Construction of Refugee Perceptions after World War II

The word refugee frequently arises when conflicts, environmental hazards, and other calamities
prevail. From this description, refugees could be defined as a group of people leaving their
homes in search of refuge and assistance. UNHCR reports currently there are 21.3 million
refugees worldwide which accounts for 65 million who were displaced. This figure indicates that
refugee issues has risen to be a major problem given its scale and urgency. Not merely a major
problem affecting lots of people, the issue of refugees reveals a long history which parallels with
historical events.
The long history of refugees is closely related to the perception of refugees. Refugees are not
solely a group of people who are moving around seeking help. Refugees could be perceived as
other entities: as an instrument to achieve a certain objective, a threat to states, or an actor who
possess capabilities in reaching their goals. Refugees could be looked as helpless victims in dire
need of assistance. Seeing this phenomenon, a question could be raised, in what situation and
context perceptions of refugees are constructed?
This thesis will demonstrate that perception of refugees are not linear and is based on the
historical context and major power in international system. It attempts to look back at
monumental events in world history, starting from the end of World War Two which culminates
in a major refugee crisis and the establishment of the first international refugee regime, followed
by Cold War, decolonization movements in Asia and Africa, Proxy War in Third World countries,
regional conflicts in the Post-Cold War Era, and 9/11. This essay would point out that the
construction of perception of refugees is in line with the political surrounding and international
situation. State interest, particularly of great powers, also helps to shape the perception of
refugees. There are four types of perception of refugees: refugees as victims, refugees as
instruments, refugees as threat, and refugees as agents.
Refugees after World War Two: Evolution of Definition and Shifting Perception
Following the formation of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there
were demands to give an official definition of refugee in order to distinguish whom are entitled
to protection and treatment by the official refugee status. The 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees was formulated and became the first legal instrument to give definition on
refugee as a legal status. Sixteen years later, the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugee
strengthens the definition of refugee by eliminating temporal and spatial limitation in the original
definition of the 1951 Convention. With 145 states signing the 1951 Convention and 146
countries signing the Protocol 1946, this definition was adopted to domestic asylum policies in
various parts of the world. The definition of refugee on those two legal instruments was heavily
influenced by World War II experience, where it was heavily influenced by the experience of
Jews who suffered persecution during World War II.
Later on, independence movements and internal conflicts from Asian and African countries
contributed to the massive flow of refugees in 1960s and 1970s. This was the most fundamental
reason why the Protocol 1967 removed the eliminated the temporal and geographical restriction
of refugee definition to make the definition more inclusive. The definition of refugee in the
international institutions from the Third World such as Organization of African Unity and
Cartagena Declaration reflected the current situation of mass decolonization and post-
independence conflicts in the Third World. The changes of political dynamics around the world
also expanded the criteria of determining refugee status eligibility.
Before the steep hike of refugees from non-Western world, refugees predominantly originated
from European countries who were devastated by the aftermath of World War Two. The
perception of refugee as victims emerged primarily from this era, before their arrivals were used
as a tool of propaganda during the Cold War. A total of 40 million of Europeans were displaced
and considered the largest refugee crisis. At the same time, there was a growing tension between
US-led Western Bloc and Soviet-led Eastern Bloc where both parties had been trying to
proliferate its ideology and sphere of influence in the countries devastated by the impact of
World War II. US put the containment doctrine into practice by generously accepting refugees
from communist countries who are "voting with their feet". These refugees become a political
asset and propaganda tool to show Western Bloc's superiority to Eastern Bloc.
Not only refugee policies, the rivalry of Western-Eastern Bloc was also prominent in
international refugee regime where US dominated the funding on UNRRA and IRO, which was
largely criticized by Soviet. There were a clear preference for refugees originating from
communist states, who deserved to be protected by an oppressive regime. This phenomenon
shows that the definition of "well-founded fear" and persecution" is in fact open to
interpretation. In this case, the imminent threat of persecution from the Communist regime was
the cause of a well-founded fear of these refugees coming to the US. Refugee resettlement
policy of Western Bloc countries, especially Vietnam, was nuanced with political message of
discrediting communism. According to the U.S Committee for Refugees, only less than 0.3% of
refugees from non-communist countries were accepted by the U.S.
The 1960s and 1970s gave birth to the second global refugee crisis after European refugee crisis
of World War II due to widespread anti-colonialism movements and internal conflicts following
independence. Because most refugees hailed from developing countries which were in need for
economic assistance from wealthier countries, this situation was capitalized by the conflicting
sides of the Cold War. Both parties endorsed Proxy Wars in Third World Countries which later
led to the massive flow of refugees. But not all refugees were embraced with open arms. The
reception of refugee was no longer as warm as it used to be in Europe after World War II. There
were rejections when these people were perceived as threat.
Starting from 1960s refugees were started to be looked as a threat, especially during 1973 oil
crisis. The economic decline gave an impact on the reception of refugees. They were feared to
inflict economic and social problems, reduce employments for local people and burden welfare
states. The flow of refugees reached its peak in 1980s when 3 million asylum seekers were
scattered around Europe, US, and Australia. The complex reasons of why refugees chose to flee
was often overlooked. It was difficult to distinguish which were refugees who left their homeland
from fear of persecution or migrants who departed to seek economic opportunities. Due to these
reasons, deterrence policies were applied to limit the amount of refugees and serve as an attempt
to mitigate potential social tensions.
Tendency of xenophobia was alive during this time. There were anxieties and prejudices that
these refugees with different background and appearance would not be able to integrate with
local people. Concerns that population of non-white refugees, along with illegal immigrants, will
surpass whites in the future have been raised, which was one of the leading cause of more
restrictive refugee policies in the Western Hemisphere.
The Phenomenon of Refugee Warrior
Proxy war led to militarization in refugee camps, where refugees became mercenaries sustaining
the prolonged conflict. This phenomenon of refugee militarization which displayed the agency
and capability of refugees to be a political actor with goals and demands instead of a passive
victim is termed refugee warrior by Aristide Zolberg. Afghanistan mujahideen is the best
example of refugee warrior, when a political tool of proxy war later evolved to be the
mastermind of a deadly attack of 9/11. Refugee warriors have certain characteristics: always in
need of sanctuary, they attempting to obtain legitimation from civilians, using propaganda for the
purpose of recruiting civilians, regarded as the champion of the poor and the oppressed. More
often than not, the communities of refugee warriors are fostered by foreign patrons.
Zolberg believed refugee warrior emerged due to failed states and state disintegration. While
Howard Alderman viewed it as a consequence of a futile attempt of international community to
find a long term sustainable solution, beside the availability of military and financial support to
the refugee warrior cause.
Refugee warrior was a paradox of passive and selfless portrayal of refugees. Opposite of their
supposed to be humanitarian and non-partisan character, refugee warrior turn to violence to fight
for their aspirations. It shows two sides of refugee: their empowerment and capability despite of
their powerless figure and the capacity to induce violence and threatening states.
Refugees after 9/11: Threat in the terrorism context
After 9/11, the increasing sentiments and concerns about terrorism contributed to the rising
perception of refugees as threats. In the era of global war on terror, refugees were perceived as
potential actor of terror attacks. Not only on security matters, the existence of refugees were
considered to be a main cause of increasing job competition for local citizens. Refugees were
mistaken as economic migrants, although according to Sonia Mckay, there was no clear
distinction between refugees and economic migrants who both arrive in a new country in hope of
better livelihood and safer living environment.
Perception of refugees also influence the management of refugees, in which Alexander Betts
noticed some overlaps and contradictions to traditional refugee regimes (UNHCR and
Convention 1951). Betts observed the fact that the proliferation of migration institutions who
also handle refugee matters such as International Organization Migration (IOM) and
International Labor Organization (ILO) has created a humanitarian market for convenience of
the states. Moreover, there was a preference for in-situ mechanism in treating refugees,
discouraging them from crossing national borders. It is clear that refugees were seen as a future
burden who must be contained from seeking asylum abroad.
International Situation and State Interest as a Factor
The above explanation points out that perceptions of refugees evolve alongside the current
international situation and historical events that shaped the situation. Perception of refugees is
not unitary, different perceptions could emerge at the same time from a different vantage point.
Moreover, state interest also played a crucial role in perception of refugees. A state would be
more accepting if letting refugees in resonate a message. If states not gaining certain leverages
for accepting refugees, refugees tend to be perceived as a threat. Refugee is a legal status with
few privileges and host country might not be able to accommodate the continuous flows of
refugees.
At Cold War era between two hegemons, refugees were perceived as victims for propaganda
purpose. After the mass decolonization in Third World, the amount of Third World refugees has
increased. They started to be seen as threats especially when these refugees came from different
background in a staggering number. On the other hand, refugees were acknowledged to have
agency in the form of refugee warrior due to militarization. After 9/11, refugees became more
identical with the word threat, particularly in the fear of Islamic radical organizations.
But these perceptions create misleading information of refugees. The generalizations which stem
from this perceptions overlook the different conditions and situations of refugees. Every refugee
has its own background and story. Misperceptions might lead to incorrect treatment of refugees,
even preventing refugees from getting the needed help. Therefore, it is necessary to gain a deep
understanding about the causes and background of refugee in order to formulate a better
approach.
The Risks of Misperceptions
Refugees were first introduced as victim for the purpose of image building during Cold War. The
perception of victim later transformed to threat in the 1980s and still ongoing, especially post
9/11. I consider these two opposing perceptions as dominant perceptions which led to the
generalization of refugee image.
Perception as victim created paternalistic attitude which views all refugees as passive and
helpless entities, while perception as threat portrays all refugees as dangerous menaces which
could negate protections to the refugees. Both perceptions don't take historical and political
background of refugees into account.
The perception of refugees as victims denies the fact that some refugees has the capability and
agency to achieve their goal. But the perception of victim has become an idealized image of
refugees. This glorification of victim image erases the aspiration of the refugees, represented by
the humanitarian institution and its workers. B. Harrell-Bond study found out about the image of
refugees as hungry and helpless people were often portrayed in media as well. Although these
refugees are clearly victims of a chaotic situation in their homelands, the decision of seeking a
refuge is a proof that refugee has the ability to think and act on their own behalf. Along with the
disappearance of self-representation, as well as historical and political context of refugees, the
voice and aspiration of refugees are also lost. Liisa H. Malkki called this as dehistoricization of
refugees. This image of helplessness was internalized on refugees as well. During her field trip,
Malkki observed that some refugees reacted negatively to the display of entrepreneurship among
fellow refugees, asserting that refugees should remain at their own tent waiting for aids.
Prem Kumar Rajaram who studied an Oxfam project called 'Listening to the Displaced"
indicated a semblance of depoliticization and dehistoricization of refugees. There was identity
reduction in the context of humanitarian organization. Rajaram also noticed that the helplessness
of refugees were exploited, turning it into a commodity in the form of souvenirs to attract donors,
which he regarded as a second marginalization of refugees.
Halleh Ghorashi found that the image of refugee as passive victims is so universal and
widespread. In hegemonic refuginity, refugees are incorporated to the image of helpless
victim in order to be granted a refugee status. Women and children from Asia or Africa are
depicted as the poster refugees because their suffering appears to be more tragic and thus bring
more sympathy and funding.
Ghorashi noted that the perception of refugees as helpless victim is paternalistic, which might
bring hierarchical relationship between donors and refugees. The paternalistic attitude combined
with the low comprehension about the nature of the conflict would lead to proliferation of the
conflict itself when aids were used for the interests of militarized refugees. Humanitarian mission
for Rwanda in 1994 was criticized because the aid fell into the hand of the Interahamwe militias
and Hutu political elites, who were responsible to the mass slaughter of Tutsi minority. Sarah
Kenyon Lischer pointed out that humanitarian mission policies were stuck in the perception of
refugees as victims and could not see the political and militarization of refugee camps.
On the other hand, perception of refugees as threat could be a major obstacle in getting a legal
status as refugees, particularly those who are originated from countries remarked as a terrorist
breeding ground such as Afghanistan. Most refugees from Afghanistan were ethnic minority of
Hazara. They were thought to be members of Al Qaeda although they were the victim of Al
Qaeda persecution. The asylum claim of Hazara people was suspended by Australia after US
announced Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 despite mass executions committed against them by
Taliban. Regardless of the systemic discrimination and dismissal of asylum appeal, the Hazaras
were not discouraged to conduct a hunger strike as a form of protest to repressive treatment in
the detention center.
Another misperception of refugees are refugees will become a burden and ethnic tension in the
host country. The notion of refugee as a burden were not dominant in the era of Cold War,
overshadowed by the political interests of Western countries. The misperception of burden also
hides the fact that refugee could bring a positive contribution in economy, as shown by Patricia
Ongpin in her writing about positive contribution of refugees in UK and Australia in the 90s and
2000s. Similar findings reported in the research of British Home Office (2002) and Bureau of
Immigration, Multicultural, and Population of Australia (1995).
In addition to refugee warrior phenomenon which negates the notion of passive refugee, urban
refugee also shows the agency of refugee. UNHCR noted that in 2013 more than half of refugees
settled in urban areas and only third of refugees lived in a camp. These urban refugees
contributed to the economy of their home country by sending remittance, strengthening the social
ties between refugees and their relatives back home. Nicholas Van Hear observed Tamil refugee
diasporas and found that role of sent remittances in guerilla support and the rehabilitation of
conflict area.
Conclusion: The importance of a better understanding
More than being an issue about people moving with urgent motives, refugees reflect the political
situation surrounding their movement. The history of refugee movement is closely related to
perception of refugees, which evolves in accordance to the international situation and historical
context. Different vantage point creates different perception: as a victim, instrument, agent, or
threat. Moreover, perception of refugee is not unitary as multiple perceptions could emerge at the
same time.
The definition of refugees is not ahistorical and universal. After World War II, refugees were
viewed as victims seeking a safe place from the aftermath of war. This perception of victim was
the foundation of refugee policy during Cold War in which refugees from communist blocs were
admitted as casualties of oppressive regime, making refugees a tool for political propaganda.
Refugees were started to be perceived as a threat when refugees were no longer predominantly
Europeans in the 1960s. Despite perceived as a threat, refugees were apparatus at Cold War
proxy war as militarized Afghan refugees turning into refugee warriors. At the same time,
refugee warriors acknowledged capability of agency of refugees, refuting the stereotype of
passiveness.
In the 1990s where internal conflicts broke out in many parts of the world, refugee influx did not
diminish in numbers. Asylum process started to be more restrictive, because the large flows of
refugees were seen as a threat to security, economy, and society of the host countries. The
perception of threat has strengthened since 9/11 where refugees from certain countries were
feared to have link with terrorist network.
As an overview, there is a trend where perception of refugees has shifted from victim to threat, in
which these two perceptions do not entirely reflect the real condition of refugees. The perception
as victim could lead to incorrect generalization and paternalistic tendency of viewing refugees as
passive and helpless entities, whereas perception as threat could deny refugees the protection and
assistance required. Perception of refugees as threat and burden also emphasizes that refugee is
more than an everyday word for people fleeing life threatening situations, but a legal status with
privileges and political implications. Perception of refugees as war victims living in settlement
camps is contrary to the fact that refugees possess their own agency, as shown by the
phenomenon of refugee warrior and the rising number of urban refugees.
Learning from the mistreatment of Hazara refugees in Australia, perception of threat has
generalized all refugees as terrorists. This perception also failed to recognize that refugees could
bring economic contributions to the host and home countries. Thus, it is important to gain deeper
understanding about the background and political context of refugees in formulating policies and
proposing solutions.