Policy on Refugees and Integration in Costa Rica

insurance on Refugees and Integration in rib RicaCOSTA RICAN GOVERNMENT POLICY ON REFUGEE AID AND INTEGRATION institution THE AMBIGUOUS STATUS OF THE REFUGEE AND COSTA RICAThe line of work of the refugee originates as a specially twentieth century phenomenon. The displacement of peoples from the very borders that delineate relegates presented a diachronic challenge that threatened the integrity and the essence of the latter(prenominal). As the philosopher Giorgio Agamben abstracts the pertinence of this fuss Every time refugees no longer confront individual bailiwicks countenanced rather a mass phenomenon (as happened between the deuce wars, and has happened again now), both(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) these organizations and the single states provoke proven, despite the solemn evocations of the inali modify rights of man, to be utterly incapable not scarcely of resolving the paradox but excessively appargonntly of dealing with it adequately.1 For Agamben, this inadequacy of the intervention of the refugee occupation, despite the global consensus on the existence of the merciful rights of the refugee, is intimately tied(p) to the theoretical shortcomings of the notion of the Nation-State itself on that point is a consistent rupture in the functionality of the Nation State when confronted with the anomaly of the refugee, i.e., when a subject is separated from his/her state, this subject becomes a disturbing equipoise that other states find it difficult to account for. Thus, insofar as the refugee denotes a indisputable failure of the Nation State to protect its citizens/non-citizens, the case of the refugee denotes the marches of the State.Nevertheless, despite the tension between the notions of the refugee and the state that ground their relationship, in that location is an attentiveness to this businessatic (evinced in Agambens own remark), demonstrated by the familiar spirit of the existence of the refugee. Hence, r egardless of any discerned insurance insurance inadequacies, thither still exists a concerted travail to address the problem. The success of various refugee policies genuinely whitethorn be evaluated, e.g., as with Agambens negative evaluation. In the case of costa Rica, its sermons of the refugee crises that began in 1980s of import the States was an example of some moderate successes, or at least, the desired mobilization of a states capabilities via political sympathiesal insurance towards the refugee cause. However, this mobilization encountered its own distinct problems, over-determined (following Agambens abstraction of the problem) by the irregular status of the refugee him/herself.The successes and failures of rib Ricas refugee policy is a disrupticularly signifi sewert case study for numerous reasons. To the degree that there was a concerted effort from the costa Ri nookie officials to help the refugee crisis, the shortcomings relate not to rib Ricas negligenc e of this crisis (thusly indicating the direction of an evaluation of this policy in name of a general apathy on the part of rib Rica), but the opposite it is this very effort that provides a oblige case for an analysis of a refugee policy in terms of its affectivity and its terminus ad quems. That is, costa Ricas attempt to rectify their refugee problem, rather than ignore it or deal with it in a manner that undermines the notions of the rights of man, provides an excellent paradigmatic case for the achievable index of refugee policy.It is because of this very freight to alleviating the problem that costa Rica, despite any succeeding to a greater extentover critiques regarding the details of their refugee policy, is recognized by the supranational community as having advanced a fairly successful policy in regards to refugees. As Tanya Bysok notes costa Rica is often cited as a model for refugee settlement.2 However, this is not to put forward that the costa Rican approa ch is flawless. Whilst some policies of the costa Ricans feel been recognized as effective by social scientists, this praise does not diminish the homely gaps in the costa Rican policy. In this paper we shall examine the rib Rican treatment of the refugee and attempt to understand how the refugee was integrated/or non-integrated into rib Rican society. This analysis exit be concerned with rib Ricas approach however, whilst there was a pass on rib Rican governingal policy, a large factor in the rib Rican case is the large presence of unlike organizations that were encouraged to participate in a feasible refugee theme. Thus, because of the costa Rican desolation to a diversity of charge organizations and volunteers offering support, the qualitative analysis of the success/failures of the rib Rican approach cannot merely be attributed to the Costa Rican political sympathies itself. Whilst this encouragement of outside(a) participation whitethorn be tenaciously viewed a s an autonomous gesture of the Costa Rican government, it can in addition be construed as Costa Ricas self-acknow takegement of having been fundamentally overstretched in terms of its capabilities to handle the problem.Secondly, this analysis shall be supplemented with an unidentified questionnaire of haomaer refugees in Costa Rica, in order to give a non-theoretical ain discourse inwardly the parameters of our text. The method of the questionnaire is placed into the paper to act as a balance point with the theoretical evaluation. The emphasis on the notion of testimony, a melodic phrase of empiricism all its own, forwards an account of the Costa Rican policy that evaluates the countrys treatment of refugees from a theoretical standpoint, while besides acknowledging the power and significance of such(prenominal)(prenominal) a testimony.COSTA RICAN REFUGEE INTEGRATION ANALYSISThe genesis of Costa Ricas refugee problem may be preliminarily abstracted as a matter of geopolit ical positioning. Costa Rica occupied a hazardous place within fundamental the States in the 1980s. The relative stability of Costa Rica was contrasted by the neighbour conflicts in El Salvador, Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras The 1980s evinced a certain explosion of such geopolitical and ideological tensions in Central America, from which Costa Rica was spargond. As Martha dear notes, the Costa Rica of the 1980s appe ard to be an oasis of tranquility3 It is this status of a certain oasis in Central America, that evidently yielded Costa Ricas refugee problem as a stable nation, it represented the destination of choice for refugees seek to avoid war in their native lands. Costa Ricas stability as a source for refugees has continued in the time period since the number 1 of the 1980s. Yet the refugee that Costa Rica encounters now is substantially different Refugees coming into Costa Rica today tend no longer to be from Central America but instead the vast absolute majo rity are from Colombia. Many are middle-class, urban professionals.4 Thus, by no means is the refugee in Costa Rica a homogeneous figure. The wars across Central America in the 1980s that led to such displacement are no longer a profound factor in present Costa Rican refugee policy.The Costa Rican encounter with the phenomenon of the refugee begins in 1980 with increasing hostilities in the neighboring country of El Salvador. The immediate response of Costa Ricas treatment of this refugee influx distinguished itself from other nations such as Honduras. Whilst Honduras policy favored the internment of the Salvadorian refugees in camps, Costa Rica from the outset emphasize the process of making the refugee self-sufficient they sought to sever any addiction of the refugee on the state apparatus itself, while simultaneously integrating the refugee into Costa Rican society. These two approaches immediately evince a lucid difference in treatment. In the case of Honduras, this treatmen t may be viewed as an isolationistic approach, insofar as the site of the camp becomes the home of the refugee it does not represent a z peerless of inclusion, but rather one of suspension more(prenominal)over, it is an unvoiced acknowledgment of Honduras government inability to deal with the phenomenon of the refugee, placing the refugee in a certain no-mans land, as it waits for the conflict in the home country to cease. In contrast, the Costa Rican emphasis on autonomy and self-sufficiency denotes the acceptance of the refugee immediately into its boundaries.We can abstract this difference in terms of a synchronous sentiment and a diachronous thinking. In the case of Costa Rica, the policy does not introduce the phenomenon of two times, i.e., waiting for the war to stop rather, the interruption of the refugee experience is instantly addressed, finished a minimization of this interruption that is a policy of refugee inclusion in Costa Rica. On the other hand, in the Hond uran approach, two times are articulated, a wartime and a non-war time. There is no likely mediation between the times there is only a case of transition and thus, a passivity on the part of the government that is consequently transferred to the refugee him/herself this interruption that is the refugee event determines the entire Honduran policy. In essence, Costa Rica seek to establish the continuity of the refugees vitality, allowing for the possibility of a normalcy to remain in the face of a crisis.Such sign successes of the Costa Rican design may be attributed to a certain history of gentleman rights discourse that emerges in the country, i.e., that Costa Rica was conducive to internationalism in its support of UN programmes and its own conception of international approaches. This historiographical element is significant to understanding the immediate difference of Costa Rica from its neighbors, as it stresses a historical Costa Rican commitment to human rights. As Al ison Brysk notes, Costa Rica qualifies as a global good Samaritan because its record of human rights promotion is enduring and multifaceted, and it makes a meaningful contribution to globally significant initiatives.5 Hence, Costa Ricas Good Samaritan status is derived from its fidelity to such initiatives on both a regional and global level. Among its contributions, Costa Rica was involved in the pause negotiations that ended three regional civil wars, while too surgical procedure as the seat for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS). On the international level, Costa Rica was involved with international organizations such as avail at the initial prepatory conference for the founding of the United Nations, while also initiating the UN Childerns Fund.These historical contributions of Costa Rica may be construed as establishing a certain customs duty within Costa Rica that made it more receptive to the specialized demands of the r efugee influxes that began in the 1980s. Thus, from an ideological perspective, there was nothing in the Costa Rican state ideology that would be adverse to the refugee rather, the ideology was committed to human rights from its outset.This tradition may help to understand the initial successes of the Costa Rican programme. In the initial stages of the refugee problem in the 1980s, because of such an international tradition of Costa Rican policy, there was no shortage in the country of foreign and international refugee organizations that participated in the alleviation of the crisis. As Basok summarizes these contributions A number of government and uncoerced agencies have participated in refugee settlement in Costa Rica. They include local branches of such international organizations as Caritas, the Episcopalian church, and the YMCA. In addition, refugees themselves formed a number of voluntary organizations in the hope of assisting their compatriots. Apart from providing jot sup porter to refugees, the UNHCR has also financed to the highest degree of the refugee urban projects. Financial assistance has been provided by other international NGOS as well.6 The plurality of non-governmental actors demonstrated a Costa Rican openness to the refugee crisis. Moreover, the possibility of refugees themselves forming aid organizations demonstrated a certain autonomy of the refugee within Costa Rica despite the loss of nationality that is the refugee displacement, the refugees were granted a freedom to organize and assemble regardless of their anomalous status.These international organizations were also complimented by Costa Ricas own approach, which has been termed as the durable solution model, emphasizing integrating of refugees into the country of asylum. As an unpublished UNHCR document describes this durable solution model Self sufficiency projects are the eventual(prenominal) aim of UNHCR as they allow the refugees to become independent of emergency assistan ce and be productively integrated in the receiving community. In the under-developed countries with proficient unemployment problems, self-sufficiency projects offer the trounce alternation for the refugees work problem. For the receiving country, these durable solutions are a contribution to the national economy, particularly the projects which include both nationals and refugees.7 Costa Ricas commitment to what the UNHCR deemed as the most effective program for refugee crisis further explicates the traditional openness of Costa Rica to international consensus, whilst ensuantly identifying Costa Ricas desired integration of refugees. The UNHCRs evaluation further acknowledges the durable solution as beneficial to the new country of the refugee itself the influx of get sources provided a boost to the national economy of Costa Rica. Thus, Costa Ricas commitment to the durable solution model may be viewed as both a commitment to international law and the notion of human rights, wh ilst also a policy decision how to utilize the refugee crisis for the benefit of Costa Rica itself.Nevertheless, what may be termed as Costa Ricas comprehensive solution, insofar as it incorporated the UNHCRs preferred model while simultaneously allowing for the participation of foreign organizations, nevertheless encountered specific problems. Primarily the non-organizational models intervention into the refugee problem was problematic The results, however, were less than satisfactory. In 1985 it became evident to the UNHCR that less than half of the 152 projects registered with government agencies were still active. Most of the others had failed.8 The infectivity of the multiplicity of organizations according to the quantitative data of the UNHCR tends to point that the approach of a strength in numbers, i.e., multiple organizations engaging in the refugee crisis, was unsuccessful primarily because of a lack of cohesion. Inasmuch as the Costa Rican engrossed was essentially one of no aid is bad aid, this ultimate failure speaks to a certain consistency needed between organizations, in order best(p) to establish links between groups, and affectively address the institution problem, that of the refugee him/herself. This bureaucratic entanglement between organizations as detrimental to the refugee is easily discernible from the perspective of the refugee him/herself because a plurality of organizations exists, the refugee is caught in a bureaucratic musical arrangement, with no connection to the Costa Rican government itself. This serves as an impasse to the desired integration.This fail of the various international programs led Costa Rica to attempt a more autonomous policy that would be regulated by the government, therein optimistically hoping to marginalize the previous failures through a centralization of refugee policy. This centralization would enable a consistent discourse of the durable solution to emerge in the Costa Rican space. As Ed Mihalkan in notes After the failure of many of the international and domestic refugee projects, the Costa Rican government tried to integrate refugees into already exist jobs.9 By Costa Rica directly addressing the problem, this focusing of the remit of refugee policy could bust serve the goal of integration as the refugees are located in Costa Rica, the most efficient means towards integration would be to have the government directly involved in the refugee process by enterprisingness economic opportunities to the refugee.This shift reflects a certain fundamental ambiguity at the heart of the general theory of refugee policy. While, prima facie, the plurality of non-governmental organizations that operated in Costa Rica to alleviate the suffering of the refugee may be viewed as a logical step, inasmuch as it emphasizes giving aid to refugees in light of any possible limits to the capabilities of the Costa Rican government, this approach simultaneously suspends the notion of an integratio n into Costa Rican society. That is to say, if integration is the ultimate goal of Costa Rican refugee policy, such integration can only be engendered by the direct intervention of the government itself, as the government is ultimately congruent with Costa Rica. From this perspective, the collapse of the aid programmes emanating from various international sources may be viewed, in actuality, as a step towards a more direct involvement of the Costa Rican government in the refugee problematic, in terms of a more strident form of integration. This strident form would be necessary if the Costa Rican government would become the primary tool for refugee aid in the nation, as opposed to the organizational plurality.Nevertheless, subsequently the general failure of the international aid programmes, charity organizations, etc., the new Costa Rican government initiative itself faced various de jure issues that prevented the establishing of a greater remit for refugee aid. As Mihalkanin writ es, at times Costa Rican laws really prevented refugee aid, despite any best intentions of the Costa Rican government. This was the case regarding Costa Rican employee law Yet very fewer work permits were issued since by law only ten percent of a firms workers can be foreigners.10 Thus, the attempt to integrate refugees into the Costa Rican labour party personnel office already met opposition in a pre-existing law that marginalized the possibility of foreign workers in Costa Rica. As Mihalkanin notes, despite the intent of both the government to integrate the refugees and the employers will to aid the refugees by giving them work, this overlap movement encountered a double impasse the de jure situation of the labour law, coupled with the de facto situation of employers, whom, although giving refuges a workplace, could not register the workers because of the law. Therefore, any eccentric of de jure integration of these refugee workers who were already working in Costa Rica, was not possible because of the law despite their labour power, and one must conclude, the desire for this labour source, the separation between the de jure and the de facto situation prevented this opportunity at integration. What occurred then is simply a missed opportunity, a miscommunication between government and private sectors, the latter wholly receptive to the influx of refugee workers, but whose hands were metaphorically tied by the Costa Rican law.This problem of the limits of aid in the sphere of labour relations also extends into the basic human rights of Costa Ricans, such as health mete out insofar as health care is addressable to refugees in Costa Rica, get to is limited from both a impermanent and financial perspective. As a UNHCR report from 2003 noted, in Costa Rica, access to social security services is universal, which means that everyone, regardless of nationality, is entitled to health coverage at a very low cost.11 Nevertheless, the caveat here is that ref ugees and asylum seekers are entitled to free healthcare cover during their graduation exercise three months in Costa Rica.12 This leads to an immediate problem facing refugees after the three month period of coverage has elapsed as Gloria Maklouf Weiss, managing director of ACAI (Asociacin de Consultores y Asesores Internacionales), a UNHCR partner in Costa Rica recapitulates this problem some refugees are in such economic hardship that they cannot conduct even the very small monthly fees.13 Thus, considering the situation of the refugee, the three-month time limit appears insufficient for health care coverage. The securing of an employment opportunity in Costa Rica within this same three-month period would have to be a concomitant aim of a programme otherwise, the benefits of the Costa Rican health care policy are severely limited by the refugees inability to generate capital. On this point, the separation of the spheres of employment and healthcare impede the abilities of the refugee to begin a life in Costa Rica insofar as employment and healthcare are considered as distinct issues, the benefits of healthcare are separated from the refugee labour force. The impuissance therefore in this aspect of the policy is not anticipating the contiguity between employment integration and the possibility of health care.It is examples such as these incongruities in the law and policy of Costa Rica itself that failed to provide a comprehensive programme for its refugees. Thus, whilst Costa Ricas position as a stable country corpse attractive to refugees in a time of crisis, various gaps in the system prevented a comprehensive plan to address the phenomenon.QUESTIONNAIREThe data in partitioning 2.0 regarding Costa Ricas history and policy approach to the refugee crisis only provides one side of the picture. This theoretical analysis of Costa Rican refugee policy, considering the constraints on any discourse of this style, is to be supplemented by a questionnaire submi tted to four former refugees in Costa Rica. Whilst the sample size of the questionnaire is avowedly small, the necessity of its inclusion rests on a theoretical significance given to the notion of testimony in an effort to verify or contradict the reading provided of Costa Rican refugee policy. The prejudice of the academic discourse is to be alleviated through the survey presentation thus, the intention of the questionnaire is based on a theoretical value attached to testimony and the attempt to provide a more complete picture of the refugee policy of Costa Rica. Because of sensitivity to the time concerns of the participants and because of issues with the English language, the questionnaire was deliberately simple and limited to four questions.QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSISWhile the sample size is admittedly small, and the disposition of the questions direct, the data of the questionnaire would seem to indicate a moderate level of rapture with the Costa Rican refugee policy. The option for the refugees in Costa Rica appears to be beneficial the majority of answerers expressed that integration and employment possibilities were available in Costa Rica, whilst also noting the receptivity of the various refugee organizations to the concerns of the refugees.It is germane to note that the questionnaire deliberately avoided inquiring into the own(prenominal) history of the participants, in respect for ethics and the seclusion of the participants. While this may be construed as detracting from the accuracy of the questionnaire, as it brackets out some of the personal histories involved in the participants, the aforementioned ethical position of protecting privacy was taken as paramount. Rather the questionnaire was to function as a cursory testimonial survey of Costa Rican refugee policy, and thus, while no means a complete account, it does indicate that the Costa Rican option for refugees was more positive than it was negative.CONCLUSIONSThe difficulty of the refugee problem primarily lies in the problems it engenders vis--vis the traditional structure of the State, which relies for its function on the notion of citizenry. Inasmuch as human rights become an international imperative, the anomalous fashion of the refugee conflicts with the traditional State model. This tension is however a source for the exertion of new approaches to the refugee problematic.Costa Ricas position in the ravaged Central America of the 1980s placed the nation into a role of a paradigm case for refugee policy. The Costa Rican approach must be commended at the outset for its commitment to human rights and the welfare of the refugees. The intent of the Costa Rican policy therefore must be viewed in a positive light.However, the complications that arose from the refugee crisis provide valuable data and source material for the possible improvements of refugee policy. Costa Ricas acceptance of foreign, international and non-governmental charitable organizations to allevi ate the crisis, whilst helping the refugees on the terrain, actually hindered the successful integration of these refugees into Costa Rican society, inasmuch as these organizations, as non-Costa Rican entities, actually created a further distance between the refugee and the Costa Rican state.Moreover, once the majority of these organizations had failed, the Costa Rican government was left to complete the so-called durable solution. The impasses to the durable solution may be traced to employment and economic laws of the Costa Rican state, laws which were unable to successfully meld with the desired durable solution. It is various de jure factors, despite the overall Costa Rican government intent and the intent of the private sector to integrate refugees through employment, which hindered the affectivity of this solution.Nevertheless, Costa Rica is still referred in some academic literature as an excellent example of a refugee policy. This seems to be supported by the anonymous quest ionnaire that was a part of our research the questionnaire, while its sample size is admittedly small, nonetheless offers a certain support to the notion that Costa Rica was more effective than not regarding the refugee experience.Thus, whilst there are problematics in the policy of Costa Rican refugee integration, it is nevertheless a paradigm from which numerous positives can be drawn, whilst also providing a better insight into the impasses that may present themselves in such a policy hopefully these cases, will yield a better approach to the difficult notion of the refugee in the future.BIBLIOGRAPHYGiorgio Agamben, We Refugees, accessed at http//roundtable.kein.org/node/399Tanya Basok, safekeeping Heads Above Water Salvadorean Refugees in Costa Rica McGill Queens Press 1993.Alison Brysk, Global Good Samaritans? Human Rights Foreign Policy in Costa Rica, in Global Governance, Vol. 11, 2005.Martha Honey, Hostile Acts U.S. Policy in Costa Rica in the 1980s, University of Florida Pr ess 1994.Ed Mihalkanin, Refugee Aid, Displaced Persons, and Development in Central America in Refugee Aid and Development, Greenwood Press 1993.UNHCR, wellness Fair in Costa Rica gives refugees much needed medical care, March 6, 2006, accessed at http//www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EVOD-6MNF3L?OpenDocument11 Giorgio Agamben, We Refugees, accessed at http//roundtable.kein.org/node/399.2 Tanya Basok, Keeping Heads Above Water Salvadorean Refugees in Costa Rica, pg. Xvii.3 Martha Honey, Hostile Acts U.S. Policy in Costa Rica in the 1980s, pg. 4.4 UNHCR, Health Fair in Costa Rica gives refugees much needed medical care, March 6, 2006, accessed at http//www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EVOD-6MNF3L?OpenDocument5 Alison Brysk, Global Good Samaritans? Human Rights Foreign Policy in Costa Rica, in Global Governance, Vol. 11, 2005.6 Basok, pg. Xviii.7 Basok, pg. Vi.8 Basok, pg. Xviii.9 Ed Mihalkanin, Refugee Aid, Displaced Persons, and Development in Central America in Refugee Ai d and Development, pg. 90.10 Mihalkanin, pg. 90.11 UNHCR, accessed at http//www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EVOD-6MNF3L?OpenDocument12 UNHCR, accessed at http//www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EVOD-6MNF3L?OpenDocument13 UNHCR, accessed at http//www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EVOD-6MNF3L?OpenDocument