The EU is proceeding on the premise and touchstone of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the 1951 Refugee Convention enshrining explicit arrangements to cater to heightened risk and humanitarian emergencies laying down the basis of policy mechanism to enable a barrier free entry into the EU by marginalized and vulnerable individuals including those with the 4 disabilities recognized by the UN namely mental, hearing, physical and vision .Integration of migrants and hosting of refugees entails sustaining, empowering, protecting and providing access to inclusive education, special health needs arrangements and employment opportunities leading to enhanced productivity of life by such a sub group of migrants.
As highlighted at international for a the European Union’s (EU) assistance to forcibly displaced individuals is impacting Syrian refugees in the swath across Jordan to Egypt, refugees from Afghanistan in Pakistan, Palestinians, Myanmar refugees in Thailand and Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Citing UNDP the number of internally displaced persons (IDP’s) is around 740 million almost four times as many as international migrants. At times migrants, refugees and IDP’s are beset with common health issues. The EU has played a role in spearheading international donor campaigns in circumstances of enforced displacement and positively influenced its humanitarian partners such as the United Nations Agency for Refugees, International Organization for Migration and the Red Cross besides International Non Governmental Organizations (INGO’s). Here we may overlook any lucrative consulting fees charged or exorbitant salaries of expatriate executive level management of INGO’s or such humanitarian agencies as the aim is ostensibly noble and perhaps the countries holding the purse strings for the wretched lot of humanity genuinely believe they have to discharge the historical White Mans’ burden. Worldwide the gold standard for donations and philanthropy is that the less the expenditure is, varying from 30 % for INGO’s and at 40 % for the UN of total turnover/donation receipts, the more the grants/donations sanctioned. Last year the EU liberally distributed almost Euros1.1 billion to projects catering to the requirements of refugees and IDP’s in 40 countries. The priority areas, in terms of financial aid, were vulnerable populations including beneficiaries being individuals with disabilities to enable the smooth transition to their return, rehabilitation and resettlement through accessing primary or specialized need based health services, awareness of health, hygiene and sanitation standards.
One outcome of war, ethnic, ideological and political systematic persecution in the world is the arrival in EU of around one million refugees as well as individuals eyeing asylum who slip in through the cracks in borders ultimately enhancing the social and economic cost to the EU host countries. The sordid drama is reenacted in war ravaged countries including the Middle East whereas those internally displaced are termed IDP’s. The health and social grid of EU is groaning under the load as the EU struggles to maintain nutrition, health, rehabilitation, shelter, inclusive education and social standards for refugees and migrants in EU even to the extent of campaigning on preventing enforced sterilization against girls with disabilities. Refugees with intellectual, hearing or physical impairments need particular rehabilitative assistance to communicate or overcome invisible barriers and consequential negative consequences of migrants with disabilities.
A rehabilitative health grid in a rudimentary form is available in the areas contiguous to the conflict prone zones and the required human resources and infrastructure can be in position within 3 years of any healthcare coverage policy finalization
E health or tele health regime, being interchangeable concepts, are routinely utilized in EU backed operations in refugee camps whether in 0the form of cashless debit cardsor mobile transfers. In the developing countries those segments of society afflicted with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities are confronted with discriminatory attitudes on account of interplay of factors of gender, sexual orientation and disability. Exclusion from health and inclusive education services taken for granted by citizens is the dilemma of migrants. A low cost solution to IDP’s and refugee’s cost to the state is enabling e-health services through mobile health devices, health and inclusive rehabilitative assistive services as they are accessible, safe for migrants with disabilities and their caregivers. Such digital health services are not geographically confined, recognize no gender discrimination, are self regulated, self perpetuating and self improving in accuracy of information and data nor related to physical infrastructure hence from a health perspective refugees and IDP’s can leave for their abode or place of origin. E health is aligned with political vision.
Pakistan has done reasonably well by voluntary repatriating refugees to their home countries and resettling IDP’s but perpetuating of conflicts in the region impedes resettlement. In the contemporary world the cycle on an average for displacement is 2 decades for refugees and a decade for IDP’s. Refugees and IDP’s suffering from disabilities would ante up the reoccurring costs to the state of Pakistan hence the sooner we formulate a health coverage policy for such a category the lesser the burden for all stakeholders. Through some dint of good fortune private universities in Pakistan are producing a sufficient number of skilled rehabilitative health professionals. A rehabilitative health grid in a rudimentary form is available in the areas contiguous to the conflict prone zones and the required human resources and infrastructure can be in position within 3 years of any healthcare coverage policy finalization. The development narrative would thus take precedence over any security paradigm. The ultimate aim is to improve the quality of life of refugees and IDP’s and make them into productive individuals thereby lessening the reoccurring costs to the state. IDP’s are here to stay whereas refugees would be in an advantageous position and willing to leave for their countries of origin.
The writer is PhD in Rehabilitation Sciences