Two weeks ago in Pambazuka News 221, Mukoma Wa Ngugi expressed disappointment with the constant comparison of New Orleans to the Third World in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In a compliment to that article Khalil Tian Shahyd argues that the application of human rights standards in relation to the debate over the terms ‘refugees’ and ‘internally displaced persons’ could help America deal with the crisis.

Listening to the many news reports and coverage of the disaster left by Hurricane Katrina, it is easy to get frustrated from the lack of depth of discussion. The absence of intelligent debate can be witnessed particularly around the latest hot bed issue, the use of the term, 'refugees'.

Many African-American leaders quickly responded to its use in denunciation. Charging that it devalued a people who are 'American' citizens and taxpayers to the national economy, these leaders demanded the survivors be referred to as 'victims' or simply 'survivors'. The cries from Black leadership grew so loud that President Bush himself had to clearly state in a recent interview his opinion that in fact we are citizens, not refugees.

While being trained academically in the field of International development, the word refugee is one we discussed and used very often, without negative connotation or stereotype. This personal background led me to ask the question as to whether all the fuss against the use of the term was actually motivated by a latent 'American exceptionalism' whereby 'refugee' was a label unfit for people of such high international social status as American citizens. Perhaps the term, although widely used around the world, was meant to be reserved for the 'unfortunate' global majority born in the Global South, sometimes called the Third or Developing World. If this were the case then the advocacy against use of the term can only be termed as some form of humanitarian snobbery.

However, what the discussion on the subject shows in a less evident way, is the overall lack of interaction and integration of international human rights standards, tools and methodology into the repertoire of American civil society, political leadership, media and intellectuals.

While it is hard to say which came first, what should be noted however, is the existence of a circular cause-effect relationship between the lack of involvement of US based civil society and advocates in international rights discussions, and the US refusal to sign even the most basic commitments to human rights such as the CEDAW treaty on women's rights and the Child Rights treaty among others. Our continued lack of involvement plays into the interest of US foreign policy nationalists who continue strong arm tactics at the UN to achieve the interest of a narrow fundamentalist nationalism over internationally agreed mandates. Our isolation from international discussion has left us unaware into the happenings and possibilities for change that exist at the international level.

Not once since the controversy arose have I heard anyone -whether in the media or on internet blogs - use the internationally recognized standard label and definition of 'Internally Displaced Persons'. In fact the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has an entire agency, the Inter-Agency Internal Displacement Division (IAIDD), whose mission it is to:

"…coordinate an effective response to the needs of the internally displaced people worldwide." (http://www.reliefweb.int/idp/)

The IAIDD bases its work on the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights', Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/b/principles.htm)

Although not legally binding, these principles are increasingly recognized as international standards by which all Internally Displaced People can measure and judge the effectiveness and extent of governmental response to their circumstances. This makes the principles a useful frame of analysis for advocates and defenders of the rights of the internally displaced from the Gulf Coast. As in all human rights legislation, which exists with little capacity for or assurance of implementation, the international pressure of shame is the best way to get governments who otherwise wouldn't, to implement their obligations.

A brief summary of some of the most relevant articles in the guidelines follows.

The first section covers principles 1-4 and gives a basic overview of the rights of IDPs to protection, and sets forth to identify the national government as obligated to positively enforce these rights. What this means simply is that realization of these rights requires government action, while inaction is tantamount to a denial of rights. Now perhaps it will become clear to advocates how these standards and language can be used. The section also explicitly warns against discrimination in the guarantee of these rights, and speaks to the special needs of women, children and the elderly for protection.

Section two, which covers principles 5-9 highlights, the obligation of the national government and international authorities to prevent circumstances that would require displacement. Principle 7 Article 2 states that authorities have an obligation to ensure adequate accommodation for those displaced, such that:

"…such displacements are effected in satisfactory conditions of safety, nutrition, health and hygiene, and that members of the same family are not separated."

Further, if displacement occurs in an emergency as is the case in the Gulf Coast, the authorities are responsible to ensure all people full disclosure of information as to where they will be relocated and about the extent of compensation. We have all heard and read accounts of people forced to board busses with no prior knowledge of where they are going and not being allowed to leave after finding out.

Principle 9 outlines the special obligations states have to minority groups and indigenous people who hold 'special' dependency to their native land base. The uniqueness of New Orleans' Afro-Creole culture, nurtured by the streets and climate of the city, can meet the status of 'special' dependency.

Section 3 deals extensively with the obligations of authorities to protect those displaced from violence and harm. Although primarily written with the context of a war situation in mind, it is easily transferable to the context found in the Gulf, particularly New Orleans, where the lack of response and deficit of organized community institutions opened an opportunity for the breakdown of civility in some cases. Principle 16 in this section proclaims the right of IDPs to know the whereabouts of family and obligates authorities to gathering and relaying this information. It appears through news reports that this is one area of some success so far, within obvious limits.

Again, principle 17 declares the obligation of authorities to reunite separated families, which from what I can tell from news reports is happening fairly consistently.

Principle 18 regards the rights of IDPs to adequate standards of living, food, water, clothing and shelter, medicines and sanitation. All these completely broke down for about six days into the aftermath. Attached to this principle is the special emphasis on the involvement of women in the planning and distribution of these basic needs, which makes sense being that it is women who are overwhelmingly responsible for meeting these needs for families. The positive psychological effect of having control over redistribution could be important as well.

Further principles deal with rights to education, and possessions.

Section 5, the final section, deals explicitly with the rights to return, and the conditions upon return to their homes. It sets forth the obligations of authorities to create the conditions that will be necessary for this return, which has been proposed in some instances. Principle 28 Article 2 states clearly that:

"Special efforts should be made to ensure the full participation of internally displaced persons in the planning and management of their return or resettlement and reintegration."

This statement I feel marks the major battle to be fought in the coming months and years as the business elites, real estate developers and local chambers of commerce will move to solidify their advantage within the redevelopment process. This section also calls on the authorities to commit to full compensation for those returning or those choosing to resettle in another area.

I hope this outline of the International Human Rights Standards on IDPs might deepen the stagnant debate and ranting over the right legal definition for the people of the Gulf Coast affected by Hurricane Katrina. It could in fact be that the reluctance of the administration to use the term is precisely for fear of being bound or called into account based on these very standards. How and if they are to be used in the debates to come will need to be decided by civil society and supporters in the Gulf region. What I hope will be gained from this is that people will realize the possibility and existence of rights beyond the narrow base upon which American constitutional rights are based.

I hope I have been able to contribute to making advocates aware of tools they may not otherwise have thought to consider.

* Khalil Tian Shahyd is from New Orleans, a community activist and graduate student of Sustainable International Development with a focus on Poverty Alleviation and Sustainable Community Development in the Lower Mississippi Basin Region. He is currently in New Delhi with the UNDP working on state-level Human Development Reports. He plans to return to New Orleans and organize an HDR on the Lower Mississippi Basin region. He can be reached at: [email][email protected]

* Please send comments to [email protected]