Traveling to Uncertainty
Unaccompanied minors, humanitarianism and “bare life” in the aftermath of the Greek refugee crisis
Author: Ana Feshta
Supervisor: Dr. Patricia Lorenzoni Uppsala University September 2020
This thesis is submitted for obtaining the Master’s Degree in International
Humanitarian Action and Conflict. By submitting the thesis, the author certifies that the text is from her hand, does not include the work of someone else unless clearly
indicated, and that the thesis has been produced in accordance with proper academic practice
Table of Contents
Preface ... i
Abbreviations ... ii
Abstract ... iii
1.Introduction ... 1
1.1 Research Problem & Questions ... 1
1.2 Methods and Methodology ... 1
1.3 Thesis Outline ... 2
1.4 Relevance to Humanitarian Action ... 2
1.5 Literature Review ... 3
1.6 Limitations ... 4
2.Backround ... 5
2.1 Legal Framework & Definitions ... 6
2.2 EU – Turkey Statement and Closure of Balkan Borders in 2016 ... 7
2.3 Humanitarian Response in Greek Refugee Crisis ... 8
3.Theoretical Concepts ... 10
3.1 Humanitarian Governance ... 10
3.1.1 Organizational structure of humanitarian governance ... 11
3.2 The concept of the Bare life ... 12
3.2.1 State of exception and camp as “zone of indistinction” ... 12
3.3 Conclusion ... 13
4. Empirical Chapter ... 14
4.1 Children on the Move in Italy and Greece ... 14
4.1.1 The profile of the unaccompanied minors during 2016-2017 ... 14
4.1.2 Trapped in Greece ... 16
4.2 CHILDREN ON THE RUN: Experiences of unaccompanied minors leaving shelters in Greece ... 16
4.2.1 Shelters and Absconding ... 17
4.2.2 Experiences of absconding ... 18
4.3 EMERGENCY WITHIN EMERGENCY: The growing epidemic of sexual exploitation and abuse of migrant children in Greece” ... 18
4.3.1 Accommodation types ... 19
4.3.2 Identified Risks factors ... 20
4.3.3 Violent experiences ... 20
5.Discussion ... 22
5.1 The unaccompanied minors in Greece after 2015 ... 22
5.2 The Humanitarian Governance in the Greek context ... 24
5.3 Is humanitarian aid just enough to "save" the UASC? ... 26
6. Conclusion ... 28
7. References ... 29
Preface
To my dad, who once was an unaccompanied minor.
This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance, the comments and the support of my wonderful supervisor Dr. Patricia Lorenzoni.
Patricia, thank you so much!
I would also like to thank my mother and sister, who supported me in every possible way and at every stage of my academic journey.
Lastly, I want also to thank, my partner Anton – who always believes in me.
Abbreviations
AMIF Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund
DG ECHO Directorate-General for European Civil Protection & Humanitarian Aid Operations
EKKA National Center for Social Solidarity ESI Emergency Support Instrument EU European Union
INGO International Non-Governmental Organization IOM International Organization for Migration NGO Non-Governmental Organization
UASC Unaccompanied and Separated Children/Child UNHCR United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund
Abstract
In the last years the refugee inflows towards Europe was striking, particularly in 2015 approximately 1 million refugees crossed the European borders, among the refugee population there were many children, amid those children there were also a special category; the unaccompanied children. The topic of this work is based on the highlighted issue of the unaccompanied minors in Greece. I present the context and the humanitarian response of the Greek refugee crisis including the humanitarian action which aimed to cover the unaccompanied minors needs. Moreover, I tried to identify the figure of the unaccompanied minor in Greece after 2015 and I examine the humanitarian response through the humanitarian governance concept and the Agambenian “bare life” theory. I conclude that humanitarianism as it is structured reduces the unaccompanied minors in
“bare life” while the “bios” the political life is excluded.
Key words: unaccompanied minor, Greece, humanitarian action, bare life, humanitarian
governance, humanitarianism
1.Introduction
From 2015 to 2018, I found myself working in Greece in a humanitarian program assisting refugees. I then met many unaccompanied children, some of whom were trapped in Greece, some would leave, and nobody would hear from them again, some were relocated to other European countries, and some of them were struggling on the streets of Athens. What has motivated me to conduct the work at hand was that I had a professional involvement with the research subject and the context. I experienced first-hand the crisis and the humanitarian response to it. Hence, I witnessed the misconduct and inefficiencies.
My engagement in the humanitarian context has led me to question the response to this crisis, especially regarding the unaccompanied minors. Secondly, I believe that scholarly research could provide the tools to design more sophisticated humanitarian programs, reflect on the rights and wrongs in operation, and provide a deeper understanding of the people and context in the humanitarian field.
1.1 Research Problem & Questions
This study seeks to investigate the situation1 of the unaccompanied minors in Greece in the aftermath of the refugee inflow event in 2015. More specifically, the aim of this work is twofold: On the first level, it identifies the situation of unaccompanied minors in Greece and the humanitarian response to it. The second level explores this response through the lens of the theoretical concepts of humanitarian governance (Barnett, 2013) and bare life (Agamben, 1998).
The research questions that this thesis addresses are:
I. Who are the unaccompanied minors, what needs, and risks arise from being an unaccompanied minor in Greece after the refugee crisis in 2015?
II. How the humanitarian response (towards unaccompanied minors) is related to the theoretical concepts of humanitarian governance and bare life?
1.2 Methods and Methodology
For the purpose of this research, I conducted a desk study; therefore, the most appropriate method was to use secondary research data. First, as case studies, I took three different
1 I use the term situation as the summary of the living condition, experiences of UASC and, humanitarian aid towards them
reports composed by UNICEF, 5 Greek NGOS2 and Francois-Xavier Bagnoud (FXB) Center for Health and Human Rights of Harvard University. The choice of these reports was based on the diversity of the organizations and the different issues they addressed, giving me different angles to scrutinize my research. Second, I also used previous studies on unaccompanied minors in order to demonstrate general trends about the studied subject. The methodology I used for the main body of this work was the descriptive analysis. In this manner, the collected data/case studies would answer my first research questions. For the Discussion chapter, I am critically reading the situation of the unaccompanied minors as well as the humanitarian response to it through the theoretical concepts of humanitarian governance and bare life.
1.3 Thesis Outline
This work is structured in 6 different chapters, more specifically; Chapter 1 contains the research questions, previous research related to the unaccompanied minors, and methodology. In the 2nd Chapter, I present the context and background of the research topic. The 3rd Chapter includes the theoretical concepts, in the 4th Chapter, I present three different reports from which I extracted my data. In Chapter 5, I discussed my data through theoretical concepts. Finally, in Chapter 6, I summarize my findings and answer my research questions.
1.4 Relevance to Humanitarian Action
In 2015, the raised number of daily arrivals in the Greek islands had broken down the reception and registration services in the main entry points (UNHCR, 2015). The Greek government was struggling to manage the ongoing crisis and its capacity was limited. On the 30th of June 2015, UNHCR declared the situation in Greece as an emergency (Ibid.).
According to James, an emergency is defined, as “a situation where the members of a population are suffering or threatened to a point that exceeds the local capacity to respond or to cope and cover” (2017, p.1 ). An emergency is humanitarian when the lives of people are affected by hazards and the assistance to address their needs is coming from
“outside” (James, 2017). Following these definitions, one can place Greece’s refugee situation under the humanitarian emergency umbrella. The people who arrived were
seeking protection and assistance, which was provided by outside agencies. While the context of this thesis is a humanitarian emergency, the particular topic is unaccompanied children, which is one of the major humanitarian categories. This is based on their vulnerability assumed from young age, dangers linked to the refugee journey, risks of exploitation and, the absence of a family presence. The protection of children in humanitarian emergencies is widely promoted by UNICEF’s Core Commitment of Children in Humanitarian Action (UNICEF, 2010). In the same manner, the main purpose of many humanitarian organizations is the protection and improvement of children’s life (Save the Children, Terre des Hommes, PLAN International, etc.) The standpoint of this research is mostly from a humanitarian perspective; the relevance to humanitarian action is outlined in the context of the subject, the humanitarian response to the humanitarian needs of the unaccompanied minors. Unraveling the humanitarian situation of the unaccompanied minors in Greece could provide the space for further research and more effective responses to this and similar issues.
1.5 Literature Review
In the scholarly context, the research about unaccompanied minors is mostly focused on the legal and mental health perspectives. However, in other academic disciplines, scholarly study about unaccompanied minors is more limited; or at least my research effort could not reach them.
Jacqueline Bhabha (2014) mentions that before the late 90s, there was little particular concern about migrant children; however, after the increased presence of unaccompanied minors in the destination states, that started to change. The perception of states was that those children required protection since they were without adults, but also that they might be dangerous outsiders. Jakobsen et al. (2017) in their study, found that the asylum process affects the unaccompanied minor’s mental health and that these categories of children may require a more supportive environment even when they pass the age of 18.
Lems, Oester, and Strasser (2019) wrote one of the most interesting articles about how in the European context is constructed an ambiguous picture of unaccompanied minors in the aftermath of 2015. Lelliott (2017) in his work, distinguishes the terms of smuggled and trafficked unaccompanied minors and the consequences that come with each category. It is worth mentioning, that trafficked unaccompanied minors are presented as victims (and they are) and therefore receive better protection services from states while smuggled minors do not. Ferrara et al. (2016) show how unaccompanied children can
easily transform into invisible children in the reception countries since their already vulnerable position and lack of caregivers could heighten the risk of further abuse or neglect and vanishing. Freccero et al. (2017) discuss how the majority of the unaccompanied minors who arrive in Europe are boys; the gender-based project to respond to those boys’ needs are limited. While boys are being left out from the operation responses, it has been noted a high risk of sexual exploitation and transactional sex among unaccompanied minors. Buchanan and Kallinikaki (2020), in their research, demonstrate the needs of unaccompanied minors in Greece during 2017-2018 and also the efforts that have been made to respond to those needs. Lastly, I want to mention two studies about the unaccompanied minors in Greece which contributed to my work; the research of Mishra et al. (2020) shows how the interaction between humanitarian workers (in NGOs) and unaccompanied minors in Greece can influence life decisions of the latter, which helped me to a more deep understanding of the relationship between aid workers and the unaccompanied minors. Additionally, the work of Fili and Xythali (2017) highlights the systematic failure to protect unaccompanied minors in Greece, which is part of my discussion in this work.
1.6 Limitations
Due to word limitation, this study examines the period from 2015 until 2018, and it does not cover the years 2019 and 2020. Moreover, I wanted to conduct a field study to include the unaccompanied minor’s voices and perceptions; due to the Covid-19 epidemic, travel restrictions, and limited time, I could not conduct it.
2.Backround
The ongoing conflicts in Syria, the complicated situation in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and poverty and instability in Sub-Saharan African countries have led many people to seek a better life on European ground. It is estimated that 1 million refugees entered Europe through southern border countries in 2015 (UNHCR, 2020a). Without any legal pathways for asylum seekers and migrants to arrive in Europe the most used route to reach the continent was the Eastern Mediterranean route (Orav et al., 2016). As a result, 861.630 people arrived in the country in 2015 (UNHCR, 2020b). The path that most of the asylum seekers chose to arrive in Greece was through the Aegean Sea, traveling with small overcrowded rubber boats. The pictures of refugee boats arriving on Greek shores filled the mainstream and social media in 2015. However, the Eastern Mediterranean migration route to Europe is dangerous, smugglers thrive, abuses, hardship, exploitation, and risk of drowning are some of the perils that asylum seekers and immigrants endure in order to arrive in the perceived safety of Europe. The picture of the minor Alan Kurdi washed up in shore, captures the exact meaning of what a refugee journey could be.
Amongst the refugee and migrant populations, there are many children. According to IOM and UNICEF, 26% of the refugees that arrived in Greece in 2015 were children (IOM, 2015). A significant number of these were traveling alone or found themselves alone in Greece. These specific categories of children are called unaccompanied children or minors; that is, the children and youths under 18 years old who arrived without parents or any other legal guardian. Accurate data about the unaccompanied minors who were in or passed Greece in 2015 are not available, since people on move are hard to survey (Stathopoulou 2019, p. 167). Many refugees and migrants passed through Greece without identification to reach the Balkan borders and continued their journey to rest of Europe.
It is well known that Greece did not have the means to handle the refugee crisis and was seriously lacking in humanitarian aid towards the refugees (Guild, Costello, Garlick, and Moreno-Lax, 2015). The country had been in a deep financial crisis since 2009, in 2015 Greece was struggling with complex political and economic issues. Two national elections in January and September 2015 and one referendum in July in the same year, the austerity policies, and high unemployment rates were shaping the country’s profile (Triandafyllidou, Gemi, and Maroufof 2015, p.3).
2.1 Legal Framework & Definitions
In this section, I will briefly present definitions and legal framework on unaccompanied children. The nature of this work is not legal, but in order to proceed with the analysis of its core subject, it will be useful to provide the basic legal background to the readers. The category of unaccompanied minors can be first tracked to child migrants who arrived alone in a country and were linked to asylum procedures (Bhabha 2014, p.4).
In 1997, one of the first official documents that include this category was the Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in Dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Ibid.). In the same year, the European Union (EU) passed the Resolution on Unaccompanied Minors who are nationals of Third Countries which also linked the unaccompanied minors within the asylum seeker terrain (Ibid.).
• Definitions
Article 1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) defines a “child as every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” (1989). The UN Committee on CRC with the General comment No. 6 defines as an unaccompanied child or minor, a child that is separated from both parents and other relatives and are not being cared for by an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for doing so (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2005) A separated child is defined as a child separated from both parents, or from its previous legal or customary primary caregiver, but not necessarily from other relatives. This may include children accompanied by other adult family members (Ibid.).
• Greek Legal Framework
Greece has signed the major treaties on the rights of the child. In 1990, Greece has signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified by Law 21101/1992 (UN Treaty Body Database, 2020). In 1997, Greece signed the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights. In 2000, Greece signed Protocol to the Convention the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child and Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (Ibid.).
The Greek law system is including and enhancing the protection of unaccompanied minors. For instance, the Presidential Decree (P.D.) 220/07, Chapter C, Article 18 establish that the best interest of the child should take into consideration, and authorities should ensure and address the access of unaccompanied minors to Social Care Services in case that the children are victims of any kind of abuse (Προεδρικό Διάταγμα 220/2007, 2007). In the same manner, P.D. 220/07, Chapter C, the Article 19 ensures that the representation of the unaccompanied child should be facilitated by Public Prosecutor for minors or territorial First Instance Public Prosecutor. Also, it incorporates all the necessary measures that should be taken for the well-being of the child as soon as the asylum procedure is accommodated (Προεδρικό Διάταγμα 220/2007, 2007)
2.2 EU – Turkey Statement and Closure of Balkan Borders in 2016
There were two major events that created the refugee terrain in Greece after the so-called crisis of 2015. In March 2016, EU and Turkey proceeded on a statement that facilitated a type of population exchange. As it was stated, “EU will resettle a Syrian from Turkey to the EU for every Syrian returned to Turkey from Greek islands” and “All new irregular migrants crossing from Turkey into Greek islands as from 20 March 2016 will be returned to Turkey” (European Council, 2016 para. 2 & 1). EU declared that its intention was to decrease the irregular sea movement from Turkey to Greece, cease the smuggling trade, and provide a safe and legal path to Europe from Turkey (European Council, 2016).
The event following the EU – Turkey statement was the border closure of four Balkan countries: Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, and Macedonia. Consequently, the Balkan route towards other European countries was officially shut down (Chan, 2016). The EU – Turkey statement received much criticism by human rights and humanitarian organizations who doubted Turkey as a safe country (Shetty, Roth & Woollard, 2016) (Médecins Sans Frontières, 2017). However, according to the statistics the immigrant arrivals decreased in the following period after the agreement (European Commission, 2020). The closure of the Balkan borders had as a result the entrapment of thousands of asylees in Greece, who until then had "used" Greece as a transit station towards other European countries.
2.3 Humanitarian Response in Greek Refugee Crisis
The increased immigrant arrivals in Greece in 2015 found not only the Greek government unprepared but also the humanitarian system. Humanitarian organizations (INGOs, NGOs, etc.) responded gradually since it was assumed that Greece could act autonomously as a European country. When humanitarian agencies began to operate, they faced many obstacles because of Greece's bureaucracy and financial restrictions measures (Skleparis & Armakolas 2016, pp.172-173). Moreover, for the humanitarian organizations that traditionally were running programs outside of Europe's territory, this new humanitarian crisis seemed challenging both in operational and fund levels. Greek NGOs were also late in response because of their ongoing programs in different areas (within the country) and their limited funding (Ibid.). However, a significant voluntary initiative occurred at the beginning of the emergency; volunteer groups and individuals acted as humanitarians by assisting the newcomers (Skleparis & Armakolas 2016, p.174).
Volunteers from Greece and all-around Europe proceeded in humanitarian activities such as distributing clothes, constructing shelters, providing food supplies and first aid, and rescuing people from the sea (Ibid.) As Sklerapris and Armakolas have characterized it, this was the initial phase of the humanitarian response to the refugee crisis (2016, p.173).
The second phase could be traced when the Greek government seemed unable to manage the emergency and appealed to the EU for further assistance (De Radigues & Gammarelli, 2016). From this point, the humanitarian activity becomes more professional since more and more (I)NGOs began to step in. In addition, volunteer groups kept working during this phase alongside with the (I)NGOs (Skleparis & Armakolas 2016, p.176).
The third phase of the humanitarian aid was led mostly by the Greek state and well- established humanitarian organizations (Skleparis & Armakolas 2016, p.176). Moreover, in March 2016, alongside with the border closure and EU – Turkey deal (which resulted in the entrapment of thousands of asylum seekers in Greece), the EU, through DG ECHO, implemented the Emergency Support Instrument (ESI) to provide further funding and assistance (De Radigues & Gammarelli, 2016) (Dittmer and Lorenz, 2018). The allocations were distributed to UNHCR, IOM and UNICEF, a European consortium of Red Cross societies and 11 international NGOs (De Radigues & Gammarelli, 2016).
I. Moria Refugee Camp, Lesvos 20153
3 Photo from the personal archive of my friend and humanitarian worker, Emma S.
3.Theoretical Concepts
The conceptual lens that I am using for my work is the Humanitarian governance concept as it has been captured by M. Barnett and the theory of Bare life by G. Agamben.
I will discuss the situation of UASC through the understanding of humanitarian governance as a form of sovereignty connected to the biopolitical production of bare life.
3.1 Humanitarian Governance
Michael Barnett explains humanitarian governance as global governance aiming to save people's lives, enhance their welfare, and reduce their suffering (2013, p. 380).
Humanitarian activities can vary from delivering emergency relief and shipping food to refugee assistance and developmental services to communities (Barnett, 2013, p. 380).
Those actions are undertaken by a range of actors, including INGOs, faith-based organizations, international organizations, philanthropies, states, corporations, and more.
The actors of humanitarianism and their actions are legitimized and organized by norms and laws, and they operate in the name of compassion, care, and responsibility (Ibid.).
Most of the well-known INGOs (MSF, Save the Children, Oxfam) and UN bodies (such as UNICEF, UNHCR) are the important players in delivering aid.
Additionally, a big part of the humanitarian picture is covered by the West, especially in security and funding (Barnett 2013, p. 386). So, we can assume that governance channels mostly through the actors as mentioned above.
Humanitarianism can be defined narrowly or broadly; on the one hand, it is the impartial, neutral and independent aid provision, and on the other hand, humanitarianism includes activities that can affect the causes of suffering, improve the lives of the most vulnerable and operate further from just emergency relief. The latter aspect of humanitarianism involves politics (Barnett 2013, p. 283). Regardless of the definitions, humanitarianism is perceived as an effort to make the world a better place. As Barnett mentions, humanitarianism's purpose is not limited to save lives but also to create a world defined by humanity (2013, p. 284). However, humanitarian governance can also have a depoliticization impact, which could worsen efforts for peace, can enhance in gender- distinction, and enforce the perceptions of victim-savior (Ibid.). However, he does not elaborate further in his paper about the side effects of humanitarianism.
Barnett writes that there are two patterns in the rule of humanitarian governance, the bureaucratic, and the violent (2013, p. 390). (For this work, I refer to the bureaucratic technic) The bureaucratic rule is emerging through all the standardized procedures and professionalism used to make a humanitarian response efficiently (Ibid.) For example, the code of conduct, the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), are a set of rules and guidelines for humanitarian professionals to follow.
3.1.1 Organizational structure of humanitarian governance
Humanitarianism is structured through different organizational elements. Firstly, aid agencies have market mechanism characteristics since they compete for donor funding and attention. However, even if an organization can gain resources, that does not mean that they are the most suitable for saving lives (Barnett 2013, p. 388). Secondly, the humanitarian community is (self)described as a network; humanitarian organizations join together to accomplish a particular task (Ibid.). Network as an organizational structure is considered the most desired since they are nimble, efficient, and democratic (Slaughter, 2005 cited in Barnett, 2013). However, nowadays, the introduction of technology in aid delivery creates new actors and new networks. The technological innovations in humanitarian aid, such as cash transfers, could give the opportunity for decision-making to beneficiaries. Third, the humanitarian agencies are strongly supporting their independence, but in recent years the sector has become more institutionalized by adopting more professional standards and managerial characteristics from other sectors (Clarke and Ramalingam, 2008 and Barnett, 2013). The professionalization and the bureaucratization structures require established hierarchies to function better, so it is no strange that humanitarianism has elements of hierarchy within its organizational structure (Barnett 2013 p.388). Lastly, Barnett recognizes that paternalism is also an organizing principle of humanitarianism (2012). Humanitarian governance might justify any act of intervention in the name of rescuing lives and alleviating suffering even when they do not have the consent for intervening from the target population. Although aid agencies have permission to intervene in many cases, there are cases, especially in emergencies, that the consent is assumed (Barnett, 2013, p.389). In addition to this, there are categories of people who (it is assumed) cannot act in their best interest (i.e., children), so humanitarians could decide on their behalf (Ibid.). The paternalistic aspect of humanitarian governance has raised concern about accountability; humanitarian agencies
are accountable towards their beneficiaries (since they are the “consumers”), but in reality, they are accountable to donors (Barnett, 2013).
3.2 The concept of the Bare life
The concept of “bare life” is extensively explored by Italian philosopher G. Agamben.
His analysis focus on inclusion and exclusion in the political community. Agamben follows Schmitt’s definition of the sovereign as the one deciding on the exception. The
“state of exception” is a form of sovereign power, in which the sovereign can put itself outside of the juridical law (Agamben 1998, p. 16-17). The state is included as excluded, as he notes: “the juridico-political order has the structure of inclusion of what is simultaneously pushed outside” (Agamben 1998, p. 18). He takes as a starting point the classic Greek political philosophy about the term “life,” which in ancient Greek was distinguished in two terms; the zoē (the simple, natural life) and the bios (the proper way of living, the political life) (1998, p. 1). He argues that sovereign power creates the “state of exception” where refugees/asylum seekers are reduced to bare life, thus the zoē (ζωή)
3.2.1 State of exception and camp as “zone of indistinction”
Foucault introduced the concept of biopolitics as the power over the natural life in the modern area, the “administration and the calculated management of life” (Foucault, 1978, p. 140). Expanding the Foucauldian biopolitics on the “state of exception”, Agamben considers that refugees are governed and ruled through biopolitics in a “permanent state of exception” which is “materialized in the form of the camp” where refugees are
“reduced to bare life” (Owens 2009, p. 568, 571). Camps, according to Agamben, are those spaces where the "state of exception” becomes permanent and outside of the normal order (Agamben 1998, p. 96).
Agamben sees the camp as “a zone of indistinction between outside and inside, exception and rule …” and a political place where politics become biopolitics (1998, p. 97). The camp in Agamben’s argument could be understood as the border between bios and zoē, the place where bare life is produced (Lamke 2005, p. 6).
3.3 Conclusion
Humanitarian governance nowadays shows a diversity not only in actors but also in the organizational structures, in technique and rule. Modern humanitarianism has been developing not only on the operational level but also in scholarship (Our very own department is living proof). What I want to underline for this work is that humanitarian governance is a professionalized multisided sector with power and resources.
Humanitarianism is emerging as a new form of governance in the modern world.
The humanitarian governance is a “moving sovereignty” as Agier notes (2010, p. 32), sovereignty that includes those that are left outside of the state’s sovereignty when the state declares an emergency, an exception of its normal order. Moreover, the place where this “sovereign” rule is located in “camp.” In this work, the camp is the place where UASC reside, and they are governed by biopolitics.
4. Empirical Chapter
In this chapter I am going to discuss the humanitarian response to the emergency in Greece and provide the collected data on the unaccompanied minors. The chapter has a double purpose. Firstly, I am going to provide the relevant data in order to answer the first questions of my research. Secondly, I will apply my theoretical concepts on the material derived from these resources.
The selection of the specific resources has been made based on their different approach to the experiences of unaccompanied minors in the aftermath of 2015. They are conducted by well-known organizations and/or academic institutions.
The resources that I am going to use are:
1. Children on the Move in Italy and Greece by UNICED and REACH
2. Children on the Run -Experiences of unaccompanied minors leaving shelters in Greece by Faros, Babel Syn-eirmos, CivisPlus, Merimna, and SolidarityNow.
3. Emergency within Emergency -The growing epidemic of sexual exploitation and abuse of migrant children in Greece by Francois-Xavier Bagnoud (FXB) Center for Health and Human Rights of Harvard University
4.1 Children on the Move in Italy and Greece
This 69-page report was conducted by UNICEF and REACH4 in 2016 and 2017.
In 2016, 33.800 unaccompanied and separated children entered in Europe, most of these children arrived through Italy and Greece. However, little was known about these children’s profiles (UNICEF and REACH 2017, p. 2). The report’s aim is to fill the gap of information on the children’s profile and their living situation in Italy and Greece. For my work, I will use the part which is focused on the profile of UASC in Greece.
4.1.1 The profile of the unaccompanied minors during 2016-2017 Nationalities
According to the report, the nationalities of the children who arrived in Greece came from conflict affected countries, poor areas and places where human and child rights are abused
4 A humanitarian initiative joint of two international non-governmental organizations - ACTED and IMPACT Initiatives - and the UN Operational Satellite Applications Programme) (UNICEF and REACH, 2017).
(REACH & UNICEF, 2017). While accompanied minors who arrived in Greece in 2015- 2016 were mainly from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, the largest groups of unaccompanied came from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Syria (REACH & UNICEF 2017, p. 51). In the first months of 2017 the majority of UASCs come from Pakistan following by Afghanistan and Syria (Ibid.).
Sex and Gender
According to REACH and UNICEF, from January 2016 to May 2017, the age and the gender of the registered unaccompanied minors were 92% boys and 8% girls (2017, p.
50).
The UASCs were between 14-17 years old and only 6% of them were below 14 (Idib). It should be noted that the report does not include the whole of 2017. However, EKKA’s official update states that from 2016 to 2017 the gender distribution was 94% boys and 6% girls (National Center for Social Solidarity, 2017).
Education
Regarding education, the report states that the refugee children in Greece had been out of education from 1 month to 7 years, while in 2016 36% of Syrian children above four years had never been to school (REACH & UNICEF 2017, p. 51-52). However, it should be mentioned that these data do not separate unaccompanied from companied children.
Reasons for migration
The report emphasized that the main drivers that force children to leave their countries are conflict, threats, human rights abuse, prosecution (REACH & UNICEF, 2017) One other factor that motivate children to move is the chance to continue their education in Europe because of the disrupted education in their home countries (i.e. attacks in schools) (REACH & UNICEF 2017, p. 54). Moreover, the report also mentions, children who belong in minority groups leave their countries due to fear of prosecution. For example, Hazara ethnic group in Afghanistan, has been a target of violence. Most of the Afghani unaccompanied minors who arrive in Greece in 2016 were Hazara (Idib.) The report also mentions one more reason of migration is the forced recruitment, in 2016 unaccompanied minors from Afghanistan stated that they decided to leave their country because of the possible recruitment. (REACH & UNICEF 2017, p. 55)
Finally, a study from 2016 by UNHCR revealed that Afghani and Syrian UASC decided to travel alone because their family could not afford to travel with them (REACH &
UNICEF 2017, p. 55).
Dangers of the Journey to Greece
The report notes the dangers that are linked to refugee journey to Greece, more specifically the lack of legal pathways to arrive in Greece, led many unaccompanied minors to depend on smugglers to assist them and endure hardships through the journey (left without food or walk many days) (REACH & UNICEF 2017, p. 57). Furthermore, children reported trafficking and other forms of exploitation during their trip to Europe (REACH &UNICEF 2017, p. 58).
4.1.2 Trapped in Greece
As we have already mention, after the closure of the Western Balkan borders in 2016 many refugees were trapped in Greece. As the report states, by May 2017 1.900 unaccompanied children were in Greece. All the interviewed unaccompanied minors who had a clear destination they consider their residence in Greece temporary (REACH
& UNICEF, 2017, p.58). The report concludes that the UASC who did not have a clear destination in their mind were more likely to stay in Greece. (REACH & UNICEF 2017 p.59)
However, 29 out of 31 interviewed unaccompanied minors expressed that their life in Greece was not as they expected (REACH & UNICEF 2017, p.59). The report emphasizes how the slow legal procedures in asylum applications, reunification and relocation procedures, resulted in situations where the UASC could not settle in Greece and therefore were in a limbo state or attempt to find illegal pathways to travel in Europe (Ibid.).
4.2 CHILDREN ON THE RUN: Experiences of unaccompanied minors leaving shelters in Greece
This 30-page research from 2018 was conducted by five Greek non-governmental organizations (Faros, Babel Syn-eirmos, CivisPlus, Merimna, and SolidarityNow) as part of the project “Following their steps”, funded by the European Programme for Immigration and Integration.
The study mostly focuses on the “absconding” experiences of unaccompanied minors in Greece. By absconding the report is referring to the own decision of the children to leave with or without notice their shelters (Gkioka & Biswas 2018, p.7)
Besides the concept of “absconding”, which itself is interesting to explore, the report also provides inside information on how shelters as a humanitarian services are shaped.
4.2.1 Shelters and Absconding
The responsible governmental organization for coordinating the referrals and placement for UASC in Greece is EKKA. The report, which cites EKKA’s statistical data for UASC, demonstrates that by July 2017, there were in total 2.350 UASC and 52 shelters with an available capacity of 1.226 places. Out of 2.350 UASC, 1.350 were placed in different facilities while waiting to be accommodated in shelters (Gkioka & Biswas 2018, p.6).
(Later, I will present the other accommodation facilities)
Therefore in 2017, half of the unaccompanied minors had the chance to accommodate in shelters, and still, many of them decided to leave the shelters. Why? The study concludes in 7 main reasons:
I. The unaccompanied minors desired a place where they can live peacefully, have access to education, and an opportunity for a better life. Greece was not seen as the country that could offer it (Gkioka & Biswas 2018, p.15).
II. Participants of the research mentioned pressure from family and relatives to continue their journey (either the family had arrived in another country or was in the country of origin) (Gkioka & Biswas 2018, p.16).
III. Delays in the legal and transfer procedures (to a permanent shelter) also contributed to UASC’s decision to abscond (Gkioka & Biswas 2018, p.16).
IV. The shelters’ environment also influenced the decision to leave the premises. On the one hand, some shelters lacked rules and supervision, which created feelings of unsafety. On the other hand, some shelters had extended supervision and regulations, and some UASC felt that they could not adjust since they were used to independence and managing their own lives (Gkioka & Biswas 2018, p.17).
V. Many UASC reported that services provided in the shelters were poor.
Specifically, the limited services and absence of an interpreter created an unwelcoming feeling (Gkioka & Biswas 2018, p.18).
VI. UASC expressed that it was important for their well-being to connect and make friends. Lack of peers in shelters could create absconding circumstances (Gkioka
& Biswas 2018, p.18). In one case, a minor reported that because of the absence
of an interpreter and no other minors talk his language, he had no one to communicate with and thus left the shelter (Ibid.).
VII. Lack of access to education and activities within the shelter significantly impacted minor’s decisions to leave the shelters. Many participants claimed that they wanted to continue their education and gain skills to help them in their future lives.
However, in many cases, that did not happen. As two minors said, their requests for education were not heard from the shelter’s staff, so they decided to leave (Gkioka & Biswas 2018, p.19).
4.2.2 Experiences of absconding
As the study indicates, UASC had varied feelings regarding their decision to leave the shelters. For some minors, the decision to abscond from the shelters worked favorably, either they found a better place to live, or it gave the chance to continue their journey to their chosen destination (Gkioka & Biswas 2018, p.20). While minors left the shelters in an attempt to continue their journey, the fear of being caught by police was also a risk they were willing to take (Ibid.) Several UASC stated that they were used to travel alone and endure the hardships of the journey (Ibid.). Lastly, the report mentions that many UASC, after the closure of the borders in 2016, felt stuck in Greece and attempted to leave the country in other ways, even if they had to try repeated times (Gkioka &Biswas, 2018 p.20).
4.3 EMERGENCY WITHIN EMERGENCY: The growing epidemic of sexual exploitation and abuse of migrant children in Greece”
This 47-page research was conducted by researchers Jacqueline Bhabha and Vasileia Digidiki for the Francois-Xavier Bagnoud (FXB) Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University, with funding from Walker Walsh Humanitarian and Human Rights Fund.
The data was collected during 2016 in Lesvos and Chios islands, where the Aegean route's main entry points are, and in Athens and Thessaloniki as the most populated areas. The study focuses on three main points regarding the unaccompanied minors in Greece: A) The risk indicators of physical, psychological, sexual violence and exploitation, B) Reports abuse in camps and commercial sexual exploitation of unaccompanied minors in Greece C) Explores the gaps in the existing practices for preventing sexual and physical
abuse (Bhabha & Digidiki, 2017). (This chapter is not included since this work does not focus in the sexual exploitation and abuse).
As I have already mentioned, and this study also confirms, accurate data about how many unaccompanied minors are/were in Greece are not available. However, estimations can be made through the referrals to EKKA (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.10).
The study notes that 5,174 UASC were referred to child protection services (EKKA) in 2016. However, the numbers may be higher since unaccompanied minors might have presented themselves as accompanied or adults to accomplish faster legal procedures to continue their journey (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.10-11).
By 2017 there were reported 2.330 unaccompanied minors in Greece who were expecting their asylum claim decisions. From this number, 1.443 unaccompanied children were placed in state custody, thus, in closed centers, police stations and, open facilities mixed with the adult population (Ibid.).
4.3.1 Accommodation types
The study identifies three different types of facilities established and run by governmental and non-governmental agencies: a) First line facilities, actually detention centers which accommodate refugees and migrants who arrived in Greece before the E.U- Turkey agreement, located in Eastern Aegean Islands, like Lesbos, Kos, Chios, Samos, Leros (Ibid). b) Second-line facilities, open camps placed in islands and mainland hosting refugees who arrived in Greece before the E.U- Turkey agreement and also vulnerable groups (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.12). c) Third-line facilities are special protective shelters for unaccompanied minors and very vulnerable refugees. However, they had/have limited capacity (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.11-12). As the study mentions, the more suitable option for accommodating UASC is in third line facilities, but they lack spaces. Thus, many unaccompanied minors had to be accommodated in other facilities, which meant long periods of living in detention centers or amid the adult population in open camps. The environment and conditions of these facilities increased the risks of violence and resulted in poor living conditions (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.12).
4.3.2 Identified Risks factors Living Conditions
The study remarks on the poor living conditions in accommodation sites. Camps were organized in old car parks, factories, and former army facilities and warehouses. Many of these accommodation sites offer minimum protection; no divided sanitary facilities or separated areas for families and children; the usual housing type were/are prefabricated containers (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.13). In many sites, the lighting structure is/was inadequate at night, a fact that increases the risk of violence against women and children.
Some camps offer separated areas for families and children, but families had to share tents with other unknown families (Ibid.) Regarding the UASC, some camps have special zones for them, but by night anyone could have access to the place since there is no protection mechanism. Other camps had "safe zones" where NGOs' staff worked in night shifts, although the number of staff was inadequate for the population (Ibid.). These lacks characterize living conditions for most refugees and unaccompanied minors in Greece.
As the study indicates, these conditions linked to insufficient health access have resulted in spreading diseases such as Hepatitis A, respiratory and ear infections, and chickenpox (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.15).
Delays in Legal Procedures
It has been previously mentioned that legal procedures for adult asylum seekers and UASC in Greece were long-lasting. The increased numbers of asylum claim in 2015 and 2016 affected the Greek asylum system, which was not prepared for it (Bhabha &
Digidiki 2017, p.15). As a consequence, there were extensive delays in the legal processes. In addition, the Relocation program was not close to achieving its goals regarding the transportation of refugees from Greece to other E.U countries. According to the study, by the end of 2016, only 191 unaccompanied minors were relocated to other European countries (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.15)
4.3.3 Violent experiences
The research explores the types of violence that UASC experience in Greece. Firstly, many times UASC are witnesses or participators in riots or fights amongst adults in the camps. These violent incidents impact their psychological well-being in two ways: either it reminds them the violence in their home country either by their active participation in
the fights/riots (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.17). Secondly, although many humanitarian organizations (such as MSF, Red Cross, UNHCR) has pointed out an increase in allegations of sexual assault towards minors, documented incidents are few because of the victims hesitation to come forward due to fear of re-victimization, reprisals, or lack of trust in authorities (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.19). According to the study, the predators could be adults in the camps or even unaccompanied minors in the detention centers (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.20) Third, UASC experience psychological abuse as well. For instance, in the camps, the UASC suffer blackmail by the gang groups (which have been created within camps). This kind of phycological abuse and threats could lead to new circles of other forms of abuse. (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.22) Lastly, the report focuses widely on the sexual exploitation of unaccompanied minors in Greece.
Considering the risk indicators that we showed above, in addition to UASC’s hopes to reach other European countries and the lack of financial resources has led many unaccompanied minors to illegal actions like theft, drug dealing, and transactional sex5 in order to gain some income to pay smugglers or to survive (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017) As the authors mention, "in Athens, the sexual exploitation of refugee children has been witnessed by locals and documented through direct testimonies of migrant children"
(Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.23). The profile of the minors who engaged in transactional sex in Greece is frequently young males, mostly from Afghanistan and less from Syria, Iraq, Bangladesh, and Iran. Some of the minors who engaged in transactional sex presented themselves to authorities as older than 18 to avoid the child protection system (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p.24-25)
5 The authors use the following definition of transactional sex “a commoditized relationship in which sexual acts are exchanged for goods, cash, or benefits, often linked to economic survival, educational achievement, enhancing one’s economic opportunities, or boosting one’s social status” (Greijer & Doek 2016, p.32 cited in Bhabha & Digidiki, 2017) They also mention that all children engaged in transactional are victims of sexual exploitation (Bhabha & Digidiki 2017, p. 23)
5.Discussion
In the discussion chapter, I will first summarize who the unaccompanied minors in Greece are, their needs, and the risks linked to the category. Secondly, I will discuss the aid response through the concept of Humanitarian governance as it is captured by M. Barnett and the bare life theory of G. Agamben.
5.1 The unaccompanied minors in Greece after 2015
Based on reports, the emerging profile of the unaccompanied minor in Greece is a teen boy, 14 to 17 years old, probably from Afghanistan or Pakistan. He traveled alone because of the family's limited financial resources (see section 4.1). It should be mentioned that even if the girls are in a small minority (of the UASC), they still have a presence.
However, there is a little discussion about them in the reports mentioned earlier (in my work as well), which increases the risk of making them doubly invisible.
The UASC fled from his country because of distress situations like conflicts, poverty, or fear of persecution. He most probably is a victim of some form of violence committed either in his home country, during the refugee trip, or/and when he found himself in Greece.
The unaccompanied minor view Greece as a transit station to other European countries and not as a final (desired) destination. When in Greece, the unaccompanied minor has to reside in camps or detention centers and wait to be placed in a proper shelter. The UASC would not only wait to be placed in a shelter but would meet delays in his legal procedures, either for his asylum claim or reunification. Lastly, the unaccompanied minor figure in Greece embeds not only the legal category of the asylum seeker or refugee but also a variety of vulnerabilities.
The needs of the unaccompanied minor as presented from the studied reports include the necessities that should be covered for the person to survive and live in the new country.
For example, food, proper shelter, access to education, psychological support, peers, and legal status allow him to integrate into the new society. However, to what extent those needs are covered for the UASC to not only survive but also live a political life (bare life vs. bios) I will explore below.
The identified risks that we saw in the previous chapter (violence, exploitation) are strongly linked with being a minor (as a vulnerable and humanitarian category), living
focused and sufficient the provided humanitarian assistance, the lower are the risks. In Greece, the humanitarian and state protection system merely covered the very basic needs (if not at all in some cases) and resulted in cases where UASC became victims of violence, both physically and psychologically, or exploited to commercial sex as an effort survive.
However, it should be mentioned that the quality and quantity of humanitarian assistance does not always relate to the risks of violence. There are places in the world where unaccompanied minors' needs are covered and still, they experience violence.
At this point, I want to raise the concern about how the UASC in Greece has been presented. The absence of accurate data presentation of the UASC may hinder the real picture of the UASC and his fate. While also I reduce the unaccompanied minor's image to an underage, teen male individual from Afghanistan or Pakistan, the reality in many individual cases may be a lot or slightly different. The lack of proper presentation of the unaccompanied minors who passed or were in Greece after the summer of 2015 creates a "dark" place in the information about how many and who were those kids. The two official data representation of the unaccompanied minors are given by the Ministry of Labor (which are based on those minors who are identified as unaccompanied by police or who apply for asylum) and EKKA (based on the received accommodation referrals) but, they do not confirm each other (Fyli & Xylanthi 2017, p. 2). The fact that there is no responsible agency to document who and how many unaccompanied minors are in or have passed through Greece is by itself problematic. Firstly, those children are not tracked down efficiently; thus, they become invisible to both state and humanitarian entities.
Secondly, when those children are not tracked down, the risk of being subject to abuse is higher since no one seems to know about them (Fyli & Xylanthi 2017, p.5) (Ferrara et al., 2016). Even in a humanitarian emergency, they are excluded as subjects both from state and aid governance. From another point of view, the fact that there is an amount of UASC who “escape” the identification procedures and pass-through borders unnoticed, shows that the unaccompanied minors are not just passive victims but human beings with agency and independence.
Today, according to EKKA, it is estimated that 4511 UASC are in Greece, of whom 93%
are boys, and 7% are girls. The majority comes from Afghanistan (41%) and Pakistan (26%) (National Center for Social Solidarity, 2020). As we can understand, the demographic figure -at least based on the available data- has not changed since the refugee crisis in 2015.
5.2 The Humanitarian Governance in the Greek context
Taking into account Barnett's concept of humanitarian governance, I found that the humanitarian response in Greece (which also includes the response towards unaccompanied minors) could be examined as a form of governance. However, it should be mentioned that Greece does not belong to the traditional places (such as Africa or the Middle East) of humanitarian governance. However, the so-called refugee crisis turned Greece into "a space of humanitarian intervention" since the situation in Greece was declared officially as an emergency by the UNHCR (Fyli &Xylanthi 2017, p.12), (UNHCR, 2015).
Firstly, as Barnett mentioned the humanitarian governance aim is to save lives (2013);
the actors who carry out the humanitarian actions to achieve this goal could be states, organizations etc. He also mentioned that humanitarianism is (self) characterized as a network since actors cooperate and coordinate in order to achieve a particular task. We can see those characteristics of humanitarian governance in our case.
More specifically, the Greek state, European institutions, and organizations came together in order to assist the refugees. Some of the actions that took place were; the EU’s decision to organize and implement the Relocation6 program , the EU – Turkey statement and Balkan border closure, EU and its institutions (DG ECHO, AMIF) offered financial assistance to Greece in order to handle the refugee population that remained in the country, a variety of (I)NGOs and UNHCR, IOM offered the direct services to the asylum seekers and refugees.
As we saw earlier (Chapter 3.3.1) Barnett recognizes paternalism as an organizing principle of humanitarian governance (2013). Humanitarianism is linked with actions based on the ethics of saving and assisting lives in need. However, frequently it leaves outside the participation of the group for which intervention is carried out. Those elements of paternalism are also showed from the reports where the voices of children are slightly heard. The power over the UASC from both Greek state and humanitarian agencies is manifested through all the policies and programs that are supposed to provide what is best
6The relocation scheme set up by Council Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and 2015/1601 in September 2015, for a target of 160,000 asylum seekers, was designed as an emergency measure to alleviate pressure on Italy and Greece and constitutes a partial derogation to the Dublin Regulation rules” (Greek Council for Refugees, n.d. p. 1)
for the UASC but without their participation in decision-making (Fyli & Xylanthi, 2017, p. 8). More importantly, these elements of paternalism in humanitarianism are part of a process of depoliticization; the UASC are perceived as a mute aid receiver, whose best interest lies in humanitarian worker's perceptions or the authorities of the hosting state.
Moreover, according to Barnett one of the rule technics of humanitarian governance is to operate through bureaucratic procedures; those bureaucratic procedures are expressed on several operational practices and norms and in how the humanitarian organization offers its services. At this point, allow me to share an experience from my professional past.
When I was working as a caseworker for a non-governmental organization in Greece, for every action I had to take – any action should always be in the context of the operational procedures – I had to inform the higher-ranked experts at the headquarters and at the end of the day I had to write down every action I took. If a minor requested a simple medicine, he had to wait until I had followed all the bureaucratic steps in order to take or not the green light to cover it. A minor in need would not necessarily understand all the background processes, and what he finally receives is a long delay for a medicine. In this sense, the bureaucratic procedures are given priority instead of the human needs (in this case, UASC) which seems incompatible with humanitarian purposes. In their research, Mishra et al. (2020) found that Afghan and Pakistan unaccompanied minors in Greece understood all the bureaucratic entities that they met in Greece as one unified institution.
Therefore, they perceived the NGO staff as an authority responsible for them and not different from the staff of other bureaucratic institutions. This perception of a unifying bureaucratic entity could have unwanted consequences for the relationship between the humanitarian workers and the unaccompanied minors. For example, if a minor interacts with a busy, indifferent employee of an agency may be suspicious of the next bureaucratic representative of an NGO that he will meet.
Additionally, interactions with NGO staff (thus, humanitarian workers) shape UASC’s understanding of their new environment; when the staff is being supportive towards UASC, they are likely to stay in Greece and integrate, while when they find an unsupportive environment, most likely they will try to leave Greece illegally (Mishra et al., 2020). This argument is also supported by the finding of the absconding report (See Chapter 3).
Finally, I discussed earlier the humanitarian response process in the so-called refugee crisis in Greece (See Chapter 2) and through the reports is sketched the primary responses to the needs of the unaccompanied minors. I found that even the traditional form of
humanitarianism, which seeks to save lives and alleviate suffering, in the case of the UASC did not accomplish its goal; since there were/are still minors who live in precarious conditions and engage in perilous activities to survive.
5.3 Is humanitarian aid just enough to "save" the UASC?
Departing from the analysis of humanitarianism as a form of governance, I will discuss how this governance appears as sovereignty. Following Agamben’s thought about “state of exception” I argue that when Greece's situation was declared as a humanitarian emergency, it became what Agamben calls “a place of exception” and the establishment of humanitarian sovereignty. I will use the help of an imaginary scene to explain the order and the exception. As order and normality are the Greek state and its citizens, who live their lives unruptured. At the same time, from 2015, there are people who are arriving in the borders of the country, and conflicts and other hazardous situations have ruptured their lives. Immediately, we have two-paced worlds; one of the Greek citizens and one of the people who arrived in Greece and are considered (and they are) in need. At the same time, the citizens continue their lives, and the asylum seekers have to adjust their lives in this new environment, either by staying in Greece or continuing their journey. The state cannot take care of the newcomers' needs, so it has gone out of its normality and take measures to adjust in the new situation/emergency. Those measures or actions are implemented by the humanitarians, which as "moving sovereignty," establish their presence in emergency cases. The humanitarian sovereignty or governance is also spatially located in the spaces where the newcomers are stationed, the refugee camps.
Following Agamben’s argument, the camp is the place where the exception is permanent and outside of the normal, thus in this work, the camp is the place of exception, the place where refugees/UASC reside and humanitarians govern. I focus on the unaccompanied minors, who neither are citizens of the Greek state neither adults. They are children alone and into (more or less) a legal limbo. The state has a responsibility towards them since they do not have legal caregivers. The UASC are a particular (legal and social) category who are excluded from the state's normality but included in the camp as a particularly vulnerable figure. In the camp, the UASC are governed by the humanitarian agencies.
Agamben considers that in camp the politics turn into biopolitics; hence, the lives of UASC are organized and managed through biopolitics exercised by humanitarian actors.
For Foucault, the biopolitics constitute how power over life was deployed in the modern
era (Foucault, 1978). Reidfied, in his work "Borders, Doctors and Life in Crisis"
considers that the "refugee camp explicitly defines biopolitics in terms of the preservation of life where it has otherwise been abandoned or put at risk" (2015, p. 341). By the term of biopolitics, I am referring to all these actions health care provisions, psychological support, accommodation, legal assistance that humanitarian agencies provide to the unaccompanied minors in order to "alleviate their suffering”. Fyli and Xylanthi note that the UASC are "framed as subjects to be governed to be saved from distress, processed in centers, provided with aid, screened for potential risks" (Perkowski 2016 cited in Fyli &
Xylanthi 2017, p. 7). The biopolitics, are focused on the body of UASC (i.e. health care) and life management (i.e. accommodation). Humanitarianism is as a form of governance with paternalistic elements that focuses in life itself in a sort of biopolitics par excellence, where the UASC lives perceived as lives worth just to be saved from the distress.
Humanitarianism reduces the minors to the "bare life," the simple survival life rather it recognized them as a political being. The “bare life” is understood as just a body that needs to be saved, healed, or accommodated. What seems to be left outside from both state and humanitarianism is the bios (the political life) of the UASC, the exclusion of the unaccompanied minors' political life, their narratives, and their voices. This depoliticization process does not seem to be considered a failure of the humanitarian system but rather as a humanitarian governance element. For example, the reports highlight the minors' survival needs and the failure of humanitarianism to respond to them. The evaluation of humanitarian intervention is measured by the numbers of how many UASC are accommodated. And of course, those the crucial needs that should and must be covered.
Nevertheless, what happens beyond the satisfaction of the basic needs, and when we discuss children, is there any place where their political voice could be heard?
6. Conclusion
Unaccompanied minors are a special category of children and adolescents whose particular characteristics should be taken into account by the policy and humanitarian sectors. What makes these kids so special? Apart from the fact that we are talking about children (even if childhood is differently understood in different cultures and contexts), they are forced to leave their countries, leave behind their homes, friends, families to reach an imagined country that they hope will offer them what their own country could not provide; security, education, opportunities. While unaccompanied minors need humanitarian assistance, primarily when the host state cannot assist them, they also need to be treated as political beings, with a conscience, history, and voice. As my research has shown, the unaccompanied minors in Greece in the majority are boys in their teenage years from Pakistan and Afghanistan, who have to live in poor conditions, and even when they transfer to shelters, there is a high possibility to abscond. While in Greece, the unaccompanied minors may suffer different types of violence (phycological, sexual, and physical). The so-called refugee crisis found Greece unprepared (as the country was already struggling to stabilize financially from the previous economic crisis). The humanitarians were left to handle the emergency, the state of exception.
To conclude and answer my second question, I showed that humanitarianism as a form of governance establishes in the camp where refugees and, consequently, unaccompanied minors are governed by biopolitics. The way that humanitarian governance has been shaped and how it governs, I see it as an operation that takes off every layer of the political existence of the unaccompanied minors (and refugees in general). I argue that humanitarian governance can be understood together with Agamben’s theory as a reduction of (in particular unaccompanied children) refugees as bare life.
Finally, I would like to add that even this work, which focuses on the unaccompanied minors, essentially leaves them out, since I did not do a qualitative study, one to one interview research, which would have allowed me to include UASC voices. Moreover, what should be mentioned is that unaccompanied minors are mostly kept in some distance at every level in the academic and humanitarian domains. In the foreground is usually the (white, western) adult. The presence of the UASC is limited to our presentation for them, and their voices are heard through us. But is this enough?
7. References
1. Agamben, G., 1998. Sovereign power and bare life, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
2. Agier, M., 2010. Humanity as an Identity and Its Political Effects (A Note on Camps and Humanitarian Government). Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, 1(1), pp.29-45.
3. Anon, Προεδρικό Διάταγμα 220/2007 - ΦΕΚ Α-251/13-11-2007. e- nomothesia.gr. Available at: https://www.e-nomothesia.gr/kat- allodapoi/prosphuges-politiko-asulo/pd-220-2007.html.
4. Bhabha, J. and Digidiki, V., 2017. Emergency Within An Emergency: The Growing Epidemic Of Sexual Abuse And Exploitation Of Migrant Children In Greece. [online] Boston: FXB Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University. Available at: <https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2464/2020/01/Emergency-Within-an-Emergency- FXB.pdf> [Accessed 5 September 2020].
5. Bhabha, J., 2014. Child migration et human rights in a global age, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press.
6. Buchanan, A. and Kallinikaki, T., 2018. Meeting the needs of unaccompanied children in Greece. International Social Work, 63(2), pp.206-219.
7. Chan, S., 2016. Balkan Nations Shut Down March of Migrants. The New York Times, [online] Available at:
<https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/world/europe/europe-refugee- crisis.html> [Accessed 10 August 2020
8. Clarke, P. and Ramalingam, B., 2008. Organisational change in the
humanitarian sector. In: Seventh Review Of Humanitarian Action. [online]
London: ALNAP, pp.21-82. Available at:
<https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/toc/7rha-prel_0.pdf>
[Accessed 6 September 2020].
9. De Radigues, L. & Gammarelli, L., 2016. Applying the European Commission’s humanitarian expertise to respond to needs inside Europe. Humanitarian
Exchange Magazine. Available at: https://odihpn.org/magazine/refugees- vulnerable-migrants-europe/.
