There has been a massive exodus of people from different parts of the world as people are fleeing from their countries in search of a safe and secure environment. The challenges and dangers that they face as they flee from their country indicate that most prefer death to staying in their country. The number has soared in the last half a decade as wars and political instability in different regions of the world has necessitated people to move in search of asylum. However, they asylum seekers are met by harsh environments as politicians have increasingly called on their governments to change their laws to ensure that refugees are not allowed in their countries. It is a problem that has led to the EU members to discuss the issue of refugees in their meetings and hold hard positions against people moving to their countries. Countries such as England, Italy and Hungary are against the refugees being settled in their countries and have called for reviews in their laws to effect these changes. This paper assesses the human rights of refugees and how the world is observing these rights through the models that have been adopted across the globe by individual countries.
Although countries and states have been offering asylum to refugees for centuries the current refugee regime is under the United Charter Article 1 that was developed after the Second World War. The world had to react to the Nazi atrocities at a time when the Nazi were killing people for being from another race. Under Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted in 1948 it was clear that refugees or everyone had a right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries (Douglas-Scott, 2011). Under Article 1 it was clear that people would not be prevented from seeking asylum in any country that was a member state of the UN and the proper models had to be adopted to ensure that their rights and freedoms were effectively observed. These have been the underlying regulations or articles that have been observed by countries through the years since it was first adopted in 1948 (Forsythe, 2017). Under the new model there was the controlling international convention on refugee law that was developed in 1951 and its 1967 optional protocol relating to the status of the refugees in a new country. These acts and their pursuant conventions on refugee laws were critical in developing the best methods towards change observed in the region. It was therefore, critical to adopt an actionable model that would be sufficiently developed through articulating the specific tools that were matched in the system.
However, there have been changes in the systems with countries political outcry especially in Europe where they note that the number of refugees is becoming unsustainable. The number of immigrants and refugees moving to the developed economies has raised questions among these countries as the leaders note that there are problems in the systems adopted. The world has witnessed a massive exodus of people in 2016 and developed economies are pointing to increased costs of maintaining the ever increasing numbers (Forsythe, 2017). One of the main methods that have been used by individual countries especially in Europe is to create barriers to entry in their country. England voted down a law of rescuing children who were unaccompanied when they reached at their borders. There is massive loss of lives in the Mediterranean and other journeys that people make as they look to enter into the developed countries and get asylum. Most children lose their families in the bustle as they sacrifice their lives to help their children get to the other side. England was in the past giving a chance to children to be settled if they reached unaccompanied. This has since changed with the country voting down this law and limiting the number of refugees who can get into the country as a result (Forsythe, 2017). These are tactics aimed at controlling and reducing the number of refugees in the country and leading to a different model of change that has been adopted by other countries in Europe.
Most of the people cannot get to the borders on their own and as a result they are smuggled into Europe through the seas. The North African countries are particularly notorious of torturing and killing anyone who does not make it to Europe and gets back to their countries. Libya and other North African countries that have faced political instability for years have seen many people escaping through the Mediterranean in search of better lives. The European countries are creating massive hurdles for the different groups that smuggle people through the sea and they are developing a different model of change that is aimed at reducing these numbers. The plan to rescue more refugees is being hampered instead of being helped by the European countries as they look to decrease the number of people entering these countries.
Hungary has been particularly hostile to the refugees with the Hungarian border guards taking selfies with beaten immigrants to showcase their control over their borders (Smith, 2016). The scenes in the country point towards intolerance of new refugees in their country and problems from the models that are being adopted in a country that is developing newer legal attributes and critical measures in the region. Hungary is even building a wall to stop any more refugees to enter their country (Smith, 2016). This is a problem that is reported to different countries across Europe and has been critically evaluated towards reaching out to the EU for deliberation. As the immigrants move from their countries to find a better environment in the developed nations, they are faced with the same level of animosity at the borders and for some are taken back with the European countries knowing the dangers that stand to be faced for these people considered deserters.
The EU is taking initiative to ensure that people stay in Libya with the Libyan coastguard being offered training by EU member countries to get the smugglers. Although the UN has been critical of these methods that are used by the EU member states, this has continued with England being one of the member countries that has been found to participate in these training models regularly (Smith, 2016). It is a problem that has continued to be faced through the North African region as immigrants and refugees are facing more challenges to get to their destination. The death toll of refugees on the sea is very high and the same case applies to the number of refugees who make it to the border (Dembour and Kelly, 2012). Whereas in the past refugees would be assimilated in the community or settled in a place where they would start their lives as they waited for their countries to change, this is not the case. The refugees are neglected with the countries developing strict legal precedents that make it impossible to get the best from these initiatives. It is these individual attributes that affect the refugees and their ability to get the best from the new environment that leads to problems in the systems identified.
It is more worrying when one views the remarks that are made by top government officials who represent the people and the notions that are forwarded. The officials view the immigrants as intruders in their region and remark that they swarm into their countries changing their healthy economies (Smith, 2016). The national dailies and other sources also use similar notations when referring to these individuals and are critical of the individual models developed. It is a mapping model that is met by individual attributes and measures that are critical to understanding different structural processes and meeting the individual needs that are identified. The North African countries as well as Syrian refugees are faced with bad references and inclinations with some of the leaders noting that they are bad for their security (Fischer-Lescano et al, 2009). Leaders are critical of the government models used and developed thereby highlighting a different structural impetus that is matched by individual tools needed in the different countries. The vilification of the refugees has been identified as a major danger to their overall well-being. The increased attacks in Europe have precipitated more hate and xenophobic behavior against the refugees who are believed to have caused these problems in the society. It is these underlying attributes that are particularly developed and created through the individual tools used thereby indicating a different structural model needed for the societal changes (Smith, 2016). In mapping the individual measures and tools needed towards developing a better model in addressing these problems. The developed world has failed miserably in attending to the needs of the refugees from different parts of the region and it’s their negative approaches to these issues that have led to more problems.
The individual structures and methods that are used by the developed nations are hinged on their need for security and good governance. The politicians note these as the main reasons for stopping more refugees into getting to these countries but these mask the real reasons for controlling the entry of more refugees in the country (Dembour and Kelly, 2012). There is a negative attitude that is created when the individual tools and processes are met thereby significantly affecting the individual models that are needed towards establishing a proper model of change that is created in these countries. The same is not witnessed in developing economies such as other African countries where refugees have been offered asylum for decades whereas they do not have enough as a people (Mole and Meredith, 2010). It should be a call to action for these individual countries to reassess their individual methods and ensure that proper tools have been adopted to create a better process in the system.
The main question is; what are the methods that can be used to reinforce the laws under Article 1 of the Human Rights law that was set under the United Charter? Is there any form of recourse that is available and what is the direction that the world is taking under these new approaches? Most of the countries that are taking the negative approaches towards giving the refugees asylum are members of the UN Security Council and although the UN has come out strongly against these actions, nothing has been done (Joly, 2016). The methods start to build new precedents that if adopted by other countries across the world will lead to massive problems in the systems and models needed. It is therefore, intricate to ensure that the fundamental concepts that have been developed meet the set requirements as was intended in 1948 under the new structure that was needed to move the world forward. The utterances and remarks that are being made by some of the leaders in these countries are disheartening and indicative of a negative approach that if taken would lead to massive problems for the world. It is irresponsible for these countries that are world leaders in many respects to be making such comments and their drawback on the world models and approaches is massive (Steiner et al, 2013). The breach and disregard for human rights by these countries is staggering since they are poised as liberal, advanced and democratic institutions that are governed under the law (Dembour and Kelly, 2012). The disregard for the UN charter leads other countries to do the same and the problems that would manifest later would be grave. It is imperative for these countries to take a proactive approach to these issues and ensure that they do not exacerbate the problem further with the actions that they are taking.
In conclusion, it is totally unfortunate that in the 21st century people are preferring death to living in their own countries. It is more disheartening however, that countries that perpetuate to protect and uphold the rule of law are brutally committing people to this same fate. It is still to be established what will happen in future but the trends are negative and one can only prepare for the worst. Countries should go back to 1948 and critically assess the reasons for the present United Charter under Article 1 and deliberate on the possibility of a recurrence of such scenarios in the future.
Reconciliation and the Peace Building Process
Genocide, war crimes or violent conflicts are only resolved through developing the best reconciliation processes and peace building. Intractable conflicts in the society can only end through engaging in reconciliation and ensuring that different groups resolve the conflict to interact in future. It is a hard process that is characterized by differences in opinions and models and should not be considered to be the end point of conflict since without healing there can be recurrence of the same problem in future. It is therefore, imperative to ensure that the best structures have been set up to settle the political, social, judicial and economic injustices that may have led to the conflicts. Reconciliation can only be contemplated in society where the two groups are prepared to compromise on their positions and create a community model where they unite to create a new chapter for their lives. The healing process may take time but with the proper methods critical towards developing a cohesive structure for trust and transformation, groups live together in peace the atrocities of the past notwithstanding. This paper assesses the different aspects of reconciliation and peace building and how they help in the rebuilding processes of two groups for the future after violent conflicts. In addition, it assesses the role of different institutions and policies that are critical in meeting the new structures essential for a successful reconciliation process.
Reconciliation and conflict transformation is the first part of the reconciliation process that uses a multifaceted approach to manage violent conflict in all the phases. Transformation entails changing the relationships from negative to positive relations, behavior, attitudes and structures (Ramsbotham et al, 2016). It is the first part in the reconciliation process where individuals have to understand the individual traits and make an informed assessment of different models developed. It is critically developed through understanding the problems and creating a new context where people attack the problem and not other people. In the transformation stage, there has to be the development of proper psychological, spiritual, social, economic, political and military levels. The areas that were culpable for the conflict have to be assessed and the problem addressed as a problem for all and not against an individual group. The rebuilding of trust is also imperative since it is broken through the violent crimes with each group demonizing the other. It is therefore, critical to ensure that proper methods are used to rebuild and develop trust among members thereby creating a proper model of strengthening relationships between groups.
Reconciliation also helps in transforming beliefs and attitudes in the society since during the war different groups develop mythical and beliefs that are meant to spread fear and hatred against the other. The reconciliation process helps in debunking and demystifying these myths and beliefs to ensure that the groups view each other’s as humans. Reconciliation mainly aims at changing the perceptions and the mindset of the two groups to oversee a process where the groups can overcome intolerance towards each other and live in peace (Ramsbotham et al, 2016). It is important during this process to address the different areas where the problem may have been exacerbated including the media and the theater. However, the political, social and economic aspects also need to be addressed while transforming these groups to ensure that proper tools are developed.
Reconciliation can only be contemplated or developed when the society finds healing and proper models to communicate and move on from the problems faced. One of the main areas of reconciliation process is trauma healing that forms a critical part of the reconciliation model (Smith, 2004). In healing, reconciliation is a critical part in finding the strength to move on after a traumatic event in one’s life. It is imperative to ensure that the reconciliation process addresses the problems being faced by the victims and the perpetrators. Trauma affects the two groups differently but the cognitive and emotional precepts are negatively affected by the events that they have witnessed. Great care therefore, needs to be taken in the reconciliation process to ensure that the two groups gain healing from the trauma faced. The psychologists tasked with addressing these issues need to understand that reconciliation and healing is a cyclical process whereby if one facet fails the whole process fails as a result (Ramsbotham et al, 2016). It makes it intricate for the best methods to be used to enhance healing for every group.
History and memory work are some of the aspects that can be used in the reconciliation processes. The historical precepts before the war and past that was prosperous and full of good memories between the groups need to be developed during the reconciliation process are critical. In countries where war has ravaged the country for decades such as Somalia or Palestine, visual presentations and videos can be used to ensure that the people understand the need for reconciliation and a positive attitude towards each other (ICISS, 2001). Memory and history helps to serve as a catalyst for convincing the people that there is goodness in everyone and united they can transform their community in future.
The religions and religious actors have an active role to play in the reconciliation and healing processes. Religion is one of the most revered and highly respected aspect of most societies and since most religions preach peace they are easily trusted by the people. The use of religious based pacifist convictions to develop the individual inclinations and models that are critical in the society are integral towards overseeing change in the set systems. It is imperative to ensure that through the best tools needed for change there is a proactive process that uses the religious leaders in most of the structures that are developed for the reconciliation process (Baylis et al, 2014). The reconciliation, justice and application of the rule of law need to be structured through gaining the rubber stamp of the religious leaders to gain support from the people in the region. It is these important attributes that are therefore, critical towards developing and creating a strong model of change that is needed in the systems applied accordingly. The religious leaders are also critical in facilitating training and educational programs that are aimed at propagating for peace in the society.
Democracy, governance and reconciliation are also critical aspects that need to be addressed in the reconciliation process. One of the areas that is critical in reconciliation is restoring the political community and civil society that are critical facets of every community (Ramsbotham et al, 2016). In most of the wars it is the political upheavals and misunderstandings that lead to problems in the set systems. Sudan is a perfect example of political processes and problems where even after South Sudan was proclaimed a sovereign state they still have not settled on their political system and leadership. In every reconciliation process it is imperative to ensure that the political systems and community have been critically matched and there is a proper hierarchical structure that is matched from the individual and collective models that are developed. The reconciliation process is mainly aided by leaders who are willing to compromise on their positions and take a linear or align with the best approach for the good of the community. It is a critical attribute that is particularly developed and modeled through understanding and developing the best reconciliation processes that are critical in a civil society (Ramsbotham et al, 2016). The civil society is also integral since it outlines the significant processes that are critical for change and map out different structures as critically outlined and modeled in the systems integrated in the reconciliation processes developed.
The reconciliation process also requires the development and building of civic trust or confidence in the models and individual values that are critical in the institutions and state. It is important to develop the best model of public trust and civic engagement where people are united and consistent in their goals and models to advance as one people in future. It outlines the critical attributes that are integral in establishing public trust in the institutions that are established to help the country in moving forward. The different groups should however be particularly represented and their interests deemed to be critical in building civic trust (Baylis et al, 2014). The reconciliation of the media and the stories that are aired on different platforms of social media or otherwise is also critical. The media forms the hub for advancing and spreading the individual attributes or positions that are taken by leaders in the society. The media is critical in advancing peace and should be trained on the message that it should give to the people and controls that are needed towards ensuring advanced modeling and fostering peace in the society.
Reconciliation is also critical in democratization of the rules and models that are developed by the country or the people. Democratic institutions and aspects of equality and engagement between the specific groups needs to be developed to ensure that the people are united and engage towards facing the future as one. There needs to be political intolerance that can be founded in giving the people individual freedom and access to different ideas and positions developed. Engaging in political debate of past, present and future and focusing on specific goals for the future as a single country is also critical (Baylis et al, 2014). The establishment of the rule of law to support human rights culture and reduction of intergroup prejudice is also critical in developing cooperation among individuals in the systems. It is therefore, pertinent to ensure that the best tools have been critically evaluated thereby outlining a specific tool or process for change that creates a good inclination and development towards developing a just society.
The truth, Justice and Reconciliation commissions are critical in overseeing justice and the rule of law administered in the reconciliation process. This is a critical part of reconciliation since it ensures that the proper justice mechanisms are instituted and proper tools are adopted to hold individuals accountable for their actions. In most cases however, the truth is the main item that is assessed and focused on in these commissions as a method to ensure that people can gain closure and understand exactly what happened. It is an important part in the reconciliation process since it takes the blame away from only a single group or individuals and shares it across the groups or helps the victims in gaining closure. It is however, important to ensure that the Commission constituted understands its role and takes the proper methods towards achieving its overall goals. In cases where the proper tools and approaches are not used, there can be recurrence of war since the two groups may not understand each other on the attributes of circumstances that led to these problems. It is therefore, imperative for proper procedural processes and models to be adopted while creating a strong controlled process that is essential for change. The different arguments on the fact that justice is in most cases forgotten for the pursuance of the truth indicates a differentiated process of change that is matched by the exchange of truth. It is thereby, imperative to understand the background and individual aspects or views of the two groups before constituting the reconciliation commission (Barash and Charles. 2009). However, in most cases the commission helps in uniting the people and giving a good reconciliation process that is matched by individual tools that are developed within the systems accordingly. The commission needs to study the individual risks that the peace building process may face if there is a break in these talks (ICISS, 2001). The people also need to be assured of their safety in the new society that is to be forged. To ensure that they can survive the healing process after trauma, the people need to feel secure and assured to ensure that they meet the individual attributes needed in the society.
In conclusion, the reconciliation process takes time, effort and compromise with diligence and integrity also being focal points of these processes. The people need guarantees and assurances through their representatives that the individual problems have been resolved and they can look forward to a better future. It is these attributes that are therefore, critically developed and measured towards understanding and developing the best processes needed in the formation of a better country or community.