Dominik Bartsch has been the UNHCR Representative to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan since 2020. From 2005–2006 he served as a humanitarian affairs officer at UN Peacekeeping in Geneva. From 2006–2008 he served in the UN Office of Peacebuilding Support, and was subsequently deployed to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General. Earlier assignments with the UN include operations in Afghanistan, Kenya, Zambia, and Trinidad and Tobago. From 2008–2015 he held various positions at UNHCR, from operations manager in Sudan to deputy humanitarian coordinator in Iraq. Then, from 2017–2019, he served as UNHCR representative to Germany.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
H.D. Wright: What first drew you to the life of a humanitarian?
Dominik Bartsch: I’m an accidental humanitarian. I was originally trained to be a development economist. My very first exposure with development agencies was dealing with foreign investment — intellectually fulfilling, but I couldn’t attribute my work to any direct change in the lives of people. I was naturally drawn to working in a field that would allow me to trace the impact I was making. After my very first job, I came to UNHCR, and since then I always had the sense of knowing that I serve people. Coming home in the evening, I would know exactly what I have contributed to. I know I have supported the betterment of a group of people who are among the most destitute refugees.
HDW: If I’m not mistaken, you are of German origin. In 1992, roughly around the time you began working in the humanitarian sector, xenophobic riots took place in the Lichtenhagen district of Rostock, Germany, marking the worst mob attacks against migrants in post-war Germany. And throughout the 90s, hate crimes rose from roughly 800 in 1991 to nearly 1,500 in 1992, continuing to rise throughout the decade. As you entered your career caring for refugees, how did you reckon with the rise of anti-refugee sentiment?
DB: What we witness in several countries across the West is basically a mindset that is not defined per-say as xenophobic or anti-foreigner or anti-refugee, but is premised on harkening back to traditional values. The fact that many of those movements coincide with national issues around the admission of refugees is more of a trigger. Rapid globalization has left many people deeply disillusioned and unsure of where they fit in. They have relied on set values, and all of a sudden are exposed to many different movements within society that are thoroughly destabilizing. The psychological explanation is perhaps some form of discombobulation — not being sure of who you are. In searching to affirm identity, some people fall back on simple explanations and radical ideas.
The debate has divided society into one group who wants to help, and another who objects to that very notion. Sometimes there are very strong ideological views, but with time, they are watered down. The situation evolves.
In 2015, close to a million Syrians arrived in Germany. Of course, there were massive challenges in the beginning. They didn’t speak any German. There was no real master plan on how to absorb them into the workforce. Today, seven years later, more than 80 percent of those Syrian arrivals are working. They have learned German. They have entered the labor market. They have integrated into German society — joining the local football club, having a barbeque with the neighbors — those typical German pastimes. That normalcy completely takes the pressure out of the populist agenda.
HDW: I’d like to hear your response to a quote, if you would be so kind as to oblige. Björn Höcke, head of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) political party, said: “Let’s not forget, the Syrian who comes to us has still his Syria. The Afghan who comes to us has still his Afghanistan. But if we lose our Germany, then we have no more home!”
DB: This is standard fare in populist propaganda. It is the fear of being subjugated by another culture, of losing your identity. It is easy for politicians to play on that fear, to magnify it. If you are sober-minded in your historical analysis, you will find many examples of both forced and voluntary migration that have provided many more benefits than challenges to one’s identity. When a group of Parsi refugees arrived in India, the king in Gujarat did not want to let them stay. To make the point, the king filled a glass with milk, and said “The glass if full. There is no space left for you.” The leader of the Parsis then poured a few spoons of sugar into the glass of milk, stirred it slowly, and said, “This is how we will be.”
What is very interesting is how societies respond to refugees from neighboring countries as opposed to those arriving from further afield. They have seen people from this country. They are culturally close to us. In any society, the readiness to admit refugees is greatest when it concerns the neighbors for the simple reason that they are known. The refugee convention is premised on a global definition of who should be considered a refugee, regardless of where they may come from.
