SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY MAKES STATEMENT ON WORLD POPULATION DAY

Credit:  NASA

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
World Population Day 2013
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
July 11, 2013

As the international community commemorates World Population Day, the current world population of 7.2 billion is projected to increase another 1 billion by 2025 and reach 9.6 billion by 2050.

Continued population growth in many countries, as well as population aging, urbanization, and migration will have a profound impact on social and economic development and the environment in the years to come.

Increasingly complex and interconnected population and demographic dynamics impact access to health, education, housing, sanitation, water, food, and energy, and influence the livelihoods of people and stability of nations around the world.

Today's generation of 1.8 billion young people between the ages of 10 and 24 is the largest the world has ever seen, and will shape the future of the world we live in.

They will drive the economic, political, social, and cultural development of their countries and will need greater and more equitable access to education, employment, and health information and services, including sexual and reproductive health services.

Whether it’s across the Greater Middle East or Africa, the sheer number of young people is striking, and demands leadership capable of meeting their demands for dignity and opportunity in addition to basic necessities.

This changing global environment also highlights the need for our continued example of and commitment to protecting access to evidence-based comprehensive sexuality education and reproductive rights, so that young people are equipped with the information and the means to make informed decisions about their health and protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy.

We must also address the fact that millions of adolescent girls are too often vulnerable to discrimination, violence, and exclusion that prevent them from living their lives to their full potential. Too many young girls are forced to marry and leave school early, are at risk of sexual violence and coercion, and are subjected to harmful traditional practices, including female genital mutilation and cutting. Still today, complications from pregnancy and childbirth continue to be the leading cause of death among adolescent girls in low- and middle-income countries.

The United States stands ready to work with other governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, and the private sector around the world towards a safer, healthier, more just world for all.

GLOBAL IDP OVERVIEW 2012

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Washington D.C. Release of "Global IDP Overview 2012" Report
Remarks
Anne C. Richard
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Delivered by Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Elizabeth Hopkins
Brookings Institute, Norwegian Refugee Council & Internal Displacement Monitoring Center
Washington, DC
May 24, 2013

Congratulations to the Norwegian Refugee Council and its Internal Displacement Monitoring Center on an excellent global report. PRM widely uses this report and looks forward to its release each year. The report serves as an important PRM reference for IDP information. The State Department has placed a priority on strengthening coverage of displacement issues in our annual Human Rights Country Reports, and the information contained in IDMC’s Global IDP Report is a valuable resource in preparing the Human Rights Report. We appreciate IDMC’s analysis, the identification of trends, and the report’s useful way of framing global IDP issues.

In Syria today, we see millions displaced because they are fleeing fighting between the regime and the opposition. Latest estimates are 80,000 dead, 4.25 million displaced inside Syria, and 1.5 million refugees. In this case, the government is not only failing to help internally displaced persons, it is slaughtering them. Troops attack civilians, people are bombed indiscriminately from the sky, hospitals and bakeries are targeted. International organizations are trying to reach everyone in need, but gaining access to them is very challenging and, at times, impossible. When John Ging of the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) tried to lead a convoy from Damascus to Aleppo, it had to pass 54 checkpoints manned by the regime and different opposition factions along the route. The U.S. supports efforts to get across borders and into Syria, but this too is very difficult to do, and more is needed.

I have just returned last night from a trip to Ecuador and Colombia. In Colombia, I met with government officials who are very concerned about the 4-to-5 million Colombian IDPs. There the government of President Santos is trying to do the right thing and implement a far-reaching Victims Law. We saw examples of how local governments are trying to provide IDPs with the range of aid they need to restart their lives and begin to recover from the horrors they have experienced. So in some ways the Colombia approach could serve as a model for other countries – certainly with regard to the seriousness with which it has examined the needs of the IDPs and in the breadth of the services it aims to deliver to them. In other ways, the Colombia approach is unique to Colombian laws, its Constitution and its own bureaucracy. (For example, there is a role for a Public Ministry that is supposed to represent the needs of the people, and it is considered a separate fourth branch of government. The Constitutional Court is deeply involved not just in interpreting the law, but in investigating its implementation.)

Still, I return from Colombia very concerned because every day people are still being forced to flee. In Ecuador and Colombia, we met people who were newly displaced. Most had fled intimidation and threats. For example, one woman had left when her restaurant was blown up by a grenade. A couple who farmed fled when they were given a choice: either agree to cook for combatants of illegal armed groups or they had one half-hour to leave. Another family was indebted to members of criminal groups and fled after receiving threats to their lives. They became IDPs in Colombia. They were tracked down and threatened a second time, and so they fled to Ecuador.

So all of the good work being done by the Colombian government is deserving of praise. But the continuing conflict and uncertain prospects for a true and comprehensive peace are cause for serious concern.

IDMC has asked me to focus on the role of UNHCR in responding to internal displacement. UNHCR is PRM’s largest partner and has an essential role to play in responding to the humanitarian needs of conflict-affected IDPs. UNHCR has the lead in the areas of protection, emergency shelter, and camp coordination and management. We have heard sobering news today that the global number of IDPs is larger than ever before, and that 6.5 million persons became newly displaced in their home countries last year. This underscores the point that UNHCR’s responsibilities continue to grow. UNHCR – and all of us involved in humanitarian relief – have to get this right.

The international system to assist and protect IDPs depends on all parties being able to fulfill their roles under the cluster system, including UNHCR. At last count, UNHCR was the lead agency for about 30 clusters in nearly 20 countries. This means that UNHCR is shouldering responsibility to protect or assist more than 15 million IDPs worldwide.

PRM believes that UNHCR should allocate its resources based first and foremost on humanitarian need, not on the classification status of beneficiary populations. In our view, IDPs are not a secondary priority. UNHCR possesses a set of commitments to IDPs, and these commitments should not be a lower priority for the agency relative to its other populations of concern – refugees, returnees, and stateless persons. UNHCR’s commitment to all of its protection and assistance responsibilities, including those for internally displaced persons under the cluster system, must be resolute and steadfast.

We are communicating this perspective regularly and consistently to UNHCR at multiple levels – from the High Commissioner and Deputy High Commissioner, to mid-management and field staff. We will continue to do so publicly and privately. As you may know, last year we issued a public statement at UNHCR’s Executive Committee meeting about the need for UNHCR to be "resolute" toward its IDP responsibilities. Last February, PRM discussed UNHCR’s commitment to IDPs during a day-long dialogue between PRM and UNHCR on protection issues that were led by Deputy Assistant Secretary Catherine Wiesner. Earlier this month, I raised this issue again with High Commissioner Guterres for extended discussion.

UNHCR officials have regularly assured us that they are committed to their IDP responsibilities. UNHCR has told us that their recent cutbacks in IDP programs are largely confined to activities that fall outside UNHCR’s designated cluster duties. PRM will monitor UNHCR’s program decisions in the field. We welcome input from NGO colleagues about what they are seeing as well.

Let’s turn to finances. During the past three years (2010-2012), UNHCR expenditures for assistance and protection of IDPs totaled $1.1 billion for the three years combined. UNHCR divides its budget into four categories, or "pillars": one budget category for refugees; one budget category for statelessness issues; one budget category for reintegration programs; the fourth budget category is IDPs. UNHCR spent $1.1 billion in that fourth budget category over the past three years. We will continue to analyze whether this is sufficient in our discussions with UNHCR. But the point I want to make today is that considerable UNHCR resources have gone to assist and protect IDPs in recent years -- more than $1 billion.

PRM gives UNHCR the flexibility to exercise its best judgment about how to allocate the USG contribution based on the humanitarian needs that UNHCR sees in the field, whether they be refugees, IDPs, stateless persons, or returnees. PRM’s contributions to UNHCR give UNHCR the ability to shift USG funding among budget categories and into IDP programs that need more support. A substantial portion of the $1.1 billion that UNHCR has spent on IDP field operations in the past three years has come from the USG.

Even with new refugee populations around the world, we believe that UNHCR needs to ensure that all its staff members at all levels understand the agency’s commitment to IDP responsibilities, particularly staff in the field and when future budgets are being planned.

At PRM, we are paying close attention to UNHCR’s budget data that show how UNHCR spends its resources. We look forward in the next few days to receiving from UNHCR its final expenditure report for 2012, which will show how much UNHCR spent last year in each budget category, including for IDP programs. We will work with UNHCR to try to ensure that it is meeting the most urgent humanitarian needs as tight budgets force tough choices.

PRM will continue to encourage stronger UNHCR leadership of the Global Protection Cluster as well as more effective and consistent UNHCR leadership of clusters at the country level. UNHCR needs to ensure that its personnel have the specialized training and experience they need to serve as cluster coordinators in IDP emergencies. That is a tall challenge for UNHCR’s small IDP Unit and the agency’s other divisions.

Within PRM, we have work to do as well. We need to make sure that we convey a consistent and coherent message to UNHCR that we expect UNHCR to meet its IDP responsibilities. As I said earlier, I believe we are already doing that in private and in our public statements. If some of you see specific examples where PRM needs to do this better, let me know.

We at PRM/Washington will make a point of working with our staff in the field to closely track UNHCR’s work with IDPs and UNHCR’s performance within the cluster system. One way we are doing this is through our twice-yearly review of UNHCR’s country operations plans. This process results in findings that we convey to UNHCR headquarters.

And thirdly, PRM will continue to strengthen coordination with our colleagues at USAID. Nancy Lindborg and I work closely together. We have traveled to emergency situations together. We count on our respective staffs to communicate and coordinate well. We now have an interagency Humanitarian Policy Working Group that includes PRM, USAID’s Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA), State Bureau for International Organizations (IO), the State Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance (F), and State colleagues at the U.S. Mission in New York and Geneva. For 2013, our interagency Working Group decided to focus our policy efforts on a handful of issues, including UNHCR’s commitment and engagement on IDP issues.

So this is not only a PRM priority; it is a collective priority of the humanitarian arm of the USG.

In conclusion, humanitarian budgets are tight. The Syria emergency in particular is stretching resources beyond anything we have ever seen before. The international community has to make sure that assistance and protection for IDPs around the world does not fall backward. We need to continue to strengthen the system of response. We all realize that multiple UN agencies – not only UNHCR – have responsibilities in IDP emergencies. But at PRM we also recognize that UNHCR has been charged with playing a hugely important role. And the well-being of millions of IDPs depends in part on UNHCR living up to those responsibilities. So we pledge to continue working closely with UNHCR to help it shoulder this role.

I want to thank Brookings for hosting the Washington release of the report. There is no better place in Washington to unveil a report on IDPs. The Brookings IDP Project is an important actor in Washington and internationally on IDP policy issues. We are well aware that the Brookings IDP Project provides essential support to the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons. Thank you for that. Brookings’ briefings and reports – some of which are critical of USG policies – always have our attention and respect. When Brookings points out ways the USG should do better, we listen closely.

STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL'S REMARKS ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
U.S. Views on Population, Reproductive Health, and Rights
Remarks
Anne C. Richard
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Funders Network on Population, Reproductive Health, and Rights
Washington, DC
May 16, 2013

Thank you, Maureen, for that kind introduction, and my thanks to the Funders Network for Population, Reproductive Health and Rights for inviting me to speak with you here today as you meet to consider this important agenda. Your mandate and the work you do, both as individuals and organizations, is critically important to the health and well-being of millions of women and girls around the world.

The Obama Administration is proud to partner with, and in many cases, follow the lead of your organizations in these endeavors, and we commend you for tackling this essential set of issues. You know that there can be no development without a focus on women, and women cannot fully participate in development unless their reproductive rights are respected and reproductive health needs are met.

Today I'm going to speak about the Obama Administration's efforts to promote reproductive health and rights, and incorporate population issues more broadly into our policies, especially as we engage in post-2015 development framework discussions and processes. The mid-point of the Administration provides an opportunity to take stock and assess what we've accomplished so far, and what work remains to be done. Right now, the U.S. government is in the early stages of considering our positions on the post-2015 development framework and upcoming multilateral review processes. I’d like to discuss these with you and then I'll touch on the challenges and successes of recent international negotiations where Margaret Pollack and Beth Schlachter have played leadership roles.

I know you're also interested in hearing about the transition we've recently undergone at the State Department as Secretary Kerry has assumed leadership from Secretary Clinton. So I'll start by telling you that Secretary Kerry has made it absolutely clear that he intends to continue the legacy of Secretary Clinton, who did so much to integrate and elevate gender issues and women's empowerment into our foreign policy. As he recently wrote in a letter to 23 senators, "Please be assured that under my watch, the Department of State will remain a powerful champion for gender equality and women’s rights around the world. This is critical." In fact, as a U.S. Senator, Secretary Kerry attended the 1994 Cairo Conference, so he has been playing a role on these issues for nearly twenty years.

We are also looking forward to the confirmation of Cathy Russell, who is Secretary Kerry's nominee to become the next Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues. Strong leadership in this vital position will allow us to continue the progress we've made to integrate women’s issues into our work across the board, and to guide State’s implementation of our strategies on gender – including the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, and the Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally.

I think most of you are aware of the various, and sometimes overlapping, development review processes that are currently underway. These include (1) the 20 year review of the International Conference on Population and Development's – or Cairo Conference’s – Program of Action, (2) the 20 year review of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, (3) the development of the post-2015 development agenda, and (4) discussions on sustainable development goals.

The ICPD and Beijing agendas and MDGs have each helped to focus international efforts toward the aim of sustaining development progress and served as guideposts to rally domestic and international support for development programs. And so their review processes are important because they will help us measure progress to date in meeting these development objectives. Based on the outcome we can then set priorities for many of the leading development agencies around the world, affecting how resources are allocated and the types of programs that will be considered priorities.

In addition to these reviews, we are focused on outcome documents and resolutions of the annual sessions of the (5) Commission on Population and Development and the (6) Commission on the Status of Women as well as issue-specific resolutions in the (7) UN General Assembly and the (8) Human Rights Council. These negotiation processes add another layer to the background to the post-2015 discussions – and so their outcomes are also quite important.

I'm aware there are many discussions about the post-2015 development framework that are sponsored by civil society, non-governmental or international organizations and that have taken place over the past year. And so you know that many development goals rest on the advancement of women’s empowerment as their foundation. This is the case, for example, with Millennium Development Goal 5. It seeks to improve maternal health and provide universal access to reproductive health. If we are to achieve this goal within a new framework or a new set of goals, we must articulate and emphasize the centrality of sexual and reproductive health and rights to achieving them. This is really the key to the approach advocated by PRM.

So how do we get this right? From the perspective of the Bureau I lead - Population, Refugees, and Migration – we know that the growing and changing global population will have an impact on the world’s ability to reach whatever collective development goals we craft. The reproductive health and fertility decisions the current generation of youth makes will set the course of population health and growth for years to come.

For example, we're all aware that world population reached 7 billion in 2012, and populations in many countries have larger percentages of young people than ever before, and this is especially true among developing or middle-income countries. These young people—and particularly girls—must to be educated and prepared with the right skills to meet the labor force needs of tomorrow.

Paradoxically, many developed countries have populations that are largely ageing, and don't have enough young people to sustain their social systems as far into the future as they were designed to do. Experts predict that world population is likely to reach 9 billion by 2050, but it could go as high as 10 billion, so the policies and programs of the coming years will have a huge impact on the world's development in the coming decades. Thus we know that future population growth and resulting population dynamics will be influenced by the policies being discussed and developed right now.

People are also migrating as never before, both within their countries and across international borders, as well as from rural to urban areas. And many people are living in extremely vulnerable situations as refugees or displaced persons, having fled violence, war, persecution or other crisis at home. These crises do not just rob people of their lives, happiness, and futures. They also continue to disrupt our progress in reaching global development goals as well.

These factors – the P., the R. and the M. in PRM – will form the backdrop of our efforts to the post-2015 development agenda, and we must think carefully about them.

Another issue with which the Obama Administration has been grappling is how large the scope should be for a new development framework to succeed the Millennium Development Goals.

First, it is important to remember we have roughly 1,000 days to finish strongly on the work of the MDGs. One goal has already been achieved: the number of people in extreme poverty has been halved; and some sub-goals have also been met, including providing access to drinking water and improving the lives of slum-dwellers. However, progress has been uneven and we have major work ahead. Thus, even as we lay the foundation for a future development agenda, we must continue to focus on achieving the current goals, and we have sought to accelerate progress towards their fulfillment.

So in looking at a post-2015 framework, there are a number of schools of thought. Do we simply tweak the highly successful MDG agenda with its focus on poverty eradication?

Or, do we expand our framework to address global challenges with shared solutions from all societies? Our future agenda must be relevant to a changing world – we are interconnected in ways that were unimaginable even a generation ago and our policies and actions must reflect this. Our economies are more integrated than ever before. The geography of poverty is changing with increasing wealth in the developing world, and new technologies are opening new ways of solving common challenges.

Focusing on this notion of shared responsibility and collective action seems a logical way of addressing global inequality and inequity. We envision one post-2015 agenda that addresses poverty, inclusive growth, and sustainability. Ultimately, we want a set of goals that are ambitious, measurable, limited in number, and that can be easily explained to the general public.

In order to support our overarching priorities and achieve specific development goals, it's essential that we address health inequities. And for the most vulnerable – women and girls – that means we must carefully consider how we prioritize sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights during the formal negotiation process in the months ahead.

In doing so however, we must make sure that we continue to give due consideration to the incorporation of a "rights-based" perspective into policies and programs for women and girls, especially for those living in the lowest income countries, where the largest gaps exist in reaching the Millennium Development Goals. We can't forget that in the least developed countries, none of the MDGs have been achieved. It's important that we think ahead of time about how we will address this massive inequity, especially considering the instability of many of the most vulnerable regions and countries.

We support the ongoing discussion of human rights in the context of the post-2015 development framework. Addressing the fundamental needs and development of individuals must be at the heart of the post-2015 framework, and for women, this means careful consideration of reproductive rights. For ultimately whether we succeed or fail will depend on our ability to empower people, particularly women and young people, to make decisions for themselves.

Mortality and morbidity related to sexual and reproductive health, particularly for women and adolescent girls, are still unacceptably high in many regions of the world. They undermine efforts to reach our other development goals. These illnesses and deaths occur in the prime years of life. They have life-long consequences for women and girls, and their families, who suffer the direct health and economic consequences.

I want to assure you that the Obama Administration understands that we must continue to promote sexual and reproductive health. This includes universal access to voluntary family planning as a life-saving intervention that is essential for promoting health, economic growth, and development across the globe. . Protection of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights is also central to the prevention and mitigation of violence against women and girls.

There is an undeniable link between a woman’s ability to control her own fertility and her ability to achieve autonomy. There is also a link between autonomy and women’s empowerment. These relationships, in turn, affect the rate of population growth, and the ability to reach development goals. Improving access to reproductive health services, including family planning creates a beneficial ripple effect that is a necessary ingredient to helping women plan and care for their families, support their communities, and contribute economically, politically and socially to their country's development.

The ability to make important decisions about childbearing is one of the most basic rights for individuals. Programs that increase women’s access to modern forms of contraception and reproductive health services are critical to improving the status of women and upholding these basic human rights around the world.

As USAID Administrator Raj Shah, who led the U.S. government delegation, and many of your organizations reaffirmed last summer during the London Family Planning Summit, helping women in the developing world to have the same access to lifesaving contraceptives as those in the developed world must be central to our efforts. For many women, the inability to access modern contraceptives can cost them their lives. One of the key goals of the Administration's Global Health Initiative is to help young women and girls dramatically improve their life chances through delaying the age of first pregnancy. We understand that families, communities, and nations benefit when women can control the number, timing, and spacing of their births.

We're only a few months in, but so far 2013 has proven to be a pivotal year, with notable successes in both the Commission on the Status of Women and the Commission on Population and Development in securing consensus on resolutions on violence against women and girls, and on migration. As many of you may remember, last year there were considerable challenges raised by various missions at the United Nations in New York. They sought to undermine support for sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights and set back well-established agreements on language in these same fora.

Unfortunately we still see the leadership of far too many countries that are uncomfortable empowering women. They push back against those who seek to advance global normative standards. But we will continue to work with civil society and like-minded governments to advance these important issues.

Margaret and PRM’s population and migration teams at the Commission on Population and Development and Beth Schlachter at the Commission on the Status of Women served on delegations that fought back against re-opening these issues and/or setting back the clock. Until the last few hours of both meetings, consensus was uncertain. Reproductive health and rights issues represent some of the most divisive addressed in the Beijing and Cairo agendas, and strong opposition to action-oriented resolutions mounted before and during the negotiation processes. However, solid resolutions were ultimately adopted by the members of both Commissions. In the case of the CSW, the outcome document elaborates the multiple ways in which sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights are central to addressing and preventing violence against women and girls. And for CPD, the resolution articulates why women and girls continue to need access to sexual and reproductive health services even as they migrate, and why their reproductive rights must be respected regardless of where they live. So this year's successes put us on a positive footing as we head into the Commission on Population and Development and the Commission on the Status of Women 20 year review processes.

When it comes to the empowerment of women and girls, though, it's not enough that we simply reaffirm the goals and policies outlined almost 20 years ago. We believe one of the positive outcomes of the review processes will be an opportunity for the world to take note of the progress we have made together. After all the hard work of advocates, governments and international and nongovernmental organizations over the past 20 years, there has been tangible progress in integrating a right-based perspective into a wide range of policies and programs.

The normative standards advanced by these review processes, as well as those put forth through the annual cycle of General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions are critical to our efforts to improve the opportunities for successive generations of women and girls. Each time we discuss the important issues that have an impact on the lives of women, we have an opportunity to review progress, share best practices, and identify new gaps or linkages that help us make progress.

Across the board, it’s clear we need strong leadership and enhanced understanding of these challenges in order to continue to make progress. On this front, we look again to civil society – including your organizations – to hold us accountable and ensure that our policies and programs are efficient and reap results.

We count on you to help us here in Washington to make the case for strong U.S. funding and engagement on these critical issues, including for important UN entities such as the UN Population Fund, UNICEF, and UN Women. Your organizations are in the field and can tell the most compelling stories of people whose lives have been directly affected by our initiatives. We count on you to provide the context for why consistent U.S. government support for sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights are so important globally.

I hope I'll have the chance to hear from you today about what you think the State Department can be doing to be an even better partner with you to ensure that we reach the women, girls, and young people with the quality sexual and reproductive programs they want and need.

I commend your focus on the hard issues, such as elevating reproductive health and rights on the agenda in Washington , the international impact of U.S. foreign policy, and the role of religion on reproductive rights and justice. I understand that you will cover a range of topics during your meetings, and I wish you all the best for fruitful discussions.

Your continued support and commitment is essential to fighting for the lives of women you may never meet, to ensuring that today's girls – and boys –have a future that offers great promise. We wish for them the freedom to decide for themselves on matters of their own sexuality so that they may enjoy strong healthy families and live in thriving communities and nations.

Thank you for your hard work, and please know that you have my very best wishes for a successful meeting this week.

STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL'S CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY REGADING SYSRIAN CRISIS

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
The Syrian Humanitarian Crisis
Testimony
Anne C. Richard
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs, United States Senate
Washington, DC
March 19, 2013
Introduction

Good afternoon, Chairman Casey, Ranking Member Risch, and Members of this committee. Thank you for hosting this hearing today on the humanitarian crisis inside Syria. I am pleased to be able to appear before the Committee with my colleague, USAID Assistant Administrator Nancy Lindborg. Our offices work closely together to provide critical humanitarian aid to those affected by the violence in Syria.

The two year anniversary of the Syria uprising coincides with another dark milestone: over one million refugees have now fled across Syria's borders into neighboring countries. More troubling news is that half of that number arrived in the last two months. The United Nations (UN) estimates that over 2.5 million people are displaced inside Syria and many more have been affected by the upheaval and fighting.

I would like to share with you the approach my bureau in the State Department is taking to address the crisis and how our efforts and USAID's work are complementary and mutually reinforcing... I shall first briefly comment on how the refugee crisis is affecting the neighboring countries, discuss the challenges we face in delivering humanitarian assistance to those in need throughout the region, and provide some specifics on the priorities of the Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and our diplomatic outreach to other countries.

Refugees in Neighboring Countries

Countries bordering Syria are approaching a dangerous saturation point with refugees. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in January of this year, 2,000 people fled Syria every day. In February, the number climbed to 5,000 a day; and in March, we've seen 8,000 people a day crossing from Syria into Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. In addition to serving as evidence that life inside Syria has become extremely dangerous for many, the number and the rate are overwhelming the capacity of humanitarian aid organizations to meet the needs of these victims and are sorely testing the limits of host countries' abilities to provide safe shelter. If international borders are closed to Syrians seeking refuge, the awful tally of human destruction will only increase.

Jordan: There are approximately 350,000 refugees in Jordan according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Approximately 70 percent of refugees in Jordan live outside of the refugee camps in cities and towns. Many have been taken in or helped by relatives, friends or even strangers. Only 30 percent live in the Za’atri refugee camp in northern Jordan. The Government of Jordan set up Za’atri in response to the large numbers of refugees crossing the border, and it has moved to set up another camp, as yet uninhabited, and initiated plans for another. Za’atri camp has been plagued by security problems and we have been in active conversations with the UNHCR and the Government of Jordan to improve the safety of refugees there as well as humanitarian workers.

Jordan is allowing refugees to cross its borders but is finding that its resources are stretched to help massive flows of refugees while providing services to its own citizens at the same time. We should note that we are concerned by reports that some Palestinian and Iraqi refugees have been turned around at the border and we have asked the Government of Jordan to let them cross. We’ve thanked the Government of Jordan for its ongoing assistance to the refugee population, and asked them to keep their borders open to all refugees. Knowing the significant economic cost associated with hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees, the U.S. government is providing Jordan with budget support.

Lebanon: Lebanon is hosting over 354,000 Syrian refugees. Lebanon has also taken in 32,000 Palestinian refugees who have fled the violence in Syria. Syrian refugees in Lebanon live in host communities and are not in camps, which allows for greater freedom of movement, greater possibilities for self-sufficiency and a semblance of a normal life. At the same time, the presence of so many refugees in a country of 4 million people taxes Lebanon’s infrastructure and resources and has increased tensions within the refugee-hosting communities. Hizballah's presence in southern Lebanon creates a challenge for UN agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGO) in providing aid, while its involvement in the Government of Lebanon complicates U.S. efforts to provide help during this crisis. Despite these strains, the Government of Lebanon continues to keep its borders open, though its leaders have warned that Lebanon has reached its saturation point and requires significant international assistance in order to support the refugees.

Iraq: Over 110,000 Syrian refugees have fled to Iraq, and most are now in Kurdistan. Domiz camp in Kurdistan accommodates approximately 54,000 persons, and two camps in Anbar province at Al-Qaim accommodate over 7,500 persons. In addition to those living in camps, there are many who live in villages and communities. In Kurdistan, Syrians are permitted to live and work in the community once they have registered.

Since October 21, 2012, the Government of Iraq has kept the Al-Qaim border crossing with Syria closed, except for medical emergencies and some family reunification cases. Local authorities and the Iraqi Ministry of Migration and Displacement state that the border is closed for security reasons. Syrian refugees in Anbar prior to the closure of the border are restricted to the camps, although some have family members nearby. The main reasons for return to Syria continue to be lack of freedom of movement out of the camp and lack of a way to earn a living. UNHCR continues to provide support to those expressing interest in returning to Syria but is not encouraging repatriation because conditions are not conducive to a safe return.

Turkey: Since the beginning of the crisis, the Government of Turkey has supported most of the humanitarian needs of the refugees from Syria who have crossed its border. In addition to 186,200 refugees registered in 17 camps set up by the government and 71,000 registered (or soon to be registered) outside of camps, the Government of Turkey estimates that an additional 100,000 unregistered refugees live in urban areas. While the government has previously focused its support for Syrian refugees on the camp-based populations, it is now beginning to address the needs of the out-of-camp Syrians by setting up centers where urban refugees can register for IDs and free health services. Turkey has a strong economy but is experiencing a decline in its once vibrant cross-border trade with Syria.

Challenges in Crisis Response

The challenges before us are many. USAID Nancy Lindborg’s testimony discusses access, security and funding issues. Therefore, I will focus on: (1) the need to work with host governments to ensure that they keep their borders open to refugees and have what they need to help the refugees; (2) specific contributions made by the PRM bureau; and (3) ensuring that other countries are contributing to humanitarian aspects of the crisis so that the UN and other humanitarian agencies have more of the support they need to respond.

Working with Host Governments

We recognize the huge strain that the influx of refugees is currently placing on countries that neighbor Syria. In both Jordan and Lebanon, government leaders are concerned about their capacity to absorb so many refugees. Iraq has expressed concerns that al-Qaeda and its Syria affiliate, al-Nusrah Front, are sending fighters and weapons across the border. Turkey, for the most part, has maintained an open border policy for all refugees, although each day it limits the number of refugees allowed to cross at border crossings with high traffic. It is essential that neighboring countries continue to keep their borders open for those refugees fleeing violence in Syria. In every meeting with officials from these countries, we thank them for allowing refugees to cross and discuss ways to help them uphold humanitarian principles while safeguarding their own security so that they are protected from a spillover of violence.

It is important that short-term relief programs link to longer-term development aid as part of overall U.S. government aid to the region. This is particularly the case in Jordan and Lebanon. We must leverage other aid and investments and incorporate refugees into the fabric of these countries, in order to minimize the costs that hosting refugees places on communities. This is an important area in which the State Department and USAID are working together.

Department of State Response

The Department and USAID lead the U.S. government’s humanitarian response and we work closely together in response to the crisis. Nancy Lindborg and I have traveled together to the region twice and were also recently joined by Ambassador Ford in Turkey, prior to our participation at the Kuwait Donors Conference in January. Our communications teams are taking advantage of maximizing every opportunity to get the message out to domestic and international audiences about the dimensions of the crisis and to highlight our government’s leadership role in responding.

That said, allow me to outline the role the State Department has in helping to get as much humanitarian aid into Syria as possible through partners. Over several decades, PRM has developed a privileged relationship with the humanitarian agencies of the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and non-governmental organizations. These agencies are a key part of the international humanitarian system that is governed by humanitarian principles. They bring technical expertise and operational capacity to respond to this large-scale crisis. Of the nearly $385 million in humanitarian assistance that USAID and the State Department are providing in response to the Syria crisis, the State Department’s contributions total nearly $185 million. Our contributions provide life-saving emergency assistance to meet basic humanitarian needs, such as shelter, water, sanitation, and health both inside Syria and in host countries.

The delivery of assistance is often undertaken at great personal risk to those distributing the aid. For example, in the past couple of months, two UNHCR convoys and one UN interagency convoy have delivered aid into north-west Syria, where thousands of internally displaced people are in acute need of humanitarian help. The operations were carried out in collaboration with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent and the local community. Once the convoys moved across battle-lines into areas controlled by the opposition, the missions were facilitated by the Syrian Opposition Coalition. Such operations are dangerous and difficult, which underscores the need for unhindered and safe access for those providing humanitarian assistance inside Syria. We will continue to encourage the UN to do more such cross-line assistance deliveries, counting on the Syrian Opposition Coalition to help coordinate and negotiate safe access. While these convoys are good, much more is needed to ensure supplies consistently and safely reach people in need.

Of course, people in need are not concentrated in one area and instead can be found on both sides of shifting battle-lines. Humanitarian organizations provide aid in a neutral and impartial manner. The United Nations is seeking to get access to all communities in need on a regular basis. It is unacceptable and a violation of humanitarian principles for the Syrian regime to deny this access.

I should also mention the plight of the 525,000 Palestinian refugees who were living in Syria prior to the start of the conflict. They, too, have been caught up in the violence in Syria. Fighting has engulfed many Palestinian refugee camps and neighborhoods, including in Yarmouk, causing over half of Syria’s Palestinian population to be displaced. For the most part, the Palestinian population has kept away from taking sides in the conflict. Those refugees who remain in camps are the poorest and most vulnerable. Some Palestinians have fled Syria, but most remain inside the country, having heard that they will be turned away at the borders with neighboring countries. The U.S. is the largest bilateral donor to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the UN agency responsible for assisting Palestinian refugees. There are also approximately 63,000 Iraqi refugees inside Syria. In recent months, many other Iraqis who were living as refugees in Syria have chosen to return to Iraq or flee for a second time to other countries.

Contributions of Other Countries

With no end in sight, we are facing a resource crisis. The UN's Regional Response Plan to assist up to 1.1 million Syrian refugees in the region has thus far received only 21 percent of the funds it needs to operate for the first half of 2013 and, as of mid-March, refugee arrivals have already nearly reached June 2013 planning figures. Despite our own budget constraints, the United States continues to make every effort to continue to provide funding to meet the increasing needs. However, it is vital that other donors quickly honor the pledges they have made and provide the cash that agencies need to keep life-saving operations going.

Even if the Asad regime falls soon, displacement and the need for humanitarian aid will continue. This is because of the widespread destruction of Syria's infrastructure and predicted flows of refugees that would continue to cross borders – likely in both directions. If refugees are not able to return for years, host countries will need to continue to help host Syrian children in schools, and help families with medical facilities, and provide other public services.

Using diplomatic channels, we are using every opportunity to ask other donors to follow through on the pledges they made at the Kuwait Donors Conference in January in order to raise the promised $1.5 billion. The Secretary and other Department principals have reached out to other governments to ask them to do more for the Syrian people, including Syrian refugees. Funding is urgently needed if UN agencies and others are able to continue to operate.

Coordination of the international humanitarian response is complex and must occur on multiple levels. The United States participates in meetings in Geneva of the Syria Humanitarian Forum that bring together senior officials from key donor governments, countries affected by the crisis and UN leaders to discuss the humanitarian aspects of the crisis, and to coordinate our collective response. We also actively participate in UN coordination meetings in the field. In addition, we are deepening our coordination with the Syrian Opposition Coalition’s Assistance Coordination Unit. We have also encouraged UN agencies and other partners to do the same, and are pleased with the initial results.

In conclusion Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that my bureau’s primary concerns are providing protection to and aiding those who have fled the violence. The State Department’s overall goal, of course, is a return of peace and stability to Syria and to one day see the refugees return home.

I am grateful for the generosity of Congress and the American people who make our assistance possible, and for the excellent collaboration with the State Department’s Near East and European bureaus, and USAID colleagues. Thank you once again for the opportunity to highlight PRM’s role and some of our concerns regarding the Syrian humanitarian crisis. I would be happy to answer any of your questions.