A Life in Dark Places Read online

  I talked to my wife, Kate, and my 22 year-old daughter, Kara. The three of us had planned a short family vacation to Nashville after the New Year, yet both were supportive. Kate told me “this is what you do and you must accept this.” I called SOS in Vienna and made arrangements to go to the Balkans. As a Christmas gift to SOS and the women and children, I reduced my consultancy rate by 75%. This was not an assignment that I wanted to make money on.

  Three days after Christmas, I was on a plane bound for Belgrade, Serbia. My arrival was not warmly welcomed, however, because it seemed the SOS international headquarters had not communicated well with the country’s office directors about my arrival.

  There were two problems. First, many of the country directors were not thrilled with SOS International’s decision to add response to emergencies as a new service. SOS’ primary function is building their children’s village compounds with numerous, well-constructed houses. In those houses are as many as 8-10 children from the community who have been abandoned, were living on the street or have special needs. In each house there is a professionally trained “SOS parent” whose main duty is to form an “SOS family.”

  A basic element in an SOS family is that the SOS parent has a solid relationship with each individual child. This work entails, among many other things, addressing the child’s past and maintaining contact with the biological families when appropriate.

  This is a no-nonsense approach to child raising, geared toward education and career development. In the SOS families, discipline, education or training and household chores are part of the child’s daily responsibilities. But there is a lot of love and compassion as well. Adoption is not allowed, and these children have a very successful rate of transitioning to functioning adults in their communities.

  The other problem was that the main religions in the Balkans are Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian. This creates two Christmases (December 25th and January 7th) with New Year’s in between. So I arrived in the middle of a long traditional family holiday season

  The welcome I received fit the sub-zero temperatures. With my experience, I understood about the communication issues between headquarters and country offices. This is a common problem in many non-government organizations (NGOs). Moreover, as a Roman Catholic I was respectful of the religious issues. Nevertheless, refugees in flight are a 24/7 issue 365 days of the year. There are no holidays, long weekends of leisure, family holidays or days off for a refugee. When an organization involves itself with refugees this is a norm that must be accepted by supervisors and staff.

  At any rate, the senior regional SOS management did not have the time to meet with me. I thought of the family Christmas holiday and vacation I had just abandoned but shook this off and focused on the massive job before me. I garnered what transportation and logistics support I could get from the local SOS office and went on a situational assessment of the refugee transit sites in Macedonia, Serbia and Croatia.

  I did this mostly by road. Fortunately, the major north-south highways in these countries were excellent and, for the most part, two-lane highways. Still, it was winter, and sometimes we were driving in “white out” conditions. The refugees were mostly from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan but we also saw some from Somalia and Pakistan and a few other African countries. They arrive in the Balkans mostly from Greece or Turkey, and Macedonia was generally the first stop on the trek north to Europe, with Germany their main target.

  The situation was chaotic even before I arrived, to an extent I had never before experienced. In a sense it was almost Biblical (or Quranic), like Moses fleeing his oppressors and miraculously crossing the Red Sea. In this case it was Syrians and Iraqis fleeing oppression and crossing the Mediterranean Sea. Alas, there was no miraculous parting of this body of water and many would drown before reaching what they believed to be the Promised Land.

  —Ggia - Wikimedia Commons - CC BY-SA 4.0

  Overloaded refugee boat in the Mediterranean heading for Greece.

  Only drastic moves would stop this flood, but if a governmental barrier was put up, this human tsunami would seek out the lowest point and go around it. They were desperate to survive and the momentum would not be stopped by borders, barriers, walls, laws or policy.

  When I arrived and started my three-country assessment I wondered to myself if we had forgotten everything we had learned these past 40 years. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)1 was the UN agency in charge of this operation, joining forces with the governments in the Balkans, the International Organization of Migration2 (IOM), local and international Red Cross and local and international NGOs. Where were the seasoned professionals with years of experience in Asia, Africa and the Middle East? If they were there I could not find them. It was a new crop of responders and the overused phrase “re-inventing the wheel” hit me at every stop.

  Actually, it was worse. Forget reinventing the wheel—the theme seemed to be, let’s all push these refugees into Northern Europe as fast as possible without using wheels. Did the UN consider safety, security and family reunification—their mandate—part of the equation?

  To be fair, I saw many good things during my journey in the Balkans. First and foremost were the peoples of Serbia, Macedonia and Croatia, especially those young courageous staff members who were thrust into the breech to deal with this refugee crisis. These people were compassionate, kind, flexible and innovative in the face of no training and experience, and willing to live and work under incredibly severe conditions. I was proud to work with them, and, yes, to learn from them. My opinion of the peoples of the Balkans took a radical shift in a short time. They went in my mind’s eye from a cold, insensitive Eastern communist bloc, a horrible stereotype, to the incredibly compassionate, family orientated, urbanized, trendy and modern people who make up the Balkans.

  Some of these good deeds were truly innovative, for it was hard to deliver social services to people on a race to move to the next northern transit point in 10-12 hours. The unwritten strategy for the refugees was to go through government check points at border crossings and as quickly as possible find transportation and head for the next northern border. What could be provided in such a short space of time?

  While waiting in a transit site in the Balkans

  children draw the fear they had during their escape.

  SOS, working with Save the Children and UNICEF and other agencies, developed “mother safe rooms” where woman and children could have a few hours of peace and quiet before they moved on. Nursing mothers could nurse their babies in privacy. Children had a place to sleep and play while their parents rested or did administrative work. Drawing was popular with the children, although most of the crayon drawings depicted war and escape. It was heart-breaking.

  Diapers, baby formula, snack food and water were available at the mother safe rooms. They were also often heated and secure, with the ever-present NGO staff members on guard. When I arrived at one site, the SOS staff were dressed up as clowns or Santa and gave toys to the delighted children. It was a sight to see—a field of smiling children fighting to have a picture taken near Santa and a clown.

  Another new innovation I had never seen before was the creation of free WI-FY space and rooms. The rooms provided free access to computers and cell phone charging stations. Refugees could use the computers or recharge their cell phones and contact family in the country they had fled letting them know they were safe and their location or contact friends and family resettled in other countries letting them know they were traveling north. Both the safe rooms and computer access not only provided needed services but a moment of solace to the refugees in the chaos that surrounded them.

  As for the refugees, they did their best under very confusing, exhausting circumstances and were generally respectful. Those outsiders who might question their refugee status had either not looked at what the war had done to cities like Aleppo or simply looked on the event with the coldest hearts possible.

  SOS volunteers dress up as Santas and clowns to provide some joy, toys, food and warm clothes to refugee children and their families at Presevo transit site.

  Were there terrorists among these refugees? Perhaps, but that is not a sufficient reason to stop the flow of the desperate. Were there Mafia among the Italians who migrated to America in the 20th Century? Possibly, but the higher probability was that Italians were drawn to the Mafia because of the prejudices inflicted upon them by the US population and government. This is a lesson we do not seem to learn as our newest Muslim and Hispanic brothers and sisters sought entrance through the “Golden Door.” Did these refugees riot and protest at times? Yes, but only because they were constantly fed conflicting information by various organizations, principally the UN and local governments.

  When the world seemed to be turning its back on this crisis, the governments of Macedonia, Serbia and Croatia opened their borders and let this tide of unfortunates pass onto northern Europe as quickly as possible. Students of Balkan history know what took place there in the late 20th century, but sometimes a country and people can turn their focus to good rather than evil. And praise should go to these governments for their efforts and kindness.

  I talked to and worked with individuals in those governments who were in charge of immigration, border control, police and the military. All seemed eager to help these destitute people. Was there confusion and misinformation? Of course. The situation was out of control, and these government employees were largely unprepared to deal with the massive scale of the refugee movement thrust on them. Still, they managed to provide compassionate service despite restrictive budgets and a shortage of equipment and personnel.

  In discussions with senior leadership in each country, I often found them confused and amazed that so much monetary and physical support was going from the United Nations and the European Union to Greece and Turkey and so little going to the Balkans.

  On the negative side, UNHCR’s planning was inflexible and disorganized. Weekly coordination meetings were held at all sites, led by the national government, but they usually devolved into long useless “report out” sessions rather than drawing future weekly/daily plans or systems problem solving. Short and long range planning and trending analysis were almost non-existent.

  At the transit sites along the northern and southern borders of Macedonia and Serbia and the eastern section of Croatia, refugees were registered by the appropriate national government agency, put through a security screening process and released to the NGO’s for food, clothing and limited shelter (often not heated or cooled). The Red Cross, Merlin and other NGO’s maintained medical stations, and critically ill refugees were referred to local hospitals.

  Under these dire conditions, with few heated sleeping accommodations, the transit sites were only capable of handling 200 refugees at most. At the peak of the migration, however, as many as 1,200 arrived daily. The strategy was then to process refugees as quickly as possible to allow them to continue their northern migration. Speed took the place of security, documentation and family reunification.

  However, the registration of a refugee family is an important step in providing security for a family and supports for long term family reunification and resettlement. At each of the five transit sites I visited in Serbia and Macedonia, the average interview time was less than 10 minutes.

  As the director for Vietnamese boat people registration in Singapore from 1979 to 1981, I had considerable experience with the 25,000 refugees we processed. A quick family interview for my group was 4-5 hours. A well-documented registration included (1) a complete list of immediate family members traveling in the refugee group to include relationship and dates of birth; (2) a complete list of family members who are living in any country in the world , other than the country they were fleeing; (3) a complete list of family members who are living in the country fled; (4) medical history, problems and needs of the refugee group being interviewed; (5) identification of pregnant women and those handicapped; (6) educational and work backgrounds of adults in the refugee family unit.

  There are multiple reasons for an accurate and complete registration. A complete family listing of those traveling in family groups allows immigration officers and NGO’s at later destinations know if anyone is missing, or even if an entire family has disappeared. There was no way to determine this in the Balkans operation. While currently the UN is critical of the safety of refugees fleeing through the Balkans34 it was the UNHCR and IOM who set up and agreed to the systems that put these vulnerable people in harm’s way.

  Accurate information on family members living overseas or the home country aids the resettlement countries in family reunification. If a refugee has a valid claim for a parent or sibling in another country like Denmark, that family grouping should go to that country. If a person arrives in a country fleeing North Africa and claims a refugee family already resettled, the reunification process is fast and easy—just as long as the new refugee’s family registration form matches the ones already resettled. If there is not a match on the forms, this is usually a case of immigration fraud and should be dealt with accordingly. This situation occurred numerous times with Vietnamese boat people.

  A listing of health or special needs issues is imperative for those assisting the refugees all along the trek and at final resettlement destinations. If a person has diabetes, heart problems or a wound, the care givers must know that in order to provide proper medication and care. Refugees may not be asked this information at a transit site or may not divulge it for fear of slowing their trek to Northern Europe. Education, experience and occupation information is helpful for a refugee once resettled in finding employment or continued education options. While in transit, this information is used by refugee camp managers to find useful volunteers in refugee camp administration. A refugee doctor, nurse, teacher or electrician can be very useful in a refugee or transit camp.

  There were other problems in the Balkans. Refugees approaching the southern Macedonia border crossing from Greece would be led to a hole cut in the corrugated borderline fence and not the normal border crossing, which was in sight. There would be a preliminary security screening by Macedonian border security, and then these refugees would be required to walk about a quarter mile, on a very rough path, to the Macedonian transit/processing site. Often NGO staff would escort the refugees down this hazardous route. The refugees walking this road were exposed to the elements such as rain, snow and wind. The road was muddy, full of holes and ruts, making injuries a distinct possibility. They were vulnerable to human traffickers and could have easily been abducted, especially at night.

  Initially, this nightmare path was not lighted, forcing many refugees to cover uneven ground in the pitch dark. The refugees had to make a choice on this part of the trek—carry their children or help the elderly or carry the blankets, clothes, water and food given them by relief agencies in Greece. This pathway was littered with the discards of what families needed to survive but could not carry. (It should be noted that refugees too elderly or who could not walk were bused through the normal international border crossing).

  I feel that at this point UNHCR and IOM forgot or ignored their mandate about refugee protection, since the easy solution would have been for all refugees to go through the international border crossing between Greece and Macedonia, a modern facility requiring little in upgrades to accommodate refugees. Or, UNHCR or IOM could have arranged for buses to be pre-positioned at the hole in the fence to safely move the refugees to the next transit site.

  The same pattern was repeated as refugees crossed the frontier between Macedonia and Serbia, but worse—the trek was on a longer, rougher pathway that was three-quarters of a mile.

  Once the refugees cleared the transit processing centers with registration and security screening, they were free to travel using any private transportation available to them. This would mean the use of trains, buses and taxis but at the refugee’s expense. It was certainly profitable for private transportation companies, as buses and taxis could be seen lined up for miles waiting to take on vulnerable human cargo. In my 40 years of refugee work I have never seen a situation in which refugees must pay for their own transport to escape oppression. The money they were expending on transport was needed to help them resettle once they reach their final asylum country.

  To me, this was always IOM’s job but a recent review of the IOM website may explain this change. It stated under its Strategic Focus section that IOM was to provide “secure, reliable, flexible and cost-effective services for persons who require international migration assistance.5” I am not sure how “cost-effective” worked its way into a primary dictate of IOM refugee migration planning, displacing safety and security.

  I know the Serbian and Macedonian governments were actively trying to regulate price gouging by private transportation companies, but price gouging was occurring. The fact they had to pay at all amazes me. For IOM, was this cost effective? Was it cost effective to allow refugees to cross dangerous border areas on foot, exposed to the elements and human traffickers, and then pay for their own escape?

  One of the uglier issues that came to me was how the definition of “refugees” was being used and why this northern migration system existed at all. Somewhere the governments of Macedonia and Serbia decided that travelers arriving from Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria, Iran or other African or Middle Eastern countries were not “refugees” but “economic migrants,” and unbelievably UNHCR appeared to agree.

  According to UNHCR, refugees are “someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries6.”