The Impact of Refugees as the Cause of Host State Refugee Conflict - Literature review Example

The Impact of Refugees as the Cause of Host Sate Refugee Conflict Chapter introduction There is a need to rephrase the perception about refugees as limited to a humanitarian problem and include the political problem especially in term s of security. Usually, refugees are seen as a problem to the international charitable organizations and people ignore the political, economic and social problems that refugee carries to the host country. The presence of refugee in a country starts up or accelerates the existing internal conflicts in the host country. For instance, the exiled population in the 1980s constituted a great threat to the political security and social stability in most nations in Africa1 . At the grassroots level, refugees are usually associated with problems such as drugs, alcoholism, banditry, prostitution, and other forms of crimes. In most cases, the host countries usually lack the capacity to provide the much-needed security measure in the underdeveloped and remote areas which are typical areas where the refugees settle. The problems associated with refugee's results into the commonly ignored conflict between them and the host sates. In this chapter the author analyses the diverse nature of the refugee-host sate conflict. In doing so the chapter begins by discussing the impact of the refugees on the host country in Africa as a fuel of the conflict. It then cites from the historical and prevailing examples in the Southern and central Africa region of Africa to explain the dynamic nature of the conflict. The chapter then concludes by analyzing the attitude of the host countries as a contributor to the refugee-host sates conflict. The attitude of the states involves the perception of the host government and the host community and how the two influence how the refugee are treated in the asylum country. The community is unwilling to support the refugees due to the scarcity of resources and the host government also prioritize serving its citizens as opposed to providing for the refugees. The impact of refugees as the cause of host sate refugee conflict. A considerable number of researchers postulate that the refugees have a significant adverse effect on the safety of most states. The researcher also stresses that persecution and political violence are among the major contributors to the plight of refugees. Despite refugees being viewed as the unfortunate asylum seekers from war-torn countries, they, may also serve as a special kind of catalysts for conflicts, not only internal conflicts in the hosting nation but also between states, including military based actions2. Even though the claims have not been sufficiently tested, an ideal example used to back up the argument is the case of Inversion of Zaire by Rwanda in the mid-1990s which is believed to highly motivated by the desire to disband the refugee camps harboring militia groups. The influx of refugees is not only a cause of humanitarian disaster but is also accompanied by undisputed implication on the host community and border states. According to Conrad and Ritter, the terms domestic or internal and civil wars means turbulent interactions between dissidents and states, and the undesirable consequences resulting from the violation of human rights, arising within the states3. Instead of treating states as independent units it is imperative to consider them as a unit of an interconnected dense network where the operations and occurrence in one state have a significant effect on the others within the region and also in the other world. The humanitarian effects of civil war and turmoil in the state involved may not be limited to that particular state but may have spillover effects or create significant externalities in the neighboring countries and communities. The refugee crises together with the accompanying consequences are not limited to a certain border area but exhibit spillover effects on the security standards of a wider region. The influx of refugees is always followed by a substantial economic burden to the country of asylum4 . The burden exists irrespective of the availability of financial aid from international organizations, which is at times from some of the world's not so economically stable nation who may not usually bear most of the cost of maintaining them. The individuals seeking refuge just like the other citizens require public service and humanitarian assistance which should probably be provided by the host nation. In their struggle for survival, they have to compete with the local for both jobs and the other limited resources resulting in an inevitable conflict with the domestic actors. The same analogy is adopted by Cortes. He argues that the refugees are disadvantaged in competing for and engaging in productive economic activities in the host nations as opposed to voluntary labor immigrants. He continues to explain that unlike the voluntary immigrants, the refugees are not selected to fill the job market niche requiring their skills, and above that, most of them may have suffered war traumas worsening their chances to perform in the workplaces5. In other words, the researches general claim is that the civil wars in one nation that creates the menace of refugees are not the only problem and it has a negative impact on the GDP growth of the neighboring peaceful states that provide a home to the displaced. The impact on the GDP is a real cause friction between refugees and the hosting states since it's the mandate of the government of the hosting nation to ensure a healthy economy but the refugees act as an impediment to achieving the same goal. The host community is pressuring the government to repatriate the refugees since they feel that they are being snatched the little resources that rightfully belong to them in sustaining the refugees. The host government is also in a hurry with the repatriation process even if the country of origin is not entirely peaceful and fit for the asylum seekers since it’s uncomfortable with the economic burden. Apart from the economic strain, the refugees may also be contributors deteriorating public health conditions which may have adverse consequences in the hosting sites. Africa host most of the large refugee camps which are usually crowded and unsanitary. For example, the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya as already discussed in the previous chapter is operating way above its capacity. The unsanitary conditions are an ideal environment for the thriving of infectious and contagious disease. The influx of the refugees, therefore, overstretch the medical arsenals of the hosting nation. In addition, it diverts the medical program from the normal care provision plan meant for the host communities towards them. Apart from the diversion from the program the refugee also bring the need for specialized care which was unplanned for like the requirement for medical programmes to overcome war trauma which further strain the health docket of the hosting nation. The same analogy is corroborated by Ghobarah, Huth, & Russett in their research work where they identify that civil wars catalyze the rate of morbidity and mortality both in the affected country and in the neighboring countries6. Refugees also contribute to the spread of some of the diseases such as Malaria, HIV/AIDs, diarrhea and other infectious ailments7. The host government is the primary organization responsible for upholding health status within its borders, thus it views the refugee as a threat to nit peaceful and comfortable discharge of its duties. No government is willing to spend most of its income in providing the best medical support to the refuges. In Africa, most of the counties hosting refuges such as Uganda and Kenya have no economic strength to sustain the heavy health burden. Therefore, the host government usually tend to ignore most of the health problems in the refugee camps and only cheap in when the situation is critical. Failure to contain the health problem within the camps leads to it spilling over to the neighboring community and further complicating the problem. The government is therefore very uncomfortable hosting the refugees and the refugees are also very uncomfortable with the conditions in the camps. The refugees thus struggle to look for better conditions in areas outside the while the government is also struggling to contain the within the camps. The disparity in interests, therefore, exacerbates the friction between the refugees and the hosting nation. Apart from deterioration of health conditions, the refugees also disrupt the ethnic balance in the destination countries by a means which may be termed demographic externality. The host community perceives the refugees as unwelcomed guests and a potential threat to their culture and beliefs. The ethnic tension may increase especially in situations where the refugees possess ethnic traits conforming to some minority section of the existing community. In Africa states where ethnic cleavage is deeply rooted, unexpected, and the huge influx of immigrants disorients the fragile pre-existing ethnic balance and stir up inter-group conflict8 . The sudden surge in human traffic into the host country may also extensively complicate the normal conditions by destabilizing the local dimensions of power9 . In addition, refugee contributes to the instability in the security of the host country. They may aid organized armed conflict in the asylum state. According to the works of Salehyan refugee inflow into a country duplicates the possibility of civil wars10. As the refugees cross borders into the host country they are accompanied by foreign fighters pretending to be refugees, arms and ideologies idea for starting up violence. Since the refugees are escaping volatile environment into the peaceful countries, they may be accompanied by members of the militia groups from their country of origin. The concept of refugee warriors is identified by most scholars11. When the member of the militia arrive in the host country plus the smuggled weapons they can recruit new members and expand the rebel network to cover the host state. If the militia establishes its operating bases within the refugee camps it might join with or even provoke similar ethnic-oriented groups in the host nation or also support political rebels if it of the same course12. Thus it is not disputed that the inflow of refugees can mean a great source of violent turmoil within the hoisting territories. The influx of refugee threatens to extend the opposition and violence across the nation; boundaries. The migrants are trying to escape civil war and persecution by seeking safety in the peaceful countries. Like the case of Somali refugees in Kenya, the refugees normally settle in the neighboring to their original states. Since most of the African borders are porous the asylum seekers are not completely immune to the attack of states of origin. The militia groups participating in the civil war may continue to pursue their political or ethnic rivals across boarders being that most of the refugee camps are located close to the borders13 . In case of such attack, the territorial integrity, and national sovereignty the host state is greatly violated. The security state further worsens if the host state decides to object the military incursion particularly in the situations where the local community is also consumed in the cross-border attacks14. No government condones military degradation of their sovereignty and any form of malicious foreign incursion even if they cannot physically and tightly ensure control of their borders. In other scenarios, the refugees themselves graduate from passive actors to active actors. Even though a significant percentage of the refugees are not directly involved in violent acts but are just unfortunate victims of circumstances, some refugees group up into insurgent organisations and baptise the camps to serve two parallel functions, as a home to the displaced and as a sanctuary to harbour militia groups 15. Since the conditions in the refugee camps are not favorable for survival some of the refugees accept to be recruited in the militia organization so as to earn individual sense of purpose of just to get an alternative to life within the camps16. Most the refugee warrior form since the host state are not strong enough to prevent the militarization of the camps or the host state may encourage the unusual and inappropriate activities as a way of undermining their rivals 17. Therefore the violence between refugees and their home countries is like a coin and is two-sided since it mutates into a transcontinental problem that overrides international boundaries. Therefore, the fear of the security issues associated with the refugees is a major fuel in the conflict between refugees and the host nation. The next section in this chapter will exploit the examples in explaining the already discussed causes of friction between refugees and the host states. The nature and scope of the refugee host-state conflict in southern and central Africa. As already discussed, among the major causes of refugee-host state conflict is the insecurity problems that accompany the refugee crisis. The insecurity problem is not restricted to the refugee's country of origin but is a regional menace that follows the footsteps of the refugees to the asylum neighboring nations. In an attempt to exploit the regional spread of insecurity following the movement of refugees across a region, it is essential to borrow from the case of civil war in Angola. The war led to the flight of numbers of Angolan citizens into neighboring countries like DRC, Congo Brazzaville, and Namibia. Before long the whole region in central Africa was experiencing security problems. The problems further trickled down to Burundi, where several Hutus fled into the neighboring countries like Zambia, and Tanzania. The expected continued and Zambia was also infected with the contagious disease of civil war. The whole succession of security problem explains the friction between host nations and their refugees. The resumption of civil war in Angola in the late 1990s not only jeopardized the ongoing repatriation of Angolan refugees following the previous civil wars but also meant the creation of new refugee problem18. It caused fresh movement from Angola into neighboring countries. Reports by the United Nations showed that by the end of 1998 approximately 330 000 Angolans were internally displaced. A total of about 255 000 refugees from Angola were registered in the neighboring countries of Namibia, Zambia, Congo DRC, and Congo Brazzaville19 . The neighboring countries experienced a steady increase in the number of new Angolan refugees registered from the month of July to December of 199820. Even though most of the nations in southern Africa exhibited some level of peace at that time, Angola stood out as an exception due to the continued civil war. It was, therefore, more closely linked to the developments of the volatility experienced in the Great Lakes region of Central Africa21. The persistent insecurity issues in the Lakes region of Central Africa further spread the problem of the refugees across borders. The source of the great lake's problem can be traced back to several decades. The outstanding catalyst of the insecurity problems among the many causes was the murder of the first democratically elected president of Burundi. The assassination led the displacement of over 700 000 Hutus who fled from Burundi to the neighboring countries Tanzania, Zaire, and more so Rwanda in an attempt to escape the revenge killings perpetrated by the army22. After the Burundi fiasco, events unfolded in the region in quick and startling succession. In the first quarter of 1994, Rwanda became a victim of human catastrophe linked to enormous organized genocide23. The genocide led to the fleeing of most innocent Rwandan citizens. In the process of refugee movement, genuine refugees were accompanied by the perpetrators of the genocide into the countries of refuge. The movement ranked not only among the largest and fastest movement of refugee in the modern history but also among the few complex ones. An estimated over 2 million people were displaced following the genocide24. Following the sheer magnitude of the refugee problem, regional insecurity worsened. The host governments with the little support from the international organizations could not implement to a satisfactory level most of the fundamental principles international laws protecting the refuges owing to the huge influx of refugees. Most of the refugee camps exhibited a significant level of disorganization and created an ideal environment for the thriving of organized militia groups25. Influence and control of most of the camps thus laid on the hands of the Interahamwe and the former Rwandan militia groups that were responsible for the genocide. Innocent refugees and all the other civilians were in the camps were held hostage as a form of leverage or human shields to prevent the separation of actual people in need of help and the members of the genocide army as the militia continued their operations26. Therefore, the camps located close to the Rwandan border were used as bases to organize and launch attack back into Rwanda by the same militia. The persistent insecurity in the region widened the conflict between refugee and the hosting states and also led to the continued generation of refugees that host states were reluctant to receive due to the fear of accompanying insecurity issues. Apart from the conflict driven by perceiving refugees as a course cause of insecurity, there exist other motivations of the host sate refugee conflict. As already mentioned in the previous topic large influxes of refugees also possess significant strain on the social, economic, and environmental infrastructure of the hosting nation. The problem becomes more severe especially to the host nation when the support from international organizations is not sufficient. Ideal refugee-host states conflict driven by such as the case of when Tanzania arrived at a drastic decision of closing its borders at some during the refugee crisis in the great lakes region. South Africa also put in place stringent laws to regulate the inflow of refugees into their territory to control the striking impact the refugees had on the social fabric of its society. A large part of southern Africa had not experienced the destabilizing and volatile mass displacement and movement of refugees exhibited by central Africa for several years. The organized return of the Mozambique refugees following the end civil war in the country meant a great reduction in the number of hosted refugees in the region in the 1990s27. During the same period, Most of the South Africans returned from abroad. Angola was the only exception to the relative peace witnessed in the region. Despite the relative decline in the movement of refugees in the region, the few asylum seekers increasingly generated a new problem in the region since they became an urban phenomenon28. The impact of this new problem was more pronounced in South Africa. The immigrants had a great impact on the social fabric of South African society due to several reasons. The most common is the concentration of the refugees in the urban areas that are even already densely populated29. The free movement of the refugees around the urban areas makes it very difficult to provide for them by the free aid intended to them by the supporting international organizations. Therefore, they are forced to compete for the limited resources and opportunities such as employment with the locals which lead to conflict with the locals. South Africa in an attempt to protect its cities and its citizens, it applied largely selective and restrictive immigration controls to regulate the refugees entering its territory. The same is proven by the low number of refugees that entered South Africa in comparison to the neighboring countries in the region. For example, the refugees that crossed into Tanzania within one year between 1998 and 1999 from South Kivu alone was approximately 30 000 while only approximately 51 000 applicants seeking asylum were allowed in South Africa after a period of five years after the launch of asylum procedures from 1993 to 199830. The urban problem of refugees is not only limited to South Africa but is also experienced by other traditional asylum destinations like Tanzania and Kenya. The refugee protection policies adopted by Kenya and Tanzania in the early 1960s were crafted to accommodate the primary refugees of rural refugees who were supported in restricted camps strict designation of settlement areas. The influx of refugee led to most of them escaping the camps and moving into urban areas for better opportunities. The presence in the urban areas led to several complaints by the locals and the government ordered all refugees to vacate the urban areas and resettle in the camps31. The order was enforced by a regular police sweep in the early 1990s32. Urban refugees thus live clandestinely in the cities. Such conditions have placed the refugees in peripheral position within the host society and are, therefore, incapable of engaging in productive activities. The next section tackles the attitude of host countries as a driver of conflict between refugees and the asylum state. The attitude of host nations as a cause of refugee host-state conflict With the passage of the refugee-hosting countries in Africa have continued to escape the responsibility of applying the basic principles of asylum. Some nation has closed their borders and refused to allow in refugees, others have engaged in forceful and undignified repatriation of asylum seekers. Others have also insisted on short-term asylum irrespective of the conditions prevailing in the countries of refugee's origin whether they are peaceful enough or still under war. Most of the nations have also failed to provide habitable conditions for the refugees within the camps in their territories. The above conditions have led to the continued deterioration of the rights of the refugees guaranteed under the various relevant international and humanitarian conventions. The ignorance of the refugee rights is pronounced in the great lakes region where the nations have been affected by the huge influx of refugees33. The problem is further worsened by the limited international and regional support to the hosting nations together with the armed militia group members camouflaging within the refugee camps34. Another major element causing refugee host state conflict thus catalyzing the retreat from upholding refugee rights is the increasing xenophobia within the host countries35. Much of the xenophobic reaction is witnessed in South Africa. Just to cite some few scenarios in South Africa, in December of 1994 and January of 1995 the media in South Africa reported a case of an attack on suspected immigrants36. An armed gang of young people in Alexandria Township just beside Johannesburg, in the province of Gauteng, destroyed the property and residence of suspected immigrants which they claimed were in the country illegally. They marched the individuals to the nearby police station and demanded that they be forcefully deported to their country. Another incident is when a Mozambican and two Senegalese were throughout of a moving train passing through Johannesburg in the month of September of 199837. The perpetrator of the same was a group of individuals traveling from a political rally. They blamed the foreigners to be the cause of unemployment, crime, and spread of the diseases like HIV/AIDs. In one of the townships of Johannesburg, Zandsprit, the resident turned violent and went around burning down houses of Zimbabwean foreigner38. They also claimed they are doing away with the foreigners who are snatching their jobs and indulging in crime in the area. Even though xenophobia is pronounced in South Africa, it is not unique there, it is also happening in other host countries though mild. Since it has not been reported it does not in any way mean that it is not violent in the other states. Therefore, in the past decade xenophobia has proved a constraining factor in the little efforts the host governments put in place to implement refugee policy. The xenophobic reaction can be partially explained by the fact that the hosting community, as well as the government, no longer view refugees as victims of racially or colonially motivated conflicts. The feeling of unity and the sense of solidarity against a common enemy that once existed as faded away due to a change in the interest of individuals. Not to forget the stringent measure imposed by the world bank and the International Monetary Fund and the declining economic status of most African nations that have significantly restricted access to social services to the citizens of most countries. In such conditions, the additional responsibility of the host state providing for the refugees is highly refuted by the locals. Away from the xenophobia, following the increasing democratization of African states, host governments are keen to maintain a positive image. The host government would rather please the local citizens who they desperately need their support and approval during elections rather than please the international organizations by satisfactorily accommodating refugees39. Therefore, there is a high sensitivity against negative reaction from the public regarding the presence of refugees. The host government is also under pressure from the local to implement domestic programmes instead of funding refugee programs. Lastly, the African states are also suffering from the ripple effect developed by the new policies of denying refugees entry into the developed Western and Northern states. The action of the economically strong nations of relinquishing their commitment and support to the international humanitarian organizations have influenced the economically fragile southern states to doubt their commitments in upholding refugee rights40. They feel that they do not have enough resources at their disposal but still have to support the refugees. They, therefore forgo the rights of the refugees to implement the domestic programmes designed for their citizens. Chapter conclusion. The chapter analyses the nature of refugee host state conflict. In that direction, the chapter assesses the impact of refugee as a source of the conflict borrowing from the historical cases of refugee movement experience in the greater part of southern and central Africa. The refugee does not only create humanitarian disaster but is also associated with great implications and spillover effect of the volatility in the states of origin to the Border States and the host communities. In exploiting the nature of the refugee-host state conflict the paper deduces that the impact of the refugee on the host country act as a catalyst for the same friction in terms of insecurity and economic burden since the refugee require humanitarian assistance. Apart from the economic burden, the refugees also contribute to the deterioration of host countries standards of public health like the spread of diseases which has adverse consequences to the host nation. The chapter also alludes to the contribution of the host state attitude towards the refugees as a cause of the witnessed hoist state refugee conflict. In the current crises of refugee, most of the African states no longer view refugees as victims of colonial or racially motivated violence. They are viewed as a threat to the economic and societal balance in the host nations. There exist the xenophobic reactions from the host communities since they feel that the refugee are there to compete for the scarce resources and opportunities in their country. The same has resulted in the violent attack as the cases reported in South Africa. Host governments also turn a blind eye on supporting the refugees with humanitarian aid in order to protect their image to their citizens which also is a cause of friction. Therefore, with the diverse nature of the host country refugee conflict, it needs to be addressed at the regional and international level as opposed to states level since it’s a complex phenomenon with wide roots that circumnavigate border boundaries. Reference Conrad, C. R., & Ritter, E. H. (2013). Treaties, tenure, and torture: The conflicting domestic effects of international law. The Journal of Politics, 75(2), 397-409. Martin, A. (2005). The environmental conflict between refugee and host communities. Journal of peace research, 42(3), 329-346. Cortes, K. E. (2004). Are refugees different from economic immigrants? Some empirical evidence on the heterogeneity of immigrant groups in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(2), 465-480. Ghobarah, H. A., Huth, P., & Russett, B. (2003). Civil wars kill and maim people—long after the shooting stops. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 189-202. Connolly, M. A., Gayer, M., Ryan, M. J., Salama, P., Spiegel, P., & Heymann, D. L. (2004). Communicable diseases in complex emergencies: impact and challenges. The Lancet, 364(9449), 1974-1983. Esteban, J., & Ray, D. (2017). Conflict and development. Annual Reviews of Economics, 9, 263-293. Salehyan, I. (2008). The externalities of civil strife: Refugees as a source of international conflict. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 787-801. Nyers, P. (2013). Rethinking refugees: Beyond state of emergency. Routledge. Milner, J. (2009). Refugees and the regional dynamics of peacebuilding. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 28(1), 13-30. Adamson, F. B. (2006). Crossing borders: international migration and national security. International security, 31(1), 165-199. Portes, A., & Böröcz, J. (1989). Contemporary immigration: Theoretical perspectives on its determinants and modes of incorporation. International migration review, 23(3), 606-630. Dowt, Alan and gil Loescher (1996); Refugee Flows as Grounds for International Action. International Security. 21(1):43-71 Natariana, K. S. (2017). SECURITY CHALLENGES IN AFRICA: THE ROLE OF REFUGEES IN KENYA (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi). Bøås, M. (2014). The Politics of Conflict Economies: miners, merchants, and warriors in the African borderland. Routledge. Lowry, M. (2002). Creating human insecurity: The national security focus in Canada’s immigration system. Refuge: Canada's Journal on Refugees, 21(1). Lischer, Sarah (2005): Dangerous Sanctuaries: Refugee Camps, Civil War, and the Dilemmas of Humanitarian Aid. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Chaulia, S. (2006). Angola: Empire of the humanitarians. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. United Nations. Department of Public Information. (2009). Millennium Development Goals Report 2009 (Includes the 2009 Progress Chart). United Nations Publications. Crisp, J. (2003). No solution in sight: the problem of protracted refugee situations in Africa. Reyntjens, F. (2004). Rwanda, ten years on: From genocide to dictatorship. African affairs, 103(411), 177-210. McEvoy-Levy, S. (2001). Youth as social and political agents: Issues in post-settlement peacebuilding. Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame. Rutinwa, B. (2017). The end of the asylum? The changing nature of refugee policies in Africa. In International Refugee Law (pp. 35-64). Routledge. Daley, P. (2013). Refugees, idps and Citizenship Rights: the perils of humanitarianism in the African Great Lakes region. Third World Quarterly, 34(5), 893-912. Pavanello, S., Elhawary, S., & Pantuliano, S. (2010). Hidden and exposed: Urban refugees in Nairobi, Kenya. London: Overseas Development Institute. O'Neill, W., Rutinwa, B., & Verdirame, G. (2000). The Great Lakes: A survey of the application of the exclusion clauses in the Central African Republic, Kenya, and Tanzania. Int'l J. Refugee L., 12, 135. South African History Online (2015). Xenophobic violence in democratic South Africa: https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/xenophobic-violence-democratic-south-africa# Hughes, D. M. (1999). Refugees and squatters: Immigration and the politics of territory on the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border. Journal of Southern African Studies, 25(4), 533-552. Duffield, M. (2014). Global governance and the new wars: the merging of development and security. Zed Books Ltd. Read More