The New York Times - 12.09.2019

THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONALTHURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 N A

ISTANBUL — In a courtroom

in Saudi Arabia, the trial of the

men accused of killing the journal-

ist Jamal Khashoggi has been

playing out under a cloak of se-

crecy, invisible to the world since

it began in January — unless you

happen to be a Sabah reader.

On Sunday, Sabah, a Turkish

newspaper, released tidbits from

the trial that no one else has, nam-

ing the five men who face execu-

tion if found guilty and giving de-

tails about their testimony.

In the three days since, the

newspaper has released further

details, including new excerpts it

says are from the transcripts of

audiotapes recorded inside the

Saudi Consulate in Istanbul where

Mr. Khashoggi was killed and dis-

membered.

The Saudis, their reputation

battered by the case, have kept

the trial closed to the public. That

is the usual practice in Saudi Ara-

bia, but in this case many also see

an attempt to prevent further

scrutiny — and skepticism — once

official conclusions are reached.

As the first anniversary of the

journalist’s death approaches,

Turkey has sought to return the

assassination to the forefront. Its

president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,

is expected to repeat demands for

an international investigation

when he appears before the

United Nations General Assem-

bly. Mr. Erdogan appears deter-

mined to maintain pressure on

Saudi Arabia and to keep the mor-

al high ground over a regional ri-

val.

Sabah is well known as being

close to Mr. Erdogan, and as his

government’s favorite conduit for

leaks. It has frequently published

explosive new details about the

Khashoggi case and, a book, often

to heated denials from the Saudis.

Much of the information has

been confirmed by Western offi-

cials to The New York Times and

other media outlets, and was in-

cluded in a report on the killing by

Agnes Callamard, the United Na-

tions expert on extrajudicial

killings, who called for an interna-

tional investigation into Saudi offi-

cials’ role in the murder.

Mr. Khashoggi, 59, entered the

Saudi Consulate last Oct. 2 to ob-

tain papers that would allow him

to marry. He was killed, Saudi offi-

cials later said, by a group of Saudi

officials after a scuffle.

Turkish officials insist that the

group arrived with the intent to

kill Mr. Khashoggi. Saudi officials

claim a plan to make him return to

Saudi Arabia went wrong.

His body has never been found.

Sabah’s latest series of articles

appears aimed at undercutting

testimony from the trial that

seemed to exonerate senior offi-

cials close to the Saudi crown

prince, Mohammed bin Salman,

and lay blame solely on the men

who carried out the killing.

In particular, Sabah questioned

the reported testimony of one of

the most senior Saudi officials on

trial, Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, a

high-ranking adviser to the crown

prince. General al-Assiri, the

newspaper reported, testified that

he had asked the leader of the op-

eration to persuade Mr.

Khashoggi to return to Saudi Ara-

bia.

“Asiri’s testimony is aimed at

hiding Prince Salman’s responsi-

bility in the events,” the newspa-

per wrote, using a different spell-

ing of his name.

The testimony of other officials

at the trial indicated that the

killing was premeditated, the

newspaper said.

It said a Maj. Gen. Mansour Abu

Hussein had admitted that he was

the overall man in charge of the

operation and confessed in his tes-

timony that he had been autho-

rized by General al-Assiri to use

force if necessary to bring Mr.

Khashoggi back. He also said he

had arranged for the operations

team to meet Saud el-Qahtani, the

crown prince’s powerful social

media czar, before their depar-

ture, it said.

The newspaper did not say how

it came by its information about

the trial. The first hearing, which

took place Jan. 3, was attended by

diplomats from the five perma-

nent members of the United Na-

tions Security Council — the

United States, Britain, France,

Russia and China — but no other

outside observers or journalists, it

said.

Another Saudi security official,

Maher Abdulaziz Mutreb, testi-

fied that Mr. Khashoggi had been

killed by a lethal injection, the

newspaper reported.

On Monday the newspaper pub-

lished details of conversations of

Saudi officials before and during

the killing, and said they re-

inforced claims that the murder

had been planned. The excerpts

were from transcripts of audio-

tapes widely reported before to

have been compiled from listen-

ing devices inside the consulate.

Turkish officials could not be

reached to confirm or deny the de-

tails published by Sabah.

Details Aired

Of Saudi Trial

In the Murder

Of Khashoggi

By CARLOTTA GALL

GENEVA — Hundreds of young
children have died from disease
and malnutrition in the desert
camp holding families of Islamic
State fighters in northeast Syria,
United Nations investigators said
this week, warning that interna-
tional inaction on the situation
risked incubating a new wave of
extremism.
The Commission of Inquiry, cre-
ated by the United Nations Hu-
man Rights Council that is moni-
toring the conflict in Syria, said on
Tuesday at least 390 children had
died of preventable causes in the
first half of the year while in, or on
their way to, Al Hol, the camp set
up to take in families fleeing the
last strongholds of the Islamic

State in Syria.

Their deaths exposed the “intol-

erable” conditions for the 70,

people, more than 90 percent of

them women and children, who

are crammed into the Kurdish-run

camp, with little access to medi-

cine and food.

Their plight highlighted inter-

national paralysis over what to do

with the residents, including

11,000 foreigners from dozens of

countries, many of them still fer-

vent supporters of Islamic State

ideology, who have been shunned

by their governments and in some

cases stripped of their nationality.

The children who died, most of

them weakened by long-term mal-

nutrition and dehydration, had

succumbed to diseases like pneu-

monia and dysentery, the commis-

sion said.

International organizations and

rights groups had earlier sounded

the alarm over conditions in Al

Hol, described by Human Rights

Watch in July as a “dust bowl in-

ferno” where young children with

“emaciated limbs and swollen bel-

lies sifted through mounds of

stinking garbage under a scorch-

ing sun or lay limp on tent floors,

their bodies dusted with dirt and

flies.”

The conditions have fueled ten-

sions in the camp, where radical-

ized women had carried out at-

tacks, beatings and the burning of

tents of women who were per-

ceived as “infidels,” the commis-

sion noted.

Although some countries have

repatriated their nationals, the

commission said it had seen no ef-

fort by most countries to under-

stand who was in the camp and

who should be taken back, flout-

ing their obligations to the chil-

dren under international conven-

tions, the report said.

The women and children

trapped in this legal and political

limbo “remain at higher risk of

further radicalization,” the com-

mission said.

At a time when states were

looking for ways to tackle root

causes of violent radicalization,

their inaction on Al Hol was in-

stead creating “another genera-

tion of people with grievances

against us,” said Hanny Megally, a

commission member.

Britain drew international criti-

cism last month over its decision

to strip the citizenship of Jack

Lets, a former Islamic State

fighter, as well as that of the teen-

ager Shamima Begum, whose in-

fant died in Al Hol in March.

The United States defense sec-

retary, Mark Esper, warned this

month that refusal by Britain and

other European countries to repa-

triate around 2,000 former fight-

ers was creating an “untenable

situation” that posed a threat to

the region’s security.

United Nations analysts, draw-

ing on intelligence from member

states, warned last month that Is-

lamic State members remained

active in Syria and have crossed

into Iraq, successfully building a

covert network of cells and creat-

ing safe havens that posed a major

threat to security.

‘Intolerable’ Conditions Prevail in Camp Housing ISIS Refugees

By NICK CUMMING-BRUCE

Chhaya Chhoum’s journey to
the Bronx began in the forced
labor camp where the Khmer
Rouge, during its genocidal rule
in 1970s Cambodia, had forced
her parents to wed.
Her mother, who was 18, fled
with her family,
carrying her
infant through
jungle trails to
refugee camps
in Thailand.
But the camps
offered neither safety nor a fu-
ture. So the family began a sec-
ond journey: applying for refu-
gee resettlement in the United
States.
By the time they were brought
to New York, Ms. Chhoum had
spent almost seven years in the
camps.
The family thrived in the
Bronx. Her mother became a
mental health worker, a leader in
the community. And as an adult,
Ms. Chhoum founded an organi-
zation, Mekong NYC, that pro-
vides services for Southeast
Asian refugees and their fam-
ilies.
“I am as Bronx as it gets, as
you probably can tell by my
accent,” she said. “That’s the
whole of me: refugee, child of
refugees and raised in the
Bronx.”
But stories like Ms. Chhoum’s
may soon become far rarer. The
White House is considering plans
to slash refugee resettlement
numbers to a fraction of historic
levels or even to zero, all but
ending the program.
The modern refugee system
emerged after World War II,
when the United States and its
allies resettled hundreds of thou-
sands displaced by fighting.
Since then, it has played a cen-
tral role in American foreign
policy, drawn from the lesson
that mass displacement can
provoke even graver crises.
Refugee resettlement operates
differently from other kinds of
immigration. It is designed to
maximize benefits to refugees
and the communities that host
them while minimizing burdens
and risks.
The process is tightly con-
trolled, with refugees undergoing
a screening process that can take
years before they are allowed
into the United States. It focuses
on keeping families together, as
well as placing them in commu-
nities that want to take them in
and are equipped to do so.
Refugee flows peaked in 1980,
with over 200,000 resettled that
fiscal year. Since then, annual
caps have hovered around
70,000. The Trump administra-
tion, after slashing that limit to a
record low of 30,000, is consider-
ing proposals to cut it to 15,000,
10,000 — or zero.
“Generations and generations
are going to be impacted by this,”
Ms. Chhoum said. “In a refugee
camp, there’s no imagination.
And I fear that will have multi-
generational impact.”

Why the U.S. Embraced Refugees

Though the formal refugee pro-
gram began in 1980, the practice
dates to the aftermath of World
War II, which offered the world a
series of hard lessons, and the
motives were varied.
One was a sense of moral
obligation, rooted in regret over
the United States’ having refused
entry to Jews fleeing Nazi perse-
cution in Europe.
But another was practical.
The war had displaced millions
into sprawling camps and urban
squalor, creating the conditions
for future cycles of unrest and
conflict. Resettling them was
seen as a way to head off social
tensions in Europe and alleviate
pressure on still-fragile Euro-
pean governments.
Refugee resettlement has
since become a cornerstone of
the global order. It is intended to
help prevent regions that are
emerging from conflict, like
Southeast Asia in the 1980s or
the former Yugoslavia in the
1990s, from falling back into
turmoil.
“The refugee program matters
both because of its humanitarian
role and because of its strategic
importance,” said Nazanin Ash,
the vice president for global
policy and advocacy at the Inter-

national Rescue Committee.

“Because poorly managed refu-

gee crises beget greater regional

instability.”

The program was designed to

give governments close control

over arrivals, allowing them to

select precisely whom to bring

in, when to bring them and

where to place them. Once the

refugees have arrived, resettle-

ment programs can manage

their integration.

Among all forms of humanitar-

ian immigration to the United

States, refugee resettlement

comes closest to what skeptics of

immigration often describe as

their ideal. Families must apply

while still overseas. Applicants

are heavily vetted. They must

wait in line.

It is the near-inverse of the

process for asylum seekers like

those arriving at the southern

border.

Under American and interna-

tional law, anyone can request

asylum; if they meet the defini-

tion, they are entitled to protec-

tion. Asylum seekers’ numbers

and timing are dictated by need

and circumstance, not carefully

planned policies.

And the numbers of people

who can seek asylum — or be

granted it — will not be affected

by proposed cuts to the refugee

resettlement program, though

the Trump administration has

also moved aggressively to dis-

courage them, too.

“It’s not about immigrant

versus refugee,” Ms. Chhoum

said. “But being a refugee really

isn’t a choice. And a government

like the United States does have

a choice.”

A Foreign Policy Tool

Every year, the United States

announces the number of refu-

gees it plans to host. It works

with international agencies,

particularly in the United Na-

tions, to decide which displaced

populations are most in need.

They’ll vet the applications,

nominating the most qualified

people. Then the United States

screens them, doing interviews

and lengthy background checks.

Approval typically takes years.

Only a tiny fraction of the

world’s refugees are eligible for

resettlement. The American

program gives priority to the

family members of refugees who

are already in the United States,

and to people regarded as partic-

ularly vulnerable.

Typically, they will have been

displaced by war or persecution.

Many will be in overcrowded

camps, unable to work or return

home. Some will still be pursued

by militias or governments who

wish them harm. Their host

country will often be over-

whelmed, unable to absorb or

care for the refugees within their

borders.

Refugee resettlement is often

the only viable solution, said Ms.

Ash, the International Rescue

Committee official. Otherwise,

camps just keep swelling for

years or decades, becoming

steadily more unsafe for their

occupants and imposing an ever-

greater burden on their host

countries.

Advocates of the resettlement

program often cite the St. Louis,

the ship carrying hundreds of

Jewish refugees from Nazi-occu-

pied Europe that the United

States turned away, sending

many back to their death. It is

recounted as both moral parable

and practical lesson: ad hoc

responses to refugee crises can

easily go wrong.

Institutionalizing the refugee

system, with annual caps and a

steady pipeline, creates a reliable

process through which the

United States can address crises

as they emerge and relieve strain

on host countries, Ms. Ash said.

It also allows the United States

to push other countries, particu-

larly in Europe, to set their own

annual refugee quotas, spreading

the responsibility among

wealthy, stable nations.

A World Without Resettlement

As the United States curbs its

refugee program, other govern-

ments, facing political pressures

at home, are beginning to follow

suit.

“What we see now is a global

race to the bottom in meeting

humanitarian obligations,” Ms.

Ash said. “And it’s led by the

U.S.”

Governments have also cut

funding for international agen-

cies that oversee refugees, even

as their numbers continue to

rise.

Resettlement programs can

serve as political release valves,

relieving enough pressure to

make it sustainable for countries

to host large refugee populations.

“If we’re not working with these

hosting countries, to remove

some of that pressure, then we

lose all negotiating power when

it comes to dealing with the

crisis,” Ms. Ash said.

The possible consequences are

already coming into view. “What

we see is an increasing trend of

extreme pressure on refugees to

return to unsafe and unstable

regions,” Ms. Ash said, calling

this a source of “tremendous risk

to their safety and also to global

security and stability.”

Countries that host refugees,

like Pakistan and Turkey, seeing

that Western governments are

unlikely to resettle significant

numbers, are pressuring, some-

times in effect forcing, families to

return home.

Premature repatriations to

places like Syria and Afghanistan

risk creating further instability

at a time when the United States

is already struggling to extract

itself from both conflicts. And

forcibly returning refugee popu-

lations increases the risk that

their home country will fall back

into war, according to one World

Bank study.

In a central irony of the era of

resurgent nativist populism, such

policies may have the opposite of

their desired effect.

European and American poli-

cies to deter or block asylum-

seekers and refugees have

tended to increase immigration

over the long term, according to

studies by independent immigra-

tion scholars.

Ms. Chhoum expressed con-

cern for the thousands of dis-

placed Iraqis holding out hope

for resettlement in the United

States, as well as asylum seekers

already in the country who count

on refugee policies to reunite

them with their family.

She grew emotional as she

described her own family mem-

bers reuniting in the Bronx,

where they still share a three-

family home.

“We live together not only

because that’s how we had to

survive, to pay rent,” she said. “It

was also really my mom, my

grandmother and my aunt not

wanting to ever lose each other

again.”

Trump Refugee Cuts Threaten Cornerstone of Global Order

AMANDA TAUB

and MAX FISHER

THE

INTERPRETER

Rohingya from Myanmar crossing to Bangladesh. To be resettled in the United States, refugee families must undergo heavy vetting.

ADAM DEAN FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

Women and children who had fled ISIS in a detention camp in a Kurdish-controlled area of Syria.

IVOR PRICKETT FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

Spirited away from

Cambodia as an

infant, and now

‘as Bronx as it gets.’