Refugee repatriation and human rights
On May 9 2014, The Nation published an article titled ‘UNHCR repatriates 44 refugees’. Despite that the article mentioned that the repatriation process was voluntary, it remains questionable considering that refugees’ views on the matter are often marginalised. Although repatriation has generally been understood to mean the physical return of refugees to their countries of origin, I feel that it has not been adequately addressed. As someone currently doing a project on refugee repatriation, it made me realise there was need for clarity on the issue.
To understand the origins of repatriation, it is important to view it from the context of the Cold War. At the end of the Second World War, much of what is currently considered the developed world experienced a decline in population. The majority of the refugees at that time were from Europe and escaping persecution. Between the years 1945 and 1947, refugees were repatriated to their home countries with the help of the International Refugee Organisation (IRO). At the time, repatriation was viewed as one of the ideal solutions made available to the refugees.
The other solutions included resettlement in a third country and local integration. Since most of the western States were desperately in need of human resource to drive their economies, they relied on refugees from the eastern parts of Europe. It had its advantages on the part of western States in that most of them were white, anti-communist and educated. This further made it possible for most western States at that time to be sympathetic to their cause. This would also give impetus to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The 1951 definition emphasises that an individual can only be accorded refugee status if they had experienced persecution in their country of origin.
Although voluntary repatriation was articulated in numerous United Nations conventions as well as the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, it was not emphasised practically. This was because many western nations did not view it as a feasible solution at the time. Emphasis was placed on resettling the eastern European refugees. Some scholars have regarded this as a ploy on the part of western States to discredit communism.
It would take 30 years for the issue of repatriation to resurface. This was largely in response to the growing wave of refugees coming from the Third World. No longer did refugees have to justify their escape based on persecution. Other factors such as ecological disasters and internal displacement would begin challenging the refugee definition as found in the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Moreover, the dynamics of the refugee population would also change in that the current refugees would no longer fit the profile of being white and anti-communist as was the case during the Cold War. This further led to efforts being made to expand the refugee definition as was found with the 1967 Refugee Protocol and the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Status of Refugees. Despite this, the reality is that an individual is still accorded refugee status on political grounds.
In the past, emphasis was placed on resettling refugees to a third country or integrating them in the local community. This is no longer the case in the post-Cold War period. Although there have been a few isolated cases whereby refugees coming from the Third World have been resettled in developed countries, the reality is that the immigration policies of most western States are making it almost impossible for that to happen.
It appears that the only solution for refugees coming from the Third World is repatriation. Principally, repatriation is said to be voluntary, but this is questionable considering that refugees are forced to return to their countries when conflicts are still rife. Moreover, not much effort has been made to understand the ideas underpinning repatriation. Policy-makers are often left to their own devices merely because they do not have any information that would help influence their decisions regarding the repatriation of refugees. In addition, refugees’ voices are being ignored simply because the decisions taken by States and agencies often take precedence. As such, humanitarianism has become nothing more than rhetoric.
I believe that repatriation should be considered a human rights concern. This is especially if refugees’ views are not taken into account. Refugees are best positioned to determine their fate when it comes to repatriation. Irrespective of whether peace has returned to their countries or not, the fact remains that if the voices of the refugees are not considered, then repatriation is nothing more than involuntary. What is needed is a holistic understanding to repatriation which includes the social, physical, psychological as well as the economic aspects of it without which it becomes nothing more than just a mere exercise that does not take the rights of refugees into account. n
The author is a doctoral candidate in anthropology.
