreed to dramatically increase the number of refugees they resettled from the region. In
exchange, it was agreed that the boat people would be recognized as refugees prima facie,
that illegal departures would be prevented and that regional processing centers would be
established. (Ibid.)
A second International Conference on Indo-Chinese refugees was convened in June 1989 and
concluded with the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indo-Chinese refugees
(CPA). The CPA comprised of five mechanisms by which the countries of origin, countries of
first asylum and resettlement countries cooperated to resolve the refugee crisis in Southeast
Asia: an Orderly Departure Program to prevent clandestine departures, guaranteed temporary
asylum by countries in the region, individual refugee status determination for all arrivals,
resettlement to third countries for those recognized as refugees, and facilitated return for
rejected claimants. (Ibid.)
38 / 40

Following a series of peace agreements ending over a decade of conflict of civil war in El
Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, CIREFCA was an integral part of the wider objective of
consolidating peace in the region. Through a series of develop-pment initiatives for returning
refugees, capacity-building initiatives for returning refugees targeting states and NGOs, and the
integration of refugees and returnees into national and regional development strategies,
CIREFCA formulated a compre-hensive solution appropriate to the needs and priorities of the
region. (Ibid., 72)
Saito 2007, 1.
UNHCR 2007.
UN Prepares for Repatriation of Over Half a Million Refugees, IRIN Humanitarian News and
Analysis
, December 7, 2007,
http://www.irinnews.com.
Betts 2006.
Pakistan: Report Sheds New Light on Afghan Refugee Community, IRIN Human-itarian
News and Analysis
, May
3, 2007, http://www.irinnews.org (accessed November 13, 2007).
Azhar Masud and agencies, Pakistan Begins Registration of Afghans, Arab News, October
16, 2006, http://www.arabnews.com (accessed December 12, 2007).
Pakistan: Afghan Refugees Reluctant to Participate in Registration, IRIN Human-itarian

News and Analysis
,
November 3, 2007, http://www.irinnews.org (accessed December 12, 2007).
39 / 40

Afghanistan-Pakistan: Registration of Afghan Refugees to Start, IRIN Human-itarian News

and Analysis
, September
13, 2006, http://www.irinnews.org (accessed December 14, 2007).
UNHCR 2007.
Conducive Environment Needed to Repatriate Afghan Refugees, Dawn, June 6, 2007.
UNHCR 2005, 156157.
Margesson 2007, 12.
UNHCR 2006.
Ockenden International works with some of the most vulnerable communities in the world. It
provides opportunities to rebuild lives torn apart by conflict or natural disaster, helping restore
self-reliance to displaced people.
The Return of Afghan Refugees. Ockenden International, May 2005, http:// www.
ockenden.org
(accessed November 13, 2007).
Seminars in the universities of these two refugee-dominated provinces of Pakistan will help
bring all the stakeholders together to jointly work out the modalities for the future.
40 / 40

Afghans in Pakistan

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Afghans in Pakistan

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Afghans in Pakistan: A Protracted Refugee Situation

Policy Perspectives , Special Issue Afghanistan, 2008

Protracted Refugee Situations