Wars, revolutions and natural disasters inevitably lead to the emergence of refugees and IDPs. In especially difficult situations, the number of them is millions and tens of millions of people (as happened as a result of the First and Second World Wars).
Modernization, contrary to numerous statements by UN officials, did not eliminate the problem of refugees and IDPs, but due to the development of communication media and the media, it only made it the property of the world community, whose ability to influence the situation on the ground is extremely limited.
Globalization, in turn, allowed a large number of refugees and IDPs to travel significant distances using modern means of transport. Among other things, it directly transferred the problems of the third world to the developed countries, the legislative standards of which do not adequately cope with them.
The influx of refugees and IDPs from the States of the Near and Middle East (BSV), as well as Africa to Western Europe, began in the 70-s with the rules for receiving refugees adopted under pressure from socialist and social democratic parties in the EU states. Currently, with the development of the “Arab spring”, it led to the crisis of the Schengen zone, where the main flows of refugees from this region go (up to half). Note that more than a quarter of them remain in the BSV countries, over 10 percent go to the states of North America.
The experience of two world wars and the collapse of the colonial system makes it possible to assess the consequences of the “Arab Spring”, the demographic explosion, religious-ethnic conflicts and the degradation of statehood in Africa and similar processes in the future can lead.
At the end of World War II, the number of refugees and IDPs in Europe amounted to more than 60 million (excluding the USSR), including Germans - from 11 to 12,5 million. The section of British India gave about 25 to millions of refugees and IDPs. In the whole world, the number of refugees in the post-war period was approximately 200 million.
The current UN statistics, significantly underestimated, according to competent experts, determine the number of refugees and IDPs in about 22 million. Moreover, these figures are constantly growing and the long-term trend is definitely negative.
Refugees and IDPs are a problem for any country in whose territory they are present, especially the “front-line state,” as well as a state in the process of transformation or leading military actions, including against separatist and terrorist groups.
Modern government armies are forced to adhere to the rules of warfare, which force them to take into account the presence in the frontline and in the rear of significant groups of refugees and IDPs.
Their problems are the most frequently and effectively exploited media topic within the framework of the information war, especially since radical, terrorist and anti-government groups usually do not adhere to various kinds of rules of warfare.
A modern, integrated state in the world community, facing the problem of refugees and IDPs, is forced to deal with them. Their physical elimination or deportation, usual for the period before the end of the Second World War, is characteristic of Trans-Saharan Africa only today.
The world community policy, consistently implemented by the UN with respect to refugees and IDPs, is initially based on double standards. There are two main categories of refugees. These are “first-class” refugees - the Palestinians, who are engaged in UNRWA, and all the others under the authority of the High Commissioner for Refugees.
Both of these groups differ in basic criteria (who exactly is considered a refugee), funding and informational support (with a large margin in favor of UNRWA) and results of work (the problem of Palestinians is perpetuated, others are somehow solved).
Attitudes towards refugees and IDPs and their status, including the possibility of registering and obtaining guarantees and allowances compliant with legislation, depend on their ethnic and religious composition, country of residence and its relations with the world community, as well as what kind of conflict turned them into refugees and IDPs. That is, who among the influential world players, why and to what extent lobbies the interests of a particular group or, on the contrary, is interested in ignoring them.
Thus, the unique registration procedure for Palestinian refugees (not only they, but also their descendants in all generations are considered refugees) has led to an increase in the number of people registered in this capacity from 800 thousand to 5,5 million. According to the criteria of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (only the first generation is refugees, the rest are not and UN programs do not apply to them) there are no more than 300 thousands of Palestinian refugees in the world (1948 – 1949 and 1967 years).
At the same time, out of 5,5, the million refugees and IDPs of Iraq who left their place of residence due to the overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein and the civil war, are officially recognized as no more than three percent. The West is interested in the “democratic” Iraq not looking worse than the authoritarian regime of the Ba'ath Party. The countries of the Arab world (Jordan and Syria), where Iraqis mostly fled, are not interested in securing their rights and guarantees in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Refugees, relying on the problems that the registration of Palestine refugees created for these countries at the time.
Approximately six million refugees and IDPs from Syria, including those in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, who left this country during the civil war organized by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with the participation of Turkey and the support of the Western community, are, in their opinion, favor of overthrowing the Assad regime. The monarchies of the Gulf, Turkey and the West are interested in their accurate accounting and carrying out the relevant work of the UN in this direction.
In any case, refugees and IDPs are a problem or, in the case of an effective approach, the advantage is primarily the country in which they are located.
Different approaches to the problem and the corresponding results can be characterized by Churchill's phrase: "A pessimist sees problems in every opportunity, an optimist sees opportunities in every problem." They can be divided into classic, implemented for the most part stories humanity, and modern, adopted after World War II.
The classic approach to the issue of refugees and IDPs: the state where they went, minimizes the problems associated with them (medical, primary arrangement, prevention of lumpenization and criminalization of refugees and IDPs) and provides them with some opportunities for arrangement, but does not take on their content. How to settle in a new place is first and foremost their concern. Although this state can, based on its own interests, organize the training of refugees in the language, customs and laws of the country.
European states, the USA and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the USSR and the PRC, Israel and the countries of Latin America until the end of the twentieth century, South Korea and Taiwan, India and Pakistan (before the advent of 80 Afghan refugees on its territory) this way.
Bottom line: waves of refugees and IDPs, sometimes commensurate with or exceeding the country's population (as was the case in Israel), were assimilated and strengthened the new homeland. Natives of their environment constituted an economically active and effective part of the population and entered the establishment. The latter is characteristic not only of so-called migrant societies, examples of which are the USA, Canada or Israel. The ex-president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, is also a refugee of Muhajir.
The modern approach to the issue of refugees and IDPs: the state where they went, takes on the problems associated with them for generations, automatically equates to its citizens in matters of social assistance, gives benefits regardless of success in integration and assimilation - as in Western Europe . Or it settles in camps patronized by international organizations, granting or not granting them official status, both in Africa and in the Middle East.
The result: in the EU countries, ethno-confessional ghettos, which are isolated from the indigenous population and do not aspire to integration into its structure, aggressively expanding the space they control, have emerged. They have become a constant source of crime, drug trafficking, Islamic extremism and terrorism. The result is the explosive growth of xenophobia, nationalism, youth and political extremism among the indigenous population, the growing popularity of nationalist and conservative parties.
In the Near and Middle East, as well as in Africa, refugee and IDP camps have turned into centers of Islamist extremism and revolutionary radicalism, crime, drug trafficking and terrorism that are not controlled by governments.
The recruitment of terrorists for jihad in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, including among radical Islam and indigenous people who joined the radicals, is the outcome of the 70’s European solution to the refugee problem.
As for the Middle East and Africa, Somalis in Kenya (Dadaab), Sudanese (in all camps) and Afghans in Pakistan (Peshawar, Quetta) present a picture of complete hopelessness and high level of threats to the host state.
“Black September” in Jordan 1970, the civil war in Lebanon in 1975 – 1990, and the attacks by militants from the center of Damascus from Yarmuk camp in 2013, show the same for the Palestinians. However, the latest support for the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in 1990 showed that the intermediate model — well-being without camps, but without a chance for full integration — is also not working.
Tactics and current problems
The most effective strategy of behavior in relation to refugees, adopted in the United States and Israel: integration into society with primary support, carried out under the control of the state.
In the United States of America, both public organizations and professional agencies in contract with the state are engaged in this.
In Israel, the Jewish Agency, the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, other government departments and public organizations.
Mastering the language and employment, taking into account the level of education and professional skills or retraining for the existing labor market, are of paramount importance.
Both uncontrolled resettlement processes (examples - Pakistan, Sudan) and excessive reliance on international organizations (Palestinians) are unacceptable.
The extraterritoriality of the places of accommodation of refugees and IDPs (Palestinians in Lebanon) is absolutely unacceptable.
Refugee and IDP camps should not be adjacent to the capital, major cities and key infrastructure.
Optimal resettlement of refugees immediately after the passage of the period of primary adaptation (including language) among the indigenous population.
The process of integration of representatives of the intellectual elite (technical, etc.) of refugees and IDPs in the host state is of fundamental importance. Monitoring of protest sentiments in its environment should be conducted on an ongoing basis, with its participation and the availability of feedback from local and central authorities.
The central authorities should monitor and harshly suppress both the arbitrariness and corruption schemes of profits on refugees and IDPs of local authorities, and their formation of a communication system and, moreover, alliances with the leaders of criminal-terrorist groups operating among refugees and IDPs.
Representatives of the intellectual elite and minorities - ethnic and confessional - can become the backbone of the host state in the process of integrating refugees and IDPs.
Refugee camps with a population of over one hundred thousand people are practically uncontrollable, as can be seen from the examples of the Yarmouk camps in Syria, Nahr al-Bared in Lebanon, Dadaab in Kenya.
Living in a refugee camp without problems for the host state can only be temporary - up to a year (except for the camp administration). Turning them into troubled settlements is unacceptable (examples of the opposite are Palestinian refugee camps and depressive “development cities” of the 50's in Israel).
In order to avoid the formation of corruption schemes of interaction between local authorities and the administration of the camps of refugees and IDPs, this administration should be rotated once every two (optimal) or three (maximum) years.
The most important issue is the absence of Islamists and extremists in the administration of the refugee and IDP camps, regardless of their orientation.
Representatives of international and human rights organizations, including Western, Turkish, Arab, etc., working among refugees and IDPs, can be carriers of radical Islamist ideology or supporters of terrorists. As a rule, in refugee camps, they cooperate with radicals who are hidden from the authorities, even if they themselves do not share their ideology. Examples include Palestinian refugee camps in Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and other Arab countries, Iraqi refugee camps in Syria and Jordan, as well as Syrian refugees and IDPs in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.
All able-bodied refugees and IDPs should be obligatorily involved in work, including on the arrangement and functioning of their places of residence, laying of communications, etc. The existence in one place of a large mass of people living for long periods of time benefits the lumpenization and criminalization, facilitating the spread of extremism among them. Lack of work for more than a year fixes these processes, they become irreversible.
The possibility of obtaining the citizenship of the receiving state after the completion of the naturalization process with the obligatory confirmation of loyalty to the host country is the most important factor of integration.
Anti-government activities and the spread of radical Islam in the camps of refugees and IDPs should be detected as the organized structures involved therein appear and be stopped immediately.
It is obligatory to arrest the organizers of this activity and their subsequent isolation in places of detention from the main body serving the sentence in order to prevent the organization of “prison jamaats” and other forms of the spread of Islamist radicalism in the criminal environment. That is, in order to avoid the spread of extremism in places of detention, Islamists, radicals of any kind and terrorists should be kept separately, without contact with criminals and other prisoners. It is also necessary to deport ordinary participants of the described activity outside the host state without the right to return there.
The same applies to recruitment in camps of refugees and IDPs to terrorist, extremist and criminal groups, regardless of whether the territory of the host state or other countries is the sphere of interests of their leaders.
The only truly effective preventive measure against dangerous terrorists is their elimination (the experience of Israel and Sri Lanka). An attempt to use them to neutralize terrorist activity is “a medicine that is worse than a disease” (as happened in Israel as part of the Oslo process).
An exception to this rule is civil war, which the army cannot win for objective reasons (as in Chechnya), or the sun neutralizes political reasons (for example, Northern Ireland) with a temporary (medium-term) effect (British-Irish experience).
In the domestic case, the process of national reconciliation in Chechnya relied not only on the large-scale integration of the local elite into the national elite with limiting the influence of the federal center on the situation in the republic, but also on organizing the center of financial flows of a corresponding size controlled by the local elite.
In addition, he was helped by the exhaustion of external support for the confrontation of Chechnya with the federal center from the Gulf countries - personnel and financial, as well as the conflict of the leaders of the Chechen anti-Russian underground with Arab "commissars" and preachers of the world caliphate. The disappointment of the Chechen elite in the idea of the national state - Independent Ichkeria, as well as the awareness of the approaching irreversible disintegration of Chechen society, up to the danger of its ethnocide, played a significant role.
The problem of refugees and IDPs is essential for any state that faces or may face it in the future, including Russia. This is equally true of the central government, the local civil administration, the Armed Forces and the police, as well as structures dealing with state security issues.
Optimal work with refugees and IDPs is a preliminary study of all related issues, both general and country-specific, and the preparation of relevant agencies and organizations for this work.
Reliance on international organizations, including specialized commissions and UN committees, and the world community cannot solve the problem of refugees and IDPs and often further complicates it. The key role in solving this problem is played by the national structures and the governments of their host countries.
Refugees and IDPs can both bring down a stable economy, environmental management system and social relations in the state, becoming a source of its destabilization (Sudan, Lebanon, modern Jordan), and strengthen it and even form (Israel). The question is in the system of working with them.