Yesterday, I delivered remarks on behalf of the NGOs at the UNHCR Standing Committee in Geneva – a quarterly meeting that brings together UNHCR, UN Member States, and NGOs to discuss the global state of refugee protection and displacement. This session came at a time of an unprecedented and existential threat to the multilateral system: more wars globally than any time since the end of WWII; 122 million people displaced; and massive funding cuts across the humanitarian system that are preventing us from being able to respond to these crises.
Meetings like this are tightly held within the bounds of diplomatic language. Countries have three minutes each to speak, and almost everyone avoids saying anything inflammatory. Yesterday, state after state stood to reaffirm their commitment to the UN system and the importance of UNHCR’s work – even, for the most part, the same governments responsible for the funding cuts the UN is currently struggling with.
Then came the delegate for the US. The speech he delivered broke with the usual guarded language of UN diplomacy to attack diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in humanitarianism; assert that there are only two genders; claim that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have become “politicised”; and argue that economic growth – not rights-based programming – is the only legitimate path for meeting these goals. He also suggested that the US was one of a handful of countries taking in a disproportionate number of refugees and asylum seekers, and announced that it was time for these people to go home. (In reality, the US is the twentieth largest host of refugees in absolute terms, and is far lower down the list in terms of refugees per capita of the population. Just five countries host over one third of the world’s population: Iran, Turkiye, Colombia, Uganda, and Germany.)
Before the US spoke, no delegate had made any substantive comments about gender identities and expressions – though Spain, Sweden, and Belgium each made reference to protecting LGBTQI+ populations. After the US spoke, the delegate for Zimbabwe took the floor and echoed the sentiment that only two genders should be recognised in humanitarian programming.
Over the last few months of travelling to different countries with the International PRIDE Centre, the essentiality of recognising non-cis genders when providing them with services – and of recognising all other parts of people’s multifaceted and diverse identities – has been made extremely clear to me. I think of the displaced trans women I met in Malawi, for example, who were unable to attend food distributions in the refugee camp due to the violence enacted against them. Some presented as men in order to navigate the camp more safely, causing them deep distress – and were attacked anyway, because of their obvious femininity. Their marginalisation blocks access to food, medicine, and safe employment. This has led many to turn to sex work as a survival strategy – exposing them to yet more violence, and leading most to contract HIV, adding another layer of stigma and unmet health need.
The words scrubbed from US websites and policy platforms include not only those related to trans people, but descriptors for any marginalised identities or experiences: LGBTQI+, people with disabilities, refugees, key populations (used to describe those at risk of HIV), minorities, prostitutes (but not ‘sex workers’, somehow), and even ‘at risk’ are all included on the banned list. Presumably, the US would want humanitarians working with the trans women in Malawi to view them as simply ‘men’: not trans women, who are also refugees, who are also sex workers, most of whom have contracted HIV and are therefore also key populations, and who, yes, are at risk. It will be immediately obvious to anyone who meets this group that categorising them as ‘men’, and recognising no further needs, identities, or vulnerabilities, would render humanitarians completely unable to assist them.
In the meeting yesterday, we were the final speaker from the floor. I was relieved we weren’t pushed to the second day, as I felt that the inflammatory speech the US required an urgent response. Our prepared remarks were the only other comments of the day that would mention the war on DEI, and the only that would insist on the necessity of taking into account the diverse and intersectional identities of the displaced people the sector is trying to serve.
In our statement, I said:
“Recent attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion have impeded our ability to effectively respond to the needs of these [marignalised] communities. (…) Those with the most acute and complex needs are those existing at the intersections of multiple forms of marginalization: as people who are displaced; are rendered stateless; are older; live with disabilities; are victims of gender-based violence; as well as those with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC).
Global studies estimate that around 9% of the population are from a SOGIESC minority, meaning there are over 11 million displaced LGBTIQ+ people around the world. This population faces heightened risk and systematic exclusion—often with fatal consequences. We must be vigilant about standing up against all forms of discrimination that limit our ability to serve forcibly displaced and stateless people in need – in all of their diversities.”
It was an honour to be able to speak these words on behalf of the NGO community. In a meeting that otherwise gave very little air time to the specific needs of SOGIESC minorities, the US statement brought them into the spotlight – but ours spoke to their humanity