The Liaison

“Internally Displaced Persons: The Scope of Their Human Rights Protections”

Rachel Proefke

We see their photos in newspapers and their faces momen­tarily plastered on TV – emaciated figures which could sooner be skeletons than humans trekking across countries and sticking arms out of barbed-wire-enclosed refugee camps. When we see them, they strike the chord of our human ethos and persuade us to consider taking action.

However, whether we take action or just think about how terrible it is, refugees alone are not the only significant aftershock of civil war, poor natural conditions, or mass persecution. The problem of internally displaced persons (IDPs) is just as notable; perhaps even more so as they do not as easily garner the same protections bequeathed to refugees by the bevy of international agreements that form the legal framework for those who cannot return to their war-shaken homelands.

We are often presented with the stories of refugees and their harrowing trials, but sometimes IDPs – at least on an individual and impacting level – are neglected. Often IDPs are solely represented through the brief statistical information of their relative numbers and do not gain the access to the spotlight that they deserve.

By remaining within sovereign borders, they remain within the repressive political structure that forced them to leave their homes in the first place. Perhaps with increas­ing significance, they will gain an increasing voice.

With civil war and genocide raging in Sudan, masses of people have been and are being forced from their homes in the south.

Some of these people will seek refuge in neighboring nations, such as Egypt, Chad, Ethiopia, and Kenya.

Others, for whom this is not a feasible option, will be trapped within the borders of Sudan, adding to the massive numbers of internationally displaced persons. Some sources report that this figure could be as high as 4 million within Sudan itself – one of the largest concentrations of IDPs in the world.

Despite the practical concerns of such an exodus and the is­sues that arise when mass groups of people are forced to subsist in whatever region of refuge they may find, there are also the legal concerns of such an increasingly prominent situation.

They entail the extent to which IDPs qualify for special protection and exactly what human rights protections these groups are entitled to. As these migrants do not qualify for refugee status, they are mostly entitled to the general protections of the international hu­man rights framework – as well as such special treaties as their nation is a party to.

In essence, their special situation denotes no special protection, such as that conferred to women, children, and refugees.

In addition to the general human rights provisions bestowed by multiple international human rights instruments, the United Nations (UN) – under the direction and suggestion of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on IDPs – adopted The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement in 1998. This document relates existing human rights laws to IDPs, and seeks to extend refugee protections to them. Despite the perceived international support for this document, there is no greater accountability or enforceable mechanisms as the document is not legally binding.

The state is responsible for enforcing human rights, and it agrees with the documents that detail them and offer protec­tive mechanisms to their maintenance; with greater and more extensive rights come greater bargaining power, a more tangible sense of security, and more extensive accountability.

As IDPs gain greater numbers, their plight will gain a greater amount of attention, which will bring with it the construction of new mechanisms of protection for this neglected group.

“Are We the Answer to Homelessness?”

Lily Le

Home to the Space Needle, Pike Place Market, and Univer­sity of Washington, Seattle remains popular to visitors. In spite of their popularity, each place has one striking commonality: homeless people. Upon seeing someone that is homeless, I won­der about their situation – past and present. How and why are they homeless? Who’s responsible for their situation?

So how does a person transition from a home and then onto the streets? One significant factor is our local governance. To bring this close to home we can look at gentrification in Seattle. Seattle has been planning to build many new high-rise buildings in the downtown areas. These buildings will be occupied by highly paid and highly skilled individuals.

Each new building would take homes away from low-income, long-time residents – without replacing them. Through this process there is a piece of society that suffers for the sake of gentrification. As long as institutions fail to make choices that positively impact low-income, long-time residents, many people falling under those categories will be left without homes.

Federally funded programs are another important player in maintaining the well-being of citizens that need extra help. To give a concrete example of how cutbacks affect specific people, we can look at the mentally ill. In the 1950’s, mental institutions were funded by the government. As new priorities emerged, the government resorted to cutting funds for mental institutions to compensate for their own political priorities; as a result, the mentally ill end up on the streets.

Without the proper skills for survival, ill persons are worse off than a “normal” person and may not live as long as they would have living under a caregiv­er. Government funding allocation will re-prioritize repeatedly, and as a result the population of homeless will suffer people -- as seen in the case of mental institutions.

Even if the government funds more programs or realtors build more transitional housing, as long as norms, roles, institu­tions, and values allow homelessness to exist as “normal” or “acceptable,” homelessness will continue. To be completely rid of homelessness, society would ultimately need to change the norms, institutions, roles, and values. The norms that need to change are the parts of society that alienate outsiders with the fallacy of personal attack. Institutions need to change because it is one of the legs that help society stand strong.

So much trust is put on specific institutions and yet they mislead society with promises of change. The roles and values of society must also change because each person should have the personal respon­sibility to each other in order to create a cohesive and fulfilling society. Until we are willing to change, the lives of the homeless will remain at the hands of our government while society grows continually isolated from others.

“Homelessness as a Public Policy Problem”

Jacob Galfano

According to Senator Robert Cupp, “The goal of public policy is the greatest good for the largest number with protection for the rights of the minority.”

This philosophy – known as utilitarianism – is a contradiction, as “the greatest good” trumps the “rights of the minority” and many slip through the cracks. Government ought to check this by including civil society (consisting of advocacy groups, academic institutions, private foundations, the media, and religious organizations) in pluralistic decision-making processes.

In the Seattle area, recent incidents have local media scrutinizing the manner in which city governments regulate their respective homeless populations.

On Friday, February 9th, the City of Olympia pressured Camp Quixote – a temporary encampment of about 40 people – to relocate. The very next day, the City of Redmond threatened Tent City 4 (to be held at St. Jude Catholic Church) with a daily fine if they elected not to move. Although the circumstances for the latter incident differ from the former, both resulted in policies that marginalize the homeless instead of those that address the systemic roots of the problem.

Although the City Council remains adamant that it is not ignoring Olympia’s homeless, Camp Quixote was constructed to protest an ordinance that renders downtown squatting illegal. Threatened with trespassing, the group decided to canvas local churches in order to avoid arrest.

Redmond’s Planning Department repealed a temporary permit that it issued to Tent City 4 in December. Because there are three schools in proximity to the camp, appeals were made to overturn the permit – which occurred just days before the campers were to arrive.

To date, church staff refuses to close down the encampment.

Communities in Seattle and its outlying suburbs have long debated how they ought to treat the city’s 8,000 estimated homeless – and have enacted policies that allow “tent cities” to rotate between locations (qualifying the descriptor transient). Without access to encampments or shelters, the homeless resort to the streets.

The Seattle/King County Coalition for the Homeless conducted its annual One Night Count earlier this month – and found approximately “2,140 people trying to survive without housing or shelter throughout King County.” Although the organization cites a reduction in the quantity of homeless from the previous year’s count, the estimate can be askew.

“Due to its flaws, the One Night Count is not indicative of the actual number of homeless on the streets, as many cycle in and out of friends’ places or social service programs. It can reflect as little as two-thirds of the real population,” said Dr. Joshua Ginzler, clinical psychologist and research scientist at the University of Washington’s Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute.

Whether rotating between churches or risking survival on the streets, the homeless need access to resources and support in order to address personal problems and cultivate a sense of human dignity.

“Housing should not be contingent upon conditions such as sobriety, when in fact it may well be the lack of housing that is maintaining the stress largely responsible for the substance use problems in the first place,” said Ginzler. “Housing First (DESC) provides housing so harm-reduction programs can be applied, which – we expect – lead to a lower overall cost to society.”

Because the problem of homelessness is complex and those impacted by it extend beyond the homeless per se, policy makers would be remiss to continue to push them to the periphery and ignore the input of a civil society dedicated to stable solutions.

Seattle/King County Coalition for the Homeless:

http://www.homelessinfo.org/

Housing First:

http://www.blogger.com/www.npr.org/news/specials/housingfirst

Downtown Emergency Services Center:

www.desc.org/1811.html

“Multi-lateral Approach work towards same goal”

Nari Corley-Wheeler

Under the banner of human rights nations have fallen short in upholding fair rights upon their own citizens. New human rights issues have cropped up in the last century. Issues of homelessness ravaging our streets since the closing of mental hospitals and shelters, poverty in our neighboring district, and immigrants unable to speak English all of which touch closer to home than we may realize. Human rights now constitute a larger definition than centuries ago.

Accommodating a population whom live in worlds where the ground is always shifting is a complicated matter.

Luckily, some of us have our coat tails caught on something – our social conscience. Nurses, politicians and college students are the new wave of hands willing to lend support for the homeless. Each group has an advantage in their own field and in combination this multi-lateral approach where health, money from the state, and donations can reduce the homeless population and aid in improving the quality of their lives along the way.

Through Health Care for the Homeless Network, Aloha Inn, and Dorothy Day House are temporary residencies in which the homeless can receive medical treatment and assessment.

The King County Coalition for the Homeless is constantly networking with providers of transitional housing, medical care, and schools. Although there are numerous shelters and health facilities, there are presently not enough.

To begin reducing homelessness, Bill Block has managed lobbying money from the state capitol to start up what is called the “Ten Year Plan” where homelessness will be substantially reduced and monitored yearly. Ideally, the Ten Year Plan will be able to provide a single spot for which housing, education and health care facilities would be readily available.

Since 2005, King County has taken one winter day from the year to do an official “One Night Count” where volunteers from different districts in Seattle search for the homeless in the middle of the night. Last years count totaled around 2000 people sleeping on stoops, in cars, or squatting. Year 2007 saw a reduction of nearly 300 people.

Students from the University of Washington are also getting involved with the Ten Year Plan in their own ways. Participating in the One Night Count and organizing food and clothing drives, the student organization Huskies for Helping the Homeless are actively participating in the Ten Year Plan – if not even directly.

Additional assistance from the nurses, politicians and students demonstrates considerable concern for the sake of the homeless population. Working indirectly of each other, each group aims at a different project in order to stunt the numbers of homeless people, or improve the lives of those living in transitional housing, or even run donations all over campus to put some warm clothes on some cold feet. With help from all angles, maybe the lives of the homeless can improve substantially once they move into their subsidized home.