Refugees and the Olympic Games

Last Friday, the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang, South Korea began. Watching the thousands of athletes march into the stadium during the opening ceremony, each representing their respective nations, made think of the millions of people who no longer have a nation to call home. According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) there are 65.6 million forcibly displaced people worldwide, with 22.5 million of those considered refugees. A refugee is someone who has crossed an international boarder because of a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country. As a result, millions of people have fled their home country to escape persecution resulting in millions of people outside of their assigned geopolitical border. In a world that is organized into nation-states and likes to keep people in their neat and tidy nation state boxes, having millions of people crossing those borders and upending this organization has lead to chaos. This need to categorize people by nation-state is even apparent in how the Olympic games are organized. Athletes must belong to a recognized nation-state and qualify at an international competition representing that nation-state in order to go to the Olympic games, which effectively makes refugees and stateless people ineligible.

2016 Olympic Refugee Team
https://www.olympic.org/news/the-refugee-olympic-team-a-symbol-of-hope

However, at the 2016 Summer Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro the International Olympic Committee (IOC) formed the first ever Refugee Olympic Team consisting of 10 young refugees representing countries like Syria, South Sudan, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The IOC gave these athletes the opportunity to live, train and compete as Olympic athletes. The IOC President, Thomas Bach is quoted describing the Refugee Team as a message of hope to all refugees around the world. He also stated that the Refugee team shows what a person can achieve if they want to, and that they are providing inspiration to refugees all over the world, showing that anyone can meaningfully contribute to society with their “talent, skills, and strength of the human spirit.” Bach also described the team as not “simply refugees”, but human beings and athletes who are competing with other athletes, and serve as a reminder to the world that refugees are fellow human beings and serve to enrich all of society. Prior to taking the Refugees and Displaced People course I wouldn't have given his remarks much thought other than to think how great it is that Refugees are having a chance to compete and what an inspiration they are. However, after learning about the often demeaning and infantilizing language used to describe refugees and the many stereotypes applied to refugees I take several issues with Bach’s comments. His comments serve to perpetuate many common tropes and stereotypes, particularly the silently suffering hero, and the helpless refugee that (surprise!) is also human.

            Now, at risk of sounding horribly cynical let me preference by saying that it is wonderful that refugees were given a chance to compete in the Olympic games and that the IOC attempted to shine a spotlight on a very important and distressing issue. Also, giving others hope is not a trivial or futile action. I also acknowledge that his comments were made with the best of intentions, but I think they are still worth unpacking and critiquing as they bring up some troubling underlying assumptions about who refugees are, and their basic humanity and worth.

First, to say that the Refugee Team represents what a person can achieve if they want to implies that the problem for refugees and their inability to change their situation lies in them not “wanting” to change. This oversimplifies a very complex problem and shows an appalling lack of understanding about what refugees actually face in the process of filing for refugee and asylum status. No one wants to be a refugee. No one wants to be stateless or living in a camp for decades. If it was simply a matter of wanting then we wouldn’t have 65 million displaced people.

            Bach also states that they are not “simply refugees”, but human beings, and the Refugee Team serves as a reminder to the world that refugees are human beings that are capable of enriching society. Humans are highly capable of dehumanizing people they see as less or not worthy. We see this dehumanization every day in the rhetoric of the current administration, police brutality against African Americans, and violence perpetrated against LGBTQ people especially trans people. However, the world shouldn’t need a reminder that refugees are human beings. No one is “simply” a refugee or “simply” anything. Human beings are human beings and should be treated as such. The international community shouldn’t need an Olympic team of 10 young refugees to see that, but based on the recent rhetoric around refugees maybe a reminder is necessary. 

            Finally, Bach describes the Refugee Team as a message of hope and said they provide the inspiration other refugees need. Again, this simplifies the refugee crisis into a two-dimensional, simple problem that can be solved if refugees “wanted it” more or were “inspired”. Refugees don’t need inspiration. They need food, water, shelter, access to medical care, and to be resettled in countries rather than spending decades in refugee camps being subject to starvation, violence, sexual assault, and a world that infantilizes, demonizes and rejects them. Rather than giving them an Olympic team to “shine a spotlight on an issue” that quite frankly needs less spotlights and more action, organizations with money, power and influence, like the IOC, should be using that power and influence to actually address the refugee crises rather than simply call more attention to it.

            I will conclude by acknowledging that in lieu of a Refugee team at the 2018 Winter Olympic Games the IOC launched a new foundation called Refugee Athlete Support that will allow Olympic Committees in countries that are hosting refugees to identify and support refugee athletes so that they can prepare for and participate in international competitions. While this is an honorable endeavor, we need less reminding of the problem, and the humanity of refugees, and more action to address the needs of refugees and take meaningful action to tackle the root cause of displacement. The first step in all of this is changing the language we use to talk about refugees. This includes language that, like Bach’s comments, seems positive, but at its core serves to reduce and infantilize refugees, and strip them of their humanity by once again feeling the need to remind the world that they are human.

References:

• https://www.olympic.org/news/the-refugee-olympic-team-a-symbol-of-hope
• https://www.olympic.org/news/refugee-olympic-athlete-yusra-mardini-appointed-unhcr-goodwill-ambassador
• https://www.olympic.org/news/refugee-olympic-team-a-symbol-of-unifying-power-of-sport-on-international-day-of-sport-for-development-and-peace
• https://www.olympic.org/news/first-ever-refugee-olympic-team-sends-message-of-hope
• http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/figures-at-a-glance.html                                                                                    

Dehumanized.

"During our travels we had not only lost our few and poorly things, we had lost our history and our identity. I was Cyrille Kabore no more. No we were only a series of numbers. Anonymous.”

The above quote was taken verbatim from a short film (8 minutes) by Fabio Palmieri that tells the story of a refugee, titled “What It’s Like to be Dehumanized”. If you wish, you can watch this here (The Atlantic, 2017).

Dehumanized. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines this as to “deprive of human qualities, personality, or spirit.” The video I mention above is an illustration of how one displaced individual experiences this as he made several daunting transitions throughout his young life. The film gives a visual analogy of “anonymous” beings as lifeless, plastic mannequins. Unable to speak for themselves and assembled as in a factory. Manicured by humans who had the power to paint, clean, and comb hair while the mannequin lays lifeless. It may be natural for many to watch this video, and mostly attribute the sorrow of dehumanization to war and persecution. But to assume this is to miss an incredibly significant point that this video communicates, namely, he became “a series of numbers” as he came under the far-reaching umbrella of the humanitarian apparatus.

Photo credit: REUTERS/Mandel Ngan/Pool

Michel Agier (2011) critically appraises the humanitarian infrastructure and the political milieus behind intervention. When displaced persons (DPs) flee their country, they become stateless, thus are depoliticized and lose protection; they are not recognized by the new state as a citizen. When they enter into the humanitarian apparatus, they are labeled and thereafter managed and ‘contained’ based on this label (i.e., asylum seeker, refugee, etc.). Agier gives a powerful description of how DPs are dehumanized within this context. He defines dehumanization as the “suppression of life” (p.18), and further describes it as being reduced to basic needs to physical survival: food, water, shelter. Countless individuals and families leave oppressive political situations to enter into a new territory where they continue to have no voice. Many are physically kept alive, but slowly die on the inside as their humanity is unceasingly and repetitively stripped away. This containment and control is “a mere step…to non-existence. And a step that can be crossed as soon as the political possibility is opened of letting people simply die…” (Agier, 2011, p. 18).

Photo credit: odi.org

One question that Agier poses is: what does governing the stateless mean? As of 2016, nearly 70 million people were displaced (UNHCR, 2017). This number is enough to fill an entire country, yet are declared stateless, politically unprotected, and subject to discrimination and violation of human rights; currently, the humanitarian apparatus is charged to ‘contain’ the stateless. While externally clothed with care and compassion, its actual infrastructure and execution is marked by non-democratic regulation. Its beneficiaries receive physical support, yet are stripped of humanity and voice as they wait on ‘what’s next’.

             Of course the most ideal solution would be that DPs would be able to return to their home as they remembered it, without fear of persecution or political oppression; this is not the reality for most. Countries that are signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention are obliged to uphold their commitment to receive and protect the displaced who are received into their state (UNHCR, n.d.), however, less than 1% of DP’s have been resettled worldwide (UNHCR, 2016). Meanwhile, they surrender to endless waiting, while some (as Cyrille Kabore did) attempt to flee their circumstance to find a better life. Millions upon millions remain under the humanitarian apparatus.

Photo credit: Takever, Flickr 

Can the humanitarian infrastructure be held accountable? Can policies be shaped by the voices of the displaced? How is it that the UNHCR (a non-governmental program) is charged with governing and mobilizing the stateless? I return to Agier’s question: what does governing the stateless mean (Agier, 2011)? The current humanitarian situation is ever growing in capacity, yet continues to spiral down in its execution. If (physical, emotional, spiritual, social) humans are to be kept alive beyond ‘bare life’ (food, water, shelter), and perhaps even thrive (given they are fleeing oppression), the humanitarian situation must improve.

References

Agier, M. (2011). Managing the undesirables: Refugee camps and humanitarian government. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

The Atlantic. (2017, December 13). What its like to be dehumanized. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLSfk5QEz14.

Dehumanize. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dehumanize.

UNHCR (n.d.). Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/3b66c2aa10.

UNHCR. (2017). Figures at a glance. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/figures-at-a-glance.html

UK Cities of Sanctuary - Welcoming the Stranger

As laid in bed ill for the last week and a half, I scrolled through my Facebook feed mindlessly passing the time in between naps. Amongst the doom and gloom posts covering the current state of political affairs in the US and memes related to eating Tide Pods, something caught my eye. A video shared by a friend on Facebook made me pause because of its relevance to our coursework.

Video found here

The video (linked above)featured Widden Primary School in Gloucester, England. The school was recently named a "School of Sanctuary" and has opened its doors to welcome refugees and asylum seekers, particularly refugees from Syria.  The school strives to be a safe place for not only students but their parents as well.  At the school, students and their parents are tutored in English. Currently, seven families with twelve children attend the school. 

Widden Primary seems unique in its "whole child" approach. The school has trained staff in post traumatic stress to deal with emotional and psychological scars brought about by the traumas the children have faced. The lessons go far beyond the classroom by emphasizing acceptance and embracing diversity. The city has also truly "welcomed the stranger" as well.  

I have learned that throughout the United Kingdom, communities have committed to taking in refugees and asylum seekers through a grassroots effort known as "City of Sanctuary". Cities which are economically disadvantaged (mostly found in the Northern region of England) are accepting refugees into their communities in exchange for governmental contracts which help bring much needed resources to the area. Because of the low cost of living, the communities  outside of London and larger cities, are able to provide housing at the governmental standard for refugees and asylum seekers. Initial impressions lead one to believe it is a mutually beneficial scheme. 

The UK's commitment to accepting refugees is perhaps even more impressive given that the program which began in 2014 as the UK's Vulnerable Person Resettlement Program has been expanded under the Conservative leadership of the British Prime Minister, Teresa May. This struck me as it is in stark contrast to the conservative leadership we have in the United States today which is vehemently anti-refugee. It seems that the United Kingdom has put party politics aside and despite its recent decision on Brexit which would tend to think it could have a "country first" agenda, it has made a strong commitment to accepting and relocating refugees.  So, why has the UK, who has also suffered incidents of terrorism at the hands of extremist groups been able to separate out the risk of so called "letting terrorists in" by accepting refugees from areas like Syria?  Why haven't they adopted stricter limitations and why are we not seeing more racist rhetoric from politicians?  I am perplexed and would like to dive deeper.....

________________________________________________
Refugees, U. (2018). UK sanctuary network offers vital backstop for refugees, asylum-seekers. [online] UNHCR. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/stories/2018/1/5a54af934/uk-sanctuary-network-offers-vital-backstop-for-refugees-asylum-seekers.html [Accessed 5 Feb. 2018].

McGuinness, Terry. "The UK Response to the Syrian Refugee Crisis", House of Commons Library Briefing Paper Number 06805, 14 June 2017 

abandoning reason and suspending sense

I hope to lay bare the ridiculousness of the issues we are dealing with in this course; how all these notions are at their heart built on fictions that people have bent over backward trying to maintain.

White lies can seem harmless, we make up an explanation, something simple, something neat, something that sounds agreeable.  We tell these white lies and like all lies, they stare back at us, their well meaning parents, and make us do and say things that we may have thought otherwise quite ludicrous.  We pull a tooth out from under a pillow and replace it with a coin, things that go bump in the night, clumsy lies in clean white smocks.  We told a tale to humour ourselves, but now it has us fishing in our pockets, rendering between the sheets what belongs to Caesar.  White lies are pleasant, they are spun like spider’s silk across the map, writing fiction so believably onto what is real.  A realist’s map would describe what is real; elevation, a road, a body of water, a cemetery, a swamp.  When the map is under the poet’s pen; the landscape may be crowded with myths and delusions; borders and boundaries.  

When we share a myth and all behave as if it is a reality, does that make it real?  If we repeat to ourselves our precious white lies long enough, will they, as Adolf Hitler declared, become true?  Are we past the part of civilisation's course when facts had to prove themselves under human scrutiny and the laws of nature held sway?  Have the leaders of the free world finally freed the world from all things cold and hard, have we escaped the glare of the enlightenment?

It helps to have consequences and symptoms, coins beneath pillows if you will, to make the fantasy jump off the page, to make the borders jump from being spider webs on otherwise trustworthy maps to being real, impregnable, however intangible, slashes on the face of the planet.  Who could doubt that the borders are real, provided such consequences garnered in crossing them?  So we tell the white lie that there is a line in the sand that separates I from you and we make the Isolation and yousolation seem real by sending you back to your side and bringing I back to I side.  You can stay in the third world, and I may stray into the world as I see fit.  Thus our mythical narrative goes, our shared fantasy, our white lie.