To “do an Obama”

When digging up some extra teaching resources for a statelessness workshop in South Africa last week, my attention was drawn by a recent article in Zimbabwean newspaper The Standard, entitled “Zim birth threatens Banda’s second-term bid”. The piece was about accusations raised by political opponents, that Zambia’s current President, Rupiah Banda, is not in fact eligible for the presidency under the country’s own laws. For the Zambia’s top job, the Constitution requires not only that the presidential candidate is a citizen, but that both of his or her parents are also Zambian nationals. Banda’s opponents are now claiming that he is of Malawian parentage and the fact that he was born in Zimbabwe (then Southern Rhodesia) has further fuelled allegations about his non-eligibility for the presidential office.

This case is compelling for a number of reasons, not least because it isn’t the first time that the citizenship and heritage of a Zambian president has been questioned. Indeed, in one of the most remarkable statelessness-related cases that I have come across, the Zambian High Court ruled that Kenneth Kaunda, described by the New York Times as the ‘father of modern Zambia’, was stateless. Although not in power at the time, Kaunda had previously ruled the country as president for 27 years. And it was when Kaunda announced plans to run against the governing party and re-claim the presidency, that his political opponents challenged his citizenship in court. Should the court agree that he is not a national of Zambia, then Kaunda would automatically be barred from making good on his ambitions to return to office. After noting that Kaunda had renounced his Malawian nationality years before, the High Court ruled that he was also not a citizen under Zambian law, thereby declaring him stateless. (The following year, however, the Supreme Court overruled this judgment and Kaunda’s Zambian citizenship was recognised)

These Zambian cases are a perfect illustration of the politicisation of nationality. Although not always featuring such prominent individuals, the questioning and even manipulation of citizenship for political ends is not uncommon. Nor is it a tactic monopolised by countries that have recently embraced multiparty democracy, which brings me to the title of this post. In the Zimbabwean newspaper article that I referred to earlier and which inspired this piece, Rupiah Banda was reportedly being urged by his opponents to literally “do an Obama”, i.e. to substantiate his citizenship and eligibility the Presidency by responding to claims about his origins and ancestry. Earlier this year, the White House released President Barack Obama’s official birth certificate in order to refute, once and for all, the allegation that he was not born on US soil. Conspiracy theorists and political opponents had been pushing the rumour that Obama was born in Indonesia or Kenya (and was thereby unqualified for office), causing it to persistently resurface in the press since the time of the Presidential campaign. Having decided that these rumours were becoming an unhealthy distraction from important political debate, Obama released his original birth certificate which establishes his birthplace as Hawaii.

As organisations like UNICEF and Plan International continue to point out and Obama has now very publicly illustrated, birth registration is of critical importance to the protection of a person’s rights, throughout their lifetime. A birth certificate provides evidence of key facts about an individual, which can be used to verify identity, nationality and even eligibility to hold Presidential office. Worldwide, the births of some 50 million children go unregistered each year. Unless this is addressed, these children will not be able to “do an Obama” and produce a birth certificate when asked to do so in later life – for instance in order to obtain an ID card or passport, or to sit school exams. Yes, high profile cases like Rupiah Banda’s and Barack Obama’s are fascinating to follow, steeped as they are in political intrigue and conspiracy. But let’s hope that the underlying message is also received loud and clear: whatever your (political) ambitions in life, birth registration is key to giving you a fair start and can continue to play a part in protecting a your identity and rights throughout your lifetime.

Find out more about the link between birth registration and statelessness in this UNHCR policy note. To follow developments in the push for Universal Birth Registration, supported by UNICEF and Plan International, visit their websites. In the Netherlands, Plan has also set up a special campaign, Babies For Babies, through which you can directly support birth registration efforts.

Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager, Statelessness Programme

A Woman’s Call

On a rainy International Womens Day in Beirut, Lebanese women took to the streets dressed in top-hats and men’s suits, with moustaches painted onto their faces. Donning a man’s wardrobe, their call was for their rights as women to be adopted and respected. For months since then there have been ongoing sit-ins in the capital calling for gender equality. This call has focused on their right to pass on nationality to their children, highlighting one of the most significant problems inherent across MENA states regarding citizenship laws.

All of the States in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Woman (CEDAW), the last being Qatar in 2009. Equally however, most have put in reservations to Article 9 of this convention, the article granting equality in nationality rights. This means that the concept of dependent nationality, where the nationality of the children and the wife is dependent on that of the father or the husband, remains apparent across the region. The lack of a legal right for a woman to pass on her nationality to anyone is a worrying regional phenomenon.

The degree of discrimination varies but no State is exempt from it. Most states do not allow women to pass on their citizenship to their husbands or children. This is the case in the Gulf, for example, where men can pass on their nationality to their children and foreign wives, but women do not possess the same right. In Saudi Arabia, the situation is slightly different from other Gulf countries due to a new law in 2007 that states that a Saudi mother who is married to a foreign man may pass on her citizenship to her son after he becomes an adult - the discriminatory treatment of women continuing the cycle of gender discrimination. Tunisia is a rare case where both males and females have equally been able to pass on citizenship to their children and spouses even when born outside the state. Despite being the best case example across the region, even in Tunisia there are elements of gender discrimination. A Tunisian woman married to a foreigner needs the father’s approval before passing on citizenship to her children.

Not possessing the right to pass on nationality to your children is often a main cause behind the inability to prevent new cases of statelessness.  The number of people negatively impacted - with statelessness being one of these impacts - by gender discrimination in nationality laws is potentially huge. Many women in the MENA are married to men who are not nationals of the same state and may thus face problems in terms of transmitting nationality to their children.  For example in Lebanon just under 18,000 women are believed to be married to non-nationals, and the number of Bidoon men in Kuwait married to Kuwaiti women is significant.

The region is experiencing significant civil society movement to challenge this. Lebanon, Bahrain and Kuwait show good case examples of this. However there are often significant and politically sensitive problems intertwined with this issue, such as demographics and immigration, that achieving legal change for gender equality will continue to be a huge challenge.

Zahra Albarazi, MENA Project Coordinator, Statelessness Programme

More than just an intellectual brainteaser

There is no denying that statelessness makes for a fascinating intellectual puzzle. When I tell people about statelessness, a common response is surprise, or even consternation, that it is possible for someone to be neglected in such a fundamental way and left to live without any nationality. How does that happen? Why does that happen? What can be done? These are the usual questions generated upon learning of the existence of statelessness.

While the answers to these questions are relatively straight-forward (and will no doubt be touched upon in many of the blog posts to come), statelessness remains something of an intellectual brainteaser – even for those who have spent a good few years digging deeper into the mechanics of the phenomenon. Further study brings new questions to light. Why is human rights law concerned about statelessness, such that it establishes the right to a nationality, while simultaneously suggesting through the very system of rights as human rights, that nationality has lost its importance? If you appear to have a nationality on paper, but are never treated as a national by state authorities, are you stateless? Where a state is obliged, in accordance with its own international commitments, to confer nationality to a child who would otherwise be stateless, how does it expect to meet this obligation without putting in place a procedure to figure out whether the child in question would, indeed, otherwise be stateless?

But these and other theoretical ponderings will also have to wait their turn, for this post is about the other side of statelessness. Yes, statelessness is more than just an intellectual brainteaser: it’s also about people. It is this human side of statelessness that has truly captured hearts and led to some remarkable initiatives, by remarkable people. All over the world, grassroots organisations are working tirelessly to teach stateless people about their rights and to walk them through any available procedures that there might be to resolve their situation and acquire a nationality. On my first foray into the field to find out what was happening on the ground – a research trip to Thailand in 2006 – I met with numerous individuals and organisations whose impressive projects belie their shoestring budgets. The Mirror Foundation, for instance, was quietly fundraising through a range of cultural activities to help one stateless child at a time to pay for a DNA test that would allow them to prove their family ties with a parent or sibling who holds citizenship and confirm their own nationality on that basis. This is just one of dozens of examples around the world of a community that is empowering its members to help themselves.

Ever since that first exposure with an extraordinary project established by ordinary people, discovering other initiatives of this kind has been one of the most enjoyable parts of my work. The variety, creativity and sophistication of these initiatives is startling. Take the stunning and evocative work of photographer Greg Constantine, who has captured people’s experiences of statelessness in his Nowhere People series in a way that seamlessly combines art and documentary. His work and the way he does his work are an incredible source of inspiration, so keep your eyes peeled for an opportunity to see his exhibition. Then there are the energetic young journalists from Holland, Els & Evelien, who have made it their mission to travel to a selection of countries affected by statelessness and record personal histories so that we can all get to know this vulnerable and often voiceless group a bit better. Their Citizens of Nowhere project is about to kick off and can be followed through their blog. Returning to Thailand for one last example for now, there’s the incredible story of Joseph & Susan: two students from a US university who started out documenting statelessness in Thailand through photography and have since devoted their time to Higher Education as Humanitarian Aid through their initiative, The Thailand Project.

Statelessness then, is first and foremost about people... about the stateless as a vulnerable group who deserve our attention... about the stateless as individuals with a capacity to act and affect change... and about other people who have been inspired by the human story of statelessness to do remarkable work. So if you have just discovered the phenomenon of statelessness and have questions about the what, why and how, these intiatives will provide you with a unique and invaluable insight. The intellectual brainteasers can wait for another day.

Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager, Statelessness Programme

Citizenship in the Arab world

An introduction to a new research initiative on statelessness in the Middle East and North Africa.

MENA Statelessness and Nationality research project

After the success of the Africa nationality research project, Citizenship in Africa, the idea of launching a similar advocacy oriented research project on statelessness and nationality discrimination in the Middle East and North Africa developed, coordinated by the Open Society Foundations’ Justice Initiative and the Arab Regional Office. A look at this region showed how the issue of statelessness, flaws in nationality legislation and discrimination in citizenship matters were apparent and often extreme. Despite this, very little effort or research had been undertaken. Hence, the MENA Statelessness and Nationality research project was launched in Amman in October 2010. The launching conference, which brought together experts and potential research partners, worked on developing the idea further. It was decided that the research would constitute an analysis of the nationality law of 18 countries in the region, alongside separate studies of prevalent regional thematic issues.

Statelessness and discrimination in access to citizenship are enormous problems across the MENA region and an initial study was done to pinpoint the main problematic topics that needed to be understood and addressed. The area hosts some of the largest populations of stateless persons in the world, including Palestinians in the Levant and elsewhere, Kurds in Syria, the Bidoon of the Arabian Peninsula, stateless Sahrawi refugees in Algeria, and black Mauritanians returning to their homeland after decades of forced exile. Each State has its own respective problems with key shortcomings in nationality legislation, but there were also many common regional trends, predominantly constituting;
 

· Rampant gender discrimination;

· Ethnic and religious discrimination;

· Lack of due process guarantees with respect to deprivation of citizenship;

· Lack of effective remedies for affected populations;

· Lack of implementation of positive policies and legislation, often leading to ad hoc and arbitrary practices and decisions

The rights of hundreds of thousands of people across the area continue to be violated due to these shortcomings and discrimination, violations that spread across communities and generations.

Future of the project

Soon after the identification of the issues and the launch of the project, the Arab region witnessed the commencement of uprisings across the area. In the short-term this led to obstacles in the development of the project. No field research was possible in the countries affected and there were enhanced difficulties in access to resources and networks. Even in States that were not witnessing internal uprisings, the volatile regional political situation did not offer an environment to launch - often sensitive - research and studies.

Despite these setbacks the changing scene presents a hope that these sudden developments will lead to important steps, steps that would establish an environment more accommodating to improving citizenship rights in the region. It has certainly highlighted the importance of the issue of citizenship. One of the first concessions made by the Syrian government in its attempt to quell frustration was to offer Syrian citizenship to Kurds who had been denied it for generations. In Kuwait, the Bidoon community are the main force actively protesting for their civil and social rights - forcing their issue into the limelight. And in Jordan, much discussion has been surfacing on halting the longstanding practice of withdrawing Jordanian citizenship from Palestinians.

One long-term hope for changes in the region is that a more developed civil society will emerge, which would go hand in hand with the advocacy projects the regional study on citizenship hopes to initiate. The wish is that this would come alongside a more established atmosphere of transparency and accountability - helping address the problem of implementing protective legislation on the matter.

The project continues to grow and gather together a variety researchers on the issues, and now perhaps an improved future environment to engage on the issue of MENA statelessness and nationality.

 

Zahra Albarazi, Coordinator, MENA statelessness and nationality research project

“Happy Birthday!” to the Reduction of Statelessness

A commentary on the UNHCR Expert Meeting Conclusions 'Statelessness Determination Procedures and the Status of Stateless Persons'...

Better Later than Never!

The 50^th anniversary of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness was marked by a UNHCR expert inquiry as to how we can actually determine who is stateless and who is not.  It was high time to address this issue, since the lack of functioning determination procedures for statelessness is still the main stumble block in the access of stateless persons to the protection intended for them. Millions of people suffer hardships of exclusion from the domain of law due to their statelessness, or more specifically – due to their statelessness not being recognised as a legal status entitling them to a set of legal rights.

Even though the Expert Meeting Conclusions have little to do with the reduction of statelessness, but rather with another UN Convention – 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons – which is is celebrating its unimpressive 57^th birthday this year, let us not be picky. Any excuse is good to embark on this important and highly relevant issue of protection of stateless persons!

What Was Concluded?

The task of the expert meeting was not easy: to break 50 years of relative international silence on  determination of statelessness and national implementation of protection  mechanisms for stateless persons. Naturally, in the meanwhile different states went their own ways in dealing (or not dealing) with these issues. Some fused statelessness determination procedures with procedures for the recognition of refugees, some included it into procedures for acquiring a residence status, and for some determination of statelessness does not seem like a suitable solution to the problems of statelessness at all, but instead ways of recognising stateless persons as nationals are sought. Some regularly (attempt to) contact foreign governments to inquire about nationality statuses of individuals, while others have strong objections against such practice. Some see the recognition of statelessness as implying the right of residence, while others consider it acceptable under certain circumstances to require a stateless person to move back to the state of previous habitual residence. These and many other fascinating differences in practices and opinions are reflected in the Conclusions.

On some important points the Expert Meeting also seem to have found agreement. These were, among others:

-        to train and educate national officials on the determination procedures available for stateless persons;

-        to keep confidentiality when communicating with foreign governments about nationality statuses of individuals, to avoid endangering stateless persons who may have refugee-related concerns;

-        to provide procedural guarantees in the statelessness determination procedures, such as remedies against rejection, availability of legal aid, establishing reasonable fees and  suspending deportation orders until the final outcome of the determination procedure;

-        not to place the entire burden of proof on the individual in establishing his or her statelessness.

In addition to discussing how can an individual be identified as stateless, the Expert Meeting touched upon certain relevant issues of protection, especially those that have not been made explicit in the 1954 Convention, such as legal immigration status of stateless persons, their right of residence, and the relation between the protection of refugees and of stateless persons.

Even though the Expert Meeting did not bind any government with legal obligations to enhance their determination procedures for stateless persons, the value of its Conclusions should not be underestimated. It finally drew international attention to one of the major challenges on the way to protecting stateless populations, it identified the points of consensus as well as disagreements, but most importantly, it gave a strong tool for national policy-makers, lobby groups and activist organisations to promote structural changes related to the status of stateless persons.

What Now?

The year of 2011 was not only marked by this Expert Meeting, as far as the attention to the problem of statelessness is concerned. The UNHCR has commissioned several nation-wide studies on statelessness in Europe, and there is a clear increase in the academic interest on the issue. Hopefully this “anniversary push” will stimulate the long-overdue formalisation and effective implementation of the protection of stateless persons within national jurisdictions. The transformation of statelessness from legal anomaly into a well-functioning legal status has thus clearly been defined as a goal, and hopefully we will witness changes to that end before another 50 years of the existence of UN Conventions on Statelessness have elapsed.   

Katja Swider, Researcher/Advisor, Statelessness Programme

The full text of the Conclusions can be found here: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4d9022762.html