A. INTRODUCTION
It occurred to me to write an article on this subject to highlight some practices that I have lived in the United Nations which perhaps we should avoid if we have a clear mind. Still, we seem unable to move beyond. Why? It just is complicated, but let me start with a narrative of real life outside and come back to the UN, since in the end, I am a product of that system.
Nollywood
Since after my 3 years in Nigeria, I frequently like to be glued to the TV to watch Nigerian movies running family dramas, most of which we can identify with (that is the cultural attraction!). This one is a simple lesson in its construct, but/and is plotted in a way that conveys to the viewer how incongruent and counterproductive are some of our human reactions to life in community.
This one story is about a middle-aged man who is dazzled by a beautiful young woman, with a nice derrière (nyash) that one cannot avoid noticing. They get to marry and after a few months of marriage, the true colors of the woman manifest themselves: he discovers that he married a woman who is not just domineering, but is nasty to his family, to his friends, a very bad social behaviour, including coming home drunk and no food on the table, clothes unclean, house only kept together by a house girl. Nasty, insulting at every opportunity for anything and for nothing, intolerant of in-laws. This sorry state goes on for two years, until the man cannot take it any further, he is asking for divorce. Her immediate response every time the man raises it: the day you try to divorce me, you will be dead meat!
In this case, the man is the victim, but the plot could just have been the other way: the roles are reversible. The question in every viewer’s mind is: is any of the two managing to enjoy that marriage? I, for one, cannot even get sexual excitement in such a monstruous situation. It is not a state of relationship where I would spend much time, death, or no death!
But more logically and less emotionally, the questions would be: is this a real family? Can husband and wife manage to play or pray together? Can they raise kids?
B. MY UNHCR HOME
In my career with this UN organization, I have witnessed a few operational approaches and practices that I found socially perverse and over which I have firmly expressed opposition. But these were entrenched practices and staff have been made to believe that these were the recommended approaches. Let me describe three situations:
(a) Orphanages[1]
Starting in the Rwanda tragedy of 1994, I have seen orphanages in refugee camps, run by well-meaning NGOs. I have always asked: these orphanages will run until the children reach which age? And then what? Of course there was a service of family tracing for separated children, but that is a small chapter of the entire story. Fortunately, we did not have to address this question because two years down the line, all Rwandan refugees were militarily repatriated. That was Kagera Region.
(b) Protection Spaces
a. Protection Villages
I observed in Kigoma Region (1996) existence of what was called a “protection camp” of no more than 300 refugees, purportedly at risk of aggression by other refugees due to their ethnicity, or due to mixed marriages (of ethnic groups in fierce political opposition in their countries of origin). They could not live in the other camps. Was that a solution? What would happen upon return to their country of origin? In what form would the separation continue in their country of origin?
Thus far, I am narrating 1994-1999, my younger and junior days. Twenty years later, I return to Tanzania as Representative of UNHCR. Whatever was then happening became my full responsibility (the buck stops at me). This point needs emphasizing so as not to interpret my essay as a criticism of my dedicated team, which was thoroughly frustrated when I arrived. Why? Water under the bridge, that is not my focus here.
In my first field visit, I was shown a “protection village” in each camp. A mishmash of individual social problems was swept here, from albinos to people accused of sorcery, of having caused accidentally the death of another refugee, the handicapped, etc. Apparently, the refugees in these spaces felt safer separated from their community, with a security fence, a security enterprise providing guards, and duly visited by NGOs and UNHCR staff. A camp within a camp.
b. Safe houses
Within “the camp within the camp”, there was also a separate set of houses called “safe houses”, for children abused by their parents or relatives, wives running away from abusive husbands and other more intimate family dysfunctions.
C. DISCUSSION
And what did the separated refugees tell me? They wanted their own school, their own clinic, their own water point, their own relief distribution centre. In summary, they wanted a miniature replica of the camp. And they wanted resettlement.
As a matter of fact, even NGO partners and UNHCR staff were looking to the Representative for some innovative answers to this protection construct without an exit strategy. My immediate reaction was severe: is this a sustainable practice? How do you collect food? “Under escort, after all other refugees have collected theirs”. And how are you going to repatriate? “We are rather expecting resettlement”. On this one, I deflated them immediately. And not with a smile.
I then shared my reflections with my protection experts in the country verbally and in writing:
I did not like, nor did I believe in the efficiency of the concept of protection village or space.
The protection village was not a solution, but a problem, where we, humanitarian agencies, were taking upon ourselves the responsibilities of the community for providing the first line protection of its members. When would they learn to protect their own? Substitution instead of subsidiarity disempowers people.
Resettlement prospects become a reason for refugees to refuse to integrate in the community and it encourages them to portray themselves as the helpless victims of their own community of origin for whom there would be only one solution (resettlement or death)! Considering that resettlement was not absorbing more than perhaps 5% of the refugee case group, what next for the other 95%?
The protection village was a waste or resources best applied elsewhere.
And as a bonus, the refugee government department wanted to replace the civilian company providing security in the village with SUMA-JKT, a para-military government organization, (a) against the principle of civilian character of refugee camps, (b) without public tendering. It would not pass with me, of course.
In summary, nobody could convince me that the protection village was any sort of solution. It multiplied business processes and increased operation costs without providing a credible sustainable answer to the protection issues.
It made the refugees in the protection village ore vulnerable, with little dignity and mentally limited (best described by the Portuguese expression “mentecapto” – with a captured mind.
It robbed the community of the opportunity to develop organizational capabilities, to provide social protection to the more vulnerable members of their own community.
That was for me as manager a clear missed opportunity of “doing no harm”. How did we end up in this what the French call “cul de sac”, the Portuguese call “beco sem saída”, a type of road with no exit?
Very soon it became clear to me that it was not the lack of analysis on the part of the team in the offices in the field or in Dar-es-Salaam, but rather the result of more powerful administrative forces that thrived on the misery of refugees. UNHCR was actively prevented from forging alliances with some of the best social practices of which Tanzania is known for, perhaps among the best in Africa. I was met by a group of middle-level cadres ready to sing the political, social and economic achievements of the country, but just as ready to prevent other Africans from benefitting from these national achievements. In any case, not the refugees, whom they treated with contempt.
Otherwise, I was ready to mobilize resources and engage other branches of government. Tanzania has dealt successfully with the issue of albinos, the orphans and all sorts of social issues. In fact, there was a Ministry of Health, Community Development, the Elderly and Children. Here was the full spectrum of expertise necessary in the refugee camps, including the classic issue of cross-border movement of people who bring health issues with them. we were dealing with all the social issues, but without the recognized expertise. What best institution to cooperate with, with the constitutional national line mandate to oversee all and any individuals in the national space (refugee, expatriate, visitor, national, fugitive, prisoner, tourist, transiting traveler, etc)?
“No, that is not in the Refugee Act!” said always, and with alacrity, the government branch in charge of refugees. As I argued earlier, and given the complex, rich, long and sensitive history of refugees hosted in Tanzania, the Act needs amending. Secondly, human lives are more important than the self-serving interpretation of an Act that should be resubmitted for review[2]. Except the political moment needs to be chosen carefully to avoid that good intentions do more harm to the institution of asylum. The excessive centralization as a tradition of how business is conducted makes people limited in their reflections. Limited minds also tend to limit other minds through strict control, if that is ever possible, by the raw exercise of power. Control as the essence of a relationship!
So, I left with no regrets, but without bequeathing any better solution to my team. I still believe, having retired from this noble refugee work, that we can always empower refugees. A refugee is a person like you and like me, I visited several times their villages in every country I worked, and saw no difference. They are just unlucky to be refugees, if we look at it with an African eye.
My argument is both protection, social and human, and based on the history of several social abortions in dealing with human tragedies, of which I will only cite two, whose objective was to exploit poverty and misery in order to enslave people in rich private homes in the “global North”:
Refugee children were ready to be airlifted from refugee camps in Chad to serve in private rich houses in France[3].
Posing as a charitable organization, a religious organization exploiting the misery brought about by earthquakes in Haiti, almost managed to take children of distressed families to the USA[4].
D. CONCLUSION
The absence of (rather, the blocking of UNHCR from) direct cooperation and engagement with relevant, competent, mandated line Ministries, based on the literary interpretation of the Refugee Act or (an unresearched) Refugee Policy, is a powerful tool for alienating the refugee issues from Regional and central government attention. In the case of Tanzania and with such a long history, refugees should by now have constituted a regular debate agenda item in Parliament, with UNHCR summoned and required to answer questions from the floor (or from a relevant Parliamentary Committee).
Without such engagement of a UN Agency that manages an important demographic in the country, the government is missing the opportunity to do itself justice: demanding public accountability from a UN Agency. As a result, several government high officers hold the influencing view that these UN Agencies are not doing much in the country. That notion will continue as long as the government does not use the diplomatic entitlement to regularly summon, as an accrediting entity. And that would detoxify the entire discourse about refugees and provide better public control of this demographic group.
Why it does not? Because of the interest of intermediaries that peddle their own version of the story. For 200,000 people in the country, management of things can be done better and more transparently. After all, the entire government is host to these refugees.
Jose
Tete, 07 February 2024
Comments