Information concerning security and the end of the war

An important distinction emerged between the categories of ’security’ and ’the end of the war’. It became quite clear during interviews that most respondents were not interested in the security situations in their destination areas at the time of the interview. Their priority was information about the end of the war, by which they meant a national ceasefire, not locally negotiated peace enclaves. This observation has an interesting implication for the argument, made in Chapter 2, that in understanding refugee flight an analytical distinction between the underlying cause and the immediate precipitant of flight needs to be made. Of course for some respondents the fear that insecurity in their areas of destination, while temporarily absent, might reappear while the war still continued, was great. However, for others the removal of the immediate precipitant of their flight was no longer a sufficient condition for their return. Their priorities had expanded to include economic, social and political stability, which conditions it was perceived might only be achieved by the end of the war.

Initially I assumed that the low interest in the current security situation reflected the fact that respondents did not intend to return until the end of the war when long term and lasting peace would be secured. Certainly several were too traumatised to run the risk of return during conflict. What became apparent, however, was that for many the end of the war in fact represented more than just security. In the cases of the respondents from whose interviews the following two excerpts are taken, both had reliable information that it was now safe in their areas of destination, yet were determined not to return until the end of the war:

’I’ll return to Chia when the war ends [even though] my brother has sent two letters, the last was last week [which say] the situation is safe’ (J:44) ’I ’ll return when the war finishes [although] I heard from my mother that there are no attacks any more’ (J:46)

For such respondents, security was only one of a host of priorities for return, and it was felt that only the end of the war could provide an environment in which they might all be satisfied. One such additional priority was economic, and some respondents associated the end of the war with the provision of aid and assistance in Mozambique:

’I won’t go until the Government gives me assurances of assistance...they won’t do that until the end of the war’ (C:71)

’As soon as its peaceful I’ll go back because I’ll get assistance...but if the Government doesn’t help, I’ll come back to Malawi’ (C:122)

In fact for some the end of the war had been elevated to the status of a symbolic notion; it represented a panacea which would dispel all problems:

’Bandits only exist where there is no freedom: there’ll be none after the peace’ (J:15)

Another indication of this symbolic evaluation of the end of the war was the notion expressed by many that anyone could be trusted after the war, thus many respondents who had expressed distrust of institutional information transmitters during the war, said that they would nevertheless trust them once the war was over:

’When the Government in Mozambique tells me its safe. I’ll go home. It doesn’t matter whether they’re FRELIMO or RENAMO’ (C:83)

’At the end of the colonial war FRELIMO dropped leaflets out of aeroplanes over Tanzania to tell us it was safe. I’ll believe the war’s over when I see those leaflets again: it doesn’t matter who drops them’ (M:24)

In contrast, other respondents had a more realistic grasp of likely conditions in Mozambique following a ceasefire. Some recognised that the end of the war might not result in real peace:

I don’t know when the war will finish, but when it does I’ll go back...I’m not convinced that the end of the war will bring safety’ (K:58)

’Not only me, but the whole camp wants to return when the war ends. Bandits and mines don’t worry me - we survived under the Portuguese, so we’ll survive after the war’ (C:8)

Others seemed unwilling to leave the relative material comfort of Malawi which they expected to still exist following the end of the war, but at the same time realised that this would be the time when they would be expected to leave:

’I’ll go when the war finishes, because that’s when the Government of Malawi will chase me out’ (C:72)

This raises an important point which underlines certain of the constrictions which go hand-in-hand with refugee status. According to the ’model o f a repatriation information system’, the decision whether to repatriate was based upon a comparison of conditions in exile and at home, and an assessment of the relative merits of the two. However, some respondents realised that even after the war in Mozambique, to stay in Malawi might well offer a more favourable opportunity for economic welfare; but equally realised that at that time their right to remain in exile might be withdrawn, so that the decision would be in effect taken from them. Of course it could be argued that if conditions in the country of origin become safe after the end of a war, then refugee status by definition becomes nullified. If those people in exile plan not to return basically because of the economic merits of remaining in exile, then perhaps they can be better described as economic migrants. This notion of the potential metamorphosis of refugees into another type of migrant is an important one to bear in mind.