Under the assumption that one cannot do anything for others unless applying the same rules at home, I am convinced that the UN system, including UNHCR, cannot provide effective services for displaced people with disabilities unless the principles are applied equally in-house to its staff and work environment. Simply put, it is a question of practising at home what you advocate abroad.
The current understanding of disability, known as the ‘social model’, holds that the root causes of the disadvantages experienced by persons with disabilities do not lie with individuals or their impairment but rather with the discrimination inherent in facilities which are not accessible, attitudes which fail to recognise the rights, capacities and dignity of persons with disabilities, and a system which fails to notice and account for variation from the ‘ableist’ norm.
ASCI’s findings reveal that a number of earlier, more alarmist, relationships assumed to exist between national-level state security and the HIV/AIDS epidemic were not borne out. Under-examined risks in humanitarian emergencies and post-conflict transitions are highlighted, as well as threats posed by HIV/AIDS to the operational capacity of armies and across the uniformed services (such as police, prison and border authorities).
A decade ago, HIV/AIDS in humanitarian emergencies was not considered a priority in either the HIV or humanitarian worlds but was rather thought of as a development issue. Provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for displaced people was thought to be inappropriate, and adequate guidelines for HIV in humanitarian situations did not exist. Furthermore, it was widely believed both that conflict exacerbated HIV transmission and that displaced people brought HIV with them and spread the virus to host communities.
Progress
UNHCR’s HIV activities in Asia – which began in earnest in 2005 – were based on approaches outlined in its 2005-2007 and 2008-2012 Strategic Plans but adapted to accommodate factors specific to the Asia region.
A number of converging factors can make post-conflict settings high-risk environments for the spread of HIV. The loss of access to basic health care, education and information during an armed conflict can leave communities without adequate knowledge or means of HIV prevention when warfare ends.
Southern Sudan has been affected by conflict since the 1950s. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed on 1 January 2005, brought an end to the second civil war, and the process of development and recovery is underway. Efforts to develop coherent HIV policies, however, are in their infancy. In a vast area devoid of almost all infrastructure, the challenges are enormous. The limited data available reveal that HIV is prevalent across southern Sudan, but the exact extent is unknown.
Northern Uganda is in a phase of momentous transition. The end of hostilities between the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Ugandan government in 2006 paved the way for the return of hundreds of thousands of IDPs. The challenges of treating HIV in the post-conflict phase are almost as formidable as during the conflict itself.
Conflict has scarred Burundian society since independence in 1962, although in recent years a still fragile peace has emerged from a series of ceasefire agreements signed by armed groups.
The last half century has seen a dramatic increase in the number of conflicts and complex emergencies. Most have occurred in settings where conflict further weakened already inadequate national health, educational and other public services. The growth in frequency of conflicts and the number of people affected by them has prompted a strong commitment to emergency relief in the acute phase of crises but, by comparison, interest in post-conflict transition to recovery and reconstruction has been much more limited in both vision and scope.