Contingents from around the world gathered in Istanbul earlier this week for the first-ever United Nations World Humanitarian Summit. The goal is to overhaul how aid is delivered, and to make the world safer for refugees during what the U.N. has called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War.
Turkey’s hosting of the summit is symbolic, since that country has spent $10 billion and taken in more than 2.7 million migrants during the refugee crisis created by the five-years-and-counting civil war in neighboring Syria.
Mutuma Ruteere says millions of people moving out of the Middle East and through Eastern Europe has increased fear and tension against migrants and foreigners. He’s the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia and related intolerance, and is currently working on a comprehensive report about xenophobia with the U.N.’s Human Rights Council.
“We are looking at how this form of hostility, discrimination, and violence against such individuals is also leading to questions of race and nationality and ethnic descent,” Ruteere told KGOU’s World Views. “We’ve seen countries proposing and actually building walls to keep out outsiders. We’ve seen mainstream political leaders inciting and organizing against outsiders, blaming migrants, refugees, asylum seekers for taking away jobs and committing crimes in the host country.”
Ruteere says World War II largely influenced the current system of international human rights protection.
“Of course, we were more hopeful 50 years ago. It was a bad time, but we were building an international system of protection,” Ruteere said. “It is more tragic now, and more urgent to forecast on this because in spite of this great system, mechanism, infrastructure of international human rights protection, we are witnessing and we are hearing the kind of aggressive rhetoric that was there 50 years ago. In the 1930s. That should not be there, given what we know.”
But even with an elaborate system of international treaties developed in the 1950s and 60s, Ruteere says there’s a lack of implementation, because a lot of it depends on politics and balancing competing domestic and international interests.
“It is something that requires tending every day. It is certainly not a perfect system, but we don’t have any other. We would be doing worse than we are if we did not have that imperfect system,” Ruteere said. “I think the challenge of the 21st century is to see where to improve that system, to see what needs to be done. Because we don’t have an alternative.”
KGOU and World Views rely on voluntary contributions from readers and listeners to further its mission of public service with internationally focused reporting for Oklahoma and beyond. To contribute to our efforts, make your donation online, or contact our Membership department.
SUZETTE GRILLOT, HOST: Mutuma Ruteere, welcome to World Views.
MUTUMA RUTEERE: Thank you for much for having me.
GRILLOT: Now I think most of us have a pretty good concept of racism and racial discrimination and the kind of things you might be doing. But tell us more about the xenophobia part of what you're working on. I'm assuming you're focused particularly on migrants, maybe. People coming in and out of countries and the concern and worry about those people coming in and out of the countries and discrimination that's related to them. Tell us about your job and what particularly the xenophobia part relates to.
RUTEERE: Well, thank you. And I think the question is timely because I'm at the moment working on a report for the Human Rights Council on the question of xenophobia. And you are right. This is one of the concepts that is not very clear. This is the first time we are actually doing a comprehensive report, global report, on the question of xenophobia. There's a close relationship, a lot of intersectionality with racism and racial discrimination. But for most people, the dictionary definition of xenophobia, of course, has to do with a fear and the kind of hostility against migrants or people who are foreign. They could be refugees. Basically people who are considered outsiders. A case we are looking how this form hostility, discrimination, violence against such individuals is also leading to questions of race and nationality and ethnic descent. Because you'll find that in many case the individual is a subject of xenophobic discrimination - most likely someone who comes from a different country, from the host country. They could be people from a different race, ethnicity, or nationality. So this is particularly important now with large movements of populations that we have, which we're seeing globally. In many parts of the world we've seen organized hostility, violence, incitement to violence against migrants, refugees, asylum seekers. We've seen countries proposing and actually building walls to keep out outsiders. We've seen mainstream political leaders inciting and organizing against outsiders, blaming migrants, refugees, asylum seekers for taking away jobs and committing crimes in the host country. So there's a new an urgent need to forecast on this particular phenomenon. And also remembering that the current system of international human rights protection was largely influenced by events that were happening in Europe during the Second World War. That was about concern for people who are refugees. People who have no other form of protection except the protection of international human rights.
GRILLOT: Well, you mentioned that this is a timely subject, and obviously we're aware of the global migration of peoples today and how this discrimination and obviously xenophobia is relevant. But of course, discrimination and xenophobia are not new concepts. So how would you compare it? What you see today - a kind of violence, a kind of xenophobic discrimination that you're referring to, how is it different today than what we might have seen - you referred to World War II, for example, during that era? Or even many millennia or centuries before that?
RUTEERE: I think you're right. This is a problem we've had for quite some time. But I think what gives it particular urgency at the moment is the fact that we've largely become an integrated and very much interconnected world. Previously, 50 years ago, people took a very long time to travel from one country to the other. People didn't know much about what is happening in other countries, did not have the means of technology to organize even strangers to go and attack foreigners or migrants or refugees. Now, we have a very interconnected system of communication and transport. People can very easily get into planes or find their way into other countries using roads and oceans. Of course it's still very dangerous but it's quicker, it's faster. People also get to know about other places where it might be safer. They wouldn't have known about that probably 50 years ago. And within countries where they might be subjected to xenophobic discrimination or violence, of course we didn't have the instant forms of communication like we have at the moment where it's very possible to organize via social media, via the internet, and spread hateful, inciting messages as we are seeing now. Of course, we were more hopeful 50 years ago. It was a bad time. But we were building an international system of protection. It is more tragic now, and more urgent to forecast on this because in spite of this great system, mechanism, infrastructure of international human rights protection, we are witnessing and we are hearing the kind of aggressive rhetoric that was there 50 years ago. In the 1930s. That should not be there, given what we know.
GRILLOT: Well, you mentioned this international system of protection. What does that consist of? What do we have in place globally to protect migrants or people from different places from this xenophobic or even locals that are, perhaps have been around for a long time, but to protect them from racial and other discrimination?
RUTEERE: Well, globally we have a very elaborate system of international treaties. The 1951 convention on protection of refugees. Subsequent to that, we have a series of international human rights treaties. A convention on the elimination of racial discrimination in 1965. Several other conventions and treaties that most states in the world have signed up to commit themselves to the protection of human rights of individuals who might be fleeing their counties for whatever reason. We have systems through the United Nations. And even domestically you find that most countries in the world now, and like in the 1950s, we have domestic pieces of legislation that actually protect the rights of all individuals irrespective of their nationality. So domestically and globally we know more. We have made more commitments. We have put in place more laws and institutions to protect strangers who might be in need of assistance. And yet we see this discrimination.
GRILLOT: So we have a number of, as you're saying, instruments and treaties and agreements. So what we're lacking is implementation and acceptance of these treaties at a local level. And abiding by these laws. It's a matter of compliance. It's a matter of enforcement.
RUTEERE: It is a matter of implementation. We've done very well in building these treaties, this system. But keeping their obligations is the challenge. It's the implementation. And the problem of that implementation is because a lot of the implementation depends on politics. And sometimes politics gets in the way. States have to balance the interests of various domestic constituencies. States have to balance competing interests at the international level. And that is what weakens the system of implementation. So it is something requires tending every day. It is certainly not a perfect system. But we don't have any other. We would be doing worse than we were if we did not have that imperfect system. And I think the challenge of the 21st century is to see where to improve that system, to see what needs to be done. Because we don't have an alternative.
GRILLOT: Well, it's an excellent point to say that, imperfect as it may be, this is the only system we have. Well, I want to shift very quickly to the work that you've done in Kenya. You've written quite a bit, and you've worked, obviously, a lot in Kenya on police activities. And particularly the use of torture and extrajudicial killings in Kenya by the police force. And so you've been working on ways in which they are trying to professionalize their police forces and create a community police force that's serving its population as opposed the state or politics or whatever it may be. Can you tell us a little bit about that work, and how well you think Kenya's making progress in this area?
RUTEERE: Well, thank you very much. Kenya has had, and I'm speaking in my capacity as a researcher based in Kenya, not wearing my UN hat. It is a long history of a very poor record in terms of the police and protections of rights. The last couple of years, what we've been trying to work on is to improve the record of police in terms of professionalizing. We have in place now new laws that provide for the independence of the police and the inspector general of police, that is the head of police. The reason for that is because previously the police would be misused for political reasons against political opponents. We also have in place a civilian oversight mechanism. There's an institution that provides oversight of police with regard to violations or accusations of violations. They can go investigate, recommend prosecution, or recommend whatever forms of sanctions against police are in place now. They were trying to promote the need for more professional recruitment training of police. Of course, the greatest problem is to change the culture of policing. Because admittedly, the law is as good as the culture and the thinking of the leadership of the police. That presents the challenges. We have what I would call fairly good training. The challenge begins when police officers go on the streets. And that changes. And the problem is that the new training, or the new influence they get from the veterans is that this is a different ballgame. You go to kill the criminals before they kill you. Sometimes the language, in my experience what I've found is that sometimes the language of human rights may not be very successful in convincing the police to change the way that they do their work. But then the language of professionalism is one that provides a very good way of holding discussions. If you don't build stronger partnerships with the community, if you choose to use force unnecessarily, then you destroy the professionalism of the police services.
GRILLOT: So Kenya, obviously, isn't the only country in the world that struggles with these issues. I would say elsewhere in Africa, certainly in places in the Balkans were I've done my work. In the Middle East, in Latin America, I mean we could just go on and on. Even in locations in the United States we have these issues. The cultural issue is clear, but what can we do in terms of international institutions, using international instruments to help facilitate this type of issue and create better police procedures?
RUTEERE: I think one of the very key areas that I think can make a difference is establishing a very good oversight. Whether it’s at the federal level, if you have a federal system at the national level. If you have a provincial system of government. An institution that provides a certain form of guidance. Certain forms of oversight over police at the local levels. Now, of course, all policing is local. But in terms of standard setting, in terms of ensuring that they are linked to humanized principles, the role of national governments, at the national level, becomes very important. In the case of the U.S., the Office of the Attorney General and the guidance to police is absolutely very important. And to use the example of the United States, with regard to what the Attorney General has been doing is very good practice in terms of working with the local police jurisdictions to improve how they do policing. And there are good, good lessons globally. But also there's a number of weaknesses. One of the weaknesses is that we don't collect good data and statistics with regard to policing. So when, for instance, the accusations that the policing might be profiting off individuals, we don't have very good data. One of the things that is very important to do is actually to collect ethnically desegregated data.
GRILLOT: Alright, well, Mutuma, thank you so much for being with us today. This is a very interesting conversation. Thank you for shedding light on it.
RUTEERE: Thank you for having me.
Copyright © 2016 KGOU Radio. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to KGOU Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only. Any other use requires KGOU's prior permission.
KGOU transcripts are created on a rush deadline by our staff, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of KGOU's programming is the audio.
