Coercion and Intimidation in the Voluntary Repatriation of 37,000 Burundian Refugees from Mtabila Camp, Tanzania. By Daniel Neumann 1 June 2009

Transcription

1 Fahamu Networks for social justice Coercion and Intimidation in the Voluntary Repatriation of 37,000 Burundian Refugees from Mtabila Camp, Tanzania INTRODUCTION By Daniel Neumann 1 June 2009 This report is based on interviews conducted over Cive days in Burundi with returned refugees and four days in Tanzania with refugees still residing in Mtabila camp. Interviews were conducted with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) implementing partners in Burundi and Tanzania Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), Lutheran World Federation and another that spoke on the condition of anonymity, as well as Human Rights Watch and anonymous international observers in Tanzania. Tanzanian authorities were consulted as well as ofcicials from UNHCR in both Tanzania and Burundi. See also the attached notice in Swahili that was handed out to all refugees in Mtabila by UNHCR (unofcicial translation follows). The Mtabila refugee camp in western Tanzania is scheduled to close by 30 June The camp is home to some 37,000 Burundian refugees, many of whom Cled ethnic violence and armed conclict in their country in According to UNHCR, since ,000 3 Burundian refugees have been repatriated from Tanzania, however, those remaining in Mtabila camp have persistently refused return. Tanzanian authorities have employed coercion and intimidation to force the remaining refugees out. In the last six months, they have closed the refugees markets and businesses, restricted crop cultivation, burned houses, arrested camp leaders and threatened the use of force by the army. UNHCR has yet to publicly condemn the actions of the Tanzanian government, and moreover, rights groups contend the agency has stood by while refugees were forced to return based on threats of force while uninformed of their rights. BACKGROUND Before camp closures began in 2007, more than a half million Burundian refugees were living in western Tanzania in eight camps across three districts. The Cirst inclux came in 1972 when tens of thousands arrived after Burundi s Tutsi led junta massacred between 100,000 and 300,000 Hutus. They settled and integrated in agricultural settlements in Rukwa and Tabora districts. The second major inclux came in 1993 after Melchior Ndadaye, a Hutu and the Cirst democratically elected president in Burundi s history, was assassinated, plunging the country into more than a decade of civil war. Since 1993 approximately 1.3 million Burundian refugees have entered Tanzania, of whom approximately 500,000 remained prior to the current repatriation programme. Tanzania had long been considered hospitable to refugees. Last year it made the largest naturalisation offer in African history. Nearly 165,000 Burundian refugees who have lived in Tanzania since the This report was written by Daniel Neumann, a freelance journalist and consultant to Fahamu s refugee programme. 2 Since Zachary Lomo s announcement of the forced repatriation in Pambazuka News in May 2009, the Minister of Home Affairs announced in Dar es Salaam that the closure of Mtabila camp would be delayed. A new timeline was not announced and it is not known if such information has reached the refugees or if it will actually affect practice in Kasulu district. 3 As of 20 May 2009.

2 massacres have applied for naturalization, although all those born in the country were already citizens. Tanzania s reputation declined drastically in 1996 when the army forcefully repatriated hundreds of thousands of Rwandans at gunpoint. Then, beginning in 1997, the government ordered the army to round up all foreigners unlawfully residing in Tanzania. Tens of thousands of people residing outside of refugee camps in Kasulu, Kibondo and Ngara districts were forcefully expelled. In 2002, believing the circumstances leading to the refugee Clow had ceased, UNHCR and the governments of Burundi and Tanzania signed a tripartite agreement to facilitate the voluntary return of Burundian refugees from Tanzania. In 2005, the policy shifted from facilitating return to actively promoting return. In 2007, the Cirst camps were closed, and since then hundreds and thousands of Burundians have been rapidly returned. The parties have thus far opted not to invoke the cessation clause, which under international law would lift the Burundians prima facie refugee status and would require Tanzania to offer other options to those unable or unwilling to return. KEY FINDINGS The refugees remaining in Mtabila camp are the last of the encamped Burundian refugees in Tanzania. They have been described by camp authorities and several implementing partners as hardcore refugees, meaning they have adamantly resisted repatriation thus far. They are made up of groups of refugees that moved to Mtabila camp as the other camps were closed. Many of them have been moved from one camp to another. The Tanzanian camp commandant in charge of Mtabila camp Clippantly referred to all refugees in the camp men, women and children as criminals afraid to return to Burundi because of crimes they had committed during the war. Senior ofcicials in UNHCR said the remaining refugees are being held hostage by a few powerful refugee community leaders desperately clinging to their power base in the camp. One UNHCR ofcicial in charge of the reception programme in Burundi compared the situation to that of Rwandan refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the mid 1990s when the interahamwe used Hutu refugees as cover and reportedly killed those they found returning to Rwanda. These claims could not be substantiated. In contrast, all of the refugees interviewed expressed specicic reasons for wishing to stay in Tanzania. Some say they fear persecution by Burundi s ruling party, Conseil National pour la Défense de la Démocratie, which they say violently oppresses those it considers in opposition. And many of those living in Mtabila, who say they are assumed to be supporters of the rebel turned opposition group Forces Nationales de Liberation fear they will be targeted by the government upon return. Moreover, most expect to have lost their land and access to education or jobs in Burundi. Many also say they are waiting for the 2010 elections in Burundi to see if the peace holds. One refugee in Mtabila said, We are seen as enemies by the government. Why else would they be forcing us to return? The refugee added, There is no peace yet in Burundi, that s why I m not planning to go yet. We all made our decisions to Clee Burundi at our own time according to how we evaluated the situation then. And now we are again expecting to be able to make individual decisions according to how we see the situation in Burundi. Another factor the Mtabila refugees cite for remaining is the encampment of thousands of refugees upon return to Burundi. Many of the 45,000 returning refugees from the 1972 caseload have found their land occupied and have had to live in UNHCR constructed temporary housing settlements in the Makamba province in southern Burundi. Refugees interviewed said the settlements were in poor condition, lacking even the most basic amenities such as potable water. The UNHCR ofcicial in charge of the temporary settlements said they were reluctant to develop the camps as they did not want to create a situation that would encourage the returnees to stay where they are. UNHCR and the Burundian government have set up a land commission to settle disputes and reconnect refugees with their land. But, with thousands of cases backlogged, refugees have had to wait up to 2

3 eight months for a decision. Two refugees interviewed near Mabanda said they had begged for a 10 by 10 meter section of their original land. Burundi s long term solution is to develop peace villages around the country where landless refugees can resettle. They have opened four so far with plans to open 10 more in the coming year. However, an ofcicial at Lutheran World Federation said the peace village might not be sustainable. In surveying the allocated land for agriculture suitability and availability of Cirewood, the organisation found each site could sustain approximately 200 households. The government has plans to locate 5,000 households on each site. Knowing the views of the Mtabila refugees, Tanzanian camp authorities have employed strong arm tactics to drive those remaining from the camp. In January, after it was announced that the camp would close, the camp commandant ordered that cash crops not be grown. Only short cycle crops that could be harvested before the 30 June deadline (beans, cassava leaves and potatoes) could be planted. Since then, camp authorities have closed the camp s two main markets and all of its shops and businesses, rendering refugees completely dependent on food aid. Refugees say they have resorted to organising ad hoc markets that are quickly broken up by police. Also, they say their freedom of movement in and out of the camp has been greatly restricted because camp authorities fear they will abscond into surrounding communities. Furthermore, they have been told repeatedly that UNHCR will suspend food distribution on 30 June. In April, refugees living in the camp s AC zone were ordered by the camp commandant to consolidate by the end of May. Many of the huts in AC zone had been vacated by returned refugees and police had been burning and demolishing the vacant structures, saying they could become havens for criminals. Then in May, while refugees were away at food distribution, approximately 30 inhabited huts were set on Cire. One refugee interviewed said he rushed back to Cind his house burning and struggled with others coming to his aid to remove his property from the burning hut. Those evicted have moved to other zones in the camp, erecting temporary structures with plastic sheeting or sharing shelter with fellow refugees. In mid June the inhabitants of AB zone were then told to destroy their homes and sign up for the UNHCR return convoys to Burundi or they would face the consequences. One refugee interviewed in an UNHCR transit camp near Mabanda in southern Burundi said he had snuck out of the camp to work as a casual laborer in a nearby village when he returned to Cind that his wife, giving in to the camp authorities threats, had begun to demolish their house. He cited this as the main factor in their decision to return. In early June, two of Mtabila s refugee leaders, a pastor and a commander in charge of a local defense force, were arrested and charged with discouraging refugees from signing up for repatriation. Both were imprisoned and subsequently released. They were then imprisoned again and allegedly poisoned. Both men, however, survived the incident. The pastor said his arrest stemmed from a personal grudge the camp commandant had developed toward him when he had refused to identify politically connected refugees in the camp. Tanzanian authorities have further intimidated refugees by telling them in public meetings that the camp will be turned into a camp for Tanzanian military after 30 June, and that soldiers and refugees don t mix. They have said further that they should leave now while [they] can do so with dignity. Both statements are understood to be veiled references to the 1996 expulsion of Rwandan refugees by the Tanzanian army. While one senior UNHCR ofcicial called the conduct of the Mtabila camp commandant a mistake, the agency has not condemned in public the actions of the Tanzanian authorities as compromising the voluntary nature of the returns. The same UN ofcicial contended that the refugees were making fully informed decisions regarding their return, and cited the numerous go and see visits and sensitisations the agency has organised concerning the security situation in Burundi. 3

4 A Human Rights Watch researcher remarked, We don t see the logic in over and over again telling a group of individuals that clearly don t want to go home that Burundi is safe, Burundi is Cine. In a press release issued in late June, the rights group criticised UNHCR for allowing a situation to persist where refugees were making rash decisions to return, unaware of the alternative durable solutions available to them. Under international refugee law, camp closure does not mean that refugees cannot remain in their host country. Refugees have the right to remain in Tanzania and enjoy continued protection. The fact of the matter, said the researcher is if UNHCR had done a better job sensitizing the refugees of their rights, we wouldn t have had to issue a press release. Months earlier, UNHCR had screened and separated 1,500 refugees with pending resettlement claims and protection issues from Mtabila and relocated them to Kanembwa camp. This was done with very little transparency and involvement of the implementing partners, said a senior ofcicial of an implementing partner in Burundi. When conducting an assessment of the repatriation programme in Mtabila in June, this ofcicial uncovered eight individuals with unresolved protection issues while interviewing refugees over the course of a few hours. The ofcicial speculated that this could be the tip of the iceberg as large numbers of refugees could still be in Mtabila with legitimate reasons for not wanting to return. The senior UNHCR ofcicial said this was highly probable but maintained that counseling and screening services were still ongoing inside the camp to detect such individuals. Several people working with the refugees on the ground have concluded that UNHCR is relying on the 30 June deadline and the coercive tactics of the Tanzanian authorities to drive as many people from the camp as possible. They say once this has happened they will extend the closure deadline and then pursue alternative durable solutions with what they hope will be a smaller number of Burundians. CONCLUSION The blatant intimidation employed by Tanzanian authorities combined with UNHCR s failure to protect rights has created a situation in Mtabila camp where many refugees are being coerced to return to Burundi despite well founded fears of persecution. UNCHR should publicly condemn the government s actions and begin informing refugees of the alternatives available to them. 4

5 Fahamu Trust is a registered charity in the UK (no ). Fahamu has offices in Oxford, UK; Nairobi, Kenya; Dakar, Senegal; and Cape Town, South Africa. Fahamu in Kenya No: F15/2006, and South Africa No. IT Fahamu Trust, 2nd floor, 51 Cornmarket Street, Oxford OX1 3HA, UK 5

6 ANNOUNCEMENT..ANNOUNCEMENT ANNOUNCEMENT!!!! VOLUNTARY REPATRIATION OF BURUNDIAN REFUGEES FROM MTABILA REFUGEE CAMP 1. Mtabila camp will be closed in June 2009, as previously decided by the Tanzanian government and confirmed by the general meeting of representatives from Burundi, Tanzania and UNHCR. 6

7 2. Refugees who register for voluntary repatriation after 1 May 2009 will not be given the cash assistance of 50,000 BFC. 3. UNHCR continues to encourage all refugees to show up in large numbers before June 2009 to register for assistance in voluntarily repatriating to Burundi. Those who register for voluntary repatriation early will be in a better position to be well-assisted. 4. If refugees are late in registering for voluntary repatriation, UNHCR may not be in a position to assist because of the large number of refugees and their luggage, and because UNHCR has an obligation to assist refugees who have already repatriated. The first ones to repatriate to Burundi will be the first ones to be assisted. 5. All those who repatriate will benefit from the following: free medical services for 3 months, free secondary school education for 2 years and free primary school education. 6. No refugees from Mtabila will be moved to any other refugee camp in Tanzania. 7. UNHCR will not be able to continue assisting Burundian refugees, nor will it continue to help them to look for refugee status in any other country, or ask for their naturalization in Tanzania. 7