When a refugee speaks in the camp and there’s nobody around to hear him, does he make a sound? It all starts in Davos, where UNHCR decided to mount a Refugee Run [PDF] offering to the assorted bigwigs
an experience unlike any other on the agenda: an opportunity to step into the world of conflict and experience life as a refugee.
It’s no big secret – times are tough in UN-land right now thanks to the financial crisis, and those bigwigs have got some mighty big pockets to go with their big wigs. Unfortunately the invitation was sent to William Easterley, scourge of the aid industry1, who posted it on his new (and recommended) blog, adding:
Did the words “insensitive,” “dehumanizing,” or “disrespectful” (not to mention “ludicrous”) ever come up in discussing the plans for “Refugee Run”? I hope such bad taste does not reflect some inability in UNHCR to see refugees as real people with their own dignity and rights.
I wouldn’t like to say whether it reflects such an inability in UNHCR cough cough. However UNHCR clearly thought it might reflect badly on UNHCR in some way, because they made sure that in their press release there was an Actual Refugee on hand to give it the stamp of approval:
The exhibit received a seal of approval from a genuine refugee, Raphael Mwandu from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. “The things you see in this simulation are the same as those in the camps,” he said, adding that it would help let people “know what is going on in our world so that they can meet together and find solutions.
The Refugee Run has its defenders, though, and they’re more convincing than the original invitation. In the comments on Easterley’s blog, one of Raphael’s friends explained that
As a friend and colleague of Raphael Mwandu, I can tell you that he works for the (non-UN) Hong Kong organisation that presented the event, and has helped run the Refugee Run for many hundreds of people over the past few years. He was not invited by the UNHCR but came as part of the staff from Hong Kong.
Now that’s fair enough, and I don’t wish to denigrate Raphael’s experiences, or the organisation that has set up the Refugee Run – but wouldn’t it be more accurate to describe him in the press release as one of the organisers of the event, rather than a “genuine refugee”? It’s the equivalent of having a quote saying “Virgin Airlines is the best airline I’ve ever been on” from a Mr R. Branson – it might be true, but it’s not honest.
Related posts:
Pingback: The Refugee Voice | humanitarian.info
The Wall Street Journal video linked to by Ben (here)shows an event a little less crass than the invitation suggests (“Spoiler alert: No harm will come to you!”… ). The video includes an interview with Raphael Mwandu, who also appears to be one of the actors in the scenario.
I think this is another example of a trend in campaigning/fundraising of trading an experience for a supporter in return for empathy with people so obviously in danger and distress. Isn’t it less a reflection on the producers of the event, than the numbed state of public compassion?
After reading Ben’s post, and checking into the raison d’etre behind the Refugee Run, two things are clear:
1. The Refugee Run is a useful public awareness tool that draws on genuine refugee experiences. I have no problem with it on those terms whatsoever, and think it might be very valuable.
2. The UNHCR publicity machine was at fault in generating such crass invitations and failing to even notice that people might have problems with it – so that’s probably where the fault lies.
I don’t think this is about a numb public. As some of the commenters have said on other blogs, they’re just normal people for whom the Refugee Run provided more insight than they could get from the nightly news. I think this is a reflection on the incredibly poor job that aid agencies in general do in educating the public about these situations, and the massive level of mediation involved in presenting refugee voices to that public.
“…they’re just normal people for whom the Refugee Run provided more insight than they could get from the nightly news.”
You’re right there, in that the Davos “set” (are they badgers or something?) were far from the norm. In that context, Refugee Run seems all the worse: a frivolous distraction for people who already know the baseline, having been targetted by lobbyists, agencies and governments on these issues since they obtained any money or power. I think that’s what ires Big Bill.
I also take your point about the dubious claims that the experience is in any way authentic.
In terms of public education novel ways of communicating don’t get a long life solely as a result of their creativity or insightfulness(what does?). There has to be a return on investment, through income for the agencies sponsoring their development: for this to happen, there’s a hard requirement that the means of communication chime with the expectations of the intended audience, or they won’t give money and support. Compared with today’s individual charity donors and supporters, I’ll bet that the donors of even 5 years ago wouldn’t have required something as Zimbardo-esque to get them to hand over an equivalent amount of their disposible income. This makes compassionate giving dependent on reciprocity that goes beyond an a simple moral appeal.
It seems that providing a shock, provoking an intense feeling of guilt, enabling hollow forms of participation, or something experiential and potentially voyeuristic like Refugee Run is becoming the norm. I wonder if it’s possible for public education efforts, which are by-comparison very dull, to succeed at all.