The end of the refugee cycle

During the immediate post-1945 era, refugees from eastern Europe were expected to settle permanently in exile in Europe or North America. Most did so. Between the late 1950’s and the early 1970’s, the main cause of refugee generation was anti-colonialism in countries of the South, and especially African countries. During this period repatriation following the victory of ’freedom fighters’ (Rogge, 1985&) was commonplace (Stein, 1992). During these periods, then, the way in which the refugee cycle would end for most individuals was largely predicted, and these predictions were normally accurate.

However, since the mid-1970 s, the end of the refugee cycle has become a difficult concept. Until the recent exodus from ex-Yugoslavia, refugees have overwhelmingly been concentrated in the poorer countries of the world. According to Black (1993a), in 1991 27 low-income countries, each with a level of GNP per capita of less than $500, were host to almost half of the total number of refugees in the world. Sometimes permanent settlement in these first countries of exile has been possible: examples of resettlement schemes during the 1980 s are the Etsha scheme for Angolan refugees in Botswana; the Katumba, Ulyankulu and Mishamo schemes for Rwandese and Burundian refugees in Tanzania, settlements such as Qala en Nahal for refugees from Zaire, Chad, Eritrea and

Uganda in Sudan (Rogge, 19852?), and more recently the Ukwimi scheme for Mozambicans in Zambia (Black, et.al, 1990). However, naturalisation programmes and resettlement schemes have been problematic (Bascom, 1991; Daley, 1991; Gasarasi, 1990a; Gorman, 1986). There is also little doubt that despite the potential benefits which a refugee population can infer upon a host country and its population (Kibreab, 1985; Rogge, 19856; Smythe, 1987), the sheer numbers involved preclude large-scale permanent settlement. For the relatively small numbers who can be included, the option is also expensive (Harrell-Bond, 1989).

For the same reasons, third country resettlement in another country in the developing world has not usually been a viable solution. At the same time, countries of the North have generally maintained a very low resettlement ceiling for refugees from the South since the resettlement of ’quota’ refugees mainly from South East Asia (Bach, 1989). According to Rogers (1993), in 1991 only ten countries in North America or Europe announced refugee resettlement quotas, making 156,800 resettlement places available in total.

In this context, repatriation has become the favoured solution, both because it returns refugees to their home areas, but also because it represents the cheapest option for the international community (Coles, 1985; Harrell-Bond, 1989). Repatriation is itself, however, a ’not-so-simple’ solution (Rogge, 1991).

The majority of refugees both in the South, but also currently in ex-Yugoslavia, have fled circumstances which do not have foreseeable solutions comparable to the end of anti-colonial struggles, for example. Kibreab (1991) identified the five major categories of contemporary refugee flight in Africa as: South Africa’s destabilisation policies; the denial of the right of self-determination for groups annexed to others by former colonial powers; tyranny of some political leaders; religious persecution, and forcible relocation or villagisation. Again the point must be made that these may be underlying causes of flight, however even precipitant factors such as famine or drought are themselves often severe and lasting.

the repatriation of some 40,000 Namibian refugees in 1990 (Gasarasi, 19906; Simon and Preston, 1993). Indeed so great were the hopes of the UNHCR for large-scale repatriations at the beginning of this decade that it was dubbed the ’decade of repatriation’ (Rogers, 1993). However this optimistic forecast has so far been disappointed (Stein, 1992). In some cases, wars which were partly fuelled by the super powers, and the settlement of which was expected with the rise to political hegemony of the United States following the collapse of Communism (Dacyl, 1990), such as in Afghanistan, have continued even after the withdrawal of super power patronage. In other cases, such as Angola and Cambodia, the settlement of internal wars has proved short­ lived, and the peace process shown to be fragile (Ogata, 1993). In the case of Mozambique, where peace has by and large been maintained, the transition to a properly secure situation has been slow and compounded by problems such as drought in northern Mozambique which has actually generated a further exodus.

However, it is not only the nature of conditions in refugee generating countries which has made repatriation a difficult solution. Cuny and Stein (1989) demonstrated the ineffectuality of the UNHCR in repatriation programmes. Partly this relates to a shortage of funds in UNHCR coffers, which has meant that some repatriation programmes have been put on hold, one example being that of Mozambicans in Malawi (Wilson and Nunes, 1991). They also asserted that the principles of the UNHCR are too inflexible to cope with the circumstances of many contemporary repatriation initiatives. For example, a reluctance to deal with non-recognised entities means that the UNHCR cannot support return movements to areas held by those entities. Also, in satisfying one half of its mandate, the protection of refugees, UNHCR errs to the side of caution before condoning or supporting repatriation initiatives to the extent that the other half of the mandate, solution, is often precluded.

The problems associated with repatriation may also be linked with the refugees themselves (Crisp, 1986; Rogge, 1991; Rogge and Akol, 1989). Particularly in the context of long periods of exile, refugees may become socially or culturally incorporated in the host country, or economically dependent, to the extent that they do not wish to repatriate. Repatriation for some might also make them economically vulnerable. Refugees may also undergo political transformation, for example several Afghan refugee

camps in Pakistan became hot beds of Islamic fundamentalism such that refugees had new political demands of the home government which were not related to the root causes of flight (2Letter, 1988). On the flip-side, refugees may not always be welcomed by home governments upon their return. These sorts of problems raise questions about how much pressure should be applied upon refugees to repatriate. Crisp (1984a, 19846) describes two examples where the dividing line between voluntary repatriation and forcible repatriation {’refoulement') became blurred.

The above discussion paints a bleak picture of the prospects for repatriation, and of a crisis of durable solutions generally. The impact of resultant long periods in exile can be deleterious for both refugees and host countries (Chambers, 1986); indeed the economic, social and environmental impact of Mozambican refugees in Malawi was an important theme in the 1992 Blantyre ’Conference on First Country o f Asylum and Development Aid in M alawi’ (especially Bonga, 1992; Kakhome, 1992). However, self-repatriation has

still occurred on a quite large scale. A number of recent studies have demonstrated the tenacity and self-sufficiency of refugees in negotiating their own repatriations, outside of an institutional framework.

The Intertect Institute’s project on ’Spontaneous Voluntary Refugee Repatriation’, co­ ordinated by Cuny and Stein since 1988, has stressed that there have been a range of repatriations over the last ten years, of which official repatriation, in the context of some of the institutional obstacles discussed above, has played a decreasing part. It is estimated that over this period self-repatriation has accounted for more than half the repatriation movements worldwide (Stein, 1991). Often refugees have returned without the settlement of conflict in the home area (Stein and Cuny, 1991; Cuny and Stein, 1992). The findings of Stein and Cuny have not been based upon their own fieldwork: however they have been supported by a number of case studies, including thosejcontainedin a recent edited volume of repatriation in Central America (Larkin et.al, 1991) and many of those presented at the UNRISD ’Symposium on Social and Economic Aspects o f Mass Voluntary Return o f Refugees from One African Country to Another’, a number of which appear in a forthcoming edited volume (Allen and Morsink, 1993).

repatriation types which makes repatriation a complex process to understand. Even within the same refugee population, some people self-repatriate, others repatriate officially, and others intend not to repatriate. Also, different people repatriate at different times, for different reasons and in different units, as in-depth studies by Wilson (1991) and Wilson and Nunes (1991) have demonstrated in the context of Mozambique. Repatriation is therefore not a clearly understood process or concept.