Concept of ’’needs and feelings’’
Workshop april 2010
lørdag 13. mars 2010
Commenting on the need to test the hypothesis assuming that all refugees desire to return home, Chimni (1999) cites several studies which have found out situations in which refugees may or may not want to return. These include, among others, the passage of time; the reluctance of 2nd generation refugees to return to a home they may know little about; the transformed meaning of home to individuals and groups profoundly affected by exile; and the idea of a nostalgic homeland as compared to a home which meets practical and security needs. These could well make return an unattractive choice.
In situations of protracted displacement when refugees have spent many years in exile, their choice of solution is usually informed by more than a nostalgic claim to their homeland or to a “cozy romanticized home” to which one must necessarily return. In fact many of the refugees did not consider return and/or repatriation as a viable option either now or in the near future.
Prominent among the reasons cited was the fear of return for security reasons, especially among women. These fears were mostly in relation to the persecution engendered by their work and/or position in the society prior to the war. An important factor explaining why many do not consider return and/or reintegration as an option in the long term, however, is the hope of resettlement. In so far as the latter is ongoing in the camp, the refugees continue clinging to the belief that it is very much a possibility even if the reality points to the contrary.
Return, Integration or Resettlement?
Commenting on the need to test the hypothesis assuming that all refugees desire to return home, Chimni (1999) cites several studies which have found out situations in which refugees may or may not want to return. These include, among others, the passage of time; the reluctance of 2nd generation refugees to return to a home they may know little about; the transformed meaning of home to individuals and groups profoundly affected by exile; and the idea of a nostalgic homeland as compared to a home which meets practical and security needs. These could well make return an unattractive choice.
In situations of protracted displacement when refugees have spent many years in exile, their choice of solution is usually informed by more than a nostalgic claim to their homeland or to a “cozy romanticized home” to which one must necessarily return. In fact many of the refugees did not consider return and/or repatriation as a viable option either now or in the near future.
Prominent among the reasons cited was the fear of return for security reasons, especially among women. These fears were mostly in relation to the persecution engendered by their work and/or position in the society prior to the war. An important factor explaining why many do not consider return and/or reintegration as an option in the long term, however, is the hope of resettlement. In so far as the latter is ongoing in the camp, the refugees continue clinging to the belief that it is very much a possibility even if the reality points to the contrary.
Commenting on the need to test the hypothesis assuming that all refugees desire to return home, Chimni (1999) cites several studies which have found out situations in which refugees may or may not want to return. These include, among others, the passage of time; the reluctance of 2nd generation refugees to return to a home they may know little about; the transformed meaning of home to individuals and groups profoundly affected by exile; and the idea of a nostalgic homeland as compared to a home which meets practical and security needs. These could well make return an unattractive choice.
In situations of protracted displacement when refugees have spent many years in exile, their choice of solution is usually informed by more than a nostalgic claim to their homeland or to a “cozy romanticized home” to which one must necessarily return. In fact many of the refugees did not consider return and/or repatriation as a viable option either now or in the near future.
Prominent among the reasons cited was the fear of return for security reasons, especially among women. These fears were mostly in relation to the persecution engendered by their work and/or position in the society prior to the war. An important factor explaining why many do not consider return and/or reintegration as an option in the long term, however, is the hope of resettlement. In so far as the latter is ongoing in the camp, the refugees continue clinging to the belief that it is very much a possibility even if the reality points to the contrary.
Places become fixed locations with unique and unchanging characters when people and cultures are understood as localized and belonging to particular places. Contesting the latter view, Malkki (1997a: 72) asserts, “to plot only ‘places of birth’ and degree of naturalness is to blind oneself to the multiplicity of attachments that people form to places through living in, remembering and imagining them”.
Liisa H. Malkki is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University. Her research interests include: the politics of nationalism, internationalism, cosmopolitanism, and human rights discourses as transnational cultural forms; the social production of historical memory and the uses of history; political violence, exile, and displacement; the ethics and politics of humanitarian aid; child research; and visual culture.
“Home is where one is an ‘insider”.
Recent research on refugees indicates that the experience of displacement can also result in the remaking of self and seems to agree with the possibility of “making a new home”.
It also reveals itself contrary to the general conclusion that “normal life” can only be restored when a displaced persons return to their root or place of origin. This latter perception however fits well with the current international refugee policy that favours repatriation of refugees and asylum seekers as the best durable solution.
Liisa H. Malkki is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University. Her research interests include: the politics of nationalism, internationalism, cosmopolitanism, and human rights discourses as transnational cultural forms; the social production of historical memory and the uses of history; political violence, exile, and displacement; the ethics and politics of humanitarian aid; child research; and visual culture.
“Home is where one is an ‘insider”.
Recent research on refugees indicates that the experience of displacement can also result in the remaking of self and seems to agree with the possibility of “making a new home”.
It also reveals itself contrary to the general conclusion that “normal life” can only be restored when a displaced persons return to their root or place of origin. This latter perception however fits well with the current international refugee policy that favours repatriation of refugees and asylum seekers as the best durable solution.
Today, the world is caught in a pandemonium of crisis that leads to rapid loss of life; and those that are fortunate to escape such catastrophes are usually left with the alternative of being internally displaced if they are residing in their own home country or considered as refugees if they cross into a foreign country.
This is the case with the Liberian refugees presently in Ghana.
The Liberian civil war which lasted for a period of 14 years (1989-2003) and made about 350,000 Liberians as refugees just in the West African region alone (VOA News, 2005). Out of this number over 40,000 resided in Ghana as of 2005 in accordance with The Liberian Refugee Welfare Council and the Ghana Refugee Board estimate.
Prior to the arrival of the Liberian refugees, the Ghanaian government had no experience with hosting refugees in a camp. There were thus no government ministries or agency with the expertise to handle such a situation, neither were there any government policy guidelines for handling refugees. The unexpected way in which they arrived in Ghana created problems as to whether they should be classified as refugees or not. The OAU Convention however covered them in so far as civil war was raging in their country and they were compelled to go to the ports (where they were picked up together with the evacuated Ghanaians) to seek refuge. Since Ghana had ratified both the UN and OAU conventions on refugees, these provided the basis for her dealings with the Liberian refugees. This though was done in an ad hoc manner due to the lack of local legislation on them. For the first two years, it could formally not accord them refugee status and when it finally did, it would only recognize them as ‘’De facto’’ refugees apparently for the same reason.
The United Nations High Commissioner for refugees in 2000 formerly withdrew all support for Liberian refugees in Ghana and other part of the sub-region of West Africa.
The already poor educational system at the camp was hard hit by this decision as aid to the school system was halted.
Since the withdrawal, Liberian refugees at the Buduburam refugee camp have been left to provide for themselves on a daily basis as all support from humanitarian agencies came to an abrupt end.
In similar vein, locals or members of the host community could do no more as their capacity of receptiveness to the Liberians had been overstretched .
Enumerating what she thought to be the causes of the high dropout rate among camp children, a youth listed the following:
• Lack of support, financial assistance to make it in school
• Teenage pregnancy
• Some just don’t want to go to school
• Some also believe they’ll be resettled so they stop in the hopes of travelling and will rather wait till they get there to continue.
This is the case with the Liberian refugees presently in Ghana.
The Liberian civil war which lasted for a period of 14 years (1989-2003) and made about 350,000 Liberians as refugees just in the West African region alone (VOA News, 2005). Out of this number over 40,000 resided in Ghana as of 2005 in accordance with The Liberian Refugee Welfare Council and the Ghana Refugee Board estimate.
Prior to the arrival of the Liberian refugees, the Ghanaian government had no experience with hosting refugees in a camp. There were thus no government ministries or agency with the expertise to handle such a situation, neither were there any government policy guidelines for handling refugees. The unexpected way in which they arrived in Ghana created problems as to whether they should be classified as refugees or not. The OAU Convention however covered them in so far as civil war was raging in their country and they were compelled to go to the ports (where they were picked up together with the evacuated Ghanaians) to seek refuge. Since Ghana had ratified both the UN and OAU conventions on refugees, these provided the basis for her dealings with the Liberian refugees. This though was done in an ad hoc manner due to the lack of local legislation on them. For the first two years, it could formally not accord them refugee status and when it finally did, it would only recognize them as ‘’De facto’’ refugees apparently for the same reason.
The United Nations High Commissioner for refugees in 2000 formerly withdrew all support for Liberian refugees in Ghana and other part of the sub-region of West Africa.
The already poor educational system at the camp was hard hit by this decision as aid to the school system was halted.
Since the withdrawal, Liberian refugees at the Buduburam refugee camp have been left to provide for themselves on a daily basis as all support from humanitarian agencies came to an abrupt end.
In similar vein, locals or members of the host community could do no more as their capacity of receptiveness to the Liberians had been overstretched .
Enumerating what she thought to be the causes of the high dropout rate among camp children, a youth listed the following:
• Lack of support, financial assistance to make it in school
• Teenage pregnancy
• Some just don’t want to go to school
• Some also believe they’ll be resettled so they stop in the hopes of travelling and will rather wait till they get there to continue.
How to survive lifetime in the refugee camp
Who is a refugee?
“Every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing order in either part of or the whole of his country of origin or nationality is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality” (OAU Convention on Refugees 1969, Art.1)
“Every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing order in either part of or the whole of his country of origin or nationality is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality” (OAU Convention on Refugees 1969, Art.1)
Abonner på:
Innlegg (Atom)
