1 Refugee participation in peace processes
A discourse analysis
Katherine Turon
Student number: s3144828
August 2019
1st supervisor: Nadine Voelkner, University of Groningen
2nd supervisor: Julia Costa Lopez, University of Groningen
This thesis is submitted for obtaining the Joint Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Action. By submitting the thesis, the author certifies that the text is from his own hand, does not include the work of someone else unless clearly indicated, and that the
thesis has been produced in accordance with proper academic practices.
2
Abstract
As with the other sectors of development and humanitarianism, the international
organisations for peacebuilding are attempting to put those directly affected at the centre of the response, listening to their voices- elevating those voices- to understand and develop the most effective and realistic ways forward in regards to conflict. This prompts questions over why participation of refugees in peace processes has not become one of the buzzwords or phrases dominating the sectors today, as both the beneficiary-driven response for
refugees and the community-level peacebuilding narrative suggest that this would be a logical convergence of trends and evolution of the three sectors. Furthermore, it begs the question of what a community-level peacebuilding response can be in terms of effectiveness if an often large part of the community is being ignored because they have fled the country due to the conflict that such a peacebuilding response is trying to reconcile.
The issue remains, can one displaced from their community contribute towards community-level peace processes, and if so, how? By conducting a case study, discourse analysis and literature review, this thesis therefore aims to explore how refugee participation in peace processes is carried out, if at all, and how such a practice or theory is discussed. This is done with the aim to uncover what is holding such a concept back from being mainstreamed, and if this is an area that research points in the direction of following through, what the future of this area could look like.
3
Preface
I would like to thank my family, friends, colleagues, universities, and NOHA staff for their support and patience towards me throughout this thesis and Master’s as a whole. The journey was long and took many different paths to get there but knowing that this thesis would fulfil the final step of my academic career and would explore an area of the
humanitarian sector that I find exciting and incredibly worthwhile, got me through to the end.
4 Contents Abstract ... 2 Preface ... 3 Introduction ... 5 Methodology ... 10 Limitations ... 16 Background ... 18 Case Study ... 22
Discourse analysis (for the tables and charts, see Annex) ... 32
Literature Review ... 37
Discussion... 50
Recommendations and looking forward ... 54
Conclusion ... 59
Bibliography ... 62
Annexes ... 67
Figure 1: Discourse data table ... 68
Figure 2: Reduced table of discourse findings ... 75
Figure 3: Number of mentions of word labels across all 20 articles ... 77
Figure 4: Number of articles that mentioned word labels ... 78
5
Introduction
“Participation and active involvement in the determination of one’s own destiny is the essence of human dignity.”
—Mary Robinson, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997–2002)
Refugees and peace processes are topics that are commonplace in the world today, and have been for decades. We class the existence of refugees as ‘issues’ and ‘crises’ (Berry, Garcia-Blanco and Moore, 2015) of which we must resolve by seeking peace in their countries of origin and therefore they shall return to their communities. Displaced populations due to conflict and violence constitute considerable numbers. The Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2018 reported that 2017 saw an estimated 68.5 million people forcibly displaced, with over one third of this figure representing refugees which saw a 14% rise from the previous year (Global Humanitarian Assistance, 2018). Furthermore, being displaced is not a simple temporary condition, with UNHCR claiming that a person can spend up to an average of 27 years as a refugee in situations of protracted conflict (UNHCR, 2016).
Refugees, displaced persons, migrants, have been terms well-used by the
humanitarian/development sector, the media and households alike since the Syria crisis began in 2011, though mass migration due to conflict has been persisting for decades of course (Berry, Garcia-Blanco and Moore, 2015). Through this discourse we tend to stray from individual descriptions of refugees and instead they are generalised, for good or for bad. This public opinion blends into the academic opinion, where we often see literature discuss refugees as problems to be dealt with, which in turn can affect how refugee responses are carried out.
Refugees returning to their countries of origin is often seen as being the signifier of peace for many people (Milner, 2009), so the way in which peace is approached becomes a vital part of a person’s lifecycle as a refugee. Peacebuilding, and initiatives to sustain peace in
6
general, has gone through a transformation wherein the types of processes that have naturally developed in conflict-affected communities are now being actively promoted. Community-level peacebuilding itself has spawned entire academic theories (see Lederach, 1997) and it has been studied and practised across the globe, spanning grassroots ideas and UN-led peace education programmes (‘UNHCR Peace Education Programme ( PEP )’, 2001). We see varying definitions of peacebuilding, such as that from former United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali as “action to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid relapse into conflict”(Boutros-Ghali, 1992), and this broad definition allows for peacebuilding to be seen in multiple different formats, reflecting the needs of the context and specific to those affected.
As with the other sectors of development and humanitarianism, the international
organisations for peacebuilding are attempting to put those directly affected at the centre of the response, listening to their voices- elevating those voices- to understand and develop the most effective and realistic ways forward in regards to conflict. The
humanitarian/development/peace sector has been going through systematic shifts away from Western ‘paternalism’ and ‘white saviourism’ to increasingly of empowerment and localisation of response for decades. From ‘beneficiary-driven response’ to ‘bottom-up X’, ‘grassroots’ to the big push in 2016 for the localisation agenda with the Grand Bargain (HPG; ICVA, 2015), we see this cross-sector trend of keeping affected people at the centre of a response, and furthermore, for them themselves to play a central role in that very response. In addition to this, we see how the three sectors are strengthening their ‘triple-nexus’, pushing beyond the classic ‘humanitarian-development’ nexus (Nye, 2008), and approaching general responses in this area in a more holistic manner1
.
In addition to this are the ways in which assistance is now given to affected populations, with the need to develop or strengthen dignity and self-reliance of the recipients. We can see this through the rise in the use of cash transfer assistance, up 100% from 2014 to 2016 alone (CALP, 2018), which enables recipients to have more independence and control over their needs and desires, to buy what is useful to them, rather than receiving food parcels
1
7
and non-food items in kind. Accountability to affected populations is now a priority across the humanitarian sector, whereby the paternalist interpretations of aid are truly dying out and success is being measured upon its impact on the community that it is aimed at.
However, this a current trend to engage with affected communities and put them at the centre of a response, this participation ‘boom’, seems limited when we look at displacement (Mosel and Holloway, 2019). The rhetoric around refugees in humanitarian-development-peace sectors tends to vary, with the humanitarian sector seeing a logical direct approach of refugee consultation and involvement in the given programme, and the development sector valuing the long-term investment of a bottom-up approach. The peace sector however feels more entwined with political means and the discourse instead focuses on efficacy and security defensive measures.
This prompts questions over why participation of refugees in peace processes has not become one of the buzzwords or phrases dominating the sectors today, as both the beneficiary-driven response for refugees and the community-level peacebuilding narrative suggest that this would be a logical convergence of trends and evolution of the three sectors. Furthermore, it begs the question of what a community-level peacebuilding response can be in terms of effectiveness if an often large part of the community is being ignored because they have fled the country due to the conflict that such a peacebuilding response is trying to reconcile.
The issue remains, can one displaced from their community contribute towards community-level peace processes, and if so, how? This thesis therefore aims to explore how refugee participation in peace processes is carried out, if at all, and how such a practice or theory is discussed. This is done with the aim to uncover what is holding such a concept back from being mainstreamed, and if this is an area that research points in the direction of following through, what the future of this area could look like.
8
In this thesis, the focus will be on refugees rather than displaced persons as a whole. This is for the reason that internally displaced persons (IDPs) and asylum seekers are different collective terms within displaced persons. While many of the challenges faced by refugees can also be felt by other types of displaced people, the cross-border nature of refugees and their political impact makes the question about how they are to participate in peace
processes when they are not physically in the country where such processes are underway. Primarily, refugees in refugee camps are the type of refugee often referred to throughout the thesis. This is done so for reasons of ease but also to focus on a specific environment where opportunities and risks may intensify in these microcosms of communities. It is noted that only about one quarter of the world’s refugees live in camps (UNHCR, 2016).
Also to note, the term ‘peace processes’ is used to encapsulate the different forms of peacebuilding and other peace initiatives that are available. While this thesis focuses more on the peacebuilding aspect, practices such as peace education can sometimes be
considered a different term, and instances such as participation in post-conflict elections etc can also be seen within this umbrella ‘peace processes’ term. Furthermore, when we
consider Galtung’s 3 distinctions (Galtung, 1976), it should be noted that ‘peacekeeping’ is excluded from this thesis, but ‘peacemaking’ is very much a part of it.
While my real question to myself is “how do refugees fit into the increasing movement for community-level peacebuilding”, taking into consideration that any peace process claiming to be community-based may be missing large chunks of said community due to
displacement, and “why are we not talking about this”, this is based on too many
assumptions and my own bias to form a thesis here. Therefore, a few steps back to explore the basic tenets of my initial reaction mean that this thesis will compose of first the
subquestion:
“To what extent is community-level peacebuilding a recognised effective practice?” And then to explore the main research question of:
“How is the issue of refugee participation in peace processes reflected in the related discourse?”
9
By focusing on and answering these two questions, this thesis aims to lay out the current situation regarding refugee participation in peace processes within the context of
community-level peacebuilding, in order to push towards ways in which this could development in the future.
10 Methodology
A triple-fold approach was used in terms of methodology in this thesis, primarily to address the different research questions which each built a new level of exploration in the topic of refugee participation in peace processes. To address the main research question, the sub-question of “to what extent is community-level peacebuilding recognised as effective?” had to be acknowledged, and this was done through the background with the commentary on humanitarian trends as well as the academic background of community-level peacebuilding, and supported with the case study. The main question of “how is the issue of refugee participation in peace processes reflected in the related discourse?” was explored through the literature review and discourse analysis.
The decision to form this thesis through a literature review, case study, and discourse analysis was taken when assessing the lack of time and general resources available. An explorative research was undertaken in terms of the sources available on this area, to see where research was and more importantly, was not, taking place. Had resources been available, the research would have taken a step further to see how effective refugee participation in peace processes is, by undertaking field research perhaps following up Lawson’s (Lawson, 2012) recommendations.
Literature review
The first step taken was to assess what information was out there on this area of
humanitarian and development interest. While there was plenty of literature to read around the topic, there was little on the specific angle of refugee participation in peacebuilding processes. Because of research resource restraints, I decided to take a step back to assess community-level peacebuilding and its effectiveness before forging on with the main hypothesis regarding how refugees factor in to this form of peacebuilding. Building on academic theories for community-level building and the case study as detailed above, the literature review then continued with the peacebuilding lens (rather than a refugee lens) to see what, if any, role displaced people play when ‘community-level’ peacebuilding is being carried out, if they are considered part of a community in order to take part.
11
Only one study was specific to my main goal when carrying out this thesis in terms of considering how refugee camp peace programmes contribute to peacebuilding: the 2012 UNHCR report by Ms Jane Lawson (Lawson, 2012), and while this meant an alteration of research question, this report became literature that was leant upon heavily throughout the thesis.. I made the decision to use my thesis to explore the supporting areas of literature on this topic of refugee involvement in peace processes, to consolidate the studies and
literature that relate to this area in order to gauge whether there is any possible conclusion to be drawn. Lawson’s report concluded that refugee camp peace programmes do
contribute to post-conflict peacebuilding strategies in the cases that she researched, though admitted the severe limitations of such a study. My research used this paper as a starting point, to analyse literature and reports from a peacebuilding (community-level if present) perspective, in terms of how peace initiatives incorporate refugees (both current refugees who are in exile and former refugees who have returned), rather than from the refugee camp organisation perspective that was more prominent in Lawson’s study. A conversation that I held with Lawson in 2017 helped shape this direction of my thesis and provided an overall meaning to the research and results that one day I could take up again if resources allowed.
This initial phase of analysing Lawson’s paper was followed by searching multiple databases for relevant literature on this topic and related ones. Online library resources were the key starting point here, where I used the library databases and catalogues of three universities that I have been a member of. The University of Groningen’s SmartCat library database, Uppsala University Library online, and the University of Oxford Bodleian Library’s online database were all searched for articles and books with the key words of “refugee”, “peace”, “peacebuilding”, “camp”, “community-level”, “conflict resolution”, “reconciliation”,
“participation”, amongst many synonyms and related words. This found a wealth of related articles and highlighted certain journals and authors that were prominent in this area. Google Scholar and Web of Science were also searched.
12
Certain words and themes appeared during the research phase of the thesis, which led me to question how their prevalence quantifiably appeared in the literature, rather than simply my own bias as after a certain point I found myself critiquing that ‘most of the literature’ asserted a negative light of refugees’ involvement in peace processes. By recording the number of mentions of certain commonplace words, I aimed to allow myself a more objective perspective before conducting the literature review and in turn found that the discourse analysis itself became an interesting angle to the thesis. These commonplace words that I felt were prominent across the literature were decided upon purely from my own conclusions when reading, themes that I felt helped shape the general discourse when talking about this area of study. Throughout my reading, I noted down these key words and these developed into 12 word ‘labels’ which merged certain words into shared labels if they evoked a similar tone or meaning. The method itself is not scientific, nor do I claim it as empirical, it simply offers an insight into the words used but cannot be relied on as ‘proof’ for any claims of discourse in this area, rather more guidance.
The method taken was firstly to find literature that covered the thesis topic of refugees and peace processes, as clearly not all literature I came across during my research was focused on both these aspects. As the introduction states, the literature on this area is not generous which allowed me to settle on 20 articles as my reference points for the discourse
exploration as these were the only articles (found using the research methods described above) that actually covered the topic of the thesis, and did not focus on a particular context outside of Eastern and Southern Africa and the Great Lakes. Then the only other criterion was that the article could be subject to a search/find/navigation tool, which is how the key words were calculated.
The literature chosen for the analysis (and can be found in the bibliography) are as follows:
1. Ayiemba, E. H. O. (2009) ‘REFUGEES IN POST-CONFLICT RECONSTRUCTION: A STUDY OF KAKUMA AND DADAAB REFUGEES IN KENYA’
2. Chimni, B. (2004) ‘From Resettlement To Involuntary Repatriation : Refugee Problems’
3. Coffie, A. (2014) ‘Filling in the Gap: Refugee Returnees Deploy Higher Education Skills to Peacebuilding’
13
4. Coffie, B. A. (2017) ‘Peacebuilding Engagement Activities by Resettled African Refugees : Policy Options’
5. Crisp, J. (2003) ‘No Solution in Sight: the Problem of Protracted Refugee Situations in Africa’,
6. Hayes, S., Lundy, B. D. and Hallward, M. C. (2016) ‘Conflict-Induced Migration and the Refugee Crisis: Global and Local Perspectives from Peacebuilding and
Development’.
7. Helling, D. (2007) ‘The Role of Returning Displaced Persons in Post-Conflict State Reconstruction’
8. Johansson, P. (2012) ‘Returning with Peace? A Fuzzy-Set Analysis of the Peace-by-Repatriation Thesis’
9. Janmyr, M. (2016) ‘Refugees as Contributors to Peace’
10. Lawson, J. E. (2012) ‘What happens after the war ? How refugee camp peace programmes contribute to post-conflict peacebuilding strategies’
11. Loescher, G. et al. (2007) ‘Protracted refugee situations and the regional dynamics of peacebuilding’,
12. Loescher, G. & Milner, J. (2011) ‘Responding to protracted refugee situations: Lessons from a decade of discussion’
13. Long, K. (2011) ‘Permanent Crises? Unlocking Protracted Displacement for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons’
14. Mahmood, O. S. (2018) ‘Nobody came to ask us South Sudanese refugee perceptions of the peace process’
15. Milner, J. (2009) ‘Refugees and the regional dynamics of peacebuilding’ 16. Milner, J. (2011) ‘Refugees and the peacebuilding process’
17. Romita, P. (2011) ‘Refugees and the Regional Dynamics of Peacebuilding (report)’ 18. Sharpe & Cordova (2009) ‘Peacebuilding opportunities in displacement’
19. Van Tongeren, P. (2013) ‘Potential cornerstone of infrastructures for peace? How local peace committees can make a difference’
20. Women’s Refugee Commission (2010) ‘Youth at a Glance’.
The only relevant article that I had to eliminate used for literature review that was suitable for the analysis but I didn’t use in the end was a second Chimni article, “Refugees and
Post-14
Conflict Reconstruction: a critical perspective” (Chimni, 2002) due to the search function not being useable on the formatting of the article.
Within each of the 20 articles, the word labels, including derivatives, conjugations, and synonyms were searched for by using the search function within PDFs/Word
documents/online webpages, with each occurrence checked for context and then recorded in the spreadsheet (Figure 1). The numbers were then put into graphs to analyse the findings.
Case study
As there was so much information available but little precisely to my research question, I decided to build a case study of one country where I could explore how peacebuilding was experienced. I decided to focus primarily on East and Southern Africa and Great Lakes as this is an area in which I have most familiarity, having studied multiple African nations in this region during my Master’s course, as well as working as a trainee at the European
Commission for Humanitarian Aid Operations and Civil Protection in the unit for East and Southern Africa and Great Lakes region.
I chose Burundi as I felt that this would be an interesting example of an ethnic conflict that still resonates in today’s violence across the country, but despite this has multiple clear examples of community-level peacebuilding throughout the decades of conflict, and I had a relatively good awareness of the context through my studies. Similar keyword searches were executed, with the main difference of the inclusion of “Burundi”, using the five databases as explained above.
As stated above, I approached this topic through a peacebuilding lens, as opposed to a refugee camp programme design lens, and therefore I used my academic knowledge of community-level peacebuilding to form the basis of the thesis. Most of the information collected on this academic theory was through lectures during my peace and conflict studies module in my semester in Uppsala, under the guidance of Mr Pedro Valenzuela and most of all, Mr Manuel Salamanca, through the advised books and literature for the classes that formed the basics of peacebuilding and conflict resolution as we know it today from Galtung and Lederach. It was with this academic theory and insight that the case study of Burundi
15
was planned, and gave depth to the arguments found from authors of works more pertinent to my area of research.
16 Limitations
From the start of planning this paper, I knew there would be severe limitations on the study. For one, my initial research revealed that there was a severe lack of research in this area- a discovery that perhaps should have discouraged me to continue along this path with so little empirical data to build upon. However, this very point was what made the area of study so interesting, that there was surely an explanation behind such a gap in research, and I would be making a great contribution to a demonstrably underserviced area of humanitarian, development and reconciliation research.
The second limitation was the fact that, due to time and resources restraints, I was unable to collect my own primary data to use to help answer my research question. Had this been possible, I would have approached the research in a much more precise way, and would have hopefully gained anecdotal evidence to support answers to my research question. This would have been done through interviews with former refugees who had returned to their communities, both those who had involvement with peace programmes while in camps and those who did not. The interviews would try to gain insight into the participants’ views of how they felt involved in the peace processes happening in their home communities while they were in exile, if they still felt linked to their homes, if their voices were heard, and how their return was received by their communities in terms of becoming involved in whatever peacebuilding initiatives were taking place there, and how their own peacebuilding skills learnt in camps were perceived and applied.
Such studies would entail a huge time commitment, overseeing years-long processes, and requiring demanding resources of tracing former refugees. As Lawson so clearly points out from the very start of her paper(Lawson, 2012), a longitude study would be necessary here and anything less would not do such a research area any justice. From analysing the many papers on the application of certain themes of my research questions, it transpires that the ideal study itself would work as a peace programme and would entail collaboration and further coordination of projects in order to record results. Therefore the design of such a study would need to be within the design of the programmes themselves.
17
The limitations within the methodology pursued are obvious and recognised throughout the thesis. As already stated in the previous chapter, the method in which I collected data on the discourse in the relevant literature was not a data collection method that can be offered as any real result due to the unscientific method that started with my own views of what the key words are, and the calculations being very subject to human error when I checked the word occurrence for its context. However, by not relying on these figures, and instead just using them to check my own assumptions and to see the literature in a more open way, this limitation does not change any outcomes of the thesis.
18
Background
Galtung’s three pronged approach to peace
While peacebuilding of some sort has always been a practice taking place alongside the presence of conflict, the concept was first discussed critically by Galtung in 1975 (Galtung, 1976) where he began to push for a more realistic and holistic approach to peace by recognises a three-pronged approach: peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding. Peacebuilding focussed much more on the structures in society that would work to build a more sustainable peace by tackling the root causes of conflict and particularly addressing these at the community level. This idea brought in a more bottom-up approach that has often been missed when considering peace processes that focus on what Galtung labels ‘peacemaking’ (which is used in actions by which conflicting parties are brought to some sort of agreement or negotiation) and ‘peacekeeping’ (which implies military action in order to enforce a peace, even if through further conflict). This peacebuilding approach does not necessarily happen in a post-conflict setting, but throughout the cycle, so that peacebuilding concepts remain present before during and after conflicts in order to capture the whole picture. It is with this foundation that Galtung provides, that we can see the evolution of peacebuilding through the decades.
Lederach’s Peace Pyramid
Lederach ( 1997)built upon Galtung’s idea of bottom-up approaches to peace, modernising the concept to focus far more on peacebuilding taking on the meaning of engagement with grassroots organisations and civil society organisations such as NGOs, and linking these with the bigger actors of INGOs and other national and international actors, rather than
Galtung’s theory of structural change of a bottom-up approach to peace. Lederach discusses the role that skills of reconciliation and mediation have in peacebuilding, how these are crucial tools for those in the community level of the peace sphere, and that it is the rebuilding of trust and connections amongst communities that best indicates peace, as these actions are the workings of relationships, just as conflicts are also. He distinctly shifts
19
the international perspective of peacebuilding to that of a local perspective, though it is the middle-tier that Galtung purports to having the most influence to support a lasting peace. This approach from Lederach responds much better to the modern world in my view, as we can see directly how his explanation of the three different levels of leadership form the basis of peace processes today:
The UN and popularising ‘peacebuilding’
In 1992, the UN’s Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali made full use of the term ‘peace-building’ in his report ‘An Agenda for Peace’(Boutros-Ghali, 1992). He explained the
differences just as Galtung ( 1976)highlighted, between peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding (and also preventive diplomacy), with peacebuilding being more of a
chronological event following peace agreements and ceasefires, so that peacebuilding has the role of solidifying peace, and “[advancing] a sense of confidence and well-being among the people”.
The Peacebuilding Commission was then created in 2005 as an intergovernmental advisory body to support peace activities in those countries affected by conflict, with the following mandate:
20
- “to bring together all relevant actors to marshal resources and to advise on and propose integrated strategies for post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery; - to focus attention on the reconstruction and institution-building efforts necessary
for recovery from conflict and to support the development of integrated strategies in order to lay the foundation for sustainable development;
- to provide recommendations and information to improve the coordination of all relevant actors within and outside the United Nations, to develop best practices, to help to ensure predictable financing for early recovery activities and to extend the period of attention given by the international community to postconflict recovery.”
(United Nations General Assembly, 2005; United Nations Security Council, 2005)
It currently has six countries on its agenda: Burundi, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, and Central African Republic. The PBC then enrolled the UN Peacebuilding Fund (UNPBF) in 2006 in order to continuously fund the areas of interest. (Burundi and Sierra Leone initially).
Part of the mainstreaming of peacebuilding that the UN has helped to popularise by
investing in the above programmes, has led to peace education becoming commonplace in the humanitarian and development world. UNHCR implement Peace Education Programmes (PEP) that aim to “enable people to develop skills which would help them to build a more peaceful life while in the camp, and for later on when they could return home, settle permanently in their host country, or resettle in a third country” (‘UNHCR Peace Education Programme ( PEP )’, 2001), and they are not alone. A neverending list of organisations claim to have peace initiatives in practice across the world, so we can see that there is some normalisation of peacebuilding as an instructed programme.
These programmes fall into Lederach’s middle-range level of leadership (Lederach, 1997), where trainings and workshops are vital activities that many organisations carry out, rather than being organised by those affected by the conflict. However, of course as in any
21
own refugee-run peacebuilding initiatives2
. The practices in the countries of origin may be on a mid-range or grassroots level, depending on the context and funding, as development actors strive to promote peace programmes in post-conflict communities and the
communities themselves also act to help resolve the issues that affect their daily lives. Such practices can straddle these lines that Lederach has drawn up, such as Local Peace
Committees (LPCs) which can grow from grassroots groups to tackle their conflict problems, into inspiring other communities to do the same which gives them a voice on the middle-range level.
2
In conversation with Lawson, this idea was raised multiple times, that she had witnessed in all the many refugee camps that she had visited, that peacebuilding groups will always grow. This may be in reaction to the lack of organisation-run peace activities, or their unsatisfactory nature, or may stem from mediation forums that become necessary when vast groups of people are forced into hard living spaces with each other, such is the refugee camp condition. This tells of how such peace initiatives to involve those close to the conflict will naturally spring up as Lederach(1997) tells of these being displays of human relationships pertaining to work.
22
Case Study
Burundi through the Civil War to present day
Background to the conflict
Burundi has been plagued by recurring conflicts since its independence in 1962, leading to bouts of mass displacement as well as attempted reconciliations. The genocide in 1972, of Hutus by the Tutsi-led army, saw some 300 000 Hutus flee to neighbouring countries
(International Crisis Group, 1999), and set the tone for decades of ethnically-fuelled violence and political instability, including a bloody civil war from 1993 to 2006, that we see in the country still today.
The sources of the instability, violence and conflict in terms of its racially driven roots can be traced back to how ethnic groups were divided upon colonial rule, where social positions and structures cemented ethnic prejudices (Weinstein, 1972), with the minority Tutsi who were in government and majority Hutu population clashing again and again. It is however, important to see beyond this simple label of ethnic conflict, and appreciate the role that scarcity of resources played in the readjustment period after colonial rule (Uvin, 1999), especially since the genuine source of classification of Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa is of
controversial basis. These were crude racial characteristics bestowed onto the three ethnic groups, though the distinction was not absolute on looks, merely a way to label different classes of persons and while labels will always arise in society, the definitions seem to have appeared once colonial rule took place. Belgium followed Germany in ruling Burundi, and through their system of indirect rule, they used the existing system in Burundi, thereby engaging the elite to reign. This ‘elite’ was the class of Tutsi, who were the minority
ethnicity, and therefore the distinguishing features of the different ethnicities became much more than the old order of Hutus being traditionally those who were farmers for example, Tutsis being landowners or owners of livestock, and the Twa having the role of the lower-skilled worker. With these ethnic and social distinctions now in much stronger use, the ethnic groups became the main identifiers for the Burundian population, and was pushed even further when the country achieved independence in 1962.
23
As with many countries (re-)gaining their independence after colonial rule, instability amongst societal upheaval in Burundi became apparent. There was now much more room for conflict of interests and competition for limited resources, as well as the struggles with the new status quo, and the ‘who gets what’ after the old colonial rulers left. The ethnic divisions that were strengthening were therefore intensified when there was this rush for power after independence. The ruling class of Tutsis no longer had the force of the colonial rulers behind them, and instead were a clear minority elite. They faced opposition from the Hutu population who made up the majority of the country and had been under their rule. The tensions rose, with Tutsis restricting education for Hutus while also targeting the more educated Hutus who then ended up either killed or fleeing the attacks. These measures then led to Tutsis dominating the higher end jobs even more so, and holding most of the
government positions. This environment, with the heightened ethnic divides and
oppression, led the way for the genocide in 1972, in which 150,000 Hutus (chiefly those who were educated) were killed by Tutsis, and the same figure fleeing the country (Uvin, 1999)
The following years were again sought with coups and further mass violence. Attempts at democracy were fraught with ongoing tensions, with Burundi under Tutsi government as well as under a Tutsi Army, opposed the Hutu party Frodebu amongst others. Uprona leader Buyoya conceded his presidency in 1992 when Ndadaye won the election, but then
preceded a coup to restore Tutsi military rule and Ndadaye was duly assassinated. This sparked off the Civil War that lasted from 1993 until 2006, that oversaw multiple complex political parties, factions and rebel groups all engaging in conflicts across the country, and marked Burundi’s second genocide, this time against the Tutsi people (United States Institute of Peace, 2004).
In more recent years, Burundi has continued to see violence destabilising the country. In 2015, surrounding the controversial third term of President Nkurunziza there were weeks of protests and demonstrations as well as an attempted coup. The violence continued
throughout the elections, coming to a head on the 15th December with attacks on military camps in Bujumbura, with fatalities amounting to over 80 but with discrepancies in reported figures from the government, as to the number of “enemies”[source] and civilians killed. 2016 and 2017 has been peppered with Burundi’s government attempting to reform and
24
remove presidential term limits, with reactions seeing spates of grenade attacks in bars around the country. The constant threat of violent no doubt has contributed to great
swathes of refugees fleeing the country in 2015, with over 112,000 arriving in DRC, Tanzania and Rwanda between the beginning of April 2015 and mid-May 2015 alone3and over
410,000 to date4 ).
Civil War Peace Process
The resolution of the civil war involved a long and complicated peace process, that attempted ceasefires between warring groups and tried to take stock of the complicated factions that had occurred during the war. It was no longer a matter of two parties sitting down to sign one agreement; rebel groups and in-party splits meant that a multi-party conflict was happening and all actors would need to be taken into account for any successful attempt at peace negotiations.
From 1993, attempts at peace processes commenced in piecemeal fashion, such as seen with the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) who sent in stabilisation forces after Ndadye’s assassination, and the UN attempted mediations between the Hutu and Tutsi parties with a ‘Convention of Government’ to support a power-sharing system.
In 1996, this ‘elite peacemaking’ (Miall, Ramsbotham & Woodhouse, 2011) had developed into an international mediation and intervention that entailed regional involvement, with successive mediators of Nyrere and Mandela as great influencers in this process. The Arusha Talks put in effort to engage a wider range of stakeholders than usual peace talks did, though the main rebel groups CNDD-FND and Palipehutu-FNL were not included which caused problems and foreshadowed subsequent problems of the depth and breadth of this elite-level peacemaking process. Beset by further outbreaks of violence and a coup by Buyogya, the substantive Arusha Peace talks began in the summer of 1998. In October 1999, Nyrere died and Mandela succeeded him as mediator, taking a much stronger and
3 UNHCR source https://reliefweb.int/report/burundi/unhcr-regional-update-2-burundi-situation-18-may-2015 4
25
authoritative role as his predecessor, as well as actively including all stakeholders in this process. By creating three groups of extreme Hutus, extreme Tutsis, and moderates, common interests were envisioned to be raised and each group’s draft agreements were gradually modified to create a gratifying compromise on all sides. This culminated in nineteen parties signing the peace accord in 2000.
Burundian refugees were notably invited to take part in the consultations, by making a presentation to the committee dealing with refugee issues such as land and returns and reintegration, and also by women taking part in an All-Party Burundian Women’s Peace Conference. These peace accords vary in their reception from the international community, as while the variety of stakeholders involved was progressive and commended (Sharpe and Cordova, 2009), the root causes were little discussed and therefore generally unresolved. The signing of Burundi’s peace accords can be seen as a very international event, with high-level attendees at the event, which again can be positive and negative. There is something encouraging about such a process being so high-profile and internationally followed,
especially with the regional impact but this profile also meant that the process itself had less Burundian ownership with just token participation, that it became a global production rather than a home-grown creation. This sense of ownership of peace is vital, as we see in our academic analysis of peacebuilding, as the international sphere is as far away as possible from the community-level initiatives to shape the peace and contribute and implement solutions. Without an ownership, the peace can seem forced and foreign, an instrument used by other nations to impose their values and not put Burundian’s best interests at heart. It is this problem that can lead to individuals feeling far from involved in peace agreements, as though their problems are ignored, and cycles of discontent that boil into violence have more likelihood of continuing. Nonetheless, the fact that refugees were specifically sought for their inputs on the future peace agreements of their country of origin is not to be dismissed for the fact that it falls short of what we might deem real community-level peacebuilding today. The efforts put in to invite refugees to the Arusha Peace
Agreements, especially to consider the women’s perspective, was groundbreaking and the issues raised are reflected in the agreements.
26
However, if we consider the Hourglass Model (Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse., 2011) for conflict and resolution, we can see that the final stage of resolution is never fully
achieved under the Arusha Accord, as ‘conflict transformation’ needs real reconciliation and cultural peacebuilding. This incompleteness is increased by the fact that it took such a long time to try to somewhat align with Lederach and Levy’s (Miall et al., 2011) comprehensive peace pyramid, with the lack of inclusivity that cursed the whole process only addressed in the later stages.
Community level peacebuilding during Burundi’s Civil War
While there are disputes over how effective the Arusha Accord was, this high-level of peacebuilding does not show the whole picture of how Burundi attempted to restore peace after the many years of violence and during and after the civil war. Burundi, like many other countries beset with violence, has great swathes of community-level peacebuilding
initiatives and especially reconciliation to react to their context. Local Peace Committees (LPCs) are a common sight across Africa (Issifu, 2016), and are widely viewed as having a key role and overwhelmingly positive effect in resolving conflicts and empowering communities to restore peace and reconcile grievances however old, not dependent on what the elite peacemaking process is doing (Van Tongeren, 2013; Olivier & Odendaal, 2008). In Burundi, despite the ongoing peace processes and the UN Peacekeeping Mission, it was not until communities were truly feeling that ‘peace’ that any stability can truly be founded.
Tongeren (2013) argues that it was the presence and actions of the LPCs that really helped to ensure that peace was grounded in the local level, with communities fostering conflict resolutions approaches and stability within their populations even as war was rife. What was particularly noteworthy of Burundi’s community-level peacebuilding was the fact that it was so holistic in nature and branched out amongst neighbouring villages so that the
processes and solutions were shared and safer environments were spread, showing a true grass-root level development.
One prominent actor was the Kibimba Peace Committee which was active for over seven years, forming in 1994. Kibimba was the sad scene of some of the horrific violence perpetrated in Burundi’s ethnically-motivated civil war, where in 1993 an estimated 450
27
Tutsi civilians living in the area- chiefly students, teachers, and other related staff- were killed by Hutus upon President Ndadaye’s assassination, with many reportedly burnt alive (Niyonkuru, 2012). This led to retaliatory attacks and many Hutu fleeing, with Hutu rebel groups later forming movements so that violence continued.
However this community managed to engage levels of dialogue between Hutu and Tutsi and engage people from both sides in local reconciliation. The Committee was established when they reopened the primary school for all ethnicities, hiring a mix of teachers and actively encouraging parents of both ethnicities to send their children to this school, fostering a commonality amongst the community and sharing the message of peace, especially as the school taught peace education to its pupils. Concerns over the hospital being only really accessible to one ethnicity led the Peace Committee to come up with the idea for the hospital to open a restaurant to help welcome all to use its services. The decision to get an expat (from the Mennonite Central Committee) to manage this restaurant helped to mitigate any fears of being poisoned as there was a mutual third party involved, and this restaurant became a community space and hospital attendance was improved. Other activities taken were a youth sports club that promoted mixed ethnicity teams, as well as protecting adolescents from exploitation that they might face when left to their own devices to spend their free time, and a theatre group after undergoing peace education training from the Mennonite Central committee.
The 1996 conflict disrupted Kibimba Peace Committee, with meetings unable to take place and little opportunity for peace activities in such a climate, but from 1998 with the
involvement and support of MI-PAREC (Ministère Paix et Réconciliation sous la Croix – the Ministry for Peace and Reconciliation Under the Cross) the Peace Committee was restored and strengthened. Women were given a more prominent role, demonstrating the focus on aspects other than the ethnicity issues, with projects developed especially for women. Such a project was the straw mat project, where women from all backgrounds were encouraged to come together to make mats and talk informally to each other, eventually turning the initiative into an income-generating activity. With the community becoming closer and trusting those of the other ethnicity, the community had greater protection from rebel forces who might try to move in or use the villages for their passages, and those who had been wrongly imprisoned found peace committee members of the other ethnicity
28
advocating for them and helping secure their release. With regular peace committee
meetings, as well as conflict resolution workshops, the community has developed a stronger common sense of purpose, with attitudes towards each other more positive, as well as towards the military who are often involved in the committee.
The impact of the peace committee can be demonstrated by the fact that violence in the community was reduced (Niyonkuru, 2012), and the military asked the committee to help bring the rebels to a place of negotiation, in order to help facilitate the peace talks
surrounding the Arusha Accord. What this type of peacebuilding also managed to tackle was the root cause of the conflict, or more that the root cause was not an ethnic problem that had pervaded as the justification through the conflict. As Nikonkuru (2012) explains, the real problem was “simply a lack of good governance and precarious economic conditions”. In his article, Niyonkuru includes a quotation from a Hutu member of the Kibima Peace
Committee that demonstrates the meaning and impact that this set up had:
“Dialogue helped us to clearly identify and understand the underlying causes of the
Burundian conflict. In the past, we were pushed to violence against our poor neighbours by ill-intentioned politicians and we blindly followed them. When the conflict intensified, they
flew to Europe and America, leaving us in inhumane living conditions. Thanks to this dialogue approach, we have unanimously recognised that we have a lot more to share with
our neighbours of both ethnicities than with politicians, even if they belong to our ethnic group. Our future is there.”(Niyonkuru, 2012)
The peace committees had some lasting effects with non-members too. Local authorities recognised the benefits of such committees and would call upon them to settle disputes, respecting their conflict management skills (Niyonkuru, 2012). Even national level
authorities recognised the high standard of conflict resolution skills that these committees had, as MI-PAREC were invited to advise the National Land Commission in 2011, which had been proving to be one of the more difficult issues causing fragility in Burundi since the end of the war.
Niyonkuru highlights another area of influence that local peace committees have had on Burundi, which is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Government of Burundi and the involved international partners engaged with the peace committee model to help shape
29
this Commission. Amongst others, MI-PAREC have been consulted and they advised for the use of LPCs at higher levels than previously witnessed when at commune and colline level. Such proposals could greatly influence the whole peace architecture across the country and even the region if it is given the opportunity to be tried and tested.
Burundi conflict from 2015
Unfortunately, in 2015 new unrest in the country was sparked off by protests against the unconstitutional proposal that President Nkurunziza would run for a third term. A coup and its prompt collapse resulted in many deaths, and the country has been enduring violence and a worsening humanitarian situation up to the present day. This has led to the inevitable fleeing of many Burundians, with over 400,000 refugees seeking safety in their neighbouring countries.
There have been cross-border efforts to assist voluntary repatriation of the hundreds of thousands of Burundian refugees, primarily those in Tanzania who host over half of the Burundi refugee population (UNHCR, 2018). At the end of August 2017, the Governments of Tanzania and Burundi along with UNHCR held a Tripartite Commission in Dar es Salaam, where they agreed on actions whereby they could coordinate efforts to assist the voluntary repatriation of the many thousands of Burundian refugees who had registered this intent to return home. Within their Regional Refugee Response Plan, UNHCR recognises that Burundi is not in the position where they can actually promote returning as a policy, due to the unstable political situation, though they are on board to support all those refugees who express the desire to return home voluntarily (UNHCR, 2018). This same article explains the process and that by the end of 2018, more than 55,000 Burundian refugees were assisted in returning home, mostly from Tanzania but from other neighbouring countries too, with the aim to assist a total of 394,000 refugees returning by the end of 2019. The Joint Refugee Return and Repatriation Plan goes alongside this regional response plan (found within the same UNHCR, 2018 document, and is an inter-agency response from UNHCR partners in Burundi. It outlines the strategy of how returnees adjust to repatriation, and how to make the process as smooth as possible. One standout feature of this plan is that there is the goal to “Support and reinforce existing social capital assets that can facilitate mediation and
30
conflict resolution efforts for the peaceful coexistence of communities” (UNHCR, 2018). While this does not go into any depth about how these efforts are carried out, the fact that they are community-level focussed shows that there is a commitment here to address the root issues by framing conflict resolution in an individual light.
While these efforts are going on, it must be noted that there is still significant risk of
exacerbating tensions between the returnees receiving high amounts of attention and aid as opposed to the treatment of those who stayed has been acknowledged. As the country is so fragile, with huge humanitarian demands, issues of provision of basic services and
protection need to be prioritised. If we reflect on how Burundi has dealt with community reconciliation and peacebuilding in the past, with the LPCs during the Civil War, perhaps this can help guide Burundi through a smoother journey towards a peace that it keeps coming so close to.
***
By considering the background to community-level peacebuilding, from the older academic theories to more recent initiatives, and exploring how this type of process has worked in practice, there seems little controversy surrounding community-level peace processes. There is a consensus surrounding their effectiveness, or at least the need to tackle
peacebuilding at community levels in order to affect over all change. Therefore the research subquestion “to what extent is community-level peacebuilding a recognised effective
practice?” can be answered by concluding that community-level peacebuilding is a
recognised effective practice. Of course no practice comes without criticism, but for the sake of providing a starting point for the main research question of this thesis, we now have a foundation rather than an assumption to explore “How is the issue of refugee participation
in peace processes reflected in the related discourse?” as refugee participation is a form of
32
Discourse analysis (for the tables and charts, see Annex)
Acknowledging the limitations as mentioned above, the results from the discourse analysis present a small insight into the type of language used in the area of refugees’ role in peace processes, with the frequency of certain words alone across the chosen articles allowing for a broad overview of what views dominate the literature, even if the author him or herself is not a proponent of such a view (which will then be further discussed in the literature review itself). These results help to strip back my earlier assumptions of how the international community discusses roles of refugees, allowing for a more open discussion later on in the thesis.
Explanation of terminology
It should be noted that the categories were formed after the initial discourse analysis, and for my viewing these were 3 clear tones that emerged and allowed for a keener analysis of themes.
To start with the more generic of categories, ‘Problem to be solved’ presents the general humanitarian context that the author includes resolving the refugee situation as one part of the picture. While not negative or positive, it shows the narrative that refugees are not so much viewed as individuals with agency, but more as a collective issue. For this reason, the prevalence of the words ‘protracted’, ‘sustainable’, ‘solution’, and ‘return’ is extremely high. Even the articles which push for a more progressive approach regarding refugee
participation acknowledge that the fact that we have refugees is an issue in itself, and we do need to work to resolve it. These four terms working together form the solutions-based approach that is often the starting point for literature in this area: identifying that a peace process needs to succeed and that to do so must acknowledge how to deal with refugees.
Under the category that I labelled as ‘Risk’, we see that ‘(in)stability’, ‘security’,
‘politicisation’, and ‘spoilers’ are words that become commonly associated with refugees in the peace context. These are clearly the more negative words, with writers referring to refugees as threats to peace in some form or another, and that the need to consider them
33
when planning peace processes is more of a risk management reason, to avoid risking any more conflict, violence, or general disruption. This therefore pushes beyond the ‘Problem to be solved’ category, emanating themes that see individual refugees as liabilities and
burdens.
The third category is one of hope: ‘Opportunity’. The chosen word labels of ‘voice’, ‘self-reliance’, ‘inclusive’, ‘community-based’ ‘skills’ and ‘potential’ altogether sing of a more positive contribution that refugees might have in peace processes. As education in refugee camps is increasing (Coffie, 2014), we can see that most authors talk about the skills that refugees can obtain while in exile. This is not a controversial stance, as education whether it be academic, craft, or peace-oriented is mainstreamed globally in order to promote
livelihoods. Such a skill then links to the word label of ‘potential’, as the skill is the resource that the refugee then has to offer the community, something of use in the peace process (most likely in post-conflict recovery and upon return to community of origin), which can then be seen within the context of ‘self-reliance’ if such a skill allows the refugee to not depend too heavily on external assistance during their time in exile and then upon return. The word labels of inclusive and community-based are descriptive of the peace process as a whole, rather than of the refugee within it. While there may be some bias from the earlier research on the benefits of a more inclusive community-level peacebuilding approach to lead me to label this as ‘opportunity’, it reflects not only the opportunity for such
approaches to reach a peace, but an opportunity for those refugees within the community to feel truly a part of the peace process. This then leads to the final descriptor of the word label ‘voice’. This feeling of being heard within a community and beyond it to the more elite level of the peace processes is what I tried to capture here, for refugees to feel they are valued for who they are. This last word label pushes beyond the confinement of the self-reliance/skills/potential grouping as it allows for refugees to be seen beyond a nifty skill that may keep them occupied and sustained while in exile, or employable upon return, being useful tools for the overall process but admittedly simply valued for their practical worth. Truly being heard because you are a human being, and you are a key stakeholder in the destiny of your own community and therefore should constitute part of the decisions that mould your future, is quite a different level of feeling and value, and one that the literature visibly lacks.
34
Figure 3 displays the frequency of the word labels, with ‘returns’ clearly dominating the piechart with over one third of the number of total mentions. This is not a surprising result as refugees are rarely discussed without referring to their option to return to their countries of origin, and even more so within this context of peace processes where we know from earlier discussions that refugees returning is seen by many as a barometer of peace succeeding (Milner, 2009). The second most common word label was ‘protracted’, closely followed by ‘solution’, which then shows how the category of ‘Problem to be solved’ has most influence across the literature here. Protracted crises are beset with problems, often most prominently that of refugees who have been displaced for much longer than initially envisioned. This accounts for the high word count, as such a protracted context would be the setting for refugees and the possibility of a peace process. The word ‘solution’ does not immediately evoke a refugee/peace situation but it is a word that I suppose accurately kept jumping out of the literature for me. It was often linked to solving protracted situations, or that returns programmes were a way to resolve the refugee situations. The lowest word count for a label was for ‘voice’, which I first struggled with how to define when I saw this theme emerging (or not emerging as the figures show). The ‘voice’ is about refugees being (or feeling) heard within the peace processes. This lack of frequency of this term stood out in my initial research and it is interesting therefore to see that the figures reflect my early assumption and will be discussed in the literature review. However, not far ahead of ‘voice’ was the word label of ‘politicisation’ which incorporated descriptions of refugees being militarized and the risk of terror incidents from them (more extreme action than the more mid-range ‘spoil/threat’ label). This is quite an opposite tone to ‘voice’, and one which I felt came out a lot in the literature so it is interesting to see the actual figures (though combined with the ‘spoil’ label, the tone does become more midrange ranking).
Figure 4 shows the frequency of words in a different perspective, of how often they feature out of all the articles analysed, and therefore can show how widespread such a word is and is unlikely to be so skewed by certain articles (especially ones that were specifically entitled with the word ‘returns’ for example) shown in Figure 3. ‘Solution’ and ‘return’ as the terms appearing in all 20 articles correlates with the conclusions drawn from Figure 3, but ‘skills’ featuring in 19 articles provides an interesting insight that in all but one article, there is
35
mention of benefits that refugees obtain or impart which turns the discourse into
something more positive about refugees having a certain role in their exile, though this is not specifically linked to that role within peace processes. The low count of ‘voice’ remains in this analysis, accompanied with the low-ranking occurrence of the term
‘self-reliance/dignity’ which is also reflected in Figure 3, though is interesting to note this comparison with the widespread term of ‘skills/livelihoods’ which so often is linked to refugees’ self-reliance and dignity when such programmes are justified and encouraged.
Figure 5 shows the prevalence of each category across the literature in terms of number of overall group mentions. As discussed when considering other graphs, the category ‘Problem to be solved’ encapsulates the dominating word labels, and even excluding the extreme figure for ‘return’, this category would still be the top one. This says something about the way that many approach the topic of refugees and peace processes, that a solutions-based approach is often used when talking about how to broach the issue of refugees when a post-conflict environment is emerging and peace is on the table. This reflects seeing refugees not so much as individuals with potential to bring positive or negative action, but more of an issue that needs to be resolved in order to deter further conflict and violence. The category of ‘opportunity’ ranks far lower, though still very much above the category of ‘risk’ which forces me to rethink my original assumptions of negative perspectives
dominating the literature. This shows that a great proportion of literature at least considers the positive aspects of refugee inclusion in their own future, though whether this is in the peace processes at community-level (which was the original issue that struck me) is not shown either way, though by reinforcing ideas that refugees have something positive to offer, I would contend that this is a foundation stone for any participation in peace processes. With the ‘risk’ category ranking the lowest, we see that my first viewpoint was not objective, and that despite there being negative assumptions of refugees and what risk they might pose should they not be accounted for in terms of peace activities and other programmes during their exile, this is not the most pervasive view.
These results are enlightening to the way that I and others can view the literature on this area of refugee participation in peace processes, allowing for a more open-minded approach and honest discussion of the literature later on in the thesis.
37
Literature Review
While there is a wealth of literature on the subject of peacebuilding at community level and grassroots initiatives in conflict and post-conflict settings, as well as swathes of organisation reports on peace education programmes in refugee camps, very few link up these two areas to explore the participation of refugees in peace processes. As the discourse analysis laid out, writers in this area tend to fall into categories of focus where they close in on the issue of refugees by seeing them as a problem to be solved, a risk to society and future peace to
The main starting point for many academics in this conversation of refugees and
peacebuilding, is the how to tackle the problem of protracted refugee situations (Thomson, no date; Crisp, 2003; Loescher et al., 2007a; Long, 2011). The general agreement that Milner, amongst the other voices, endorses throughout his works is that the problem of protracted refugee situation that we are seeing across the world and has huge knock on effects nationally, regionally, and worldwide (Loescher et al., 2007b) in terms of
international security, pressures on host communities, as well as the obvious problem associated with alleviating the situation for those who are displaced, can been seen as having a possible solution in the shape of strengthening peacebuilding. The idea behind this logic is that by investing now in peacebuilding programmes, involving refugees while still in exile in peacebuilding initiatives, the conflict cycles that perpetuate the humanitarian world and consequently drive forced displacement could possibly be broken by supposedly
‘taming’ the refugees who may otherwise become the ones to push these cycles. This way, refugees may be more likely to want to settle back home with their new peacebuilding and mediation skills, spread these ideas and cultivate a community of peace and possibly detain future conflict due to this peaceful atmosphere, of which would cause more forced
displacement if it were to break out again. My simplification here of Milner’s , and others’, argument for the inclusion of refugees in peacebuilding initiatives throughout their entire ‘refugee life’ as it were, is something that I do agree with in theory but it is in where the emphasis lies and the nuances of such a contention that I take issue.
In Crisp’s article “No Solution in sight” (Crisp, 2003), he ends his piece by putting forward an alternative suggestion for a solution, other than “Ending armed conflicts” and “Maintaining
38
the voluntary nature of repatriation”: “promoting self-reliance pending return”. This entails using the time that displaced persons spend in refuge for building self-reliance skills, to be used to full effect upon their return to their countries of origin. Crisp outlines how such a practice can help refugees in their current living situations by “giving them a new degree of dignity”(Crisp, 2003), thereby boosting their quality of lives while in exile as much as the situation allows, giving many simply something to do and helping to prevent a dependence upon aid that exacerbates problems they face in host communities and camps, and then upon return. As Crisp notes, this focus on self-reliance can ease pressures off of the host communities, even allowing for refugees to make a meaningful contribution to the economy of the host country (though as Crisp recognises, many refugee-hosting countries may fear that increasing opportunities for refugees and especially developing their self-reliance may lead to a reluctance to leave said host country when the time is appropriate. However, as others have said before with a healthy debate around the reality of the consequences, the refugees who pursue productive activities, such as education and developing interpersonal skills, become those who are best equipped for returning home to a post-conflict and reconstruction context.
Crisp puts forward several requirements that are needed in order to make this principle of ‘self-reliance pending return’ a possibility in reality. Firstly, rights and rule of law must be restored and protected, starting with those entitled to refugees under international law, and as Crisp mentions, can be guided by the (UNHCR- Department for International Protection, 2003). Secondly, Education must be provided for refugees and use this
unfortunate opportunity to its advantages. Thirdly, international resources must be utilised to improve the existing infrastructure and boost development so that any self-reliance that comes out of such a policy can actually be pursued in the context, rather than having a very short-lived attempt due to the poor resources that they have to make do with. Fourth, expertise from the delivering humanitarian organisations must be stressed, that the self-reliance type activities are provided by agencies that have genuine experience in such programmes, rather than a broad and basic service provided by UNHCR who seemingly cover all bases. Therefore it is advised by Crisp that strong links between humanitarian and development actors are forged to maintain standards of expertise and general level of expectation. Finally, and arguably most importantly, there must be a longer term and more
