Focus on Returnees from Iran

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Sadako Ogata on 20 September announced that the government of Iran had agreed to extend a joint screening and voluntary repatriation programme for three months. That agreement came after a request from Ogata, on the basis that not all undocumented Afghans would have had a chance to have their cases to remain in Iran examined before the original programme was scheduled to end in mid-October. This agreement was “the main outcome” of Ogata’s visit to Iran last month, according to a weekly update from UNHCR Iran on 24 September. The joint UNHCR-Iranian government came into effect on 8 April, with 96,584 Afghan refugees having repatriated voluntarily so far, it said. Herat, in western Afghanistan, was the stated place of return for 53.9 percent of the returnees, followed by the capital Kabul (19,7 percent) and Ghazni (5.2 percent), it added. Tajiks were the main ethnic group among the Afghan returnees, accounting for almost 68 percent. In the screening part of the programme, a joint UNHCR-Iranian team had heard 30,985 cases of those who considered they had valid reasons not to return (corresponding to some 155,000 people), of which 8,412 had been accepted, 14,875 rejected and 7,698 were still pending, UNHCR stated. Those whose cases were accepted would be “permitted to remain temporarily in provinces determined by the Iranian government until such time as the situation is conducive for their return,” it said. Claimants had the right to appeal if the decision of the interview team was negative, it added. But the wisdom of continuing the repatriation process from Iran has been questioned by the human rights agency Amnesty International and by the international NGO Medecins sans frontieres (MSF), which has itself been involved in providing medical screening for refugees at Iranian repatriation centres. The agreement between the UNHCR and Iran to extend the current screening procedures for undocumented Afghans was undermined by its short time frame (the three months agreed) and the lack of resources to implement proper screening, according to an Amnesty press release on Tuesday 26 September. “Over 13,000 refugees have reportedly gone through a parallel repatriation process that bypasses the safeguards established by the joint Iranian government programme,” it said, in a press release headlined ‘Are Afghan refugees being properly protected?’ There was a fear for the safety and lives of some refugees, and many others in Iran had expressed concern that if they returned to Taliban-controlled areas, their girl children would not be able to attend school. “The Taliban’s rigid social code severely restricts women’s rights to freedom of movement, employment, health care and education,” Amnesty stated. Meanwhile, MSF’s head of mission in Iran, Francois Calas, stated - in an open letter to Ogata on 19 September, to coincide with the Commissioner’s visit to Central Asia to review the refugee situation in the region - that “the fundamental conditions indispensable to the assistance and protection of refugees are not being fulfilled in either Iran or Afghanistan.” The facts demonstrated that the repatriation programme had fallen significantly short of its stated objectives, that some of its effects had even been the contrary of those intended, and that the promise of protection and assistance had not been fulfilled, Calas said. MSF asked Ogata “to intervene in favour of suspending the repatriation process, whether this be that of the HCR-Iranian government or otherwise.” UNHCR Iran’s stated in its weekly update of 24 September that the main goal of the voluntary repatriation programme was “to organise and ensure a voluntary movement in safety and dignity”, and that the agency did not support repatriation to areas affected by insecurity or drought in Afghanistan. Parallel to the HCR-organised repatriation convoys, the Iranian Ministry of the Interior facilitated “the spontaneous return of Afghans ... who wish to return immediately by their own means, without benefitting from the assistance provided by the UNHCR within the framework of the Joint Programme,” it added. Some 13,472 Afghan individuals had so far spontaneously repatriated in this manner, but UNHCR made sure that “these people are returning entirely of their own will and are full informed that such returns are not assisted,” UNHCR said. However, refugees’ citation of government pressure as their reason for leaving Iran put into question whether the repatriation process was voluntary, according to Amnesty. Some government authorities and politicians had been pushing for increased repatriation, blaming refugees unfairly for an increase in violent crime and the drug trade associated with criminal gangs in Afghanistan and Iran, it said. MSF’s letter stated that its teams had consistently received testimony as to “the arbitrary nature of the deportations that continue to take place.” The prevailing situation in Afghanistan - with war ravaging the country, serious drought afflicting certain regions and living conditions rapidly deteriorating - only served to heighten fears about the fate of those returning, according to its Iranian head of mission, Francois Calas. Meanwhile, as Ogata ended her visit to Iran on 20 September, she voiced concern at the intense sense of frustration and disappointment in both Pakistan and Iran “at being left to deal with the burden of a large [Afghan] refugee population at a time when both countries are facing economic and social difficulties.” In parallel, she said, resources from the international community were diminishing as it grew disillusioned by the absence of a reconciliation process in Afghanistan. This new environment called for new approaches to this refugee situation - the largest human displacement in recent times, and a situation entering its third decade without solution - and it was with that in mind that she had decided to commission a full-scale review of UNHCR policies and programmes in Central Asia, Ogata added.