FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh After Their Meeting
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Amman, Jordan
July 17, 2013
FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: (Via interpreter) (In progress) -- on his fifth or sixth visit to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in (inaudible) a while ago we had the honor of meeting (inaudible) with the delegation assigned by the Arab League Committee on the Peace Initiative.
And last April we had a meeting in Washington and we agreed that we will have regular communication with Mr. Kerry, Secretary of State, in order to discuss all the developments and all the personal efforts with regard to reviving the peace negotiations. Actually, it was a very good meeting and (inaudible) commitment of President Barack Obama and all the stakeholders in terms of commitment to the peace process in order to secure stability, prosperity, and peace for the region. So the objective of our meeting today was to review and to listen to the developments, especially in terms of the intensive efforts exerted by Secretary of State Mr. Kerry with the other stakeholders. And we really listened to everybody, commending this great effort, and we will keep you posted with the recent developments on this issue.
And also, we agreed as a delegation – ministerial delegation assigned by the Arab League – to communicate and to keep ourselves and each other posted on the developments in the region and the efforts here to seek a political solution. And all of you know our position with regard to stopping violence and destruction and to have a peaceful solution to maintain security in Syria and to achieve its sovereignty and to protect its great people. And in his meetings with the Russian officials some months ago and the interaction which led to the agreement on organizing an international conference in order to find a political solution, all of these meetings were very encouraging.
There were meetings in Amman, Istanbul, and Rome and in Doha for the 11 (inaudible) group, and – or London group – and there was an agreement to go forward on this track. Also there is great focus by the Secretary of State in terms of the repercussions of the Syrian situation on Jordan. Jordan is hosting about 550,000 refugees on its territories, from Syria of course. And from this platform I would like to express appreciation of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, to the American administration and to all the relevant agencies for their help to Jordan to host these refugees. We really appreciate this support.
There is other support given to us by other international sources, however, still we are in need for more support in order to deliver the required services for the refugees, especially when it comes to the sensitive sectors that were impacted with this inflow of refugees. And here we are speaking about the sectors of energy, health, education, and environment, and the business sector. Of course, we commend all of the efforts made by our – by the American administration all over the world in order to help Jordan in this issue.
And we had talks about other files that are of mutual interest for us, especially the bilateral relations between Jordan and the U.S. These are distinct relations and His Majesty, the King, had a meeting recently with President Barack Obama in Washington, and there was a visit by President Obama to Jordan. Actually, there were two meetings in like four to five weeks only. This is but an indicator to the mutual interest and attention given by His Majesty, the King, and President Barack Obama to the distinct relations. We really appreciate the help and the assistance of America in all the sectors. We always say that such support reflects the historical relations between us.
Again, I welcome John Kerry, my friend, and the person who has all the knowledge. Actually, his experience talks for itself, especially when it comes to the sensitive files in our region with his long history and his wise decisions. Actually, we can see a niche of hope, especially when it comes to the file of peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. I give the floor to you (inaudible).
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Mr. Foreign Minister (inaudible).
QUESTION: We can’t hear you. Thank you. (Laughter.) (inaudible).
SECRETARY KERRY: Maybe it’s because of Ramadan. (Laughter.)
It’s an honor to be here with all of you. Thank you very, very much. And particularly I am pleased to be back here with my friend, Nasser. We really are good friends. Sometimes that word is used in this business and it’s thrown around lightly, but he and I have had the pleasure of spending a great deal of time together, well before I became Secretary of State, when I was a senator, and I appreciate his energy, his knowledge, and his commitment to solving difficult problems. He is not a foreign minister who sits bashfully on the sidelines. He’s willing to tackle the tough issues.
And the reason I find myself here again is not just the privilege of meeting with the Arab Peace Initiative Follow-Up Committee, which was a very important meeting, as Nasser said, but also because Jordan is so engaged in meeting its own challenges here at home but also helping to deal with challenges around it. And this is a region which, for better or worse, is not particularly quiet these days. There’s a lot going on with Syria, Egypt, Iran, the challenges of the Middle East peace process, and all of the normal challenges of economies and of the modern world.
So I’m here to follow up with the Arab Peace Initiative Follow-On Committee. I made a promise when we met in Washington earlier in April. I promised that we would keep up with our efforts on the Middle East and that I would brief them regularly. And since they traveled to Washington last time to come for a very important announcement, I came here this time in order to be able to meet with everybody and make it easier for their travel.
We continued the conversation today that we began in Washington. I think everybody knows that the Arab Peace Committee has – and the Arab League itself; Secretary General Nabil Elaraby was here today – has really long played a very important role in the path leading to the Arab Peace Initiative. And the Arab Peace Initiative, which King Abdullah put forward a number of years ago, I have said before, was a very important departure point and one which never received the full attention and focus that it should have.
I’m glad that it is today because it promises to open up significant potential for normalized relations, for the potential for trade and growth in historic and very important ways. And it promises Israel – Israel needs to look hard at this initiative, which promises Israel peace with 22 Arab nations and 35 Muslim nations, a total of 57 nations that are standing and waiting for the possibility of making peace with Israel.
Their willingness that they brought to Washington in April was very significant, because at that time they not only restated the commitment to a two-state solution, the only solution that is real, but they also included the potential of land swaps, as a mechanism for achieving that solution. And that was another historic moment and historic departure by the Arab community. It underscores what all of us really know, and that is that peace would benefit not only the security and opportunity and legitimate aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, but very significantly it would contribute enormously to the stability and the prosperity throughout the entire region. Every country in the region – and particularly Jordan, the neighbor of Palestine and of Israel, which already cooperates in many ways to help create stability and peace – would also benefit enormously from progress.
Peace is in the common interest of everybody in this region. And as many ministers said to me today in the meeting that we had – many of them – they said that the core issue of instability in this region and in many other parts of the world is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The only way to resolve that is through direct negotiations, and the only ones who can make that happen are not President Obama, John Kerry, Nasser Judeh, but it is the parties themselves. They have to make that decision.
I have stayed in very close contact with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. And I know that despite everything else that is happening in the region, despite all of the pressures of neighboring states, of refugees, of conflict, despite the pressures of a volatile neighborhood, the fact is that both sides continue to work up to this point in good faith in a good effort in order to try to find a way to succeed.
Now, when this process started several months ago, there were very wide gaps, very significant gaps between the two sides. And I think Nasser would agree with me that through hard and deliberate, patient work, and most importantly through quiet work, we have been able to narrow those gaps very significantly. And so we continue to get closer, and I continue to remain hopeful that the sides will soon be able to come to sit at the same table.
Now, there are still some elements and some language that needs to be agreed upon and worked out. This is normal, and I’m not going to detail the specifics. But as this important, quiet process continues to unfold, we want to make sure that we keep it quiet, because that’s honestly the only way that it works. And everybody has agreed on that.
I would caution everybody to resist the temptation to speculate about where things stand or what is possible. The easiest bet among Middle East prognosticators has always been on predicting impasse. That’s always been the easiest bet, and I understand that. But I also know that through the efforts that are being made now, the best hope for a different outcome is to have a quiet process that is working the way the parties are working now, and I congratulate them both for doing that.
It is fair to say that that initiative, peace within the Middle East, and the Arab-Israeli conflict has always been one of the most difficult challenges on the face of the planet. Decades of close calls, of near breakthroughs, and many disappointments make it very clear how tough it is. But while the conflict has indeed persisted for a long time, it is more and more true today than ever before that the time to resolve it is narrowing.
So that’s why Nasser and I and King Abdullah, President Obama, all of us join together in encouraging both sides to think very carefully about their words and their actions. That’s why we encourage them to promote trust and not to take steps that would undermine that trust. And that’s why we urge everybody to remain committed to creating a climate that is conducive to a peace that is worthy of the people that they all represent.
In my meetings yesterday and today, we also talked about our continuing concerns with Syria. Syria is one of the principal reasons that I came out here to talk now. And we had a good conversation with a number of different ministers about that and also with King Abdullah today, and we will continue our conversations both later and tomorrow morning in order to discuss the challenges that lie ahead.
We’re very, very grateful – we, the United States, the global community – are very grateful to Jordan and to King Abdullah, to all the citizens of the Hashemite Kingdom. We thank you for having the hearts and the willingness to open your arms to so many refugees. We know it is very, very difficult. It’s a challenge. And the generosity that you have shown is an example, really, to the world. And we understand that it puts a strain on your society. It has an impact on work, on workers, on wages, on housing, on all of these issues, water. Everything is affected. And so we all have an obligation to try to help and to meet your needs, and we will try to live up to that obligation.
We discussed today the United States’ ongoing financial support and other efforts to help Jordan and others to care for the Syrians who have been driven from their homes by the violence. And we also discussed coordination on issues in the days ahead. And all of us – all the ministers here today – still agree that a political solution is the only real solution ultimately to the challenge of Syria. Our shared focus remains on how to achieve that, and we all need to work together to strengthen the opposition and to create a dialogue that puts the people of Syria ahead of any sectarian interests, ahead of any party interests, and certainly ahead of any personal interest.
Now, one final thing I will say quickly: We also, needless to say, discussed Egypt. The challenge of Egypt is very real. Egypt is important, and it’s important that I came here to discuss it, because Egypt is vital to the security of the region, it is vital to some of the flow of supplies to the region, it is vital to the security of the Sinai, it is vital to the security of Gaza and to the maintenance of the Gaza ceasefire, and in the end, it is also vital to the peace treaty between it and Israel. And I stand in another country that has had the courage to sign a peace treaty and that is working towards peace.
So that’s why it was important that we discuss this. We remain broadly committed to an inclusive democratic process in Egypt. And I think all of the – we all today committed ourselves to embrace the notion that all groups, all parties, all points of view, all religions, all minorities need to be welcomed and accepted into the political solution and the political future of Egypt. And we were very pleased to see the increasing commitment day to day to making sure that Egypt will move rapidly to the constitutional process that will guarantee the democracy for all of its citizens.
So I thank you again for the privilege of being here, Nasser. Thank you for your help on so many different issues, and we look forward to taking a few questions.
FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, John, and we’ll take two questions from the Jordanian side and two questions from the U.S. side. So (inaudible) will start, and we’ll take a U.S. and then we’ll come back.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) What are the proposals that Kerry spoke about which Abbas wants to discuss with the Palestinian Authority tonight?
FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: (Via interpreter) I think that Kerry has stressed that the effectiveness of this track is – (in English) – quiet, to use the English word – (continuing via interpreter) and that the efforts that are being exerted and the communications need and all the proposals that he has suggested and discussed with both sides are still away from lights. And I think that we have already witnessed in decisive milestones in the Arab-Israeli conflict that some negotiations came to a failure just because of disclosing everything internationally. And I think that the effectiveness of this effort and exercise by John Kerry is that it is away from light, and I think it will result in reviving the negotiations between the two sides and handling all the political solution issues. Again, I confirm Jordan is a stakeholder here. It has an interest. It is not political mediator agency. It is our interest to have an independent Palestinian state on its territory with Eastern Jerusalem as its capital and to solve all the pending problems. This is our real interest here in Jordan. That’s why we commend the efforts by Minister Kerry and we want to have the two-state solution. And we reiterate what he has already said that these negotiations must be kept away from lights. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Matt Lee, AP.
QUESTION: Ah, yes. Will I need a mike?
SECRETARY KERRY: I think they’ll get you a mike. Yeah.
QUESTION: All right. So Mr. Secretary, recognizing that you want to keep all of this quiet and not give any details, the Arab League statement that did come out after your meeting does mention that they support your efforts and especially, quote, “the new and important political, economic, and security elements.” I’m assuming you’re not going to get into what these – specifically what these new important elements are, but could you at least say if there are, then? And if you could or would just try to describe them in a way that you think would not jeopardize the --
SECRETARY KERRY: Sure.
QUESTION: -- resumption of talks. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, I think – Matt, thank you. It’s a good question, and I’m happy to talk about a couple of them, specifically the economic and the security. Generically, I’ll talk about the security.
I’ve talked about the economic previously, but I’m going to repeat this. What we have designed together with major business leaders and particularly the leadership of a number of consultants of major international consultant firms who have now compiled about eight years of man-hours through two months of work, and they have done an analysis of the economic challenges of the Palestinian territories, looking at the sectors of the economy – tourism, manufacturing, infrastructure, energy, water, and so forth. And the analysis has been made with a view to trying to figure out: How do we have a transformative initiative that actually impacts the lives of Palestinians in a way that they will feel quickly, not rhetorical, but real, on-the-ground steps?
They have now laid out a set of projects, and we are working with Israel and with the Palestinians together in order to identify projects that could rapidly be invested in, rapidly be approved, that will have a direct impact on unemployment. Our hope is that, over the span of about three years, you could actually reduce the unemployment rate from 21 percent to 8 percent, that you could double the GDP of all of the Palestinian territory. And this initiative is not just for the West Bank; it’s also for Gaza. And our hope is – in the days ahead, our hope is to be able to have specific announcements about those projects and about these initiatives in order for people to see concrete, tangible ways in which their lives could change and in which a peace process could, in fact, attract investment and have a way of having an impact on life in Jordan and Israel as well.
Now, I’m not going to go into the details of it right now. That’s an outline. But I am excited about it, as are most of the people who’ve seen it. Many of the countries in the region have been briefed on this, the leaders of these countries, and they have committed themselves to be supportive of it providing we have the right framework within which to try to move forward. So that is basically the economic track that they are referring to.
On the security track, everybody knows that one of the greatest challenges to peace has always been the perception in Israel of the threat to Israel, and Israel’s security is paramount. It’s paramount to Israelis, obviously. It’s existential to any leader of Israel and to the Israeli people. But it’s also important to America, which supports Israel, and important to the allies and friends of Israel. And it is important, in fact, to the region – important to Jordan, important to the Palestinians – that there be security for the region.
One of the things that is mentioned prominently in the Arab Peace Initiative is a regional security concept. The Arab community is prepared to commit to a regional security framework, which has yet to be defined. So security is a very important component of any peace process. You must provide for the security of the Palestinians, the security of the Jordanians, the security of the region, and particularly, obviously, Israel will not sign a peace agreement if it does not feel that it will be secure.
We are addressing that through the efforts of General Allen, who has – is serving as a Special Advisor to the Secretary of Defense, and working with our team and with the Defense Department and with the Israeli forces, and will very soon be in the West Bank meeting with the Palestinians to make evaluations on a professional military basis about the nature of threats so that that evaluation can be factored in to any kind of negotiation in the future. Now, that’s a general concept of those two items.
On the political front, I’m going to leave that and not talk about that right now. It is obviously the most complicated. It has always been the most complicated. It is also the most important. The economic and the security are not substitutes. I want to repeat, emphasize, exclamation point – they are not substitutes for the political track. The political track is the centerpiece of any kind of peace effort, and I think it is best to leave those thoughts where they are, which is with the parties and out of the public discourse at this point in time.
FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: Without presuming to jump in and add to what the Secretary said, I just want to say that he was astute enough, as is expected of John Kerry, to mention the importance of the political track right at the end so that it can stay very, very present in our minds and in the minds of the skeptics out there who may think that the economic and the security are substitutes, as the Secretary said, to the political, which is of paramount importance. Because at the end of the day, it is the political solution that will pave the way for the economic and the security tracks to succeed. So thank you for mentioning that, sir.
MODERATOR: (Off mike.)
QUESTION: Taylor Luck, The Jordan Times newspaper. My question is to Mr. Secretary. You mentioned earlier about the importance of strengthening the Syrian opposition. Obviously, we saw in the Doha summit and the Friends of Syria group pledging or reiterating the pledge to provide support for the armed the opposition, and President Barack Obama also mentioned the U.S. ongoing support for the Syrian opposition.
My question is: Recently, there was a meeting of the Higher Syrian Revolutionary Council and there was a lot of discussion over the lack of arms and the lack of supply of arms that was pledged in Doha and by President Barack Obama. My question is: What is the reason behind the delay of this pledged military support? When might we see this military support reach the opposition, the – let’s say the moderate opposition within Syria, the Free Syrian Army? And how can the U.S. keep the trust of Syrian opposition forces if these delays continue?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, the United States, I’m proud to say, has provided very significant assistance over the course of the last year or more, huge humanitarian assistance, very significant assistance directly to the Syrian Opposition Coalition, and serious support to General Idris and to the Syrian military coalition.
Now, he has – there was a period of time where he felt that they needed more weaponry and they needed more ammunition and things like that. There are partners, support members of the so-called Friends of Syria who have been providing a lot of that. And there’s a great deal of weaponry that I know has been reaching the Syrian opposition in the course of the last weeks of a very different kind. And they’re also getting other kinds of assistance at this point in time.
So I believe that they are getting very significant assistance, but unfortunately, sometimes it takes longer than you would like because you need to get approvals, things have to go through Congress, things have to be approved, and so forth and so on. And it just takes longer than you’d like. But the fact is I am confident about the support that the Syrian opposition is receiving today and will continue to receive in the days ahead, not just from the United States but from lots of different players who are supportive of the opposition and believe that the combination of the Iranian Qods Force on the ground in Syria, and Hezbollah – a terrorist organization on the ground in Syria – and Russian support coming in has been the difference that’s tilted some of these initiatives to President Assad, but not for the long term.
And I think that’s why we continue to say the political solution is the ultimate solution. And so while we are supporting the opposition, and we’ve made that clear, we still believe very, very strongly that there’s an urgency to coming to the negotiating table and ending the violence and beginning to move towards a transition government that promises the people of Syria a future without violence and a future with a government of their choosing, not a government that has been imposed on them by killing huge numbers of innocent people and driving many others out of the country.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, I’m sorry. All right. (Laughter.) Do you want to add anything to that, Minister? Are you happy to do that?
Anne Gearan.
FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Thank you. For both of you, first, do you believe Mohamed Morsy’s ouster in Egypt constitutes a military coup?
And to Secretary Kerry, do you support continuation of U.S. aid to Egypt? If so, how will you get around the U.S. legal restrictions on not providing aid to countries that have gone through a military coup?
And just very quickly on Syria. Now that there’s a new opposition leadership in place, do you – what gives you any confidence that that slate will be able to do any better of a job than the previous one in presenting a united and competent alternative to Assad? Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Okay. Thank you, Anne. Well, on the issue of a coup, this is obviously an extremely complex and difficult situation. And President Obama has made clear our very deep concern about the decision of the Egyptian armed forces to remove the President from power and suspend the constitution. But the fact is, we need to take the time necessary, because of the complexity of this situation, to evaluate what has taken place, to review all of our requirements under the law, and to make it consistent with our policy objectives as is appropriate with that appropriate interpretation under the law. So that’s exactly what we’re doing right now, and I’m not going to rush to judgment on it. I’m going to wait till our lawyers have done their homework, till I have the appropriate facts and information in front of us.
I will say this: That what complicates it, obviously, is that you had an extraordinary situation in Egypt of life and death, of the potential of civil war and enormous violence, and you now have a constitutional process proceeding forward very rapidly. So we have to measure all of those facts against the law, and that’s exactly what we will do.
That said, what makes me confident about the opposition? I can’t tell you that I know with certainty where they will take Egypt. At first blush, I will tell you that I’ve looked at the lineup of the people, I know a number of them personally, and I know they are extremely competent people. I also know that Egypt has been in need of making critical decisions, like the IMF decision, for some period of time because of this fiscal crisis, and I understand this group, this new government, is determined to make an IMF agreement and to begin to restore the finances of the country.
Obviously, some people have enormous confidence in them because something like $13 billion has flowed into the country in terms of new central bank funds and cash, which gives them some leeway to be able to make some of these decisions.
So the proof will be in the pudding. I’m not going to stand here and predict what they’re going to do. Very clearly, order needs to be restored to the streets. Stability needs to be restored. Violence needs to be ended. Rights need to be protected. Jobs need to be created. And the country needs to be able to return to normal business. My hope is, and President Obama’s hope – President Obama has been very clear about this – we want everybody to participate. And we are concerned about political arrests. And we’re concerned about the freedom of people to be able to participate, because we think that’s an important part of the restoration of the heart and soul of Egypt.
So our hope is that in the days ahead, this situation will become much clearer. And it’s much too early to make pronouncements or judge where it’s going to go. What we want, what President Obama is committed to, is a country that has a democratic constitutional process that everybody can participate in without fear of retribution, without arrest, and that the country will move forward on a democratic path. And we’ll cope with the rest of these issues as they come along.
FOREIGN MINISTER JUDEH: Well, I just came back from a very quick visit to Egypt a couple of days ago. His Majesty the King dispatched me there to talk to the Egyptian leadership. I saw the interim president. I had a good conversation with him, was extremely reassured of the political – of the implementation of the political roadmap that they’ve set out for themselves, which includes constitutional amendments, a national meeting that will include all the different elements of the political spectrum in Egypt, followed possibly by a referendum and then parliamentary elections and the opening of a candidature for presidency and then presidential elections.
So they are very, very comfortable that they are heading, as the Secretary of State described it, as a constitutional process that is taking them in the right direction, which is forward, and in a timelined, benchmarked fashion.
Now to answer your question directly, without venturing into the legal or political interpretations of coup, my understanding, as is the understanding of many, is that a military coup results in the military taking over. And in this particular case, we saw the military, yes, intervening. This is not the first time that the military intervenes in the political life of Egypt. We’ve all accepted it in the past. But the military as an institution, I think, saw the potential for real danger and violence and fragmentation and the possibility of civil war with 20 million people out on the streets in different parts of Egypt. And they intervened to put the political constitutional process back on track.
And the biggest proof of the fact that they are not planning to run things in Egypt is that the head of the military, the Minister of Defense, the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, is the First Deputy Prime Minister in the new government which was appointed yesterday. He’s not the prime minister, he’s not the president, he’s not the ruler of Egypt. He is someone who came out saying, “I am trying to implement a political roadmap that will lead to a constitutional process that will lead to a democratically-elected parliament and president.” And I think that we’ve got to give them the benefit of the doubt. They know best. And the military in Egypt has been the guarantor of peace and stability in many twists and turns in Egypt’s contemporary history.
Again, my visit a couple of days ago was extremely reassuring that the political process, the constitutional process, is very much on track.
SECRETARY KERRY: Just a footnote: I asked Nasser if he wants to come and be our counsel to the State Department in a few days. (Laughter.)
Showing posts with label REFUGEES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label REFUGEES. Show all posts
Friday, July 19, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
U.S. OFFICIAL'S REMARKS ON RECENT HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN AFRICA
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
U.S. Policy and Response to Recent Humanitarian Crisis in Africa
Remarks
Anne C. Richard
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) Africa Conference
Arlington, VA
May 16, 2013
Thank you for that kind introduction, and for having me here today. And thank you for your decades of service to refugees in this country and around the world.
There are a series of issues I’d like to address today, ranging from refugee crises overseas to our own domestic programs that resettle refugees in America and help them to rebuild their lives.
I want to update you on the latest actions of the Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration during what is proving to be a busy time. I’ve been told you all have a special interest in developments in Africa, so I will spend a few extra minutes on African refugee issues.
Devastating overseas emergencies are pushing more and more refugees from their homes, and the United States plays a leading role in responding to these emergencies.
Our overall approach to responding to these crises will remain consistent: working multilaterally with international organization partners such as the UN Refugee Agency (or UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Organization for Migration; focusing on protection and finding safe places for refugees to re-start their lives; and burden-sharing with host governments as well as other donor governments.
We will also continue to look to aid agencies that serve as our partners to augment the international response.
PRM is dealing with a major refugee crisis in the Middle East at the same time as a number of new refugee and displacement crises in Africa.
These include people fleeing violence in northern Mali who have yet to get to go home, refugees crossing the border from Sudan into South Sudan, and continued violence in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. How are we doing in responding to these crises?
In Syria, more than 70,000 are dead, 1.4 millon people are refugees and millions more displaced or hurt inside Syria. We applaud the generosity of Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq for hosting the Syrian refugees who have crossed onto their territory. I have visited each of these countries, met with Syrian refugees, and sought help for them from senior government officials. Much is being done but, quite frankly, the daunting scale of this crisis is challenging everyone involved. Inside Syria, along with USAID, we support efforts to get aid to those who need it despite shifting battle-lines.
At the same time as this major crisis grips the headlines, the conflict in the north of Mali has resulted in nearly 300,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) and nearly 180,000 refugees in neighboring countries.
Last Fall, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and I traveled to Damba refugee camp in Burkina Faso, just 50 kilometers from the Mali border. Part of our mission was to draw attention to the crisis, so we appeared all over the newspapers and airwaves in Ouagadougou and then repeated ourselves before the media and diplomats of Geneva.
Prospects for peace in Mali are hard to gauge, but this crisis has not been forgotten. Yesterday, a donors conference was held in Brussels for Mali and at that conference there was an understanding that there needs to be more development in that country, especially in the north. The US announced another $32 million, bringing total US funding through international and non-governmental organization for Malian refugees and IDPs to more than $180 million.
On July 1st, the UN will start bringing in MINUSMA 11,200 peacekeeping troops and more than 1400 police. MINUSMA will subsume the African-led AFISMA mission that was set up last September – essentially many MINUSMA troops will be West African peacekeepers who are already on the ground. A separate French strike force will remain to deal with extremists and terrorists. Elections are scheduled for July 28th.
And suffering in Sudan has not abated. You are all familiar with the Darfur situation. More recently, however, our attention has been focused on conflict along Sudan’s southern border and the 230,000 Sudanese refugees who have fled to neighboring South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya over the past two years. PRM has provided over $50 million to meet these emergency needs through UNHCR and its partners.
At the same time, in Eastern Congo, violence has driven new waves of Congolese refugees from their homes … and we will need to continue to work to help them.
Thanks to continued strong support from Congress this fiscal year, PRM will maintain its leadership role in responding to the needs of refugees worldwide, including efforts to assist refugees to return home voluntarily in safety and dignity when conditions permit-- like the 70,000 Congolese who were able to go back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo from neighboring Congo-Brazzaville.
When I was in Kenya this past year, I was asked about the possibility for Somalis to return. Even as some voluntary return may be possible, it is vital that refugees continue to find safety in Kenya given the volatile security situation and scarcity of food inside Somalia.
Even as some 80% of Somali refugees indicate on surveys that they are willing to repatriate if peace returns to Somalia, more than 60,000 new Somali refugees have fled to neighboring countries so far this year.
When return home isn’t possible, we also support local integration in host communities. For example, some 160,000 1972-era Burundi refugees were initially offered Tanzanian citizenship in 2009 and accepted. Some political work needs to be done but the initiative on the part of the Tanzanian Government is a model that may provide valuable lessons on local integration that could be applied to other long-term refugee situations around the world.
Let’s now turn our attention back to our own country, the United States. As all of you here today know, the United States is also the world’s leading resettlement country, admitting more refugees each year than all other resettlement countries combined – more than three million since 1975.
And we all know that our own communities have been as enriched by these newcomers as they have been by the opportunities this country has provided them.
Our overall resettlement policy remains the same: we will continue to strive to achieve the President’s refugee admissions ceiling, focusing on the most vulnerable who cannot go home or be integrated in their country of first asylum.
The PRM Bureau has gone to extraordinary lengths in the past year to reach refugees in need of resettlement who were previously inaccessible because of dangerous conditions in the places where they had sought asylum. In Kenya, UNHCR has referred thousands of Somalis in the Dadaab camp for U.S. resettlement. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security was unable to interview them because it was determined to be too risky to send DHS officers to Dadaab.
Last year, we provided additional funding to build a transit center in Kakuma camp, where conditions are safer, and have moved close to 1,000 individuals from Dadaab to Kakuma to continue the process for U.S. resettlement. Another 900 will be moved to Kakuma in the next week. These refugees, many of whom have been living in Dadaab for more than 20 years, will start arriving in the United States this month.
Many of you know by now that UNHCR has announced its intention to refer up to 50,000 Congolese for resettlement over the next five years. Most will likely come to the United States. Given the level of trauma and need among this population, we want to work together with all of you to do this right.
That’s why we’ve formed a working group to bring together partners from all across the spectrum – overseas and domestic, government, International Organizations, and NGOs – to see how we can better prepare the refugees and communities for successful resettlement.
Late last year the Government of Chad contacted UNHCR to say it had changed its policy and would be open to the resettlement to other countries of refugees from Darfur who have been living in Eastern Chad. PRM staff traveled to Chad in February to look into this possibility. My colleagues are cautiously optimistic and we will be reporting more on this to you in the coming weeks and months.
Working closely with the Department of Homeland Security, we re-instated the priority three or "P-3" family reunion program this year with a new DNA requirement to ensure that the program is fulfilling its purpose of reuniting relatives.
I’m pleased to report that we are on track to admit the number of refugees in the Presidential Determination this year. That is 70,000 refugees– a more than 20% increase over last year’s number.
You should also know that we’ve been able to admit these refugees in a much more even pace than in recent years. Just under 50% of the refugees we expect this year were admitted in the first half of the fiscal year.
We recognize that this increase comes at a time of shrinking state and local budgets, cuts in social services, and the challenges of raising private contributions. As you know, PRM has helped deal with economic challenges to the program by doubling the amount of funding provided on a per capita basis to receive and place refugees in 2010. We have provided modest increases since then.
We also are providing "floor funding" to our resettlement agency partners, essentially guaranteeing sufficient funding for services to 60,000 refugees so that program managers can plan and hire staff with the assurance that the funding will be there.
Despite all these improvements, we know that many refugees are still struggling in the early weeks and months of their arrival in the States. This leads me to ask: How can our domestic programs best address the needs of refugees? What more can we do to help refugees effectively integrate into new communities?
Given the overall budget situation in Washington, we all acknowledge the need to widen the circle of domestic "stakeholders" in the refugee resettlement program. We need to ensure a warm reception for the refugees we resettle. We need to find creative ways to expand participation in the program at the local level and support for the program by community leaders.
PRM is increasingly reaching out to state and local elected officials, employers, health clinics, schools, and others, during our domestic trips. We are acutely aware of the importance of early employment for refugees, and therefore of the importance of your developing strong relationships with responsible employers in your communities.
Employers PRM staff and I have met in our travels around the US have been among the strongest advocates for the refugee admissions program. Tyson Foods, which provides English language training to refugees, has created community liaison positions to assist refugees navigate services and builds bridges with the host community. A firm in Ft. Wayne, Indiana was inspired by the challenges refugees have overcome and was impressed by their work ethic. Burmese now make up 10% of the workforce there. A Subway sandwich shop owner in Baltimore who keeps hiring more refugees says they are the best employees he’s ever had.
I know that you all could name dozens, if not hundreds, of companies that are also strong advocates for the program, and they are an essential part of the success of the US Refugee Admissions Program.
ECDC’s affiliated agencies benefit from the volunteer work of thousands of highly motivated and caring community members. We recognize the strong one-on-one relationships developed when an individual agrees to help welcome a refugee to his or her community, and I know this is happening every day at your offices across the country.
Whether it’s preparing an appropriate home-cooked meal for a family upon their arrival, helping to teach them English, or explaining how to navigate the local grocery store or bus system, these relationships are life-affirming and life-changing for both sides. These relationships also help build crucial support among Americans for the refugee resettlement program. I’ll be curious to hear from you what you all are doing to reach out to non-traditional stakeholders in your communities.
In conclusion, I want to thank you for all you do all year long as an essential part of the US Refugee Admissions Program. The work of communities and networks of volunteers helps to turn the promise of America --as a land that welcomes refugees -- into a reality. The success of our resettlement program depends on you. Thank you for the part you play in letting refugees turn their stories of tragedy into ones of triumph.
U.S. Policy and Response to Recent Humanitarian Crisis in Africa
Remarks
Anne C. Richard
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) Africa Conference
Arlington, VA
May 16, 2013
Thank you for that kind introduction, and for having me here today. And thank you for your decades of service to refugees in this country and around the world.
There are a series of issues I’d like to address today, ranging from refugee crises overseas to our own domestic programs that resettle refugees in America and help them to rebuild their lives.
I want to update you on the latest actions of the Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration during what is proving to be a busy time. I’ve been told you all have a special interest in developments in Africa, so I will spend a few extra minutes on African refugee issues.
Devastating overseas emergencies are pushing more and more refugees from their homes, and the United States plays a leading role in responding to these emergencies.
Our overall approach to responding to these crises will remain consistent: working multilaterally with international organization partners such as the UN Refugee Agency (or UNHCR), the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Organization for Migration; focusing on protection and finding safe places for refugees to re-start their lives; and burden-sharing with host governments as well as other donor governments.
We will also continue to look to aid agencies that serve as our partners to augment the international response.
PRM is dealing with a major refugee crisis in the Middle East at the same time as a number of new refugee and displacement crises in Africa.
These include people fleeing violence in northern Mali who have yet to get to go home, refugees crossing the border from Sudan into South Sudan, and continued violence in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. How are we doing in responding to these crises?
In Syria, more than 70,000 are dead, 1.4 millon people are refugees and millions more displaced or hurt inside Syria. We applaud the generosity of Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq for hosting the Syrian refugees who have crossed onto their territory. I have visited each of these countries, met with Syrian refugees, and sought help for them from senior government officials. Much is being done but, quite frankly, the daunting scale of this crisis is challenging everyone involved. Inside Syria, along with USAID, we support efforts to get aid to those who need it despite shifting battle-lines.
At the same time as this major crisis grips the headlines, the conflict in the north of Mali has resulted in nearly 300,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) and nearly 180,000 refugees in neighboring countries.
Last Fall, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and I traveled to Damba refugee camp in Burkina Faso, just 50 kilometers from the Mali border. Part of our mission was to draw attention to the crisis, so we appeared all over the newspapers and airwaves in Ouagadougou and then repeated ourselves before the media and diplomats of Geneva.
Prospects for peace in Mali are hard to gauge, but this crisis has not been forgotten. Yesterday, a donors conference was held in Brussels for Mali and at that conference there was an understanding that there needs to be more development in that country, especially in the north. The US announced another $32 million, bringing total US funding through international and non-governmental organization for Malian refugees and IDPs to more than $180 million.
On July 1st, the UN will start bringing in MINUSMA 11,200 peacekeeping troops and more than 1400 police. MINUSMA will subsume the African-led AFISMA mission that was set up last September – essentially many MINUSMA troops will be West African peacekeepers who are already on the ground. A separate French strike force will remain to deal with extremists and terrorists. Elections are scheduled for July 28th.
And suffering in Sudan has not abated. You are all familiar with the Darfur situation. More recently, however, our attention has been focused on conflict along Sudan’s southern border and the 230,000 Sudanese refugees who have fled to neighboring South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya over the past two years. PRM has provided over $50 million to meet these emergency needs through UNHCR and its partners.
At the same time, in Eastern Congo, violence has driven new waves of Congolese refugees from their homes … and we will need to continue to work to help them.
Thanks to continued strong support from Congress this fiscal year, PRM will maintain its leadership role in responding to the needs of refugees worldwide, including efforts to assist refugees to return home voluntarily in safety and dignity when conditions permit-- like the 70,000 Congolese who were able to go back to the Democratic Republic of the Congo from neighboring Congo-Brazzaville.
When I was in Kenya this past year, I was asked about the possibility for Somalis to return. Even as some voluntary return may be possible, it is vital that refugees continue to find safety in Kenya given the volatile security situation and scarcity of food inside Somalia.
Even as some 80% of Somali refugees indicate on surveys that they are willing to repatriate if peace returns to Somalia, more than 60,000 new Somali refugees have fled to neighboring countries so far this year.
When return home isn’t possible, we also support local integration in host communities. For example, some 160,000 1972-era Burundi refugees were initially offered Tanzanian citizenship in 2009 and accepted. Some political work needs to be done but the initiative on the part of the Tanzanian Government is a model that may provide valuable lessons on local integration that could be applied to other long-term refugee situations around the world.
Let’s now turn our attention back to our own country, the United States. As all of you here today know, the United States is also the world’s leading resettlement country, admitting more refugees each year than all other resettlement countries combined – more than three million since 1975.
And we all know that our own communities have been as enriched by these newcomers as they have been by the opportunities this country has provided them.
Our overall resettlement policy remains the same: we will continue to strive to achieve the President’s refugee admissions ceiling, focusing on the most vulnerable who cannot go home or be integrated in their country of first asylum.
The PRM Bureau has gone to extraordinary lengths in the past year to reach refugees in need of resettlement who were previously inaccessible because of dangerous conditions in the places where they had sought asylum. In Kenya, UNHCR has referred thousands of Somalis in the Dadaab camp for U.S. resettlement. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security was unable to interview them because it was determined to be too risky to send DHS officers to Dadaab.
Last year, we provided additional funding to build a transit center in Kakuma camp, where conditions are safer, and have moved close to 1,000 individuals from Dadaab to Kakuma to continue the process for U.S. resettlement. Another 900 will be moved to Kakuma in the next week. These refugees, many of whom have been living in Dadaab for more than 20 years, will start arriving in the United States this month.
Many of you know by now that UNHCR has announced its intention to refer up to 50,000 Congolese for resettlement over the next five years. Most will likely come to the United States. Given the level of trauma and need among this population, we want to work together with all of you to do this right.
That’s why we’ve formed a working group to bring together partners from all across the spectrum – overseas and domestic, government, International Organizations, and NGOs – to see how we can better prepare the refugees and communities for successful resettlement.
Late last year the Government of Chad contacted UNHCR to say it had changed its policy and would be open to the resettlement to other countries of refugees from Darfur who have been living in Eastern Chad. PRM staff traveled to Chad in February to look into this possibility. My colleagues are cautiously optimistic and we will be reporting more on this to you in the coming weeks and months.
Working closely with the Department of Homeland Security, we re-instated the priority three or "P-3" family reunion program this year with a new DNA requirement to ensure that the program is fulfilling its purpose of reuniting relatives.
I’m pleased to report that we are on track to admit the number of refugees in the Presidential Determination this year. That is 70,000 refugees– a more than 20% increase over last year’s number.
You should also know that we’ve been able to admit these refugees in a much more even pace than in recent years. Just under 50% of the refugees we expect this year were admitted in the first half of the fiscal year.
We recognize that this increase comes at a time of shrinking state and local budgets, cuts in social services, and the challenges of raising private contributions. As you know, PRM has helped deal with economic challenges to the program by doubling the amount of funding provided on a per capita basis to receive and place refugees in 2010. We have provided modest increases since then.
We also are providing "floor funding" to our resettlement agency partners, essentially guaranteeing sufficient funding for services to 60,000 refugees so that program managers can plan and hire staff with the assurance that the funding will be there.
Despite all these improvements, we know that many refugees are still struggling in the early weeks and months of their arrival in the States. This leads me to ask: How can our domestic programs best address the needs of refugees? What more can we do to help refugees effectively integrate into new communities?
Given the overall budget situation in Washington, we all acknowledge the need to widen the circle of domestic "stakeholders" in the refugee resettlement program. We need to ensure a warm reception for the refugees we resettle. We need to find creative ways to expand participation in the program at the local level and support for the program by community leaders.
PRM is increasingly reaching out to state and local elected officials, employers, health clinics, schools, and others, during our domestic trips. We are acutely aware of the importance of early employment for refugees, and therefore of the importance of your developing strong relationships with responsible employers in your communities.
Employers PRM staff and I have met in our travels around the US have been among the strongest advocates for the refugee admissions program. Tyson Foods, which provides English language training to refugees, has created community liaison positions to assist refugees navigate services and builds bridges with the host community. A firm in Ft. Wayne, Indiana was inspired by the challenges refugees have overcome and was impressed by their work ethic. Burmese now make up 10% of the workforce there. A Subway sandwich shop owner in Baltimore who keeps hiring more refugees says they are the best employees he’s ever had.
I know that you all could name dozens, if not hundreds, of companies that are also strong advocates for the program, and they are an essential part of the success of the US Refugee Admissions Program.
ECDC’s affiliated agencies benefit from the volunteer work of thousands of highly motivated and caring community members. We recognize the strong one-on-one relationships developed when an individual agrees to help welcome a refugee to his or her community, and I know this is happening every day at your offices across the country.
Whether it’s preparing an appropriate home-cooked meal for a family upon their arrival, helping to teach them English, or explaining how to navigate the local grocery store or bus system, these relationships are life-affirming and life-changing for both sides. These relationships also help build crucial support among Americans for the refugee resettlement program. I’ll be curious to hear from you what you all are doing to reach out to non-traditional stakeholders in your communities.
In conclusion, I want to thank you for all you do all year long as an essential part of the US Refugee Admissions Program. The work of communities and networks of volunteers helps to turn the promise of America --as a land that welcomes refugees -- into a reality. The success of our resettlement program depends on you. Thank you for the part you play in letting refugees turn their stories of tragedy into ones of triumph.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
REMARKS OF ANNE C. RICHARD AT HEBREW IMMIGRANT AID SOCIETY
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
"Invisible in the City": Hebrew Immigrant Aid Services Research
Remarks
Anne C. Richard
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Washington, DC
May 7, 2013
Thank you, Mark, and thank you to the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society for bringing us together today to celebrate this important research on LGBT refugees and asylum seekers. I’d also like to recognize Yiftach Millo, lead researcher and author of the study we are all here to officially launch, "Invisible in the City: Protection Gaps Experienced by Sexual Minority Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Urban Ecuador, Ghana, Israel, and Kenya." I commend Mr. Millo and his team for their innovative work to help protect these refugees.
HIAS continues to be a leader in helping expose and address the barriers faced that confront lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender and intersex refugees. HIAS’s energy and vision is helping us all to find solutions to a real and persistent problem. Refugees and asylum seekers are already in a precarious position – they are at risk of exploitation, attack, and destitution. A refugee who is also part of a sexual minority is at even greater risk.
It has been over 20 years since Fidel Armanda Tobos Alfonso, a gay man from Cuba, was allowed to remain in the United States based on a judgement or understanding that he was at risk because of his sexual orientation. The Toboso-Alfonso decision paved the way for hundreds of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals as well as individuals with intersex conditions, to obtain refuge and asylum in the United States.
From the beginning of his Administration, President Obama has promoted the equal rights of LGBT people both at home and abroad. His Memorandum of December 2011 affirmed United States’s commitment to promoting the human rights of sexual minorities and specifically directed U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance agencies to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers.
In her landmark LGBTI speech in Geneva in 2011, Secretary Clinton stated what we all know is true, that gay rights are human rights. We all acknowledge this universal truth: that everyone, regardless of race, religion, nationality, class or sexual identity is equal and is entitled to equal protection Today, the United States Government is working very hard, across agencies, to make sure that happens.
The Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration has an important leadership role to play in this effort. One of our fundamental goals is to ensure that the global system for refugee protection responds to the needs of all refugees - regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. We have taken steps to ensure gay and other sexual minority refugees are protected by officers of the U.S. Government and by our partners in the US refugee resettlement program. For instance:
We support training of all refugee protection staff – from the DC-based program officer to the regional Refugee Coordinator to the UNHCR case worker -- on how to actively include sexual minorities in our plans and programs. We support the USCIS mandate that all officers get training in the adjudication of LGBT refugees and asylum claimants. This training includes increased awareness about the issues sexual minorities face. These officers now get consistent legal and interview guidance regarding these issues.
We support humanitarian responses that meet the specific needs of LGBT refugees. For example, a man currently living in Baghdad, Iraq was subjected to continuous death threats, beaten and forced to take female hormones by his father who thought he should live as a woman because he was born with some of the physical features of a woman. He was forced to stay inside to avoid being persecuted by the larger Iraqi community, causing psychological damage. Since 2006, he has been separated from his long-term partner who lives in the U.S. In 2008, this person was detained, threatened and interrogated by border security when he tried to leave Iraq for gender reassignment surgery.
The Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), which has people on the ground in Iraq who work specifically with persecuted Iraqis on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, referred the case to the U.S. Embassy. The embassy will make it possible to travel directly to the United States in order to reduce the risks of traveling to another country while he waits for the resettlement process to run its course. He has completed his medical check and is awaiting his security check in order to travel to the U.S. and be reunited with his partner.
We also support urban refugee protection programs that aim to reach LGBT refugees where they live and work. UNHCR is now working in Kenya with senior police officials to address concerns such as harassment, extortion and violence that specifically targets LGBT refugees. The proactive engagement of UNHCR helps lessen the fear of arrest LGBT refugees have when reporting crimes to the police.
PRM also funds research that helps strengthen and sustain LGBT refugee protection programs around the world. In addition to HIAS’ research, PRM funded the Organization for Refugee Asylum and Migration (ORAM) to research best practices for non-governmental organizations, governments, UNHCR and program funders for urban refugees in Mexico, Uganda and South Africa. This research resulted in the development of important tools that can be used to advocate on behalf of and train relevant stakeholders who engage with LGBT refugees.
What these few examples show is that my bureau and the leadership of the State Department as a whole believe that advancing the human rights of LGBT individuals is a critical diplomatic goal requiring our broadest efforts. We are urging countries to respect the human rights of all of their citizens.
This is done through direct talks led by State Department diplomats with governments, and through international partners like the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and through non-governmental organizations. This "Humanitarian Diplomacy" is vital to ensure that countries of first asylum protect sexual minority refugees. But, despite our best efforts, sometimes countries fall short. Sexual minority refugees can be the targets of violence in their countries of asylum, or are unable to request assistance and may be isolated from the established refugee protection architecture. We are actively seeking solutions to prevent this isolation and shield all refugees from violence. In some extreme situations, we resettle urgent cases in dire need of protection.
So that’s what we’re doing at the State Department. But we are all here today to celebrate and delve into HIAS’s report, "Invisible in the City: Protection Gaps Facing Sexual Minority Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Urban Ecuador, Ghana, Israel and Kenya." This report is the result of a one-year qualitative and quantitative research project by HIAS including interviews with sexual minority refugees, refugee protection agents and civil society organizations. The report presents the ways society fails to protect sexual minority refugees and asylum seekers, as articulated by those most directly affected and offers recommendations for mitigating these gaps.
Sixty-six sexual minority refugees, asylum seekers and migrants and 92 representatives of governments, internal organizations and local civil society were interviewed in nine urban locations. One finding, reflected in the report’s title, is that sexual minority refugees and asylum seekers attempt to make themselves ‘invisible’ as a defense mechanism in homophobic environments. We also know that in refugee status determination interviews, these refugees do not frequently identify their cause of persecution as related to their sexual identity.
Mental health issues are of great concern. More than 40% of the respondents suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This may affect their ability to form relationships of trust, particularly in the midst of status determination interviews. So while the situation has improved, more needs to be done, in terms of awareness, training, and protection.
There is some person, somewhere in the world right now, who is suffering and feeling abandoned - just because of who he or she naturally is. That person may be out of our sight, but should not be beyond our reach. To me, the true core of "Invisible in the City" is about how our work benefits that one person. I salute HIAS for looking out for this person and seeking to help them. Let’s hope this report will impact not just our policies, but also safeguard the well-being of people all around the world.
Thank you.
"Invisible in the City": Hebrew Immigrant Aid Services Research
Remarks
Anne C. Richard
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration
Washington, DC
May 7, 2013
Thank you, Mark, and thank you to the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society for bringing us together today to celebrate this important research on LGBT refugees and asylum seekers. I’d also like to recognize Yiftach Millo, lead researcher and author of the study we are all here to officially launch, "Invisible in the City: Protection Gaps Experienced by Sexual Minority Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Urban Ecuador, Ghana, Israel, and Kenya." I commend Mr. Millo and his team for their innovative work to help protect these refugees.
HIAS continues to be a leader in helping expose and address the barriers faced that confront lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender and intersex refugees. HIAS’s energy and vision is helping us all to find solutions to a real and persistent problem. Refugees and asylum seekers are already in a precarious position – they are at risk of exploitation, attack, and destitution. A refugee who is also part of a sexual minority is at even greater risk.
It has been over 20 years since Fidel Armanda Tobos Alfonso, a gay man from Cuba, was allowed to remain in the United States based on a judgement or understanding that he was at risk because of his sexual orientation. The Toboso-Alfonso decision paved the way for hundreds of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals as well as individuals with intersex conditions, to obtain refuge and asylum in the United States.
From the beginning of his Administration, President Obama has promoted the equal rights of LGBT people both at home and abroad. His Memorandum of December 2011 affirmed United States’s commitment to promoting the human rights of sexual minorities and specifically directed U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance agencies to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers.
In her landmark LGBTI speech in Geneva in 2011, Secretary Clinton stated what we all know is true, that gay rights are human rights. We all acknowledge this universal truth: that everyone, regardless of race, religion, nationality, class or sexual identity is equal and is entitled to equal protection Today, the United States Government is working very hard, across agencies, to make sure that happens.
The Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration has an important leadership role to play in this effort. One of our fundamental goals is to ensure that the global system for refugee protection responds to the needs of all refugees - regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. We have taken steps to ensure gay and other sexual minority refugees are protected by officers of the U.S. Government and by our partners in the US refugee resettlement program. For instance:
We support training of all refugee protection staff – from the DC-based program officer to the regional Refugee Coordinator to the UNHCR case worker -- on how to actively include sexual minorities in our plans and programs. We support the USCIS mandate that all officers get training in the adjudication of LGBT refugees and asylum claimants. This training includes increased awareness about the issues sexual minorities face. These officers now get consistent legal and interview guidance regarding these issues.
We support humanitarian responses that meet the specific needs of LGBT refugees. For example, a man currently living in Baghdad, Iraq was subjected to continuous death threats, beaten and forced to take female hormones by his father who thought he should live as a woman because he was born with some of the physical features of a woman. He was forced to stay inside to avoid being persecuted by the larger Iraqi community, causing psychological damage. Since 2006, he has been separated from his long-term partner who lives in the U.S. In 2008, this person was detained, threatened and interrogated by border security when he tried to leave Iraq for gender reassignment surgery.
The Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), which has people on the ground in Iraq who work specifically with persecuted Iraqis on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, referred the case to the U.S. Embassy. The embassy will make it possible to travel directly to the United States in order to reduce the risks of traveling to another country while he waits for the resettlement process to run its course. He has completed his medical check and is awaiting his security check in order to travel to the U.S. and be reunited with his partner.
We also support urban refugee protection programs that aim to reach LGBT refugees where they live and work. UNHCR is now working in Kenya with senior police officials to address concerns such as harassment, extortion and violence that specifically targets LGBT refugees. The proactive engagement of UNHCR helps lessen the fear of arrest LGBT refugees have when reporting crimes to the police.
PRM also funds research that helps strengthen and sustain LGBT refugee protection programs around the world. In addition to HIAS’ research, PRM funded the Organization for Refugee Asylum and Migration (ORAM) to research best practices for non-governmental organizations, governments, UNHCR and program funders for urban refugees in Mexico, Uganda and South Africa. This research resulted in the development of important tools that can be used to advocate on behalf of and train relevant stakeholders who engage with LGBT refugees.
What these few examples show is that my bureau and the leadership of the State Department as a whole believe that advancing the human rights of LGBT individuals is a critical diplomatic goal requiring our broadest efforts. We are urging countries to respect the human rights of all of their citizens.
This is done through direct talks led by State Department diplomats with governments, and through international partners like the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and through non-governmental organizations. This "Humanitarian Diplomacy" is vital to ensure that countries of first asylum protect sexual minority refugees. But, despite our best efforts, sometimes countries fall short. Sexual minority refugees can be the targets of violence in their countries of asylum, or are unable to request assistance and may be isolated from the established refugee protection architecture. We are actively seeking solutions to prevent this isolation and shield all refugees from violence. In some extreme situations, we resettle urgent cases in dire need of protection.
So that’s what we’re doing at the State Department. But we are all here today to celebrate and delve into HIAS’s report, "Invisible in the City: Protection Gaps Facing Sexual Minority Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Urban Ecuador, Ghana, Israel and Kenya." This report is the result of a one-year qualitative and quantitative research project by HIAS including interviews with sexual minority refugees, refugee protection agents and civil society organizations. The report presents the ways society fails to protect sexual minority refugees and asylum seekers, as articulated by those most directly affected and offers recommendations for mitigating these gaps.
Sixty-six sexual minority refugees, asylum seekers and migrants and 92 representatives of governments, internal organizations and local civil society were interviewed in nine urban locations. One finding, reflected in the report’s title, is that sexual minority refugees and asylum seekers attempt to make themselves ‘invisible’ as a defense mechanism in homophobic environments. We also know that in refugee status determination interviews, these refugees do not frequently identify their cause of persecution as related to their sexual identity.
Mental health issues are of great concern. More than 40% of the respondents suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. This may affect their ability to form relationships of trust, particularly in the midst of status determination interviews. So while the situation has improved, more needs to be done, in terms of awareness, training, and protection.
There is some person, somewhere in the world right now, who is suffering and feeling abandoned - just because of who he or she naturally is. That person may be out of our sight, but should not be beyond our reach. To me, the true core of "Invisible in the City" is about how our work benefits that one person. I salute HIAS for looking out for this person and seeking to help them. Let’s hope this report will impact not just our policies, but also safeguard the well-being of people all around the world.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)