Anisa Navarro

ANTH 497

December 14, 2022

Final Analytical Paper

Edging the end of World War II came the “profound concern for refugees” stemming

from a guilty conscious from the United States and European nations for their lack of protection

during humanitarian crises, [1]. While the United Nations have collaborated on many efforts to

ensure the rights and protections of refugees and displaced individuals, all efforts continue to fall

short with discourse over what is a countries responsibility for non-citizens. The entirety of this

course has been spent in uncovering why must we live in a world full of refugees, and while the

intent was to uncover answers, the future is still unclear. In the midterm, I acknowledged the

theme of state sanctioned violence, however at the end of the course, I find that the true theme is

apathy. There is a profound amount of apathy exhibited by the nation states and international

governments in dealing with refugees, as no accountability is being taken, nor is action taking

place, as efforts are being maximized in preliminary stages of legal resolutions. Apathy of the

events that transpire causing refugees, and apathy in the state of uncertainty refugees are in, is

the true cause of a world full of refugees, and until apathy is redirected into empathy - true

solutions may not be found. In this analysis I will build from the analysis of Malkki’s and

Arendt’s work and include Akram and Triggs and Wall work to discuss apathy within the

multiple international agencies created yet no durable solution found.

In the analysis of Speechless Emissaries: Refugees, Humanitarianism, and

Dehistoricization by Malkki, I defined violence through enforcement of human right violations

1
and denial of the refugee’s humanity. This denial of humanity has been executed through

dehumanization, scrutiny, and dehistoricization. Malkki discusses the dehistoricization

committed against the Hutu people as the silencing and disregard of the events that created

refugees, while viewing them as stereotypical bodies of a refugee, (Malkki 375). The

stereotypical body of a refugee is the first action of apathy generated from Nation States. This

ideology of a stereotyped refugee is based on the misconception that a refugee should be poor,

from a war-torn country, and adorned with scars. While this experience may be true to some

refugees, it does not encompass the story of all refugees, and to label all refugees as one body,

rather than humans with different experiences is to strip them of their identity and create this

distinct other to differentiate a refugee and a citizen. This ideology was later internalized by

refugees as they felt that they should embrace the hardship experienced in the difficulty of

seeking refuge, as it’ll benefit them as they reclaim their homeland. This was also used to create

a divide between the Hutu refugees as they separated themselves into novices or mature

refugees, which was based on the Nation-States enforced perception of which refugees were

aided and accepted by the government, (Malkki 381).

Apathy is the lack of interest or concern and is seen in the indifference in responses or

action to solutions for refugees. While the definition of apathy is minimal, it is seen in full force

through the lack of care and effort exhibited by international agencies and countries to aid

displaced and those seeking safety. Apathy is well announced in the treatment between refugees

and citizens, as Malkki discusses how the TCR (Tanganyika Christian Refugee Services) states

that refugees should not have the same life or luxury as citizens, (388). This “luxury” that is

gatekept from the refugees is simply the opportunity to live comfortably with resources and

access to create even a temporary stable life in another land while they wait to return home. The

2
clear lack of care or concern for refugees due to their status and not being citizens of a country, is

therefore what continues the speechlessness of refugees into the anonymous corporeality, which

occurs to refugees in the regime of representation. Here refugees are stripped of name, face,

details, and livelihood, as they are framed and imagined as blank canvases in this “sea of

humanity” (Malkki 388). By creating the anonymous corporeality of refugees, nation states find

that with no humanity tied to a refugee, no aid needs to be given as there is no real need for

action. Thus, anonymous corporeality is the nation-states justification of being apathetic, as with

no real person behind a refugee, there is no real issue to solve, nor people to help.

Likewise, the root of the issue within Arendt’s The Decline of the Nation-State and the

End of the Rights of Man, can also be attributed to apathy. Malkki mentions how the TCR finds

that refugees and citizens should be awarded different benefits, in Arendt’s piece he believes that

human rights should be given regardless of a national affiliation and is inherent. The possibility

of conflicting views preventing durable solutions to the problem of refugees, in only possible due

to no legal document being drafted explicitly stating what refugees should be awarded. Arendt

dives into this by discussing the 1951 convention, which was tabled by members of the United

Nations, and its failure to explicitly grant any rights to refugees. While the 1951 convention

created a document of the international community’s obligation to help refugees, there is no

governing document that guarantees or enforces that the international community helps those

seeking asylum. The key term in the 1951 convention was the right to seek asylum, not in the

right to be granted asylum. Therefore, those denied asylum are denied human rights – as they’ve

already extended their rights of seeking asylum, and now exist in a limbo where they have no

rights in their homeland, and no guaranteed rights in the land they entered. Under the declaration

of rights of man in the 19th section, an understanding was established that human rights had to be

3
invoked whenever a person needed protection against new sovereignty of state and new

arbitrariness of society. This understanding was created due to the belief that society gave human

rights. The dominant issue with society giving human rights, is that these rights are thus not

stated in any governing document, but one can assume that it is in loss of home, and loss of

government protection, (Arendt 290).

The apathy witnessed here, is the apathy in recognition and accountability. When the

Nation-State removes themselves from granting human rights to refugees, and from being

involved in aiding refugees beyond rejecting their asylum status, it shows that the Nation-State

has no care or moral conscious in protecting and ensuring that the refugees are not being taken

advantage of. This apathy is further exploited when Arendt discusses that for refugees to be

granted even the slimmest number of human rights, they must commit a crime and be entered

into the legal and justice system, (295). It was found that as a criminal, although the right of

freedom was taken away, an identity and community was still given, thus ensuring that they are

not truly rightless. Within the idea and context of nationalism, as a refugee there is no identity or

community to belong to in the state of limbo, and thus if a refugee was to commit a crime, they

would be placed into this state of granted rights. While complicated at sorts, it all comes down to

the interest of the Nation-State. As refugees there is complete apathy of not caring or granting

any sort of rights to protect livelihood or safety, however as soon as a refugee infringes on the

possible livelihood or safety of the established nation – are rights granted under the new label of

criminal.

Furthermore, in Akram’s analysis in UNRWA and Palestinian Refugees, Akram discusses

the multiple sub-agencies spearheaded by the United Nations to find durable solutions for the

Palestinian refugees, and the respective successes and failures. The interesting conundrum within

4
the situation explained in Akram is the concern and action taken on by the United Nations

following the initial event creating the Palestinian refugees. The United Nations has been

involved within the Palestinian and Israeli conflict since 1945 and is referenced within the UN’s

charter as one of their obligations to amend, (Akram 1). By taking accountability and

responsibility through written recognition of the UN’s charter, the opposite of apathy takes place.

By acknowledging that the actions caused by Resolution 181, is what forced hundreds of

thousands out of Palestine, is one step into the right direction of aiding refugees. Without

acknowledgement of their history and the events that caused it, connects to this sea of humanity

and dehistoricization that is referenced under Malkki previously. However, despite the good

intentions in aiding and creating durable solutions to this refugee crisis, there was a lack of true

effort enforced beyond the admission.

Following the statement of obligation multiple government agencies were created such as

the UNCCP, UNWRA, UNHCR & Palestinian Refugees; however, each has created loopholes

and use of discretion allowing countries the opportunity to fail at successfully implementing aid.

So, while the United Nations has shown that they have put forward efforts to find durable

solutions to the Palestinian refugee crisis, the apathy exhibited and discussed later by countries is

what keeps and adds to the crisis. One of the first agencies is the UNCCP – The United Nations

Conciliation Commission on Palestine, its purpose was achieving durable solutions for the entire

Palestinian refugee population. Two years after its creation it was found that due to Israel’s

opposition in repatriating Palestinians, they would be unsuccessful, (Akram 2). The main point to

note here is that instead of simply shutting down the UNCCP, the UN cut funding and slowly got

rid of any acting members, so the UNCCP is still a standing entity with no active efforts with the

Palestinian refugees. The actions within the UNCCP are seen in the apathy from Israel to

5
collaborate and create a solution. The UNRWA – The United Nations Relief and Works Agency

for Palestine Refugees had a similar instance in that its purpose was to be short term and to be a

relief and work agency, but the UNRWA found that they did not have any precise legal authority

over their mandated territories and thus could not do anything, (Akram 3). The UN runs into the

same issue where they create an agency to fix the problem (thus putting effort and action) but

face an issue where they are not able to set their plan into success. This then places the UN in a

situation where they can state that they have tried everything within their power and control to

help the refugees yet were unsuccessful. The critique with this is, that if the UN wanted to create

a durable solution, they would’ve found a way to have legal authority in enforcing a strategy in

the mandated lands. The same predicament was presented again with the creation of the

UNHCR – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Palestinian Refugees. There are

two issues found within the wording of the UNHCR purpose, with an exclusionary clause and

the verbiage. The first is the exclusionary clause – in that anyone receiving aid from any entity

besides the UNHCR is unable to be included in its efforts. If the purpose is to aid Palestinian

refugees in their crisis that the UN started, why would the UN choose to exclude some refugees?

The apathy is recognized here in wanting to be the sole provider in aid and its success in aiding

refugees. The second issue within the UNHCR is in the definitions of the three categories of

Palestinian refugees, (Akram 5). The issue found within the categories is the vagueness and

contradiction of terms within each category and definition of what constitutes as a Palestinian

refugee. Thus, leading to a lack of understanding of which Palestinian refugees receive aid, what

aid is due, and when the aid should be finished. To best describe this predicament is the saying

one step forward, two steps back. While the UN has continued to take initiative in creating

different agencies with different motives and strategies to fix the issue, they are partially

6
accountable for, no true plan is ever enacted beyond the discussion stages in figuring out what to

do. Here the United Nations true lack of intervention is not due to the legal intersection of having

legal authority, but simply in the apathy of protecting the Palestinians.

Over the past few decades, the United Nations has created multiple governing entities all

with the purpose of helping the Palestine refugee crisis, however with decades of establishment

behind them, the UN has yet to create a durable solution. Simply acting and retracting based on

their convenience. The United Nations is simply acting performatively as to say they are putting

effort into the problem yet being apathetic in truly fixing the problem.

Furthermore, in more recent years the framework under which the United Nations has

presented to look at the issue of refugees, has shifted from enforcement of protecting refugees, to

the strain refugees place on countries. In Triggs and Wall ‘The Makings of a Success’: The

Global Compact on Refugees and the Inaugural Global Refugee Forum, the reformed way of

fixing the refugee crisis is in spreading the burden and responsibility evenly between the

different Nation-States that refugees flee to. The global compact was created under the General

Assembly and within threshold for the UNHCR to adopt these policies based on the General

Assemblies recommendation. The language used to explain this circumstance of UNHCR, and

the General Assembly makes it seem that the members of the GA, knew that if left to their own

accord, many States either would not create a plan or not brainstorm what their capabilities are

for helping the refugees. The Global Compact also wanted to measure of success in the durable

solutions not in how the number of refugees has changed, but rather in how well countries are

sharing the burden of taking on refugees, (Triggs & Wall 11).

The General Compact, despite not having any true plan, written, or enforced, gained the

most support from States as it recognizes that it is not a legal binding document, but “an

7
expression of ‘political will and ambition’”, (Triggs and Wall 18). Thus, States are not obligated

to participate in any standards described in the Compact but are under moral and political interest

to act in accordance with the Compact; allowing discretion to be used by Nation-States and

availability to not act at all with no repercussions. The Refugee Compact is established in a way

that is adaptable with the issues presented by refugees, allowing ease in changing priorities. The

global compact is set to simply introduce discussion and affordable action to assist and protect

refugees.

While the Global Compact is an issue of its own, with no real legal obligation, definition,

or strategy, it is a step in the right direction, by taking into consideration the main issue that

plagued Nation-States, burden, and responsibility. First and foremost, the usage of the word

burden is one that constitutes refugees as a negative pest that the Nation-State must take care of.

However, refugees are not a burden, as they are humans with experiences and victims of

violence, that forced them out of their own homes into the vulnerability and mercy at the hands

of a country. I find that considering and referencing refugees as a burden to countries,

dehumanizes the refugees as paints them as a problem, versus a political victim. The Global

Compact should have reframed this issue into accountability and responsibility, in that each

country holds responsibility for refugees, either in their lack of participation in preventing the

violation of humanitarianism that created the refugees, or in the responsibility to share their

resources and help the refugees.

Despite having light accountability, the Global Compact had some success in that many

countries and Nation-States were more acceptable of having a conversation about what they

owed/didn’t owe refugees. While there is no success in comparison to refugees aided, there was

8
success in that more than 2/3’s of the United Nations membership participated in pledging at the

First Global Refugee Forum, (Triggs & Wall 49).

Within Triggs & Wall analysis on the Global Compact, they claim that “a purely

humanitarian approach to providing protection and assistance to refugees is not only

unsustainable in the long run, but also often inefficient,” (32). Instead of relying on

humanitarianism to guide moral goodness and action of states, the Compact is reframing refugee

protection to be in granting refugees the environment and resources to become self-reliant (and

thus not a burden). In the claim that humanitarianism needs to be taken out of the conversation of

refugees and aid, is where apathy sneaks in. When viewing the circumstances of refugees in

simply a political and strategic viewpoint is to strip them on their experiences and forces them

into this unhuman other, in which nothing is gained nor loss when political aid is not enforced. In

contradiction with Trigg’s and Wall’s claim, I find that to best change the refugee crisis the

conversation must include both discussion on how to evenly split up responsibility between

Nation-States but also in how to uphold humanitarianism in goals and discussions.

Humanitarianism allows for looking at refugees as humans and allows for empathy, which is

detrimental to change and aid. The other failure in this is that humanitarian intervention is left up

to each country’s discretion, leaving space for countries to participate in the bare minimum, even

with the surplus number of resources they have, under the guise that they are under no legal

obligation to do anything, making their minimal effort into a benevolent cause. Despite my belief

that humanitarianism should continue to be in the discussion of the global compact and further

actions of refugee care, it may never be successful not because of the lack of concern for the

country on behalf of UNHCR, (Triggs & Wall 32), but of the selfishness of Nation-States in

wanting to preserve their own sovereignty and nationalism.

9
 By focusing on goal oriented and open discussions to guide the work of refugee aid – I

find that Triggs & Wall, alongside the leaders of the Global Compact, are filled with senseless

hopefulness in hoping that the fluidity of the compact and the strong political will, would push

the different Nation-States to continue this effort of aiding refugees throughout leadership

transitions. While it may be an absurd claim to make without a profound understanding of the

complexity and legality of international intervention capabilities, the world has witnessed aid

being given to refugees of different nationalities, with no hesitation and successful

collaborations. However, when it comes to communities and nationalities of minority

populations needing to seek asylum, does an issue arise and the successfulness of minimizing the

world’s refugees, seem like an unattainable feat.

While my midterm analysis was spent diving into the different actions of the Nation-State

and the violence whether physical or mental, I want to connect that the state sanctioned violence

was only possible and enforced through apathy of the state of refugees. With the clear lack of

care for refugees, their history, and experiences as political actors/victims, - refugees are seen as

faceless figures who can be moved and abused at a whim. The apathy felt by politicians is what

leads to the lack of care of humanity in the laws and policies created, enacted, and furthered by

citizens of the state in wanting to preserve nationalism and national identity. In the analysis of

apathy, it seen within many realms and stages of refugee aid, that despite so many initiatives

nothing was created, and until no standard was created and upheld, was success barely

beginning. The scapegoat of lack of resources or international collaboration is a ruse for

international leaders to continue to not care and prioritize their own sovereignty and political

gain against the life and safety for those in need. Especially when the refugees in question are

10
placed in their circumstance of displacement due to countries lack of involvement preceding the

humanitarian crisis and following the crisis.

Furthermore, for the true makings of success to begin and flourish, despite the

complexity of legal obligations and enforcing countries with different resources to take in

refugees; the basis and intention of refugee laws and policies need to be made without apathy,

and with empathy. Including the stories, faces, and identities of refugees is the first step in

ridding the political actions of their violent indifference to what happens to the state of refugees.

While the next step should include integrating humanitarian values in protecting and enforcing

safety for refugees. In conclusion, while the state of refugees may continue to be a long-lasting

issue, there is potential and possibility for the next leaders to begin anew and create efficient and

successful laws and policies in finding durable solutions to what should have been a temporary

problem.

Citations:

Akram, Susan. “UNRWA and Palestinian Refugees.” The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and

Forced Migration Studies, 2014,

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.013.0025.

Arendt, Hannah. “The Decline of the Nation State and the End of the Rights of Man.”

Imperialism, pp. 266-302., file:///Users/anisanavarro/Downloads/1%20Arendt,

%20Decline%20of%20the%20Nation%20State%20(3).pdf

Malkki, Liisa H. “Speechless Emissaries: Refugees, Humanitarianism, and Dehistoricization.”

11
 Cultural Anthropology, vol. 11, no. 3, 1996, pp. 377–404. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/656300. Accessed 14 Dec. 2022.

Triggs, Gillian D, and Patrick C Wall. “‘The Makings of a Success’: The Global Compact on

Refugees and the Inaugural Global Refugee Forum.” International Journal of Refugee

Law, vol. 32, no. 2, 2020, pp. 283–339., https://doi.org/10.1093/ijrl/eeaa024.

12