UNIVERSITEIT GENT

FACULTEIT POLITIEKE EN SOCIALE WETENSCHAPPEN

Wetenschappelijke verhandeling

RAGNA FRANS

MASTERPROEF MANAMA CONFLICT AND DEVELOPMENT

PROMOTOR: PROF. DR. ANNE WALRAET

COMMISSARIS: DR. KAREN BÜSCHER

ACADEMIEJAAR 2011 - 2012

BURUNDIAN REFUGEES BECOMING TANZANIAN CITIZENS: CONCEPTUALISATIONS AND CONSTRUCTIONS OF IDENTITY AND HOME

aantal woorden: 24380

i

i

Home again

Home again

One day I know

I'll feel home again

Born again

Born again

One day I know

I'll feel strong again

I left my head

Many times I've been told

All this talk will make you old

So I close my eyes

Look behind

Moving on, moving on

So I close my eyes

Look behind

Moving on

From: Home Again by Michael Kiwanuka

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In first instance I would like to thank my promotor, Prof. Dr. Anne Walraet, for her support during the

realization of this dissertation. Her help in defining the subject, her useful suggestions with regard to

scientific articles and the provision of contacts in Tanzania proved essential to this work. Furthermore I owe

great gratitude to all my respondents. I would especially like to thank the (former) refugees who were

willing to share their experiences and thoughts with relation to a sensitive issue. Key respondents as well as

government officials and representatives of UNHCR have also been very helpful and provided me with

extensive information. Of enormous help has been Dr. Deo Baribwegure, Director of Kigoma Community

College by Radio (KICORA). I would like to express my thankfulness for introducing me to many of his

contacts, for sharing his insights and giving recommendations, for his enormous hospitality and constant

feedback. Asante sana! Last but not least I wish to thank my parents, family and friends for their support

and interest.

To conclude, I would like to mention that I would not have been able to do fieldwork in Tanzania without

the support of a VLIR-UOS scholarship.

ii

ABSTRACT

Objective: This dissertation focusses on conceptualisations of identity in a particular situation of protracted

displacement, that of the 1972 Burundian refugees in Tanzania. Specific but often implicit presumptions

about identity, as embedded in international and Tanzanian refugee policy and practice, are clarified and

confronted with conceptualisations of the (former) refugees. Pivotal to this work are therefore the

interpretations and perspectives of the (former) refugees themselves. Three highly interrelated aspects of

identity are addressed: citizenship, notions of belonging and home.

Method: A combination of primary and secondary literature reviews, interviews and fieldwork conclusions

was used. Interviews were conducted with former Burundian refugees from Ulyankulu settlement and with

Burundian refugees who settled spontaneously in Kigoma region. Moreover, there were some key

informants interviewed, as well as UNHCR staff and Tanzanian and Burundian government officials. The

interviews were transcribed whereafter a combination of inductive and deductive encoding methods was

utilised.

Results: International and Tanzanian refugee policy rested on static and territorialized concepts of identity

and home. There was a strong tendency to pin down (refugee) identity by linking it to a state through the

institution of citizenship or a certain home(land). Compared to refugees’ conceptualisations, this proved

not the most accurate nor fair approach. Rights and citizenship were essential but not primordial to identity

and the respondents negotiated a sense of belonging in a flexible way, contesting the linking of belonging

to a home country. They emphasised the multi-levelness of home and made reference to multiple

belongings and identies. The rather contradictory approach towards the refugees partly ignored the multi-

leveled and fluid character of their conceptualisations and left little room for their own experiences. In

order to stimulate their future integration and realize a better understanding of their needs, a more

nuanced and de-territorialized approach of (refugee) identity and notions of home imposes itself.

iii

SAMENVATTING

Doel: Deze verhandeling richt zich op conceptualiseringen van identiteit in een welbepaalde situatie van

langdurige ontheemding: deze van de 1972 Burundese vluchtelingen in Tanzania. De specifieke, maar vaak

impliciete, veronderstellingen met betrekking tot identiteit die ingebed zijn in het internationale en

Tanzaniaanse vluchtelingenbeleid, worden verduidelijkt en afgezet tegen de conceptualiseringen van de

vluchtelingen zelf. Er wordt gefocust op drie nauw verweven aspecten van identiteit: burgerschap, noties

van (een) thuis en ergens thuishoren. Dit werk wil de (voormalige) vluchtelingen aan het woord laten en

vertrekt uitdrukkelijk vanuit hun interpretaties, observaties en perspectieven.

Methode: Er werd gebruik gemaakt van een combinatie van literatuurstudie, veldonderzoek en interviews.

Er werden interviews afgenomen bij voormalige Burundese vluchtelingen vanuit Ulyankulu en bij

Burundese vluchtelingen die zich spontaan in Kigoma-regio vestigden. Daarnaast werden ook een aantal

sleutelinformanten bevraagd en werden staff-leden van UNHCR, Tanzaniaanse en Burundese

overheidsfunctionarissen geïntervieuwd. De gesprekken werden getranscribeerd en gecodeerd.

Resulaten: Het internationale en Tanzaniaanse vluchtelingenbeleid stoelt op statische en ‘ge-

territorialiseerde’ invullingen van identiteit en een thuis. De tendens om identiteit vast te pinnen op een

thuisland of te linken aan een staat via burgerschap, bleek in vergelijking met de conceptualiseringen van

de (voormalige) vluchtelingen, echter weinig accuraat en herkenbaar. De respondenten onderhandelden

hun noties van ‘ergens thuishoren’ op een flexibele manier en koppelden deze niet expliciet aan een

thuisland. Ze benadrukten daarentegen de ‘meerlagigheid’ van een thuis en verwezen naar de

meervoudigheid van identiteit en ‘ergens thuishoren’. De manier waarop de vluchtelingen in Tanzania

benaderd werden, negeerde grotendeels dit meervoudige en weinig afgelijnde karakter van hun

conceptualiseringen en liet zeer weinig ruimte voor de perspectieven van de vluchtelingen zelf. Om hun

toekomstige integratie te stimuleren en een beter begrip van hun noden te ontwikkelen, is er nood aan een

meer genuanceerde en ‘gedeterritorialiseerde’ invulling van identiteit en een thuis.

iv

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ i

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. ii

SAMENVATTING .................................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Contextualising the subject ................................................................................................................ 2

1.2 Previous research ............................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Objectives and methodology ............................................................................................................. 5

1.3.1 Research questions ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.3.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 6

1.3.2.1 Data collection ........................................................................................................................ 6

1.3.2.2 Data analysis ........................................................................................................................... 7

1.4 Limitations and gaps ........................................................................................................................... 8

1.5 Short Overview ................................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 2: DURABLE SOLUTIONS AND THE TANZANIAN CONTEXT ........................................................ 10

2.1 Protracted refugee situations .......................................................................................................... 10

2.1.1 Situating and definition ............................................................................................................ 10

2.1.2 Ending situations of protracted displacement ......................................................................... 13

2.1.2.1 Durable solutions .................................................................................................................. 14

2.1.2.2 Durable solutions, identity and home .................................................................................. 17

2.2 Tanzanian situation .......................................................................................................................... 19

2.2.1 Towards a refugee free zone .................................................................................................... 19

2.2.2 The Tanzania Comprehensive Solutions Strategy .................................................................... 22

2.2.2.1 Pillar 1: Voluntary repatriation and reintegration ................................................................ 22

2.2.2.2 Pillar 2: Naturalization .......................................................................................................... 24

2.2.2.3 Pillar 3: Local Integration ...................................................................................................... 26

v

2.2.2.4 Mobilization of International support .................................................................................. 30

2.2.3 Some concluding remarks: Refugees, identity and belonging within the Tanzanian context . 31

CHAPTER 3: IDENTITY ........................................................................................................................... 34

3.1 Granting of citizenship and sense of identity ........................................................................................ 34

3.3.1 Lack of rights, undermining feelings of belonging and being controlled ................................. 34

3.3.2 Gaining rights, securing protection and ending uncertainty .................................................... 36

3.3.3 Getting rid of a label ................................................................................................................. 36

3.3.4 Future uncertainty .................................................................................................................... 37

3.3.5 Pragmatic Citizenship ............................................................................................................... 38

3.2 Defining home and sense of belonging ............................................................................................ 39

3.2.1 Bonds, rights and positive contributions .................................................................................. 40

3.2.2 Hiding backgrounds and undermining a sense of belonging ................................................... 41

3.2.3 Roots and homeland ................................................................................................................ 42

3.2.4 Identity-in-between .................................................................................................................. 44

3.2.5 Relocation ................................................................................................................................. 45

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 47

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 50

ANNEXES.............................................................................................................................................. 59

1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CSFM: Centre for the Study of Forced Migration

CPA: Comprehensive Plans of Action

DANIDA: Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs

DAR:

Development Assistance for Refugees

DLI: Development through Local Integration

IRRI: International Refugee Rights Initiative

KANERE:

Kakuma News Reflector

NNTs:

Newly Naturalised Tanzanians

NASCIP:

National Strategy for Community Integration Programme

PRSs:

Protracted Refugee Situations

RSC:

Refugee Study Centre

SAHRiNGON: Southern Africa Human Rights Non-Governmental Organization Network

TANCOSS:

Tanzania Comprehensive Solutions Strategy

UN:

United Nations

UNDAP:

United Nations Development Assistance Plan

UNDP:

United Nations Development Programme

UNHCR:

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNRWA:

United Nations Relief and Works Agency

4Rs: Repatriation, Reintegration, Rehabilitation, Reconstruction

2

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Contextualising the subject

Stimulated by an advancing peace process in Burundi, the United Republic of Tanzania, a time-honoured

host of large refugee populations, requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

to support the transformation of the country into a ‘refugee-free zone’ by the end of 2006 (Danish Ministry

of Foreign Affairs [DANIDA] and UNHCR, 2010). For over more than four decades, Tanzania has repeatedly

received large influxes of refugees, mostly from neighbouring countries out of the Great Lakes Region. One

of the populations of concern also exemplified one of the most protracted refugee situations in the world.

In the wake of the 1972 genocide, an estimated 218 000 Burundians fled to Tanzania. Most of them have

been living in the so-called old settlements in north-western Tabora and Rukwa regions ever since

(UNHCR,2011a; United Republic Of Tanzania, 2011). However, there was also a considerable group of

refugees who settled spontaneously outside the settlements, generally in Kigoma region (Kasulu, Kibondo

and Kigoma Districts). The exact size of this group of self-settlers is questionable as they never went

through some kind of formalised asylum procedure and are highly invisible for authorities and international

organizations (Malkki, 1995b). 22000 self-settlers registered for durable solutions in 2010 (UNHCR, 2011d)

but the number of self-settlers that have not registered or maybe have left Kigoma or Tanzania in the

meantime remains unknown1.

In the first instance, a Tripartite Commission composed of the Burundian government, the Tanzanian

government and UNHCR focussed on the situation of the Old Settlements. In order to develop a

comprehensive solutions strategy for this situation of prolonged exile, a Task Force organised a census and

individual registration of the population in the settlements. Based on the results of this census and a study

about the demographic, social and economic situation of the settlements, the Task Force elaborated the

Tanzania Comprehensive Solutions Strategy (TANCOSS). On the one hand, the final strategy rested on

voluntary repatriation, traditionally presented as the most preferable durable solution by the Tanzanian

government, the international community and UNHCR alike (Legal and Human Rights Centre, 2008; Fielden

2008, UNHCR, 2007a). On the other hand, the 1972 Burundian refugees and their descendants could also

chose to naturalise and integrate. Some 162 000 former refugees opted to do so, allowing them to live

among the general population and seek a livelihood independent from the settlements in the future. The

Tripartite Commission also aimed at creating opportunities for durable solutions for the self-settlers. It is

still undecided what package of solutions will be available for this group, but 22 337 self-settlers have been

registered and verified for durable solutions in 2010 (UNHCR, 2011d).

The Tanzanian pursuit to look into a durable solutions package for the 1972 Burundian refugees coincided

more or less with the commitment of High Commissioner for refugees, António Guterres, to make

protracted refugee situations a priority protection issue. In order to raise international awareness, improve

the life of populations in situations of long-term displacement and promote comprehensive and durable

solutions, he launched the Special Initiative on Protracted Refugee Situations (UNHCR, 2008a). The High

1 Interview UNHCR Protection Officer, Sub-Office Kigoma, September 2011.

3

Commissioner’s Special Initiative focused on five situations of protracted exile, including the Tanzanian

1972 caseload. The naturalisation and local integration initiative was lauded for looking into new

opportunities to end decades of uncertainty for a large group of refugees (UNHCR, 2008b). As the

Tanzanian refugee policy evolved from a receptive, open door policy to a more restrictive, sometimes even

repressive one (L’Ecluse, 2010; Chaulia, 2003; Washoma, 2003; Rutinwa, 2002), the resumption of a more

generous attitude and the decision to offer the possibility of permanent residency on such a large scale

were widely applauded (Loescher and Milner, 2011; European Union, 2011; The Citizen, 2011, June 16;

2010; Panapress, 2010; UN News Centre, 2010; Daily News, 2010, November 7; The Guardian on Sunday,

2009, October 25; UNHCR, 2009a; Afrol News, 2008).

The naturalisation and local integration process however, was and is not without issues. Burundian

refugees who arrived more recently in the country were excluded from the process, leaving them with no

more options than to repatriate (Hovil, 2010; Centre for the Study of Forced Migration [CSFM] and

International Refugee Rights Initiative [IRRI], 2009a). The limited availability of independent legal advice, a

lack of clear information about the situation in Burundi and the consequences of a naturalisation or

repatriation, the pressure put on the refugees to return rather than to opt for naturalisation, the many

delays and uncertainties, the confusion about the status of those born in Tanzania and the fact that the

Burundian citizenship should be renounced when choosing to become Tanzanian all have been under

discussion (Hovil, 2010; CSFM and IRRI, 2008). Of much contestation is the planned closure of the

settlements and the compulsory relocation of the Newly Naturalised Tanzanians to 50 selected districts

(DANIDA and UNHCR, 2010; Hovil, 2010; CSFM and IRRI, 2009a). Besides challenges concerning livelihood-

access, the NNTs might face (local) resistance once they leave the settlements behind. The relocation and

local integration plans already stirred up parliamentary meetings (The Citizen, 2011, June 16; Personal

email conversation informant B3, August 2011). Local leaders in Tanga region pronounced their reluctance

towards receiving the former refugees, referring to security issues, a lack of preparation, limited local

resources and the government’s top-down approach (The Citizen, 2011, April 30). The pending situation of

the self-settlers caused concern as well, especially since the final decision about their future seems to

depend on how the relocation and integration process of the Newly Naturalised Tanzanians from the

settlements progresses2. Given the before-mentioned resistance and challenges concerning the relocation

and integration, the self-settlers’ patience might be severely tested.

Even if the process would have been without any controversy, it is undeniable that it already had and will

have a major impact on the lives, self-esteem and identity of the (former) refugees. They had a specific

status, faced shifting policies and attitudes towards their presence and are now presented as a group able

to shed off the refugee label and ‘truly integrate’. The route from refugee to citizen, from Burundian to

Newly Naturalised Tanzanian has affected and will mark their self-concept, their sense of belonging and the

way they position themselves. This dissertation will focus on the experiences of the (former) 1972 refugees

on a moment their life is at a crossroad.

2 Interview UNHCR Protection Officer, Sub-Office Kigoma, September 2011.

4

1.2 Previous research

The Tanzanian refugee situation did not remain un-discussed in literature and research. One topic receiving

extensive coverage is the (shifting) Tanzanian refugee policy (DANIDA and UNHCR, 2010; L’Ecluse, 2010;

Morel, 2009; Loescher and Miller, 2005; Kamanga, 2005; Chaulia, 2003; Whitaker, 2002; Rutinwa, 2002).

The human right situation of the refugees seeking protection in Tanzania (Amnesty International, 2005;

Human Rights Watch, 1999) as well as the impact of the refugees on the surrounding communities, local

economies, development and governance also attracted attention (Alix-Garcia and Saah, 2009; CSFM, 2003;

Landau, 2003). Moreover, scholars have been describing the social, health and security aspects of life in the

refugee camps and settlements (Turner, 2006, 1999; Rutta et.al., 2005). Although the issue of identity is

well-covered within the discipline of refugees studies, it has not been the main research angle within the

Tanzanian context.

Despite the fact that most refugee studies about Tanzania have not been focusing on identity-matters, the

topic intertwines and intersects with all aspects of life as a refugee and consequently has been touched

upon (e.g. Landau, 2003; Turner, 1999). A standard work comprehensively dealing with the matter

however, is Lisa Malkki’s ‘Purity and Exile’ (1995b). The author compared the experiences of 1972

Burundian refugees living in a settlement with the experiences of those living nearby Kigoma town. The

self-settlers were reluctant to define themselves as refugees and articulated flexible, ‘cosmopolitan’

identities, allowing for a certain invisibility. The settlement experience raised a strong retaining of

‘refugeeness’ and reference to a Hutu ethnic- and refugee identity. More recent, the International Refugee

Rights Initiative published a series of working papers focusing on identity and citizenship in situations of

forced migration in the Great Lakes region (e.g. CSFM and IRRI, 2009a, 2009b, 2008). One of the studies

focused on the future expectations of the 1972 Burundian refugees who applied for citizenship or awaited

registration within the framework of the TANCOSS strategy (CFSM and IRRI, 2008). The study unveiled

some of the refugees’ concerns about the implications of the naturalization and called for policies better

reflecting the realities of multiple identities. It was conducted at a moment when the refugees were making

life changing decisions but were still awaiting a verdict about the naturalization and their future (CFSM and

IRRI,2008:13). By now, they are officially recognized as New Naturalized Tanzanians or they have been

registered in order to find durable solutions for their situation. Hence, in order to explore the impact of

naturalization and (planned) integration on the identity construction and conceptualisations of home, the

current Tanzanian situation is a case-study of utmost interest.

Naturalisation and local integration are traditionally presented as durable solutions to end situations of

displacement but large scale naturalizations are rather exceptional. A recent publication about protracted

refugee situations of the Refugee Studies Centre (2010) considered durable solutions as an important

current and future trend of the forced migration research and policy. The authors petitioned for more and

thorough research about the possibilities, limitations and implications of the traditional and possibly other

solutions. Although there seems to be some reviving of policy discussions and research about (local)

integration (Fielden, 2008; Crisp, 2004), it is a rather unexplored area. The report stated:

“Researchers need to continue to explore the dynamics relating to the frequent failure of forced

migrant groups to integrate into host communities. Such work should focus on Northern as well as

Southern responses and obstacles to integration and must consider the political, social and economic

dimensions of integration (2010:20)”

5

Many works about displacement and identity focused on situations of resettlement and integration in a

third country (int.al. Ager and Strang, 2010; Kebede, 2010; Kumsa, 2006; Mosselson, 2006; Coker, 2004;

Ghorashi, 2004; Ahmed et.al., 2003; Bisharat, 1997). This dissertation looks into the ways how (former)

refugees identify and position themselves, what impact a naturalization and an announced relocation

process have on this positioning and how this may influence their future integration as ‘New Naturalized

Tanzanians’ into local communities. Their current and past experiences, their self-sense and notions of

belonging, as well as the way they are perceived by the host community, affect how they interact with their

(new) environment and will influence their integration. This work will address the psycho-social dimensions

and impact of a specific protracted refugee situation, therefore responding to Crisp’s observation

(2003:129) that relatively little has been written about this aspect and to Hyndman’s call (2008:26) to focus

on the impact of prolonged waiting on the physical, mental, economic and especially social aspect of

refugees’ lives. The work intends to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of

(ending) a particular protracted refugee situation. It provides information about possibilities, challenges or

obstacles to local integration that can be useful to policy makers responsible for assistance programs for

protracted refugee communities and planning and implementing local integration. This dissertation

emphasizes the experiences of the (former) refugees, in compliance with the appeal to fully acknowledge

refugees autonomy and capacities within the framework of durable solution and recognise their position as

primary social actors in processes of home-making (KANERE (2009) in RSC, 2010:20; Ager and Strang,2010).

1.3 Objectives and methodology

1.3.1 Research questions

This dissertation will try to clarify the impact of a protracted refugee situation and a package of durable

solutions on discursive practices and conceptualisations of identity and home. Since identity will be

considered as a fluid, multiple and heterogeneous process (Gupta and Ferguson, 1997; Hall, 1996, 1990),

this dissertation contests the idea of identity as a fixed essence. As a social construction, identity is subject

to permanent re-interpretation and negotiation. Identities are thus “unstable points of identification, (…)

not an essence but a positioning” (Hall,1990:226). Consequently it is inevitable to also take into account the

specific socio-political context with which it interacts. This work therefore explores conceptualisations of

identity and notions of home in a situation of displacement, how they might evolve over time but also how

they relate to social perception and specific (although often implicit) presumptions about identity and

belonging comprised in refugee policy and practice. Not only do these practices and policies entail certain

notions of ‘refugee identity’, highly interconnected with an ubiquitous normalisation of nationality and the

nation state (Malkki, 1995a, 1992). The so-called durable solutions aiming to end the protracted situations

of the 1972 refugees also rely on a specific link between citizens and home-states, equally comprising

certain assumptions about being and belonging. The ways in which refugees are understood and

represented in refugee policy and practice, produce them as specific subjects, having an impact on their

experience. This work focuses on refugee policy and practice of UNHCR, the UN-key body dealing with

refugees and the policy and practice of the Tanzanian government.

These presumptions of and within the international and especially Tanzanian refugee policy and practice

will be compared to the experiences of the 'Newly Naturalised Tanzanians' and self-settlers themselves. We

6

intend to gain insight in the way the (former) refugees live(d) and experience(d) their identity during the

naturalisation process and what impact this might have on the future integration exercise. How do they

define themselves (now)? In what way do they construct their identities? In what way do certain labels and

presumptions about refugees have an impact on their sense of self and belonging? How do they position

themselves as Newly Naturalised Tanzanians?

This dissertation will therefore focus on three, highly interrelated, aspects of identity: citizenship, notions

of belonging and home. What determines identity is the way a person perceives himself, the way he relates

to the world and his sense of belonging to a certain community. Moreover, Dixon and Durrheim (2000:27)

state that questions of 'who we are' are often intimately related to questions of 'where we are'.

Conceptualisations and experiences of home and place are an essential part of identity. Certain rights are

allocated or restrained, based on these conceptualisations, perceptions and feelings of belonging. These

rights allow or obstruct individuals to access the means and opportunities of a community. Notions of

citizenship and the rights that come along with it, relate to identity and also shape feelings of belonging.

The before mentioned intentions are thus translated into the following questions and sub-questions:

1) Does the granting of citizenship and therefore the allocation of certain rights and plights,

influence the sense of identity of the (former) refugees? If so, how?

2) How do (former) refugees define belonging and home and has the process of naturalization and

future integration an influence on this conceptualisation?

3) How do (former) refugees’ conceptualisations of home and identity relate to notions of identity

embedded within refugee policy and practice?

1.3.2 Methodology

1.3.2.1 Data collection

This study tries to balance literature and theories on the one hand and specific lived experiences and

stories on the other hand. In order to collect secondary data, a broad range of literature, research,

newspaper articles and policy documents was used. This work, however, is also the product of information

gathered during 6 weeks of field research in Dar Es Salaam, Kigoma and Tabora regions. In first instance,

interviews were conducted with former Burundian refugees who are or have been living in Ulyankulu

settlement and with Burundian refugees who settled spontaneously in Kigoma town and Kigoma rural.

The first group was granted Tanzanian citizenship in 2008 but still awaits official papers and a planned

relocation (‘Newly Naturalised Tanzanians’). The second group could register already but has no certainty

about their future options yet. The Tanzanian government still has to decide on solutions concerning their

situation (‘self-settlers’). The interviewees were asked about their identity construction by reflecting upon

their notions of self, home and belonging within the context of the naturalisation/registration process. They

were also asked about the role that social perception might play in this identity formation process. Special

attention was paid to the possible impact of identity construction on the (future) local integration. In both

groups, there were respondents represented from the first as well as the second generation. The first

7

generation respondents were all born in Burundi and had at least some memories of the country. The

second generation respondents were all born in Tanzania and none of them had been in Burundi before

(overview of the respondents, Annex 1). Although many authors focus on displacement and identity in

specific situations of resettlement in a third country (Kebede, 2010; Kumsa, 2006; Mosselson, 2006), their

observation that the experiences and identification process of different generations may differ

considerably, seemed to be extendable to a situation of naturalisation and local integration in a country of

asylum. Crisp (2003:122) emphasises the importance of paying attention to demographic information and

especially the situation of children and adolescents in PRSs since many of them were born and brought up

in exile and therefore have very different experiences compared to people who did see the ‘homeland’.

Moreover there were also some key informants interviewed. These were respondents who, because of

their background and/or professional activities, were well-informed about and felt connected to the

situation of the (former) Burundian refugees. They were all born in Burundi and have been living in

Tanzania between 5 and 40 years. Some of them received the Tanzanian citizenship, others were staying in

the country as residents. The key informant interviews were conducted to collect contextual information as

well as to ascertain their experiences, opinions and attitudes to the naturalisation process. There have also

been taking place more informal talks and discussion about the topic with Tanzanians. Finally, UNHCR staff,

Tanzanian and Burundian government officials were interviewed in order to give a clear notion of their

policies and plans as well as to offer their perspective.

The selection of the interviewees was based and so-called snowball and purposive sampling. The semi-

structured interviews were conducted in English, French or Swahili, with support of a translator in the latter

case. The starting point for each conversation was a list of questions, but depending on the input of the

respondents the interviews covered different topics. On general request and given the sensitivity of the

topic, the interviews remain anonymous.

1.3.2.2 Data analysis

After transcribing the interviews, the computer program NVivo 9© was used in order to organise and

analyse the collected information using a combination of inductive and deductive encoding (cfr. Annex 2).

In first instance the interviews of refugees, key informants and officials were ‘scanned’ on interesting

similarities and returning topics. In order to approach the data in an unprejudiced way, there was no

reference to an encoding list in this phase. Later, the experiences of the (former) refugees, as embedded in

the interviews, were compared to theories and concepts used in (refugee) policy documents. Secondly the

interviews were compared to each other: What are similarities, differences, patterns and what could be the

reasons behind this? Are there for example differences between the experiences and positioning of the first

and second generation respondents? The interviews were screened, making use of a list of codes based on

theoretical concepts and notions. This list has been completed with themes and categories which were

mentioned in the interviews. An important source for developing the final encoding list has therefore been

the phrasings used by the respondents themselves. After linking parts of the interviews with specific codes,

the codes were categorised and connected to each other (cfr. Annex 3).

8

1.4 Limitations and gaps

It is important to recognise that the limited number of people interviewed during the fieldwork, may not be

a representative sample of all the (former) Burundian refugees and does not allow for generalisation. The

small group of respondents only renders a partial perception of reality. The results and conclusions of this

work should therefore be read with the necessary caution. Nevertheless, the primary data in combination

with data from secondary sources, should be able to provide some valuable insights.

Another possible shortcoming is the selection method of snowball and purposive sampling. When asking

respondents to suggest other interviewees, the researcher risks ending up with a rather homogenous group

that does not represent the population of concern. However, the rather spontaneous and personal

selection method proved valuable in selecting people with a different background in order to talk about a

sensitive issue. A lot of time was invested to find and addressing possible respondents, getting to know

them and reassuring them about the confidentiality of the interview. Although most interviews were

preceded by (at least) one preliminary talk, this proved impossible for the interviews in Ulyankulu due to

time pressure.

This research offers ‘a snapshot’ on certain conceptualisations of identity and home within a context of

naturalization and planned integration. It would have been a surplus-value if a group of these refugees

would have been followed over time. Given the fluidity of a concept as identity and the upcoming changes

intervening in their lives, it would have been of great interest to track a more evolving picture of the

changing conditions, social structures and the way the refugees have been experiencing them over time.

This was however beyond the reach of this dissertation.

Given none of the interviews were conducted in the mother tongue of the respondents and some

interviews were translated, language and communication problems should be mentioned here as well.

Although most respondents had sufficient knowledge of English, one might speculate on whether the

sensitivity and personal character of some questions did not require a conversation in the person’s mother

tongue. This might have been more comforting and easier to express oneself. When respondents were not

able to communicate in English, the interviews were conducted with the support of a translator. This

implies that literal registrations were not always possible since there was already some interpretation and a

probable loss of information.

Finally, within the framework of qualitative research, the position of the researcher cannot be ignored. As a

researcher you always position yourself in a specific way and interpret the data accordingly. There is a

permanent interaction between the researcher and the objects and subjects of the research, inevitably

determining the content and results of the research. A recurrent theme during the interviews was my

position as European and the possibility of me having an influence on policy (makers) in favour of their

case. This perception might have influenced certain responses as well.

9

1.5 Short Overview

This first chapter introduced the subject of this work and clarified the research questions and research

method. The coming section focusses on notions of identity and home as embedded in international and

more specifically Tanzanian refugee policy and practice (chapter 2). Thereafter the focus shifts to

experiences and conceptualisations of the (former) refugees themselves (chapter 3). Finally, both

approaches will be related and opposed to each other (chapter 4).

10

CHAPTER 2: DURABLE SOLUTIONS AND THE TANZANIAN CONTEXT

2.1 Protracted refugee situations

“There’s nothing more permanent than the temporary”

2.1.1 Situating and definition

Refugees are a problem to the inter-national world since they are forced outside the system of nation state

membership and do not belong anywhere (Malkki, 1992,1995a). Generally they are seen as temporary

inhabitants who lack civil rights and are supposed to return to their country of origin as soon as possible.

When they do not have to fear prosecution anymore, when conflict is over, when the situation in their

country stabilizes, they should give up their refugee status and go back home. The 1951 Refugee

Convention (Article1/2) for example, mirrors this conception: ‘A refugee is a person who, owing to a well-

founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, or membership of a social group or

political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality’. International (legal) protection is intended to be

limited in time and ultimately aims to secure the bond between a citizen and a nation. It intends to restore

the membership of a certain community, either by going home or by integrating in another country.

International aid organisations concerned with displacement situations usually apply a care and

maintenance model within the same frame of mind, directed at temporary containment of persons in a

state of limbo (Adelman,2008).

Notwithstanding this preferred situation of ‘refugeeness’ being a temporary condition, a majority of the

refugee population has been living in chronic and stagnating situations of exile, paradoxically facing a

situation of permanent temporariness (Loescher and Milner, 2006a; Cheng and Chudoba, 2003:1-2; Crisp,

2003). The average duration of a refugee situation dramatically increased over the years, from 9 years in

1993 to 17 years by the end of 2003 up to almost 20 years in 2011 (http://www.prsproject.org/ consulted

on 2011 December 22th; Loescher and Milner, 2006a:109). By the end of 2006 the number of refugees

worldwide stood at 9.9 million and more than half of them were living in a situation of prolonged

displacement (UNHCR, 2007b:4). By 2010 about two third of the total refugee population of 10.55 million

people were living in a protracted situation of displacement (Loescher and Milner, 2011:3; UNHCR

2011b:2).

Based on a range of case-studies, the UNHCR’s Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit described protracted

refugee situations (PRSs) as those where refugees have been living ‘in exile for more than five years, and

when they still have no immediate prospect of finding a durable solution to their plight by means of

voluntary repatriation, local integration or resettlement (Crisp, 2003:1). The High Commissioner for

Refugees later defined PRSs as situations ‘in which refugees find themselves in a long-lasting and

intractable state of limbo. Their lives may not be at risk, but their basic rights and essential economic, social,

and psychological needs remain unfulfilled after years in exile. The refugees are unable to break free from

enforced reliance on external assistance’ (UNHCR, 2004:1). UNHCRS’s figures before 2008 only took into

11

account groups that were larger than 25 000 persons and excluded the Palestinian refugees under UNRWA

mandate (UNHCR, 2004:2). This description of PRSs has been questioned as being arbitrary, static and

exclusionary. Nowadays the organisation uses a more flexible approach. For example, one of the situations

identified within the framework of the High Commissioner’s Special Initiative on PRSs, that of the Rohingya

refugees in Bangladesh, represents a population of some 20 000 refugees. Nevertheless, there remain

some serious gaps, making it hard to form an accurate picture of the extent of PRSs worldwide (Loescher

and Milner, 2011:3; Feller, 2008:14). Since there is no focus on internally displaced people facing prolonged

exile, one of the largest number of refugees in a protracted situation are excluded. There is also little

known about the situation of self-settled refugees.

Although circumstances in PRSs are very different from the injustices and horrors refugees went through

before fleeing, conditions are usually very poor and far from promising. Given the enormous heterogeneity

of PRSs, generalizations are rather problematic. Not all refugees are sheltered in camps for example and

camp is a fluid concept in itself (Deardorff, 2009:8). Some refugees stay in less restricting settlement-

conditions, while others opt for the anonymity of towns and cities. Nevertheless, there are some features

that characterise, to a smaller or bigger extend PRSs. Most striking is probably the massive impact on

human rights and livelihoods of protracted exile. Hyndman (2008:27) argues ‘the on-going suspension of so

many other human rights in the context of protracted refugee situations is not warranted simply because

protection against non-refoulement is provided’. The places where refugees are settled are often remote,

insecure and poor, with very harsh climatic conditions. The refugees risk to suffer material deprivation, to

face psycho-social problems and to be exposed to acts of violence. The combination of poor living

conditions, poverty and a lack of freedom and opportunities may urge refugees to revert to negative

survival tactics, affecting the local host populations as well (Loescher and Milner, 2005:165). Moreover, a

large majority of PRSs is to be found in development countries, struggling to fulfill the basic needs of their

own citizens (Feller, 2008). The impact of the long-term presence of large groups of refugees on the host

community is therefore not to be underestimated. (Crisp, 2003:120-133). The prolonged presence of

refugees is increasingly viewed as a burden to hosting communities and a possible threat to local or even

national and regional stability and security. Host states are generally holding on to more restrictive asylum

policies (Loescher and Millner, 2011).

Protracted refugee situations have generally been attracting little media attention and donor interest.

Attention and money are mostly directed towards a few, high profile cases, responding to (inter)national

security concerns and focusing on direct aid and relief needs. The longer the situations last, the more the

international interest seems to decline (Loescher and Milner, 2006a). In combination with ceasing bipolar

tensions and diminishing strategic importance of groups of refugees since the fall of the Berlin wall, the

commitment of donor governments to find solutions and invest in long-term supportive programs seriously

diminished. Therefore, refugees in protracted situations may have a bleak outlook for the future. A lack of

means and commitment not only creates a situation where refugees receive less support (as food aid) and

face tougher living conditions but also diminishes the chances to find solutions within a limited timeframe.

The refugees risk falling into the much-discussed gap between short-term humanitarian aid and long-term

development aid. Refugees in PRSs are stuck: they cannot return because of long-lasting conflicts,

instability or insecurity in their country of origin, they cannot stay as citizens in the host country and they

cannot move to a third country (Crisp, 2003:3). Despite the recognition that PRSs risk to end in

unacceptable situations of indefinite encampment, solutions seem hard to find. Different authors stress the

12

complexity and highly sensitive and political character of situations of long term displacement and

emphasise the importance of involving a broad range of actors in order to realise solution (Ambroso et.al.,

2011; Allen et.al, 2010; Loescher and Milner, 2006a; Crisp, 2003).

Situations of protracted exile are no new phenomena, demonstrated for example by the dragging situations

of displacement in the aftermath of the Second World War. However, it is only recently they reappeared on

the international research and political agenda (Loescher and Milner, 2011). As part of the superpowers’

stakes during the Cold War era, PRSs were addressed to fulfil strategic and political interests. In the 1990-

ies however, there was hardly any interest for refugees in prolonged situations of exile, resulting in some

collective inertia. Feller (2008:11-12) argues that the international community was absorbed by three high-

profile situations, diminishing interest for situations where refugees had been stuck for years or even

decades. The refugee flows stemming from ‘new’ conflicts in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, Somalia,

Iraq, Kosovo and so on, the facilitation of the repatriation of post-cold war refugees and the growing

number of economic migrants seeking asylum in the industrialised world claimed all attention. It was only

in 2001 that UNHCR found new donor support and initiated a number of studies covering the topic and

stirring up the debate3. The UNHCR Executive Committee dealt with the matter during its meeting in

October 2001 and the Standing Committee of the organization published a paper on the topic three years

later. Protracted Refugee Situations also came more to the fore thanks to UNHCR’s Agenda for Protection4.

In 2008, the High Commissioner launched his Special Initiative on PRSs, focusing on five exemplary cases

out of more than thirty PRSs worldwide. The initiative intended to illustrate the complexity of the

situations, stimulate re-prioritization of the often forgotten cases and boost efforts in finding solutions or

improving the lives of the refugees in PRSs. The targeted priority situations were the Afghan refugees in

Pakistan and Iran, the Eritrean refugees in Sudan, the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, the Bosnian and

Croatian refugees in Serbia and the Burundian refugees in Tanzania (UNHCR, 2008b). Why exactly these five

situations were selected as illustrative and inspiring is hardly motivated.

During the same year a High Commissioner’s Dialogue on Protection Challenges focused on protracted

refugee situations, examining ‘challenges and opportunities for refugees and other stakeholders in camps,

rural and urban contexts’ (http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a12a4016.html, consulted 4 December 2011;

UNHCR, 2008a). Representatives from the political, research and NGO communities discussed the necessity

to expand efforts in finding durable solutions, the role of the international community, the importance of

cooperation and coordination between partners involved and the mandate of UNHCR. Although the High

Commissioner’s Dialogues are informal meetings and deliberations and conclusions stemming from it are

not legally binding, they are an important tool in stimulating debate, realizing consensus about certain

topics and shaping UNHCR’s refugee policy. After a difficult consultation and negotiation process in order to

reconcile different concerns and realise a compromise, UNHCR adopted an ExCom Conclusion on the

3 Those included, among others, studies about Sudanese refugees in Kenya, Sierra Leoneans in Guinea, and Liberians

in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana (http://www.unhcr.org/4a1d43986.html consulted on 12 December 2011) 4 The Agenda for Protection (UNHCR, 2003) is an ‘ambitious, yet practical program of action to improve the protection

of refugees and asylum seekers around the world’ (Feller, 2008:11). It incorporates a Program of Action based on six

key objectives: strengthening implementation of the 1951 Refugee Convention; protecting refugees within broader

migration movements; sharing burdens and responsibilities more equitably; addressing security-related concerns

more effectively; redoubling the search for durable solutions and meeting the protection needs of refugee women

and refugee children. The Agenda is available online: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4714a1bf2.html.

13

matter (Loescher and Milner, 2011). The organization’s strains to raise awareness about the topic, seem to

(start) paying off, as more donor governments concentrate on PRSs and new initiatives are launched within

research and advocacy communities.

2.1.2 Ending situations of protracted displacement

Besides providing protection for refugees, UNHCR’s mandate also comprises the responsibility to search for

durable solutions for (protracted) refugee situations. As mentioned before, PRSs are complex and sensitive

situations, involving a broad range of actors and touching upon core state interests as security and

sovereignty. PRSs are caused by ‘a range of economic and social factors and political action and inaction

that occurs in the country of origin, the country of asylum and among international actors’ (Loescher and

Milner (2005) in Deardorff, 2009:7). UNHCR emphasizes the political character of PRSs: ‘protracted refugee

situations are symptomatic of political failures, neglect and unequal distribution of resources’ (UNHCR,

2004:9) and claims that responses are to be found at the political level. Any solution is therefore highly

dependent on the spirit of times and one of the reasons PRSs can drag on for years is exactly the difficulty

to find a (political) agreement on solutions. PRSs reflect different interests of diverse parties concerning a

range of topics as development, security and migration that are often hard to merge into a comprehensive

and durable solution framework. There are for example huge differences between the way host countries

and donor countries approach PRSs (Loescher and Milner, 2011). Refugees overflowing border areas of

already weak states are often seen by the hosts as a serious security threat, undermining the own regional

and international position. Meanwhile, industrialized countries have been developing restrictive asylum

policies. They are reluctant to receive refugees themselves and increasingly raise pressure to locally shelter

and even integrate refugees (Toft, 2007; Betts and Milner, 2006). Host states, generally poor countries and

situated in the South, accuse rich and mostly western donor countries of undermining their ability to take

sovereign decisions, dodging responsibility and not equally sharing the burden (Morel, 2009). The lack of an

international legal framework to make states share responsibility for solutions adds to the complexity of

the situation. The 1952 Refugee Convention recognized the need for international cooperation in its

Preamble but there is no legally binding instrument operationalizing the idea of burden sharing (Morel,

2009:110). In order to stimulate the development of durable solutions and bring the burden-sharing

principle into practice, UNHCR developed a whole range of actions and tools that fall under the before

mentioned Agenda For Protection (UNHCR, 2003a).5 Nevertheless, states can chose to use those tools or

undertake certain actions but they are in no way obliged to do so.

5E.g. The Convention Plus initiative provides the tools to implement special agreements, including comprehensive

plans of action (CPAs) that will bring together a mix of durable solutions in a strategic manner. The Framework for

Durable Solutions focuses on promoting durable solutions for refugees and persons of concerns through repatriation

to the country of origin, local integration in the country of asylum or resettlement to a third country and brings

together three initiatives developed in recent years: DAR (Development Assistance for Refugees), the 4Rs

(Repatriation, Reintegration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction) and DLI (Development through Local Integration)

(UNHCR, 2003, framework for durable solutions, available at: http://www.unhcr.org)

14

2.1.2.1 Durable solutions

Traditionally, policies aiming at ending situations of protracted displacement focus on three strategies:

repatriation to the country of origin, local integration in the country of asylum and resettlement to a third

country. All three of these so-called durable solutions intend to restore a protective link between a refugee

and a nation state. They ought to end the need for international protection and assistance by renewing

access to citizenship and ensuring integration into a community. (Refugee Studies Centre, 2010: 17;

Loescher and Milner, 2006b:129).

The attractiveness and viability of the solutions have varied greatly over time because of geo-political,

practical and financial considerations (Chimni, 2004). However, repatriation has always been the

international community’s preferred solution (RSC, 2010; Long, 2008; Fielden, 2008; Jacobsen, 2001). Local

integration and especially resettlement, solutions that were strategically used during the Cold War, faded

into the background throughout the 1990s (Loescher and Milner, 2011; Hyndman, 2008; Toft, 2007).

Nowadays and despite efforts of UNHCR to revitalize both as durable solutions, their actual use still pales in

comparison to the practice of repatriation. The attempts of UNHCR, for example by the Agenda for

Protection, to expand resettlement opportunities, use resettlement more strategically and consider it as a

means of burden sharing, did not have a great impact on states’ willingness and ability to absorb large

groups of refugees.6 Only a very low percentage of refugees worldwide is offered a resettlement place. In

2010, there were 80 000 resettlement places available, meaning only about 1 per cent of the world’s

refugees directly benefited from this solution (UNHCR, 2011b:36-39). Moreover, the organization’s

attempts to revive the strategy also had to compete against the effect of 9/11 and the war on terrorism.

The focus on security has had a reverse impact on the available settlement places, the diversity of the

refugee groups accepted and the duration and type of screening procedures (Dryden-Peterson and Hovil,

2003:1).

Local integration regained research and political attention during the past decade, especially given the

increased recognition that repatriation is not always possible and renewed dedication to find solutions to

PRSs (Ager and Strang, 2010, 2008; Fielden 2008; Hyndman, 2008; Dryden-Peterson and Hovil, 2003;

Jacobsen, 2001). Albeit the revival of academic and political attention for this solution, Kibreab (2011)

stated that local integration is no longer operative in practice. The Refugee Study Centre (2010:18-19)

claims that there remain significant local and national political as well as practical obstacles to permanent

integration. Generally, host and asylum states are rather reluctant about local integration compared to

donor states. They fear getting saddled with burdens they cannot bear as they often cannot answer the

economic, political, social, environmental and security implications that processes of local integration might

bring along. Local integration not only implies closer social and economic links between the host society

and (former) refugees but it also demands the possibility to provide for a livelihood and to attain self-

reliance, the acquisition of citizen rights and the membership to a new political community (UNHCR,

6 In a Standing Committee Paper (UNHCR, 2003: 2) the strategic use of resettlement is described as: “The planned use

of resettlement in a manner that maximizes the benefits, directly or indirectly, other than those received by the refugee

being resettled. Those benefits may accrue to other refugees, the hosting State, other States or the international

protection regime in general.” Underlying idea is that the strategic use of resettlement, as part of a comprehensive

solutions approach, can create opportunities beyond the actual number of persons resettled and therefore realizes

protection on a broader scale. For example, offering settlement places for those with the largest protection needs, can

create willingness to consider offering permanent residence to refugees.

15

2008b:16). As most states receiving refugees seriously struggle with providing education, health care,

infrastructure and job opportunities to their own population, they are reluctant to welcome new residents

who need (at least some) support and might create tensions with the local population. Offering permanent

residence or citizenship to refugees might also act as a pull-factor, attracting other refugee groups and

therefore making host states think twice about their hospitality. Moreover, local integration is a sensitive

political issue, reflecting concerns about government ownership and possible interferences in internal state

affairs. Host states insisted on including the clause that ‘Local integration is a sovereign decision’ in an

EXCOM Conclusion on the issue (UNHCR 2009b: paragraph h). This clause reflects that possible efforts to

stimulate local integration by rich donor countries, usually receiving a very small amount of refugees

themselves, can be experienced by host countries as an assault on their sovereign decision-making

authority and a way to evade their own responsibility. If local integration is to be taken into consideration,

the necessary incentives as well as a long negotiation process with the host state, the country of origin and

UNHCR are imperative (Hyndman, 2008:24).

Nevertheless, resettlement and local integration always had and will have to compete against the ‘most

natural solution’. Especially since the end of the Cold War and the demise of colonialism, serious emphasis

has been placed on repatriation to the country of origin. Refugees were no longer of strategic significance

but were seen as passive subjects in need or, at worse, intruders threatening security and/or seizing

welfare systems (Eastmond, 2002; Loescher and Milner, 2006a). Refugees had gone from ‘diamonds’ to ‘a

virtual plague of locust’ (Toft, 2007:143-145). In general, states anticipated a negative political, economic

and socio-cultural impact of refugees and a return to the country of origin appeared to be the best answer

to the problem. It would bring refugees back where they belonged, renew state protection, relieve the

burden to host communities and donor countries and avert pressure on the asylum space in the West

(Bakewell, 2002:44). About 12 million refugees have been repatriated during the 1990s, a decade that

former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Ogato declared ‘the decade of voluntary

repatriation’ (Druke, 2011:7). Until today, voluntary repatriation seems to keep its status of most feasible

and preferred solution. The High Commissioner for Refugees described voluntary repatriation as the most

viable solution for the majority of people in a PRS in his Dialogue on PRSs (UNHCR,2008b:9) and a recent

compilation of EXCOM conclusions (UNHCR, 2011c) reflects the pool position of the strategy:

“… voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement are the traditional durable

solutions, and all remain viable and important responses to refugee situations; reiterating that

voluntary repatriation, in safety and dignity, where and when feasible, remains the most

preferred solution in the majority of refugee situations” (EXCOM Conclusion No. 104 (LVI),

2005, p298, p553)

“… voluntary repatriation should not necessarily be conditioned on the accomplishment of

political solutions in the country of origin in order not to impede the exercise of the refugees’

right to return” (EXCOM Conclusion No. 109 (LX) – 2009, p420, p480, p549 and EXCOM

Conclusion No. 101 (LV), 2004, p480, p538, p550)

UNHCR claims it is the organization’s responsibility to respect refugees’ right to return. Therefore it

promotes and advocates voluntary repatriation when conditions are, according to the organization,

beneficial and safe. But even when a return is considered not entirely safe for most refugees, UNHCR

16

facilitates voluntary repatriation when refugees themselves signal they want to return or started to do so

on their own initiative (UNHCR, 1996:14-15). Scholars however raise objections against the apparently

beatifying of the right to return and UNHCR has been criticised for its complicity in (promoting)

repatriations that were not always fully voluntary in nature (Loescher and Milner, 2011; Adelman, 2008;

Toft, 2007; Harrel-Bond (1989) in Collins, 1996). On top, there has been critique on the naturalisation of

repatriation and equating repatriation to return (Long, 2011, 2010, 2008; Adelman, 2008; Bakewell, 2002;

Eastmond, 2002; Malkki, 1995a). UNHCR has been challenged to review the hierarchy of the three

traditional durable solutions, as well as the solutions themselves and to look into new means of solving

situations of long term displacement. The conceptualisations of durable solutions as sedentary, sequential,

mutually exclusive and permanent have been criticized as too narrow, inflexible and rigid, urging for a

review of the strategies’ possibilities and limitations (Monsutti (2008) in Kaiser, 2010:57).

A growing body of opinion claims the three traditional durable solutions should at least be integrated into a

more comprehensive and development-oriented approach. As a so-called integrated approach, the

Tanzanian solution strategy focusing on the 1972 Burundian refugees met general support of UNHCR and

other stakeholders. The strategy recognized the unlikeliness of one solution meeting the needs of the

whole group of refugees and intended to integrate different sustainable solutions. The characteristics of

this approach, as well as the challenges and strengths will be discussed later (cfr. 2 Tanzanian situation).

Although UNHCR seems to favor repatriation as durable solution, the organization also emphasizes the

importance of a comprehensive, collaborative and coordinated response to situations of prolonged

displacement. Since searching for durable solutions involves a whole range of issues as security,

development, migration and peace-building, UNHCR tries to mainstream the refugee issue into a wider

international response (Loescher en Milner, 2006b: 151). The agency also strives, in correspondence with a

tendency characterising the whole UN system7, for a long term approach that reconsiders the traditional

distinction between humanitarian and developmental aid. UNHCR stresses that after decades in exile,

refugees’ needs and concerns have evolved and differ compared to their needs at the time of arrival in a

camp or settlement. They can no longer be considered a strictly humanitarian issue and a solution to their

situation will have to comprise a developmental as well as a humanitarian focus. Feller (2008:13), at the

time UNHCR assistant high commissioner, claimed that one of the reasons PRSs lack resources for solutions

and consequently keep dragging on, is the complete separation of developmental and (humanitarian)

refugee issues at government level in both host and donor states. UNHCR exerts itself to promote

coherence and cooperation between organizations and agencies and brings the issue of PRSs and its

possible solutions onto the agenda of relevant interagency meetings as the UN Inter-Agency Standing

Committee and the Delivering As One Panel (UNHCR, 2011c:60). Moreover, it launched certain programs

and initiatives intending to better integrate refugees into development planning and improve burden

sharing, for example the already mentioned Framework for Durable Solutions (UNHCR,2003b).

7 A UN-wide reform was undertaken in 2006 and has focused on strengthening the UN’s ability to respond to the

reality of the 21st

Century. The emergence of the ‘UN Delivering as One’ initiative is an important outcome of this

process and required that the UN development system accelerated its efforts to increase coherence and effectiveness

of its operations in the field through the establishment of joint offices, realizing more cooperation and exchange. The

‘Delivering as One’ initiative, promised to generate some important new opportunities in the search for solutions to

protracted refugee situations. For more information: http://www.un.org/en/ga/deliveringasone/

17

2.1.2.2 Durable solutions, identity and home

The analytical and policy framework that is used to approach refugees theoretically and in practice

comprises certain presumptions about refugee identity and elaborations of (a) home(land). Inherent to the

description of refugee situations and the (hierarchy of) durable solutions intended to bring them to an end,

are certain assumptions about what a refugee is or should be, how they relate to their country of origin,

and what should –ideally- be done to bring their situation back to normal. Refugees represent an anomaly,

a ‘problem to the entire community of nations’ (UNHCR, 1996:preface). They are dis-placed, out of place,

not where they belong and therefore they challenge a certain world order, an inter-national order of things

(Malkki, 1995a). Refugees do not belong to the country of origin (anymore), nor to a country of asylum

(yet). People derive a ‘natural’ identity from being rooted to a certain place, implying that ‘the identity

people gain from their association with a particular place is in some way fundamental or 'natural' and that

to be deprived of that identity is to lose some part of one's very humanity’ (Turton (1996) in Kibreab,

1999:97). Within line of this approach, the bond between a certain group of people and a certain place

allows for a historical, cultural and social identity and assures membership of a certain community and

nation. Through this membership and the attachment to a specific country, people identify themselves and

find themselves protected. Displacement is thus an international problem exactly because it is an obstacle

to root people to a certain territory, homeland or nation. All three durable solutions reveal a tendency to

re-root people and a preference to reinstate an international order. The (re)installation of a protective link

between an individual and a state is seen as prerequisite for a successful re-rooting and (re)integration. The

most straightforward way to realize such a link is through the institution of citizenship, bringing along

certain rights and duties but also influencing feelings of belonging and conceptualisations of identity.

The favoring of repatriation as ideal solution unambiguously shows an intend to restore a certain bond

between a particular ‘people’ and a particular territory (Long, 2010:5, following Malkki’s line of thought,

1992,1995a,1996). Voluntary repatriation reflects some kind of a moral idea of a return to a non-political

‘home’, as well as a restoration of a bond between a community and a place within an international

framework. Communities are understood in a sedentary way and refugees are presented as missing parts

of a disrupted and dismembered national body that just need to retake their natural place upon return

(Eastmond, 2002:3). However, the idealization of repatriation-as-return strips the process of its political

character. It neglects that refugees and returnees permanently have to negotiate their place in new

contexts of power and inequality and that they built multi-faceted and cross-border connections (Long,

2010). It is believed that refugees who had to leave a specific geographical location, home, will always be

drawn to that place ‘where one belongs’ (Malkki, 1995a:509). Refugees, as all people, are considered to be

emotionally attached to a home(land) and to identify themselves through this attachment. They identify

with a former home country and returning there would mean a restoration of a specific bond and a

reimbursement of what was lost while being in exile. In this regard, home not only represents a material

entity but especially a symbolic one, and both are believed to be restorable upon return. A loss of a home,

not only means material loss but also a symbolic loss of who we are. Home therefore represents a strong

connection with issues of identity, status and human security. Accordingly, notions of home are

territorialized and being a refugee is reduced to some kind of non-identity (Malkki, 1992).

Repatriation is considered the most natural solution, also getting preference of the refugees themselves.

Once the causes of their flight have disappeared, refugees ought to opt for a return, aroused by general

‘feelings of nostalgia and homesickness’ (Warner, 1994) or a certain ‘universal desire to return home’

18

(Bakewell, 2002:42). It might indeed seem natural that people who were forced to leave a certain place,

wish to reclaim it once circumstances allow for it. It is understandable that many refugees do long for what

they call(ed) home, feel homesick and strive for their right to return. It is however risky, especially in

situations of protracted exile, to suppose that all refugees share the same desire to return home, that all

have a certain attitude towards being a refugee and that all have the same notion of what home has been,

should and will be. Consequently, durable solutions for refugees are not single, uniform, fixed, nor static

and refugees do not necessarily want to return, even if they can (Kaiser, 2010:26). The longing for an

idealized homeland and the craving for a return is not at all a straightforward process that can be

generalized (Zetter, 1999). Neither is it possible to claim all refugees experienced the same kind of loss

caused by their flight. The before mentioned research of Malkki (1995b) in Western Tanzania is exemplary

in this regard. Although the two groups she focused on both originated from the same place, they had a

different attitude towards their refugee status and their so-called homeland. Their expectations concerning

a return home were very distinct: the self-settled refugees were trying to melt into Tanzanian society and

did not organize their lives in order to return to a mystified, idealized, ancestral homeland. The refugees in

Mishamo settlement idealized their past life in Burundi and saw their situation in the settlement as a

necessary hardship that would eventually result in a return to their promised land. Notions of home and

conceptualisations of identity are thus shaped, defined and redefined depending on specific lived

circumstances of exile, also influencing the wish to return to the country of origin. As protracted refugee

situations can drag on for years and even decades, notions of home evolve over time but so does the actual

situation referred to as home.

It is claimed that to refugees, the concept of home comprises strong reference to an often idealized past

and a way of life people identify with. It somehow is a ‘physical and symbolic representation of what has

been lost in exile’ (Zetter,1999:9). Refugee identities are characterized by the inheritance of a certain

idealized past, representing and meanwhile confronting a loss of continuity with the past. Many refugees,

more or less stimulated by others, try to maintain continuity with the past by complying with or

constructing a ‘myth of home’ and/or ’a myth of return’ (Zetter, 1999). Warner (1994) stated that these

idealized concepts of home usually do not acknowledge the context and underlying power relations, nor

mirror the situation as it is. Feelings of nostalgia and homesickness are, according to the author, distorted

by memory and are mostly an expression of the denial of the gap between people’s concepts of home and

the actual soil, group and place being referred to.

A critical analysis of what is conceived as home by organizations urging for return as well as by the refugees

themselves is often missing (Bakewell, 2002:42). What exactly is considered home and what the concept

symbolizes stays largely un-clarified. Home however has multiple meanings, representing a whole range of

realities, feelings, beliefs, customs, memories and attachments. The concept is intertwined with social,

economic and political life. It can be an actual place of everyday lived experience, related to a network of

significant others as family, kin, friends, neighbors: home as a sense of ‘feeling at home’. It can also be an

abstract, symbolic entity expressed through narratives and symbolic exchange: home as a sense of

belonging to a certain place, community or nation (Black, 2002; Fog Olwig, 1998; Brah, 1996). Home as a

negotiated sense of belonging can thus easily give rise to processes of inclusion and exclusion:

19

“Belonging is activated when there is a sense of exclusion, so that the experience of ‘sameness’

in one space is associated with estrangement from another, highlighting the emotion that is

attached to belonging.“ (Tomlinson, 2010:280)

The idea that refugees need to be re-rooted to a homeland does not recognize these processes of power at

play. It rests on static and territorialized concepts of identity and home, partly ignoring the fluid and

transnational character of the refugees’ conceptualisations and the importance of lived experiences.

2.2 Tanzanian situation

2.2.1 Towards a refugee free zone

In the early seventies, Burundi was startled by what Lemarchand (1974 in Malkki, 1992) has called a

selective genocide against the Hutu population. The conflict forced more than 200000 Burundians to flee to

neighboring Tanzania, where most of them have been living in three designated settlements: Ulyankulu in

Tabora Region and Katumba and Mishamo in Rukwa Region. Jacobson (2001:7) described these kind of

settlements as segregated villages specifically created to receive refugees and intended to promote self-

sufficiency. The Tanzanian government, within line of Nyerere’s ujamaa philosophy (Loescher and Milner,

2005:155), provided each household with a few hectares of land, allowing the refugees to take up their

former rural life. UNHCR and its implementing partners assisted with infrastructural support and provided

for basic needs, the district authorities organized different services such as education and health care.

(UNHCR, 2010:33-34). The settlements achieved agricultural and economic self-sufficiency within a few

years, international assistance was stopped in 1985 and by then a considerable amount of taxes returned

from the settlements to the government administration8.

The self-sufficiency of the refugees has probably influenced the general perception towards them. During

interviews and random talks, many Tanzanians referred to the former refugees as ‘hard workers’, ‘good

farmers’ and ‘true workmen’, acknowledging their efforts to become independent from aid and assistance.

On top, the 1972 refugees were considered as linguistically and ethnically related and somehow culturally

integrated. Children began following the Tanzanian schooling system in English and Kiswahili, there were

many mixed marriages and no major incidents occurred with the Tanzanian population. The perception of

the settlements’ population as rather integrated communities, able to look after themselves, has probably

also slowed down the process of searching for durable solutions. More pressing situations, pushed the

1972 refugees into the background. The rather positive attitude towards this group of Burundian refugees

and the perception of a more or less peaceful living together with the surrounding communities, does not

mean the refugees did not suffer from limited rights, restricted freedoms, a lack of opportunities and

discriminations (DANIDA and UNHCR, 2010; CSFM and IRRI 2008, 2009a). They have for example been

confronted with serious restrictions on their freedom of movement, also restraining their economic

activities and intensifying feelings of isolation: ‘This limitation reveals the contradiction inherent in the local

8 Interview UNHCR Protection Officer, Sub-Office Kigoma, September 2011.

20

settlement policy, which, instead of generating local integration, in reality has fostered difference and

exclusion from mainstream Tanzanian society’ (CSFM and IRRI, 2008:14). They still remained refugees

instead of citizens, as an official from the Tanzanian refugee department postulated: ‘it could not be

expected we provided a full range of rights to refugees when our people were not even able to enjoy the

same range of freedoms. Even after a long time in our country, they were still different, requiring a different

approach and different rights’9. Nevertheless, the 1972 refugees probably would not have gotten the

choice to naturalize if they would not have been considered as more or less integrated10. They have been

regarded as a special group of refugees, especially compared to a second major group of Burundians who

sought refuge in Tanzania in the wake of the 1993 crises. After the arrival of this group of hundreds of

thousands of displaced people, the Tanzanian government remarkably hardened its position towards

refugees and their policy became increasingly restrictive (L’Ecluse,2010: CSFM and IRRI, 2009a). The 1998

refugee act for example installed a system of refugee encampment, making it a crime to live outside a camp

without a special permit (Asylum Access Tanzania, 2011). The 1993 refugees were sheltered in camps:

designated areas, separated from the general population, resting on a care-and-maintenance model

(Landau, 2003). Refugees were denied the right to work, forbidden to move outside the camps and did not

get any land allocated. Basically, they were forced to rely on aid and assistance while awaiting their return

home. Over the years, the public opinion towards refugees also seems to have become more negative, with

refugees presented as a burden rather than an affiliated group of people.

Since the Tanzanian government announced its intention to become a refugee free zone, the 1993 refugees

have never been mentioned as possible beneficiaries of a naturalization. The Tanzanian government has

instead repeatedly emphasized its intention to close all camps and has put the remaining refugees under

serious pressure to return to Burundi. Intimidations and round-ups became a customary practice (L’Ecluse,

2010; CSFM and IRRI, 2009a). Notwithstanding the attempts and pressure of the Tanzanian government

and UNHCR to make them return to Burundi, some 38000 refugees remained in Mtabila camp at the time

this research was conducted. Initially, the Tanzanian government set the deadline for the closure of Mtabila

camp at the 30th of June 2009 and the announcement of the closure was fortified by a range of restrictions:

all official educational activities were stopped, religious services were limited, market and shops were

closed and agricultural activities were restricted (CFSM and IRRI, 2009a: 9-10). A large group of refugees

however was and still is reluctant to repatriate, fearing an unsafe return and problems upon arrival. A

tripartite commission of UNHCR and the governments of Tanzania and Burundi on the other hand, has

emphasized the stability of Burundi and the possibility to return in safety for years. They claim the

circumstances which led to the exodus in 1993 and onwards are no longer evident in Burundi (UNHCR

2011e). After several postponed deadlines since 2009, the commission set the end of 2012 as final deadline

for the closure of Mtabila. The decision came after a study at household level in the camp, assessing the

protection needs of the remaining refugees. A large majority of the refugees was found to be ‘not in need

of international protection’ (UNHCR bulletin 2012:4) and therefore the tripartite commission declared that

9 Interview Tanzanian Government officials, Refugee Department, Ministry of Home Affairs, Dar-Es-Salaam, October

2011. 10

Interview Tanzanian Government officials, Refugee Department, Ministry of Home Affairs, Dar-Es-Salaam, October

2011; Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions Department, Dar-Es-Salaam, October 2011;

21

campaigns are going to focus on persuading refugees to return home in security and dignity between April

and August 2012:

“We do not want a situation where they are forced out but they must understand that refugee

status is not indefinite and if they do not have well-founded reasons they must reflect and return

home.”(UNHCR Burundi representative Clementine Nkweta–Salami cited in IRIN News, 2012)

Given the past suspensions, it is hard to tell when Mtabila camp will actually be closed, under what

conditions and what a definite closure will implicate for possible remaining refugees. Moreover, the closure

of Mtabila does not only concern the group of remaining 1993 refugees, but also a specific group of the

1972 refugees: the so-called self-settlers. This group of refugees settled amongst the Tanzanian population

in local communities, without assistance or protection from the Tanzanian government or international

(aid) organizations. There are no recent estimations of the actual number of self-settled refugees and it is

hard to track them down as they often make themselves invisible to local authorities and organizations as

UNHCR (Loescher and Milner, 2011:5; Malkki, 1995b). Some 22 000 of this spontaneously settled refugees

registered for durable solutions in 2010, but the actual number is probably higher (UNHR, 2011d). The

group that registered, did not know what their future would look like. Although all self-settlers interviewed

presumed they would get the same offer as the refugees from the settlements, the option to naturalize,

government officials and UNHCR officers were more careful about taking a naturalization for granted. A

UNHCR protection officer from the Kigoma office stated for example:

“Right now, it is not clear what durable solution will be applied for this group. What will be

decided? Will they be able to stay? And if so, under what conditions? They might get the

possibility to stay but rather as permanent residents than as citizens. If they can stay, do they

have to relocate, do they have to resettle? (…) Certain security precautions and -issues remain

alive. So the situation of this group is still pending, the decision is still on hold, making a close

follow up necessary.”(September 2011)

Causing anxiety and adding to the uncertainty, was the postponement of any decision about the situation

of the self-settlers till the final closure of Mtabila camp. A decision that might provoke serious misgivings as

the Tanzanian government and the Tripartite commission always emphasized the difference in profile and

situation of the 1993 and the 1972 refugees and plead for a distinct approach and package of solutions.

Moreover, the self-settlers’ fate will also depend on the relocation and integration exercise of the

settlement-refugees (DANIDA and UNHCR, 2010:37). The progress of the process, the actual time span, the

way the settlement-refugees are received by local communities, the access to livelihood activities and so on

will determine what the self-settlers are up against. A report of IRRI and CSFM (2009a:12) made notice of

increasing pressure from the government to return to Burundi and even of previously self-settled refugees

who have been forced to leave their homes and move to Burundi. Needless to say that statements about

the future of the self-settlers are largely a matter of conjecture.

22

2.2.2 The Tanzania Comprehensive Solutions Strategy

So far the only elaborated package of solutions seems to be aimed at the 1972 settlement-refugees. The

Tripartite Commission launched the ‘Tanzania Comprehensive Solutions Strategy’ (2008). Prior to the

elaboration of TANCOSS, between July and November 2007, UNHCR and both governments consecutively

organized a population census, an individual registration, an intention survey and an independent socio-

economic study in the settlements (UNHCR,2011e). The strategy intends to be comprehensive, cooperative

and collaborative and includes key elements of the before mentioned Framework for Durable Solutions

(DANIDA and UNHCR, 2010:29). The strategy is based on a three-pillar approach of voluntary repatriation,

naturalization and local integration, in combination with an extra umbrella objective in order to mobilize

international support. Within the framework of TANCOSS, the targeted refugees could opt for voluntary

return or for remaining in Tanzania and naturalize11. More than 55000 of the 1972 Burundians returned to

Burundi between 2008 and 2010 and some 162000 refugees opted for naturalization (UNHCR, 2011d). The

implementation of TANCOSS was originally planned to take place between January 2008 and December

2009 but has been extended up to 2014. The feasibility of this new timespan is questionable as well since

the process is already seriously delayed. In the following parts the main components of the strategy and the

current situation will be shortly clarified.

2.2.2.1 Pillar 1: Voluntary repatriation and reintegration

“Burundian refugees who opt for voluntary return will repatriate by September 2009 and will be

successfully reintegrated in their areas of return.”

Both Tanzanian and Burundian government and UNHCR committed themselves to support a safe and

dignified repatriation of all those who declared a wish to return to Burundi. The whole operation required

an intense planning process and close cooperation in order to realize the necessary infrastructural and

logistical arrangements (UNHCR, 2010) The repatriation process per se has proved to run rather smoothly

and efficiently, allowing some 55000 people to return to Burundi by 2010. The challenges and tasks of the

reintegration however seem to have been seriously underestimated during the planning process as well as

during the implementation phase12. Many problems, that were not sufficiently anticipated on, have

aroused. The recent evaluation by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Policy Development and

Evaluation Service of UNHCR (2010: 9,42) claims that ‘the complications of settling the returnees appear to

have been underestimated by UNHCR and (…) the unsolved situation for a large number of returnees in

Burundi and the fact that families continue up to the present to be placed in reception centres could possibly

have been lessened’. A first problem relates to the lack of clear information about the situation in Burundi

11 The initial TANCOSS strategy did not include reference to resettlement as a solution but resettlement has been used

in a strategic manner to complement voluntary return and local integration. Some 8,000 refugees of the 1972

caseload were identified for resettlement, mostly to the USA (Interview UNHCR Protection Officer, Kigoma,

September 2011). 12

Interview UNHCR Protection Officer, Sub-Office Kigoma, September 2011; Interview UNHCR Officer Durable

Solutions Department, Dar-Es-Salaam, October 2011.

23

and the consequences of a return to the country (CSFM and IRRI, 2009b). Key informants interviewed

stated that the refugees in the settlements heard a seriously biased story, emphasising the good life in

Burundi, pushing for a return ‘home’ and therefore creating expectations that could not be met13. Access to

land proved to be a critical and controversial issue, causing considerable problems to re-establish

livelihoods (CSFM and IRRI, 2009b). Setting up a livelihood in Burundi largely depends on access to arable

land since non-agricultural options for making a living are very limited. However, after decades of absence

many of the returnees have found their land occupied by other families, companies or the government.

Many of them have lost certain legal rights and entitlements or are unable to prove their legal title to the

land. Others did not even know where their family originated from and basically had nowhere to go.

UNHCR provided an assistance package that contained among others construction materials, plastic sheets,

soap, a bicycle and a cash grant of 45 dollar per person but the package proved insufficient to allow

returnees to take a new start14. Supported by the international community, the Burundian government

created so-called Peace Villages (villages rureaux intégrés) to shelter landless returnees and it established a

National Commission on Land and Other Possessions in order to mediate on land-disputes. So far the Peace

Villages have provoked serious critiques. They do not seem to realize reintegration into the social fabric of

the Burundian society and there is still a lack of permanent solutions for (reclaiming) lost land. People living

in the Peace Villages suffer from physical, social and political isolation, they denounce the quality and size

of the available land and the lack of basic services (CSFM and IRRI, 2009b: 8, 14, 37).The Land Commission

played an important role in resolving conflicts over land but it struggled to meet the demand for its support

and lacked capacity to respond to the complex land and property issues facing Burundi (Thomson,

2009:35). Other challenges concerned educational and language problems as many returnees have been

born in Tanzania, have followed the Tanzanian curriculum in Kiswahili and English and have had only limited

contact with the home communities (DANIDA and UNHCR, 2010:47). Burundi, being a country in transition,

also struggles to attract the attention of bilateral and multilateral development programs that might

benefit the returnees. While developmental programs have not been (fully) established, humanitarian

programs have been phasing out, causing a gap between relief and development aid with returnees risking

to fall into this gap.

The repatriation and especially sustainable reintegration of the returnees is a crucial part of the TANCOSS

strategy. If this part of the solution strategy fails to be effective and sustainable, if returnees face a long

term unsolved situation, an effective transition from war to peace in Burundi may be delayed or even

obstructed. This may potentially lead to new situations of displacement, with new flows of refugees

heading to Tanzania or other neighboring countries and another prolongation of a refugee situation already

lasting for decades.

13 Informant 1, Kigoma, September 2011; Informant 2, Tabora, September 2011; Burundian Government Official,

Consul General, Burundian Consulate Kigoma, August 2011. 14

Interview UNHCR Protection Officer, Sub-Office Kigoma, September 2011.

24

2.2.2.2 Pillar 2: Naturalization

“Burundian refugees who chose to remain in Tanzania will be naturalized under the Tanzanian citizenship

law by the end of 2008 or early 2009.”

The landmark decision of the Tanzanian government to offer the 1972 settlement refugees the option to

initiate a procedure to receive Tanzanian nationality and therefore claim certain civil rights, reflected an

unprecedented generosity and an intention to finally find a lasting solution for the refugees. A large

majority of the group (about 80%) opted for naturalization and by the end of 2009, more than 155,000

refugees were granted citizenship by the Minister of Home Affairs. This number rose to almost 162,300 by

early 2010, almost 98 per cent of the total number of applicants (DANIDA and UNHCR, 2010:36). It was not

so much the gesture of naturalizing a group of refugees an sich that attracted international attention and

was complimented. Tanzania granted citizenship to other groups of refugees, for example the Rwandan

and Burundian refugees that were naturalized on a group basis during the late 1950ies and early 1960ies or

more recently (2005) the 1423 Somali Bantus who stayed in Tanga Region (UNHCR, 2011d). It was the size

of the 1972 group offered citizenship that was rather exceptional. Probing why the government decided to

naturalize such an unprecedented number of refugees, government officials referred to: the intention to

become a refugee free zone; the perception of existent social, economic and cultural links between the

host population and the refugees and concerns about peace and security in the region. About the last

aspect it was stated:

“I also think the size of the group had an impact on the decision to give them the choice to stay

or return. If we would have send them all back, we might have created problems in Burundi. I

don’t think the country was ready to receive almost 200 000 people (…) It might have caused

tensions that could have easily sparked unrest and violence in the whole of the country, causing

new waves of refugees. It’s of course speculation… what might have happened, I mean, it

might have been a successful operation but we couldn’t afford taking a gamble on

it.”(Interview Tanzanian Government officials, Refugee Department, Ministry of Home Affairs,

Dar-Es-Salaam, October 2011)

The UNHCR officers interviewed emphasized the importance of the government’s policies at the time of the

refugees arrival. The integration of the refugees in the ‘villagization’ policy positively influenced their

relation to surrounding communities and this had a positive impact on the decision to naturalize. They also

mentioned the growing international reluctance to receive refugees, the more restrictive refugee policies

and the more or less direct pressure to find an answer to refugee problems in their region of origin.15 These

motivations were also pointed out in the DANIDA and UNHCR evaluation report (2010:26-28).

The naturalization exercise and especially the processing of the naturalization applications was a logistically

complex process but was finalized without major difficulties. IRRI and CFSM however point out some

problems during the process: the vulnerable or unclear position of certain groups as elderly people, people

15 Interview UNHCR Protection Officer, Sub-Office Kigoma, September 2011; Interview UNHCR Officer Durable

Solutions Department, Dar-Es-Salaam, October 2011.

25

who were not present in the settlements during the registration and Burundians married to Tanzanians; the

lack of flexibility after declaring oneself in favor of either one of the solutions and the lack of opportunity to

appeal rejection (CSFM and IRRI, 2008:20-25). Initially the process was planned on a group level, as a mass

naturalization by decree. During implementation this was changed to an ‘expedited’ procedure, meaning

every individual had to apply for citizenship but after individual registration and acceptance of the

application, all applicants were treated as a specific group16. The 1972 refugees had to take the general

steps of an individual naturalization but some steps were modernized and expedited. UNHCR supported the

Tanzanian government and immigration officers with the digitization of application forms, setting up

naturalization centres, deploying registration, organizing trainings and so on. Implementing partners and

UNHCR assisted the refugees in, among others, completing the electronic citizenship application forms, in

the identification of witnesses for declarations about residence and in the renunciation of previous

citizenship (UNHCR, 2010).

Although almost every applicant was officially called a ‘Newly Naturalized Tanzanian’ by April 2010, the

naturalization process was not finalized at that time. The government decided to link pillar 2 and pillar 3 of

the TANCOS-strategy by postponing the distribution of the citizenship certificates until relocation had taken

place (cfr 2.2.3). Once they arrive in their region of destination, the relocating citizens will have to collect

their certificates in certificate issuance centers that still have to be opened. The linking of both pillars was

announced in the Intention Survey (2008). It stated: “if you are successful in your application for

naturalization, you will be required by the Government to leave the Settlements. Where will you go? Name

two places”. Every head of household that applied for citizenship, had to complete the survey. That the

linking of pillar 2 and 3 would imply the holding back of certificates until people left the settlement was not

mentioned (DANIDA and UNHCR, 2010:33). By the end of 2011 it was not clear when exactly the relocation

would take place, how it would be organized and how and under what conditions the NNT would be able to

collect their certificates. The whole process is to be completed at an unknown time, causing a lot of

confusion and uncertainty. The initial timeframe has been seriously delayed already and this comes with

some considerable risks. Donors are getting tired of the many postponements and tend to shift their focus

to other (more urging) situations as the food insecurity in North-Kenyan refugee camps or reconstruction in

Libya. Donor-fatigueness would be detrimental for the long term integration and local integration process.

The delays have of course a major impact on the NNT’s themselves. They did not know what they were up

to. Many of the former refugees for example were dependent on small-scale agriculture but did not know

whether they had to invest in their fields or not. If they did not invest they might have ended up without

food, if they did invest they might have lost their investment17. Human right organizations refer to the

former refugees’ ambivalent feelings about the implications of naturalization and have been condemning

their state of limbo (CSFM and IRRI, 2009a, 2008). Although government officials and UNHCR officers

stressed that it was generally known that one of the conditions to become Tanzanian was to relocate and

that the certificate-issue is mainly a legal one and nothing to worry about, the former refugees seem to be

more suspicious about the decision. Other instances questioned the effectiveness of TANCOSS given the

non-issuance of the citizen-certificates:

16 Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions Department, Dar-Es-Salaam, October 2011.

17 Interview Informant 2, Tabora, September 2011

26

“The uncertainty with regard to when in the process the NNTs are likely to become “real” citizens

could, in a worst-case scenario, result in the creation of a group of internally displaced

persons.”(DANIDA and UNHCR,2010:44)

The decision to make the completion of the naturalization process depend upon the relocation, seems to

have been taken somewhere en route and largely seems to stem from political issues at play (DANIDA and

UNHCR, 2010:12,28). Key informants and a UNHCR officer also mentioned that the politics behind the

process caused serious delays18. Refugees became for example an important theme in political campaigns.

There seemed to be growing critique and resistance at a local and regional level, with for example local

MP’s complaining that they have not been involved properly in the decision to naturalize and relocate.

Despite investments of UNHCR in informing and sensitizing the different actors involved, the resistance by

local and regional officials urged the government to put the whole operation on hold. Internal consultations

concerning the further organisation of the relocation and integration process were to be organized. When

exactly the government would decide on further steps and what these steps will be, remained unclear.

2.2.2.3 Pillar 3: Local Integration

“Naturalized refugees will be integrated in their new host communities by the end of 2010.”

It was only in June 2010 that the Tanzanian government launched the last pillar of TANCOSS with the

announcement of the National Strategy for Community Integration Programme (NASCIP), spelling out the

modalities for the relocation and integration of the NNTs (UNHCR, 2011e). As already mentioned, the

perception that they were already somehow integrated stimulated the decision to offer citizenship and

introduce local integration as a solution to the refugees’ plight. Their integration was largely situated on

what Crisp has called the socio-cultural dimension of local integration (2004:1-2). He distinguishes three

interrelated dimensions and defines local integration as a process whereby refugees progressively receive

certain rights and entitlements (legal dimension) and therefore are also able to reach a higher degree of

self-reliance and improve their potential to establish a sustainable livelihood (economic dimension). As

refugees and local host communities gradually acclimatize and accommodate, they get to live amongst or

alongside each other. Refugees learn the language, engage in cultural and religious meetings and share

(parts of) a way of living (socio-cultural dimension). Notwithstanding the refugees being perceived as

(partly) integrated on one or more dimensions, they themselves made objections to this observation (cfr.

Chapter 3) and respondents were also in the conviction that living in remote settlements was an

obstruction to full integration19. Besides giving the refugees the chance to leave remote and isolated areas

with harsh conditions behind, the intention of the government to relocate the 1972 refugees from the Old

18 Interview Informant 1, Kigoma September 2011; Personal email conversation Informant B3, September 2011;

Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions Department, Dar-Es-Salaam, October 2011. 19

Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions Department, Dar-Es-Salaam, October 2011; Interview UNHCR Protection

Officer, Sub-Office Kigoma, September 2011, Interview Informant 1, Kigoma, September 2011; Interview Informant 2,

Tabora, September 2011; Burundian Government Official, Consul General, Burundian Consulate Kigoma, August 2011.

27

Settlements to 16 regions throughout the country20 was also influenced by security precautions. The

government wanted to avoid a Burundian enclave in a border region and therefore intented to stimulate

former refugees to mingle with the Tanzanian population21. Government officials also referred to the

importance of being able to shed of the refugee label:

“There is a more or less explicit link between the settlements and being a refugee. We think it’s

important to be disconnected from the place, to be able to leave the feeling of being a refugee

behind and integrate in Tanzanian society. We don’t want them to stay in the settlements, they

should live in other communities and mix with other Tanzanians.”(Interview Tanzanian

Government Officials, Ministry of Home Affairs, Dar es Salaam, October 2011)

The possibility to create new functions or re-establish some of the previous functions of the settlement-

areas, was also mentioned by officials. Before they were allocated as a place for refugee-settlement some

parts were for example designed as game reserves and it was suggested the government might strive for

restoration of these reserves22. Other sources however suggested the government was planning to use

state land for commercial agricultural purposes, taking advantage of the international rush for available

land after the 2008 food crisis (DANIDA and UNHCR, 2010; The Citizen, 2011, July 26; The Guardian on

Sunday, 2011, July 31). Critics of possible giant commercial agricultural projects saw the planned move of

the NNT as ‘just another calculation aimed at evicting the Burundian refugees in order to pave the way for

the massive commercial farming to take place in the area’. (The Guardian on Sunday, 2011, July 31).

Originally, NASCIP stated that the relocation would start in 2010 but the process has been seriously delayed

and it is rather unlikely the initial deadline of 2014 will be met23. The naturalized households, 8677 in

Ulyankulu, chose their priority regions during a registration for relocation early 2011 but they are still

awaiting the notification of their final allocation (see preliminary relocation graphic p28) (UNHCR, 2011e).

Once they have been informed about the receiving regions and the reception formalities in the respective

areas has been finalized, they will have a period of 4 months to prepare for their exit from the settlements.

Households already settled in other parts of the country outside the settlements are allowed to continue

living in their current location.

20 Tanzania has 26 regions and 127 districts. NASCIP shows the relocation will affect about 50 districts in 16 regions:

Tabora, Rukwa, Kigoma, Kagera, Ruvuma, Shinyanga, Morogoro, Dodoma, Mtwara, Iringa, Lindi, Tanga, Manyara,

Mbeya, Coast and Singida (Personal email conversation Informant 5, 2011 August 23th). 21

Interview UNHCR Protection Officer, Sub-Office Kigoma, September 2011; Interview Tanzanian Government

Officials, Refugee Department, Ministry of Home Affairs; Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions Department, Dar-

Es-Salaam, October 2011. 22

Interview Tanzanian Government Officials, Refugee Department, Ministry of Home Affairs, Dar es Salaam, October

2011 23

Interview Tanzanian Government Officials, Refugee Department, Ministry of Home Affairs, Dar Es Salaam, October

2011; Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions Department, Dar-Es-Salaam, October 2011

28

Mara

Zanzibar

Kilimanjaro

Dar Es Salaam

Mwanza

Kigoma

TangaSingida

Manyara

Mbeya

Tabora

Kagera

Pwani

Morogoro

ShinyangaLindi

Mtwara

Rukwa

Ruvuma

Iringa

Dodoma

Preliminary Reloaction Graphic - Families per

region

SOURCE: United Nations Delivering As One Tanzania -

UNHCR Durable Solutions Office Tanzania (2011), Local

Integration Programme April 2010- May 2011 (p4)

REGION FAMILIES

Mara 1

Zanzibar 1

Kilimanjaro 1

Dar Es Salaam 52

Mwanza 118

Kigoma 1015

Tanga 1199

Singida 1260

Manyara 1279

Mbeya 1292

Tabora 1349

Kagera 1395

Pwani 1474

Morogoro 1637

Shaniyanga 1659

Lindi 2217

Mtwara 2396

Rukwa 2547

Ruvuma 2580

Iringa 2608

Dodoma 2942

TOTAL 29022

A task force will facilitate the relocation-process and UNHCR and partners will support the movement of

the relocating citizens with assistance packages. The organization will also provide local integration support

at district level and will seek to engage development actors (UNHCR,2011e). NASCIP provides for an

individual assistance package (including transport, start-up capital and land access) and a community-based

component in order to strengthen the absorption capacity of the receiving communities (UNHCR, 2010:33-

34). In preparation of the relocation, UNHCR and the Tanzanian government established field presence by

creating three additional zonal coordination offices in Iringa, Mwanza and Dodoma24. These are temporary

offices that will close once the process is finalized and the Tanzanian government takes over full protection

of the new citizens’ rights. Their function is dual; coordinate the integration and relocation process and

guarantee the protection of the NNTs by organizing information sessions with local authorities, conducting

a needs assessment, sensitize potential partners and so on25. Regional Immigration officers already got a

training on citizenship certificates in November 2010 and information sharing sessions about the relocation

and integration process were also organized for local authorities in 13 receiving regions early 2011 (UNHCR,

2011e). Notwithstanding these preparatory and supporting initiatives, it remains unclear where, how and

24 There were already two local integration support offices, one in Dar Es Salaam and one in Mtwara. Besides UNHCR

has: a representation office in Dar Es Salaam, Field Offices in Kigoma, Kasulu and Mpanda, Field Units in Mishamo and

Ulyankuluu, and logistical outposts in Mwanza and Isaka (UNHCR 2011d) 25

Interview UNHCR Protection Officer, Sub-Office Kigoma, September 2011.

29

under what timeline the NNTs will have to relocate. A lot of practical challenges and questions concerning

the conditions and impact of the process still stand firm: When will the former refugees be asked to leave?

How will transport be organised? What about vulnerable persons- how will they be supported? How and

when will the NNTs be able to collect their certificates? What if they cannot secure access to land? Will the

cash grant be enough to support people to the extent they can go on with their life or start a new one?

How will the government deal with resistance of local communities and possible social exclusion of the

refugees? The requirement to relocate and the coincided speculations and questions, raised anxiety among

the former refugees and caused human right organisations to question the whole relocation-process

(UNHCR, 2012; CSFM and IRRI, 2009a:7-8; DANIDA and UNHCR, 2010:41). Most of the NNTs have been

living their entire lives in the settlements and are dependent on land to realize a living. Relocation might

undermine their access to a livelihood, their sense of identity and it is seen as a violation of their rights:

“To follow a grant of nationality immediately with severe restrictions on movement, risks not

only a violation of rights, but also creating a tiered notion of citizenship – will create different

classes of citizenship.”(CSFM and IRRI, 2009a:8)

The many delays and uncertainties also seemed to contribute to all kind of speculations that are hard to

either confirm or invalidate. A former refugee living in Ulyankulu for example mentioned in an email-

conversation (2012, February 28th) that ‘the closure of Ulyankulu is still unknown but it will not be closed

since it is going to be one of the Districts of the country’. It proved impossible to get more information nor a

formal confirmation of this intent. Another hurdle to overcome was the local resistance and xenophobic

sentiments towards the NNTs, challenging their future integration26. Government officials put on record:

“… rather problematic is the local resistance against receiving the former refugees in the own

community. Local MPs and community leaders stimulate this, they make reference to a lack of

land and they also mention security issues. It is too bad but the refugees don’t have a good

name – they are connected to all kind of criminal activities. Especially in the border areas the

rate of criminal activities has increased since the refugees arrived. The statistics prove that at

least a minority of the refugees has been involved in criminal activities as robberies. Many of

them also own weapons. They are not seen as good people, Tanzanians are scared of them. If

they want to integrate and get the chance to integrate, a change of mind-set is definitely

needed. Tanzanians need to be well-informed and supported and the former refugees need to

be willing to participate in society, in a positive way, as well.”(Tanzanian Government Officials,

Ministry of Home Affairs, Dar es Salaam, October 2011)

Feelings of resistance refered to the ‘otherness’ and ‘unreliability’ of the former refugees as well as to

topics as security. Feelings and topics that were exploited by local authorities. Local authorities at regional

and district levels doubted the effectiveness and desirability of the relocation and local integration exercise,

claiming that repatriation should be the only suitable solution to the situation of the 1972 refugees27. They

26 Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions Department, Dar-Es-Salaam, October 2011; Interview UNHCR Protection

Officer, Sub-Office Kigoma, September 2011. 27

Personal email conversation informant B3, 2011 September 13th

.

30

also stated that successful integration would be highly challenging given the lack of support for health,

agricultural, education and social services in the receiving communities. UNHCR planned on and partly

raised budgets for community development projects as water supply, schools, road networks, agriculture

and so on. Local authorities however predicted problems because of insufficient infrastructure and a lack of

available resources and land. UNHCR was aware of the necessity of sufficient resources for developmental

projects and the necessary involvement of other developmental actors if the local integration was ever to

be successful. It seemed however a balancing act between the humanitarian focus of UNHCR’s mandate

and the more developmental one of other agencies and partners:

“Of course UNHCR’s final concern is the rights and well-being of refugees. The refugees are still

under UNHCR protection in the settlements. So it’s indeed a difficult exercise right now; how far

does the mandate of UNHCR go? What is our role concerning the New Tanzanians – if they are

not refugees anymore? Of course UNHCR wants to monitor the relocation so it can take place

in a safe way and in dignity. More challenging is what will happen after that. How can you

monitor and follow up local integration, which is a long term process and which involves so

many people? It’s important that other partners will be involved, like UNDP, UNICEF, NGOs,

community programs…”(Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions Department, Dar-Es-

Salaam, October 2011;

Important in this regard is that Tanzania is one of the pilot countries for the UN delivering As One Program.

The program is expected to create better opportunities to integrated joint-planning and improved

cooperation between different agencies and programs with regard to the local integration. Under the

UNDAP 2011-2015 framework, UNHCR cooperates with UNDP to ensure the sustainability of the

integration of the relocating citizens. The cooperation also aims to guarantee support after the estimated

phase-out of UNHCR (UNHCR, 2011e). Both agencies developed a joint program focusing on the transition

from humanitarian assistance to sustainable development in western Tanzania. It is however too early to

strike a balance on the common approach and cooperation within Tanzania. UNDP and UNHCR have had

regular meetings and discussed plans and responsibilities but the actual cooperation is rather limited since

the relocation and integration process is still on hold28.

2.2.2.4 Mobilization of International support

“International support will be mobilized, with UNHCR playing a catalytic role, to ensure burden and

responsibility sharing in the implementation of the comprehensive solution”

As Crisp and Fielden (2008:78) noted, the success of the strategy would and will largely depend on the

response of donors to UNHCR’s appeal to collect the necessary financial means. For example, the

realization of the third pillar alone will demand an estimated 144 million dollar but the amount proved hard

to collect so far29. Government officials criticized the position of donor countries who pushed for local

28 Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions Department, Dar-Es-Salaam, October 2011.

29 Interview UNHCR Protection Officer, Sub-Office Kigoma, September 2011

31

reception of refugees and local (or regional) solutions for refugee problems but seem to step back when

they are asked to share the burden. TANCOSS was developed at a time when asylum space in developed

countries was shrinking and the strategy was well-received as it largely focused on ‘local solutions’ in host

countries rather than on resettlement.30 It is probably not completely incomprehensible that officials

expressed their concerns and disappointment and the Tanzanian government might feel somehow

exploited by an international community that applauded the strategy and assured its financial commitment

at the time of development but now shows many signs of donor fatigueness. UNHCR officers also

mentioned the growing difficulty to find sufficient financial support, especially with regard to the last pillar

of integration. At the time of the research only about 10% of the needed 144 million had actually been

raised.31 They saw different reasons for the poor financial commitment of donor countries: more urging

and eye-catching situations as the famine in Somalia; the many delays and changes in implementing the

strategy and reservations to invest in long-term developmental programs.32

2.2.3 Some concluding remarks: Refugees, identity and belonging within the Tanzanian context

Within this Tanzanian context, the same mechanisms and approaches that were described more generally

within the chapter on durable solutions can be distinguished. Despite the possibility to opt for either

repatriation or naturalization, the singularity of the situation of the 1972 refugees was repeatedly

emphasized, as well as the fact that repatriation is and will be the most natural and preferred solution.

Different key informants denounced the lack of information or the biased character of information about

the situation in Burundi and the possibilities upon arrival33. Central focus was on the causes of the flight and

on the idea that once these causes have disappeared the 1972 refugees could return to ‘their country’:

“The best option in a refugee situation is always voluntary repatriation. If people have to move

out of their country of origin because of security reasons, they should, well they should also be

able to return when there’s no longer a security threat. It was decided that… or the decision to

give the refugees the option to choose between naturalization and repatriation is rather

exceptional, especially since we’re talking about a very large group. (…) But of course the

situation of the 1972 refugees is also exceptional, as we told you already, because it’s so long, I

mean, after almost 40 years they have built their lives here. I think it was a very humane

gesture of our government to offer citizenship.”(Interview Tanzanian Government Officials,

Refugee Department, Ministry of Home Affairs, Dar es Salaam, October 2011)

30 Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions Department, Dar-Es-Salaam, October 2011.

31 Major investors are the UK, Japan and the European Union. The European Union for example invested 1,5 million

euro for projects in the educational area in 2011. Projects supported aimed at the expansion of schools or the

acquisition of necessary equipment such as furniture or laboratory items (UNHCR, 2011e). 32

Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions Department, Dar-Es-Salaam, October 2011; Interview UNHCR Protection

Officer, Sub-Office Kigoma, September 2011 33

Informant 1, Kigoma, September 2011; Informant 2, Tabora, September 2011; Burundian Government Official,

Consul General, Burundian Consulate Kigoma, August 2011.

32

“The most preferable solution is voluntary repatriation. If people can manage to go home it’s

always the best. The second best option is local integration. In the case of the 1972 refugees

almost 75% opted for naturalization because of different reasons. This case is of course quite

specific since the Burundians have been living in the country for such a long time, most of them

were born here. But still – it would have been better if 100% of the refugees could return.

Repatriation is just the most logical solution.”(Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions

Department, Dar Es Salaam, October 2011)

The instigation to root people, to pin them down to a specific place or assign them to a certain state also

seemed to determine the search for solutions for the 1972 refugees. Nostalgic references to the place

where the refugees came from, a beloved homeland, were exerted to stimulate repatriation. The history of

the (former) refugees, their experiences living in Tanzania, the (cross-border) relations they may have been

building, their own feelings of belonging and their notions of home were not taken into consideration. For

example, on a UNHCR lorry used to repatriate 1972 refugees from Tanzania to Burundi, the following

quote, referring to sentimental and nostalgic feelings of a homeland, could be read:

“Home is where the heart is and the heart is in Burundi”

(Picture in UNHCR Kigoma sub-office)

Another striking aspect within the Tanzanian context is the somehow contradictory attitude of the

government towards the 1972 refugees. On the one side they were presented as thé example of an

integrated group of refugees, therefore ‘earning’ recognition by becoming official Tanzanian citizens.

Especially their self-reliance, their mastery of the Swahili language, the parallels in cultural background,

intermarriages and the interaction with Tanzanian society were essential to this. At the other side however,

they were seen as not fully part of Tanzanian society given their isolated position, their minimal interaction

with the Tanzanian population and their limited rights and freedoms. Although the settlements were

largely organised in the same way as other villages in Tanzania, they were still seen as temporary

residencies for refugees, slowing down and obstructing integration.

It was exactly their ‘otherness’, their lack of integration and possible negative impact on Tanzanian society

that was accentuated. One of the arguments justifying the much-contested relocation of the settlement

refugees, responds to this otherness and lack of belonging to Tanzanian society. Leaving the settlements as

they were, was believed to enlarge the risk to create a Burundian enclave within Tanzania, possibly

threatening the political and social harmony within the country and even region. Moreover, the 162 300

refugees who were officially recognized as Tanzanians, do not have the same rights as other Tanzanians.

They are not equal citizens (yet). They are left in limbo about their future, they are barely heard in any

decision concerning their lives and they still cannot invoke fully the right of freedom of movement and the

right to live where they want. Their newly acquired citizen rights are constrained before they can actually

be applied.

This paradoxical situation is even more striking with regard to the self-settlers. Although they are living

amongst the general Tanzanian population for years, doing business, speaking the language, going to the

same schools and so on, they have no certainty whatsoever about their future rights and official position.

They seem to be more integrated than the settlement refugees as they were not restricted to remote and

isolated areas, were more engaged in economic activities and mingled with the Tanzanian population.

33

However, their ‘invisibility’ as a specific group also seemed to have been a thorn in the flesh of government

officials and politicians as this group of ‘non-Tanzanians’ was hard to track and control, leading to regular

round-ups and harassments (Malkki, 1995a; L’Ecluse, 2010). Most of them kept quiet about their

background out of fear of repercussions. Their background was perceived in a negative way and still seems

to be an obstruction to truly belonging, despite being at least partly integrated. This focusing on otherness,

as mirrored by certain political decisions, also trickles down to and enforces public sentiments and (local)

political programs. They are for example often accused of all kind of criminal acts, provoking feelings of

insecurity. Notwithstanding research suggesting that refugees only commit a very small percentage of

crimes in Tanzania and that regions not hosting refugees have equally high or higher rates for murder,

armed robbery and possession of illegal arms and ammunition (SAHRiNGON, 2007), the linking of refugees

and criminality proves to be very persistent. In this regard, refugees are approached as one, more or less

homogenous category of others, who are a threat to the social cohesion and security of the ‘own

community’. This approach leaves little room for other or multiple identities.

The negative images and approaches towards refugees stimulated feelings of reticence and were staged for

political interests as well. Refugees and especially the exploitation of negative sentiments towards refugees

became political residue, intended to mobilize electoral support based on negative sentiments towards

refugees. The refugee-free pledge by the end of 2010 was part of the 2005 election manifesto of the ruling

party (CCM) and the former minister of Home Affairs also made it a campaign theme during the

preparation rounds for the elections in 2009-2010. Although the ruling party has expressed its commitment

to successfully finalize TANCOSS, the strategy lacked support on a local level. Politicians at district and

regional level exploited negative feelings and fears concerning the possible arrival of groups of former

refugees. Their attitude risked turning fears into a much more problematic phobia towards refugees and by

extension everybody being different. The strategy seemed to be seriously politicized, causing delays and

paling the actual intend to find solutions for a protracted situation of exile.

34

CHAPTER 3: IDENTITY

The previous chapter focused on protracted refugee situations and durable solutions as they are

approached by the international community and more specifically UNHCR. It further concentrated on

Tanzanian refugee policy and practice concerning a specific situation of protracted exile, that of the 1972

Burundian refugees. More specifically, the explicit and implicit assumptions about and conceptualisations

of identity and home, as embedded in international and Tanzanian refugee policy, were elucidated. The

central focus of this chapter are the experiences and conceptualisations of the refugees themselves. After

exposing their notions of identity and home, these conceptualistions will be confronted with the

presumptions about identity and belonging comprised in refugee policy and practice (cfr. conclusion and

discussion, p47). The first part of this section focusses on the following questions: Does the granting of

citizenship and therefore the allocation of certain rights and plights, influence the sense of identity of the

(former) refugees? If so, how?

3.1 Granting of citizenship and sense of identity

3.3.1 Lack of rights, undermining feelings of belonging and being controlled

The concept of citizenship refers to being part of a certain community and, linked to this membership, the

ability to claim the rights and plights of that community. Citizenship includes more than the exercise of

political rights, it also comprises social, cultural and economic rights. Moreover, as a citizen you are allowed

presence in public space, you can claim your position in order to be listened to. Citizenship comprises a

protective link between an individual and an authority or a state. Kaiser (2010) points to the risk of refugees

falling into a protection gap when not being able to solidify citizenship, especially in situations of protracted

exile. Their refugee status should guarantee international protection and UNHCR strives for their rights, but

as already mentioned, refugees in PRSs often suffer from a lack of rights and protection.

As the official membership to a particular community secures access to and protection of certain rights for

members, it deprives non-members of those rights. One of the aspects the (former) refugees have been

suffering from, was exactly the exclusion from a collective body of citizenry and correspondingly a lack of

rights and freedoms. As refugees instead of citizens they were restricted in their political rights, the right to

work, the right to own property, the access to livelihood-sources and social services, the freedom of

movement and so on. They felt discriminated against, especially after living for decades in Tanzania without

getting any recognition for their hard work and contributions to the Tanzanian state. They were not heard,

as only others- mostly international agencies and organizations- have been speaking for them. They did not

feel part of Tanzanian society. They experienced their lives in the settlements as very secluded and

limitative, having almost no chances and opportunities:

“We’re restricted in all our movements and freedoms. We’re controlled, we can’t just do what

we want. Even when you’re sick you can’t go wherever you want to get a treatment. We are

not part of society, we are at the margin.”<Internals\\Interview 18>

35

“Until now I’ve never had real rights. (…) I was born in this country but I had no rights, no

freedoms. I couldn’t leave Ulyankulu, I couldn’t live where I wanted to, I couldn’t travel, I

couldn’t vote. Because I was born in Ulyankulu and not in Tabora, I was supposed to live as a

refugee”.<Internals\\Interview 6>

The second generation respondents frequently mentioned that they should have the same rights as other

people born in Tanzania, making reference to the principle of ‘jus soli’ or birthright citizenship. The 1995

Tanzanian citizenship act applies partly and with some exceptions the jus soli principle, as those born on

Tanzanian territory after April 26th 1964 may access citizenship. Whether this principle also relates to

refugees is however not clear. In a publication of IRRI and CSFM (2008:38) it is stated that there seem ‘to be

no other residency or status requirements or exceptions for refugees’ but a UNHCR officer mentioned some

official documents stated that newborns in the country can only get citizenship if their parents or at least

the father is Tanzanian34.The second generation refugees attached more importance to the fact they were

born in Tanzania than to their Burundian background because of their parents.

Something both settlement-refugees and self-settlers pointed to, was the permanent burden of possibly

being checked and controlled on. Refugees not living in the settlements said many of them could not

present official papers and have been harassed in the past by immigration officers and policemen.

Settlements refugees mentioned difficulties to get permission to travel and the problems they used to

meet on the road, for example when they were stopped by policemen.

“I know stories of people who had serious problems with immigration or police– not only

Burundians. You’ll always be a ‘foreigner’ – so they can make your life difficult or expensive,

especially if you don’t have the right papers.”<Internals\\Interview 10>

“Somehow the mother fears to be chased all the time – she has not the right documents that

might help her. She’s not a refugee but neither is she Tanzanian so it is unclear who’s

protecting her.”<Internals\\Interview 7>

“I had some problems in the past yes. At some point it was a big struggle to keep my business.

(…) As mkimbizi [refugee] you have no real rights. If you stay quiet and don’t disturb anybody,

there’s no problem. But my business was going very well and this might have attracted their

attention. If I wouldn’t have been a refugee, it would have been easier to defend

myself.<Internals\\Interview 11>

The settlement refugees referred to UNHCR in a rather positive way. They mentioned that UNHCR was not

very present in the settlements but nevertheless was more of a protector to their rights than the Tanzanian

government has ever been. Many of them stated that the granting of citizenship was only a possibility

because of extensive lobbying and pressure of UNHCR. The self-settlers had almost no contact with the

organization and referred to a lack of organisations or institutions protecting their rights.

34 Interview UNHCR Officer Durable Solutions Department, Dar Es Salaam, October 2011

36

“I’ve always felt more protected by UNHCR. If they wouldn’t have lobbied for our rights, I don’t

think I would be able to call myself Tanzanian right now. They have been striving for the

protection of our rights, making sure the Tanzanian government didn’t violate certain

agreements.”<Internals\\Interview 13>

“But I do not feel protected by UNHCR. I was not in the camps, I took care of myself and the UN

and also other organizations focus on the situations in the camps.”<Internals\\Interview 11> -

3.3.2 Gaining rights, securing protection and ending uncertainty

Consequently, the (former) refugees considered the granting of citizenship an important act as they would

finally get assigned the same rights as Tanzanian citizens and would feel more part of society. As Ager and

Strang (2010) note, notions of citizenship partly reflect processes of belonging. Getting political rights, the

right to own land and properties, the freedom of movement and the freedom to participate in

manifestations were raised in this regard. Getting Tanzanian citizenship and official papers made the

(former) refugees hope that mistreatments would belong to the past and that they finally would get more

and fair chances so they could improve their standard of life and (re)gain dignity. Especially with regard to

education, access to social services, entitlements and jobs, life was expected to be much easier with

papers. The restriction of their freedom of movement for example proved a serious barrier to start or

extend businesses. The younger generation and especially those who have been or were studying, even

dreamt of traveling to and studying in other countries. They all hoped for an equal treatment, a better

protection of their rights, more recognition of their work and contributions and the chance to make their

own future according to their own needs and wishes.

“Getting citizenship is the starting point for developing and building the rest of my life. I will

have certain rights, I will have freedoms, I will have possibilities. For me the freedom to go

where I want to go is important – not only within Tanzania, but also abroad. Also that I will be

able to have a job that I like, that I can earn money, buy land and built a house… that are things

I find important”.<Internals\\Interview 13>

“Once we have our papers we can at least invoke certain rights and we will be protected by the

law. We’ll have the freedom to go where we want. The most important change for me will be

the possibility to work freely in accordance with my diploma and the fact that our official status

as Tanzanians will stop harassments from immigration. The citizenship is a possibility to

develop ourselves and our environment. Using the citizenship is also a matter of gaining self-

respect by getting certain rights and responsibilities.”<Internals\\Interview 17>

3.3.3 Getting rid of a label

Another element that was connected to becoming citizens was getting rid of the refugee label. Labels have

an impact on processes of self-identification and can cause ambiguities. Many (former) refugees mentioned

they were still seen as and called refugees, even after living in Tanzania for decades and notwithstanding

37

their attempts to integrate or to keep quiet about their background.

“Being called a refugee, mkimbizi, is really an insult here in Tanzania. It’s a word with a specific,

negative meaning that people use against you. As a refugee you lose a number of rights and

actions are taken against you. You can’t for example work or share words, participate in

meetings. You’re not a complete human being cause you’re denied rights and

freedoms”<Internals\\Interview 9>

“Besides we’ll get rid of the ‘mkimbizi’ name– which has been a constant struggle. It’s used in a

negative way– to violate us. Now we’ll have an official prove of us being Tanzanian instead of

just being refugees”<Internals\\Interview 18>

Most respondents mentioned they did not expect they would no longer face negativity, suspicion or

resistance but at least they would have legal grounds to fight it, if necessary. It was clear to them that a

certain legal status would not automatically mean that they would be socially accepted. They anticipated

on future problems as they would still be ‘different’ to many Tanzanians. Different because they were not

born in the country or had a different background. Some even mentioned they feared that the term ‘Newly

Naturalized Tanzanians’, as used by officials and in the media, would just become another label to get rid

of. Possible future problems were however not seen as some kind of personal quest against ‘them,

Burundians’ but more as a result of a typical human reluctance towards change and difference, as the

following quote shows:

“Problem here- and I suppose it’s the same in many other countries- is that you are treated

differently as a foreigner, especially by officials. Once a foreigner – always a foreigner, you

know. It doesn’t really matter that you have been working here a very long time, that you

speak the language, that you live your life the way everybody does – if they want they can

make your life difficult. But I think this exists everywhere. There will always be general

negativity towards difference – it’s somehow a natural thing.”<Internals\\Interview 12>

3.3.4 Future uncertainty

The respondents also referred to the length of their stay in the settlements as refugees, and the

uncertainty that came along with it. They hoped the formalization of their new status as Tanzanian citizens

would bring an end to this dragging situation of uncertainty. However, the linking of the distribution of

official certificates to the relocation in combination with the many delays and uncertainties concerning the

process, created a lot of anxiety amongst the settlement-refugees. They had many questions and felt they

were not treated as real citizens, partly undermining their position as NNTs. The self-settlers all assumed

the registration exercise would automatically lead to Tanzanian citizenship within a short period of time.

The Tanzanian government however has still to decide what status they will offer the self-settlers. The

decision is pending and may drag on for months, but so far a naturalization is not a certainty.

38

“The naturalization process was not easy because it took such a long time before this decision

was taken. We had to wait a very long time and still have to wait – right now it’s still not clear

when we will get citizenship”.<Internals\\Interview 12>

“Very different stories [are circulating] but we don’t really get official information. It’s all ‘I

heard from’, ‘they told me that’… There’s a lot of confusion. It would be a relieve to finally get

the necessary papers and start living our life the way we want to”.<Internals\\Interview 13>

“We had to wait a long time before they also gave us the chance to register – they first focused

on the settlements. When the registration in the camps ended we could also register but right

now it’s still not clear what will happen – we don’t know when we will get citizenship and what

they will ask us. They first want to finish the relocation of the people form the settlements but I

don’t know how long that will take. We have to be patient”<Internals\\Interview 11>

3.3.5 Pragmatic Citizenship

Citizenship strongly relates to identity but the two do not necessarily coincide. The holding of a Tanzanian

certification does not necessarily mean that the paper match the identity of the holder. Some of the

respondents explicitly mentioned they felt Tanzanian, identified with Tanzanian society and therefore had

applied for naturalization. They had been waiting for a recognition of their situation and considered the

naturalization as a confirmation of their unofficial but real Tanzanian background. Finally becoming

Tanzanian citizens was a relief to them:

“Most important to me is the, sema, feeling I have. I never felt Burundian and I hate the

refugee-title. You have no idea how hard it is to feel, how do I say this, to feel lost, like being in

some kind of no man’s land, trying to claim your spot but not knowing how. It was confusing,

what was I? Whom was I? Why couldn’t I just live freely? For me it’s a relieve to finally get this

status – being recognized as a citizen of this country”.<Internals\\Interview 1>

Others however did not converge citizenship to the persons they considered themselves to be. They saw

the offering of Tanzanian citizenship as an opportunity that allowed for chances they would not have

gotten without becoming official citizens. They however did not really feel ‘Tanzanian’, nor would they

refer to themselves as Tanzanians. They saw the naturalization in first instance as the granting of rights and

plights claimable in Tanzania rather than the recognition of their belonging to Tanzania. They opted for

naturalization after weighing advantages and disadvantages so it was more of a rational than an emotional

choice. They shaped citizenship in a pragmatic way, separating identity and citizenship. The following

quotes are illustrative in this regard:

“Getting citizenship is an opportunity. Becoming an official citizen brings along certain rights

and possibilities, it will allow me to do things that you can’t do as a refugee. But citizenship is

well, a bit artificial– a government recognize you as its citizen and you get certain rights. On

the other hand you’re expected to follow the laws of the country, like pay taxes. It’s not

because you get a certain paper, you are or feel Tanzanian or Burundian or something else. You

know, it doesn’t determine who I really am.”<Internals\\Interview 13>

39

“As Tanzanian I’ll have more chances. Besides I don’t think my life will change a lot. I’ll have a

paper protecting me and giving me certain rights that I can invoke if

necessary.”<Internals\\Interview 12>

If dual citizenship would have been a possibility in Tanzania, some respondents would consider having two

nationalities, but only if this would not have an impact on their rights and entitlements. The same

pragmatic approach dominated with regard to this topic. It was more a matter of weighing their best

options rather than treasuring their Burundian roots. Most respondents did however not have a problem to

renounce Burundian citizenship as they expected they would have more chances as Tanzanians than as

Burundians.

“Dual citizenship for my children? I don’t know. As long as they would have the same rights and

possibilities here in Tanzania, why not? They can do something with it, if they want to, but they

don’t have to.”<Internals\\Interview 4>

“Would it make a difference? Would it give me more opportunities? Would I have more

chances? I’m not planning to live there, at all. It’s an unknown place for me and if I had to move

somewhere else, I think I’d prefer another country. I don’t think I’d go to Burundi – if I had to

leave Tanzania.”<Internals\\Interview 1>

3.2 Defining home and sense of belonging

The following part focusses on two highly interrelated aspects that are important to develop and shape

identity: home and belonging. Pivotal in this part will be the questions how (former) refugees define

belonging and home and if the process of naturalization and future integration has (had) an influence on

this conceptualisations. As already mentioned, home not only represents a physical place and a sense of

feeling at home. It also reflects a sense of belonging to a place or group of people. Although it is suggested

that a sense of belonging is in essence a subjective, emotional response to a place or community of people

(Fail et.al. (2004) cited in Hiruy, 2009:102) the interviews indicated that the notion of belonging is not

unidirectional and exceeds the level of subjectivity and emotionality. Belonging can be stimulated or

obstructed and has to do with processes of inclusion and exclusion. One of the respondents (interview 4)

referred to this by using a Swahili saying: ‘Kukaa muda mrefu ndani ya maji si kutakata’. Literally this

means: ‘Staying long in water does not guarantee cleanliness’. It mirrors the idea that in order to belong it

is not enough to live a long time in a certain place, to get to know the population and her habits and to

have a positive attitude towards the place and community. As Brah (1996:193) stated, it is possible to feel

at home in a place and at the same time not being able to claim the place as one’s own because of

processes of exclusion. Belonging implies processes of negotiation and power and home may be a disputed

domain. During the interviews, different facilitators as well as barriers to processes of belonging and home-

making came to the fore. Some were within reach of the (former) refugees’ influence, others were not.

They were mostly situated in the present, revealing the importance of the current lived experiences of the

refugees, but some were also connected to the past.

40

3.2.1 Bonds, rights and positive contributions

Feelings of belonging are highly interrelated to people’s bonds and networks. Especially proximity of family

and kinship ties played an important role. The respondents also spoke of the importance of respectful

relations with others: neighbors, people they met in church, co-students, peers etc. The way they were

treated and approached during day-to-day contacts was decisive to their notions of belonging. Being close

to the people they cared about and having a supporting network within reach, were mentioned as much

more important factors in determining belonging and feeling at home than having a link with a certain

background or birth country.

“I have been told my home is in Burundi -the place where I was born– and not in Tanzania. But I

think it’s more complex than that. (…) It has to do with what you and the people around you

make out of it.”<Internals\\Interview 4>

“I’m living in this country for almost 40 years now, much longer than I’ve lived in Burundi. I met

my husband here, we have a family now, I have my house here. I have a good contact with my

neighbors and people from church. My children have grown up here, they went to school here,

they have their friends here. My life is here. (…) My heart is in Tanzania, it is with my family. My

husband, children and grandchildren.”<Internals\\Interview 10>

Since home partly refers to a place of everyday lived experience it cannot be separated from all kind of

rights and freedoms, as already mentioned in the previous part on citizenship. Being at home implies being

able to invoke certain rights and appeal for protection of these rights. Consequently, the refugees’ lack of

rights or at least the serious limitation on rights and freedoms was a serious barrier to a sense of belonging.

Limited rights emphasized the temporariness of their situation and obstructed processes of identification.

Some respondents stated they would have felt more part of Tanzanian society if they would have gotten

the chance to make a positive contribution, for example by performing a job. Participation in different kind

of activities (religion, politics, sports…) was also described as prerequisite to avoid feeling out of place. The

fact they could not perform any job, could not participate in manifestations or were not involved in

decision making processes made them feel as being put outside Tanzanian society. Most of the

respondents mentioned the importance of being able to have a job in order to be self-sufficient, integrate

and (re)gain dignity. They saw themselves as hard workers that had an impact on the development of the

region but were not recognized as such.

“Ulyankulu was too, well, limited for me, I couldn’t build the life that I wanted there. It’s like we

were locked away and we didn’t have a choice but struggle to survive. I felt so meaningless, in

a way. Me and my life just didn’t matter.”<Internals\\Interview 1>

“If you can’t work, it’s very hard to be part of society.”<Internals\\Interview 20>

“Work was always very important – we proved we’re hard workers, we developed the

environment. (…) People created different jobs and business. It’s also something of self-respect.

We did not have anything else so we try to be good in this.”<Internals\\Interview 17>

Education also proved an important factor. It was presented as a means to face future challenges and to

safeguard economic possibilities. Parents considered education as a means for their children to improve

41

their lives compared to their own. The younger generation saw education as a means to leave the

settlements and their life as a refugee behind. Education was however not only presented as a means to

improve someone’s social position but also as a way to claim a place within society. By putting emphasis on

their own contributions and realizations, the (former) refugees contested certain images of belonging and

identity that occurred in refugee policy and in the public opinion. They wrested their notion of belonging by

proving wrong to the traditional linking of belonging to roots and nation of birth:

“I work hard, I study hard to prove I can do better than what people think a ‘refugee’ can do. I

have the capacities to make it.”<Internals\\Interview 2>

“I also, I really feel like I had to prove myself sana [a lot]. I tried to be the best in school so they

would judge me on that rather than on me coming from Ulyankulu.”<Internals\\Interview 1>

Being able to invoke certain rights and freedoms and to make a positive contribution were also described as

having an indirect impact on feelings of belonging. People mentioned they would feel more secure as they

would have easier access to all kind of livelihood activities for example, while feeling secure has a positive

impact on people’s sense of belonging. Respondents linked having rights to having possibilities and

consequently having a good, or at least better, life. They connected the idea of having a good life to notions

of home:

“Home is where you can live a good life – so home for me is Tanzania. I won’t be able to live the

same way in Burundi – life will be a struggle there. This is where I can offer my children a future

– not there.”<Internals\\Interview 11>

“I know it [home] is not Ulyankulu. Home cannot be a place where you feel locked, like you’re a

prisoner. I cannot feel at home in a place where I have to explain every step I take. Home is

where I feel free and respected.”<Internals\\Interview 13>

3.2.2 Hiding backgrounds and undermining a sense of belonging

On the one hand the (former) refugees contested their refugee-status. They reacted against images of

being out of place and being less than ‘real’ citizens by trying to excel in certain areas as education. On the

other hand, many told stories about hiding their background or at least keeping quiet about it. Many of

them, especially the self-settlers, have been trying to avoid being seen or known as a (former) refugee:

“I think there are also people telling they are Tanzanian but they are really from another

country. We don’t say, ‘hello I’m from Burundi’. We do not present us as

Burundian.”<Internals\\Interview 10>

“It’s not something I talk about often. I had serious problems already, with immigration

officers. Why would I make it even more complicated? I don’t mention it if I don’t have to.

Police and government officials have been treating me badly and unfairly because I’m not

Tanzanian so you learn to shut up.”<Internals\\Interview 12>

42

Malkki (1995b) described this process more positively, suggesting the self-settlers developed a certain

cosmopolitan identity allowing them to melt into Tanzanian society. Although the self-settlers questioned

during this research also wished to be part of society, their strategy seemed more the result of a negative

than a positive choice. They have been concealing their background because they had to, rather than

because they wanted to. It was more of a survival strategy than a positive identification with a

cosmopolitan identity. This observation is in line with Kibreab‘s (1999:397) reaction towards Malkki’s

approach: “the cosmopolitanism the refugees exhibited was nothing more than a facade devised to enable

them operate in an environment that did not allow them to be themselves”. Not only the self-settlers were

reluctant to talk about their background. The settlement-refugees did not talk openly about their roots

either, not even after being naturalized. Many stated they still feared to provoke negative reactions when

mentioning they were former refugees, living in a settlement.

“I’m living here [Ulyankulu] but it’s not something you mention in public – at my job only the

coordinator knows I’m Burundian refugee. If more people knew- I wouldn’t have been able to

do this job.”<Internals\\Interview 17>

The fact that most of the respondents have been hiding their background or did not talk about it, shows

there was still a negative attitude towards refugees. Tanzanian officials as well as the general population

seemed to consider refugees, and even people who used to be refugees, as out of place, not belonging to

Tanzania. Although key informants stated the host community had at least some affinity with the (former)

refugees, they were mostly perceived as members of an ‘out group’, not at home. Even after living such a

long time in the country and attempts to be part of society, the (former) refugees still struggled to

negotiate their sense of belonging. This negative attitude was often translated into mistreatments and

harassments, creating an uncertain and unsecure environment and causing feelings of exclusions and not-

belonging.

“No I don’t feel integrated (…) We proved we are not parasites. But still we are not Tanzanians.

We have always been wakimbizi [refugees] with different rights and possibilities. We have been

excluded from many things.”<Internals\\Interview 6>

“I’ve been harassed by policemen and there have been incidents with Tanzanians. For example

Tanzanians who let their cattle graze in our maize fields. They knew we couldn’t do or say

anything. There also have been refugees who were beaten up without any punishment of the

guilty one, because officials don’t listen to refugees.”<Internals\\Interview 15>

3.2.3 Roots and homeland

One might expect that having to hide one’s background and being confronted with feelings of exclusion

might stimulate sentiments of belonging elsewhere. From an essentialist perspective, this ‘elsewhere’

would be equated to Burundi. However, except for one respondent, no one made reference to sentiments

of belonging to Burundi rather than to Tanzania. Respondents definitely struggled with being treated as

outsiders and having to keep quiet about their origins, especially since they did not want to wipe out their

background. Yet, they tried to integrate their roots into their current life rather than claiming they should

return to where they (ought to) belong to (re)start their lives. Although current life experiences seemed to

43

have a great impact on feelings of belonging, the past of the (former) refugees could not be erased and has

been of influence as well. Unsurprisingly, certain nostalgic and sentimental feelings of a past came to the

fore during the interviews. This might easily be linked to an essentialist perspective on displacement, as

such an approach focusses on the past, exploits sentimental feelings and aims to restore a disrupted bond

between a people and a native land. The respondents’ approaches were however more balanced. They did

refer to feelings of equality and belonging to ‘their’ community, certain habits, cultural customs and social

constructs as weddings and funerals. While being in Tanzania, they also maintained certain of these habits

and hold on to a historical sense of connection to their former home. They made reference to eating

Burundian dishes, organizing and attending Burundian weddings, singing Burundian songs, having contact

with people living in Burundi, telling stories about their past lives and so on:

“They [parents and grandfather] talk a lot about Burundi and how life used to be. My mom

likes to cook Burundian dishes, she sings Burundian songs.”<Internals\\Interview 13>

“I still know many people living there. We stay in touch. And I've been living there a long time.

You don't forget 20 years of your life”.<Internals\\Interview 20>

They did not want to erase their roots and might have romanticized certain memories and practices. They

however did not attempt persistently to sustain a certain continuity with their roots and to obstinately

conserve an idealized past. What used to be home in Burundi was seen as a place of no return but

influenced what was considered home in the present. This relates to the observation of Ahmed et.al.

(2003:9) that ‘making home is about creating both pasts and futures through inhabiting the grounds of the

present’. The (former) refugees integrated sentimental memories, specific habits and usages they retained

from their lives in Burundi into their daily lives but they did not exclusionary stick to them. They were not

trying to continue their Burundian life in Tanzania, while waiting a return. Many made reference to the

impossibility to restore their past home because of their long absence, their lack of network in Burundi, the

current situation of instability and so on. This does not mean they never had mixed feelings about being in

Tanzania, neither that they did idealize their past home and the way of life it represented nor that aspects

of this way of life (for example marriages, funerals) may have been experienced as unifying.

“It’s intriguing to notice that your parents are still talking a lot about the life there, that they

still miss the place, that they have mixed feelings about being in

Tanzania.”<Internals\\Interview 3>

“Those origins will always be there (…) You can’t just delete or ignore these connections and

memories. Tanzania is my country for a long time already, because I made my life here, but I

also have a connection with Burundi.”<Internals\\Interview 10>

“I’ve been here a very long time, but I don’t forget where I came from. It’s a part of who I am.

Right now I don’t think Burundi is my country, my home, my life is here now, but I carry this

background with me.”<Internals\\Interview 4>

There was only one respondent who described Burundi as his promised land, clinging to idealized images of

home and creating feelings of alienation while being in Tanzania. He did not apply for naturalization and

awaited a return to the place where he and his family truly belonged. This respondent was the only one

who explicitly linked home and belonging to country of origin.

44

“I didn’t chose for the Tanzanian citizenship because my heart is in Burundi. Even my family- my

wife and children, their bloodline is in Burundi. We belong there, so I’m waiting till the good

moment to return.”<Internals\\Interview 19>

“I can't understand the people who applied for the citizenship. I think they made a mistake. Ils

se sont trompés. They don’t belong in Tanzania but in Burundi. Tanzania is temporary, Burundi

is home.”<Internals\\Interview 19>

3.2.4 Identity-in-between

Those respondents who were born in Tanzania but have been called Burundian refugees all their lives,

struggled most with their roots and positioning. They inherited a certain status from their parents and got

to know their history and background through narratives and habits. Since they never lived in Burundi nor

experienced the terrors of the war, they had no direct connection with their so-called place of origin and

history. They felt increasingly distanced from the cultural, political, social and economic situation from

which their parents were exiled. Repatriation to an unknown and unfamiliar country did, according to the

second generation refugees, not represent a solution to their situation. On the contrary, a return was

linked to integration problems, feelings of alienation, difficulties to access livelihoods and so on. Zetter

(1999:18) used the term ‘reverse refugees’ to describe returning second generation refugees. He pointed to

the many problems they would face trying to integrate in an unfamiliar and unsympathetic social structure.

UNHCR’s and the Tanzanian government’s preference to repatriation was criticized by the respondents as

ignoring the specificity of the situation of those born in Tanzania. The second generation refugees also

lacked confidence in the ability of the Burundian government to guarantee their security, rights and

development. They expected to have more possibilities in Tanzania than in Burundi.

“For me and my generation I think it is, the option to repatriate to Burundi wasn’t really an

option. It’s not we can ‘re-turn’, ‘go back home’. That’s how it was presented, but it never was

my home, so where do I have to go?”<Internals\\Interview 6>

“Burundi has nothing to offer – it’s overpopulated, there are troubles all the time, I don’t speak

the language, I know nobody there.”<Internals\\Interview 13>

“I’ve been born in Tanzania and I have no real ties with Burundi. I’m used to living in Tanzania, I

have my family here, I work here, I have my network here. In Burundi I would have had to start

all over again.”<Internals\\Interview 16>

The second generation refugees preferred to use their own experiences as point of reference and seemed

to connect to a social framework more or less independent from their background. Of much importance to

shape a sense of belonging and notions of home were experiences in the ‘here and now’, for example

academic achievement or participation in working or sporting activities. Their school-related identity for

example seemed to outweigh their ‘native’ identity. It was already mentioned that networks and daily

contacts were of great importance in this regard.

45

“We didn’t receive any official papers yet, so officially I’m still Burundian. But since I was born

here, since I have been living here all my life, since my husband and children are here, since I

have no real contact with Burundi. I consider myself to be Tanzanian.”<Internals\\Interview

15>

“I have much more connections with Tanzania than with Burundi. I was born here, have been

living here, studying here. Many of my friends are Tanzanian. But I can’t and won’t deny that

my parents were born in Burundi, are proud to be Burundian and want to leave me some of this

background. But it’s more symbolic in a way – we have a family history but I would rather say

I’m Tanzanian with Burundian roots than that I’m Burundian.”<Internals\\Interview 2>

Although the second generation refugees saw themselves in first instance as Tanzanians, they did not feel

recognized as such. It was a struggle to negotiate their position of belonging as they did not have official

rights and freedoms. They did not see themselves as refugees waiting to return but neither did they see

themselves as complete Tanzanian citizens. Many referred to feelings of in-between-ness: not feeling

complete Tanzanian nor complete Burundian; not feeling refugees awaiting a return nor official citizens.

These feelings of in-between-ness affected the way they constructed their identity and how they shaped

their attitudes towards living in the settlement:

“Seriously, I don’t know what to answer if they ask me where I come from. Am I from Burundi? I

don’t think so- I’ve never been there. Am I from Tanzania? Not really, I’ve never been

recognized as a part of the population or community. So then, should I introduce myself as

coming from Ulyankulu? Like it’s some kind of special empire within

Tanzania?”<Internals\\Interview 13>

“We are a bit of a lost generation, belonging nowhere really. We were born in Tanzania but

are not Tanzanians. Our parents are Burundians but we’re not really Burundians. I think for

many of us it’s not clear who we really are or want to be. Where should our heart be? Neither

Tanzania nor Burundi treated us as their citizens, how can I leave my heart in either one of

them?“<Internals\\Interview 6>

3.2.5 Relocation

For some of the respondents, mostly the second generation refugees, the relocation was considered an

opportunity to move on and start a life as citizens instead of refugees. They connected the settlements to a

lack of possibilities, isolation and mistreatment. Leaving all that behind would allow for a better life.

Moving out of the settlements and mingling with the Tanzanian population across the country would

facilitate integration processes and make them feel more part of society:

“I think the people from the camps have a harder life- they are more isolated, have less

opportunities. So in a certain way I think it’s good they get out of that context – that they get

the chance to really start over again.”<Internals\\Interview 10>

46

“Nothing, really nothing would be able to keep me there- I think the place has nothing to offer.

It’s where I’ve grown up yes, but I only have very little good memories of my childhood there. I

wouldn’t see it as a problem if I had to leave the place.”<Internals\\Interview 1>

On the other hand, many feared that the relocation would lead to a loss of network and family ties, subvert

traditions, invoke feelings of resistance at local level and have negative economic consequences. Relocation

might therefore create obstructions and undermine facilitators of processes of belonging. The relocation

plan was experienced as a one way decision, imposed by the Tanzanian government without respecting the

rights of the Newly Naturalized Tanzanians. They also feared a lack of support and xenophobic reactions of

receiving communities, while local politicians were considered incapable to adequately answer these

negative reactions.

“I’m not optimistic about the closure and relocation, I think it will be traumatizing for some

people, especially older people. And they will have a very hard time building a new life,

again.”<Internals\\Interview 3>

“It’s very difficult to be obliged to move – we have no free choice. They told us we will be real

Tanzanians, but we can’t choose where we’ll be living. There’s no preparation- we have to

leave everything, all the things we’ve built up in the past.”<Internals\\Interview 18>

Another factor influencing the refugees’ attitude towards a relocation was what Hernandez et.al. (2007)

called ‘place attachment’. After having stayed in the settlements for decades, the refugees developed a

certain affective bond with the place where they lived, worked on the land, raised their children and buried

their dead. This affective bond affects people’s behavior and notions of self. Notwithstanding the fact that

the settlements mirrored a hard and isolated life, people connected to the place, making them reluctant to

leave for other places and start a new life.This also had an impact on their notions of belonging and home.

“Having to leave the settlements is very hard for me – it means we’ll have to start all over

again. At my age a complete new beginning is difficult, we’ve been here so long, our home is

here, we want to stay. I don’t have the energy and means to find a new place – where will I find

the money, materials… ?”<Internals\\Interview 20>

“For the older people I can imagine it’s tougher, more difficult. They have to leave everything

they build behind to start all over again, in a place they don’t know, again. It must be, tiring

and discouraging, emotional as well.”<Internals\\Interview 1>

47

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The previous chapter allowed the (former) Burundian refugees to speak themselves. In this concluding

section, we confront their conceptualisations of identity and home to the ones described in the chapter on

refugee policy and practice: how do refugees’ conceptualisations relate to notions of identity embedded

within refugee policy and practice? We also try to reflect on a possible direction for future research.

There is a tendency in refugee policy to pin down (refugee) identity by linking it to a certain place (a

homeland where one belongs) and by connecting it to a specific state (through the institution of

citizenship). Compared to the refugees conceptualisations this proved not the most accurate approach.

Rights and citizenship were an essential part of identity and determined (former) refugees’ feelings of

belonging. These could however not be seen as primordial to either identity or feelings of belonging, since

citizenship was mostly addressed in a pragmatic way. Notwithstanding, citizenship and especially the rights

and freedoms that came along with it, were considered vital to end mistreatment, feelings of exclusion and

to create more equal opportunities and chances. Being officially recognized as citizens would, according to

the (former) refugees, help them to get rid of the negative refugee label that has been a serious burden.

Respondents therefore attributed a great impact to becoming a citizen to their future lives, feelings of

belonging and notions of self. However, daily experiences of living together were assigned a greater impact

on notions of belonging and feeling at home than a certain legal status. (cfr. 3.1)

Origins and (territorial) roots remained important elements of identity, especially to the first generation

refugees (cfr.3.2). Nevertheless, in line with Said’s observations (in Gupta and Feruguson, 1997: 37),

identities were becoming increasingly deterritorialised and notions of home and belonging mirrored a

greater complexity than might be derived from refugee policy. Notions of belonging could not be equated

to attachment to a certain place of origin. Refugees referred to their background and they considered their

roots as an essential part of who they are. They however did not simply describe themselves in terms of

belonging to a past homeland. Roots were treasured and maintained but they were only one factor

amongst many others influencing a sense of belonging and notions of home. As already mentioned, the

refugees’ daily experiences had a great impact on their feelings of belonging. Their contacts with

Tanzanians, the proximity of family members, the ability to work or study proved essential to feel part of

society. The respondents negotiated a sense of belonging in a more flexible way and also contested the

linking of belonging to a home country. The assumption that the (former) refugees were still and mostly

rooted in a certain so-called homeland, was not widely acknowledged. The second generation refugees

exposed the relativity of their inherited refugee-status, pinning them down to a country they did not know.

They made reference to the possibility of ‘multi-levelness’ of home, attachment to multiple places and

situations, as well as to multiple belongings:

“I’m attached to Burundi because of my past but I’m also attached to Tanzania because of the

present and future.”<Internals\\Interview 3>

“Do you know this song from Diddy Dirty Money, Coming home? At some point they sing: ‘I’m

back where I belong. I never felt so strong. I feel like there’s nothing that I can’t try’. That is the

meaning of home for me – it doesn’t really matter where it is. What matters is how it makes

you feel.”<Internals\\Interview 2>

48

The (former) refugees’ notions of home extended the idea of a fixed and durable place. They competed

against an essentialist and sedentary interpretation of the concept. For them, home did not necessarily

refer to (restoring) a bond with an idealized country of origin. It is imporant to keep in mind that multi-

placed-ness of home does not equal rootlessness (Brah,1996:197). As Ahmed and others (2003:1) stated:

“Being grounded is not necessarily about being fixed, being mobile is not necessarily about being detached.

The overall project is to call into question the naturalization of homes as origins, and the romanticization of

mobility as travel, transcendence and transformation”.

Processes of belonging and home-making also evolved over time and were highly affected by daily

experiences and contacts with the Tanzanian community, including officials. Therefore, notions of home

and belonging will probably be affected strongly by the future relocation and integration exercise. Given

the rather negative attitude of receiving communities and local leaders, one might expect a long and

difficult negotiation process for the NNTs.

Although the (former) refugees’ conceptualisations competed an essentialist and sedentary interpretation

of identity and home, their presence still seemed to nurture the idea of natural belonging and a preference

of a return to a territorialized home. The 1972 Burundian refugees were addressed in a rather paradoxical

way. On the one hand, the Tanzanian government and (international) refugee organizations were

presenting the 1972 Burundian refugees as integrated and belonging to the Tanzanian society. This

perception proved one of the central reasons to grant them citizenship and mirrored an approach that at

least partly weakened the naturalizing of a link between a certain home(land) and a group of people. It

nevertheless also reflected an intend to pin people down to a formal identity. Thereby, the Tanzanian

government risked to ignore the fact that formal citizenship does not equal social acceptance and the

actual possibility to claim rights. On the other hand, the (former) refugees did not have the same rights and

freedoms as other members of society, they were isolated and discriminated against and they were more

or less explicitly urged to return to where they truly belonged. Even after receiving official citizenship, they

did not have the same rights and plights as other citizens. Striking in this regard is the situation of the

second generation refugees who were born in Tanzania and all claimed to have very little bond with

Burundi. Nevertheless, they were all seen as refugees, not completely belonging to Tanzanian society.

Somehow there seemed to exist a hierarchy of belonging, reverting to territorialized notions of identity that

apparently were also believed to be inherited by second generation refugees. This situation made it very

difficult for the (former) refugees to negotiate their identity and notions of home. With regard to their

future relocation and integration it is of great importance that the (former) refugees can claim the right to

negotiate identity and belonging. Especially since integration is often understood as a process of

negotiating new identities (Ager and Strang, 2010).

In order to stimulate their future integration and realize a better understanding of the (former) refugees

and their (future) needs, a more nuanced and de-territorialized approach of (refugee) identity and notions

of home imposes itself. It should be recognized that (refugee) identity is multi-levelled and that notions of

home and belonging are complex and extend the idea of a fixed and durable place. This approach should

also integrate more prominently notions of movement. Movement is essential to people’s lives and shapes

processes of home-making and belonging. Home is permanent in the making: it is a destination rather than

an origin; it is a transnational and historical field rather than a fixed spot (Rapport and Dawson, 1998;

Gupta and Ferguson,1997). In this regard, different authors make a plea to integrate mobility into the

framework of durable solutions. Long (2008, 2010) suggested to consider mobility as a right in itself, making

it possible to split citizenship-rights from residency and so stimulate movements like labor migration.

49

Others, as Van Hear (2003), modeled mobility as transnationalism, acknowledging links across time and

space and recognizing that forced migration can transmute into other forms of movement. Bakewell (2002)

opposed migration as a survical strategy to imposed institutions of refugeeness. With regard to the

Tanzanian situation, it might be valuable to invest in research focussing on the possibility of integrating

ideas of mobility into durable solutions. With respect to the situation of the self-settlers, where a decision

on solutions is still pending, it might be of great importance to take into account refugees’ experiences and

conceptualisations and to try to translate notions of mobility into future packages of solutions. Instead of

persistently trying to link the self-settlers’ future to the three traditional durable solutions and pin them

down to a certain place and exclusive state-citizenship relationship, it might be more worthwhile to

aknowledge their multiple belongings and allow for more flexible routes as dual citizenship, mobile

livelihood strategies, the possibility of cross-border migration and so on. The future situation of the former

settlement refugees, not only depends on the way they are approached by policy, politicians and Tanzanian

population. The way their mobility might be obstructed or respected will greatly influence their notions of

belonging and the succeeding of their future integration. This brings us back to the appeal of the Refugee

Studies Centre in the first Chapter of this dissertation: “Researchers need to continue to explore the

dynamics relating to the frequent failure of forced migrant groups to integrate into host communities. Such

work should focus on Northern as well as Southern responses and obstacles to integration and must

consider the political, social and economic dimensions of integration (2010:20)”. The ways in which refugees

define themselves and conceptualise notions of home and belonging generally do not coincide with

conceptualisations in refugee policy and practice. Tensions, uncertainties and contradictions deriving from

these differences might cause problems to successful implementation of ‘durable solutions’, for example

processes of integration. It is therefore essential to nuance ideas about refugee identity and home in

refugee policy and value the approaches and interpretations of (former) refugees themselves.

50

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman (2008, October). Protracted Refugee Situations and the Right of Return. Metropolis World Bulletin,

8, 16-19.

Afrol News (2008, August 18). EC helps restore Burundian refugees. KrØderen. Available at:

http://afrol.com/articles/30333. Last consulted on 27 September 2011.

Ager, A., Strang, A. (2008). Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Refugee

Studies, 21(2), 166-191. doi:10.1093/jrs/fen016

Ager, A, Strang, A. (2010). Refugee Integration: Emerging Trends and Remaining Agendas. Journal of

Refugee Studies, 23(4), 589-607. doi:10.1093/jrs/feq046

Ahmed, S., Castañeda, C., Fortier, A.M., Sheller, M. (2003). Introduction: Uprootings/Regroundings:

Questions of Home and Migration. In: Ahmed, et al. (eds.). Uprootings/regroundings: questions of home

and migration. New York: Berg. pp1-20.

Alix-Garcia, J., Saah, D.(2009). The Effect of Refugee Inflows on Host Communities: Evidence from Tanzania.

The World Bank Economic Review, 24 (1), 148-170. doi:10.1093/wber/lhp014

Allen,R., Li Rosi, A., Skeie, M. (2010, December). Should I stay or should I go? A review of UNHCR’s response

to the protracted refugee situation in Serbia and Croatia. Geneva: UNHCR Policy Development and

Evaluation Service.

Ambroso, G., Crisp, J., Albert, N. (2011, November). No turning back. A review of UNHCR’s response to the

protracted refugee situation in eastern Sudan. Geneva: UNHCR Policy Development and Evaluation Service.

Amnesty International (2005, June). Refugee Rights at Risk: Human Rights Abuses in Returns to and from

Burundi. Available at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AFR16/006/2005/en. Last consulted 24

October 2011.

Asylum Access Tanzania (2011, November). A Report on Urban Refugees Living in Dar-es-Salaam. Dar- es-

Salaam: author. Available at: http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94945/BURUNDI-TANZANIA-Refugees-face-

mounting-pressure-to-go-home. Last consulted 22 February 2012.

Bakewell, O. (2002). Returning refugees or migrating villagers. Voluntary repatriation programmes in Africa

reconsidered. Refugee Survey Quarterly,21(1-2), 42-73.

Betts, A., Milner, J.(2006). The Externalisation of EU Asylum Policy: The Position of African States. Working

Paper No. 36. Oxford: Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, University of Oxford.

51

Bisharat, J. (1997). Exile to compatriot: Transformations in the Social Identity of Palestinian refugees in the

West Bank. In: A. Gupta, J. Ferguson (eds.). Culture, power, place: exploration in critical anthropology.

Durham (N.C.): Duke university press. pp203-233

Black, R. (2002). Conceptions of ‘home’ and the political geography of refugee repatriation: between

assumption and contested reality in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Applied Geography 22, 123–138.

Brah, A. (1996). Diaspora, border and transnational identities. In: author. Cartographies of diaspora:

contesting identities. London: Routledge. pp178-210.

Centre for the Study of Forced Migration (2003). The impact of the presence of refugees in Northwestern

Tanzania. Dar Es Salaam: University of Dar Es Salaam.

Centre for the Study of Forced Migration, International Refugee Rights Initiative (2008, November). Going

Home or Staying Home? Ending Displacement for Burundian Refugees in Tanzania. Citizenship and Forced

Migration in the Great Lakes Region. Working Paper No. 1.

Centre for the Study of Forced Migration, International Refugee Rights Initiative (2009a). I Don't Know

Where to Go: Burundian Refugees in Tanzania Under Pressure to Leave.

Centre for the Study of Forced Migration, International Refugee Rights Initiative (2009b, November). Two

people can’t wear the same pair of shoes: citizenship, land and the return of refugees to Burundi. Citizenship

and Forced Migration in the Great Lakes Region. Working Paper No. 2.

Chaulia, S.S. (2003).The Politics of Refugee Hosting in Tanzania: From Open Door to Unsustainability,

Insecurity and Receding Receptivity. Journal of Refugee Studies, 16(2), 147-166.

Cheng, C., Chudoba, J. (2003). Moving beyond long-term refugee situations: the case of Guatemala. New

Issues in Refugee Research. Working Paper N°. 86. Geneva: UNHCR Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit.

Chimni, B.S. (2004). From resettlement to involuntary repatriation: towards a critical history of durable

solutions to refugee problems. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 23(3),55-73.

Coker, E.M. (2004). Dislocated Identity and the Fragmented Body: Discourses of Resistance among

Southern Sudanese Refugees in Cairo. Journal of Refugee Studies, 17(4), 401-419.

Collins, J.S. (1996). Chapter 4: A typology of repatriation. In: Author. An analysis of the voluntariness of

refugee repatriation in Africa. Unpublished master thesis. University of Manitoba.pp 52-71.

Crisp, J. (2003). No solutions in sight: the problem of protracted refugee situations in Africa. Refugee Survey

Quarterly,22(4), 114-150.

52

Crisp, J. (2004). The local integration and local settlement of refugees: a conceptual and historical analysis.

New Issues in Refugee research. Working Paper No. 102. Geneva: UNHCR Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Unit.

Crisp, J., Fielden, A. (2008, April). Local integration: reviving a forgotten solution. In: Forced Migration

Review,30,78-79.

Daily News. (2010, November 7). Why Dar es Salaam deserves a medal for hosting refugees. Daily News.

Available at: http://www.dailynews.co.tz/feature/?n=14321. Last consulted on 27 September 2011.

Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs [DANIDA], UNHCR Policy Development & Evaluation Service (2010,

October). Evaluation of the protracted refugee situation (PRS) for Burundians in Tanzania. Copenhagen:

Author.

Deardorff,S. (2009). How long is too long? Questioning the legality of long-term encampment through a

human rights lens. Working Paper Series N°54. University of Oxford Refugee Studies Centre.

Dixon, J., Durrheim, K. (2000). Displacing place-identity: A discursive approach to locating self and other.

British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1),27-44

Druke, L. (2011, December). Mobilizing for refugee protection: reflections on the 60th anniversary of UNHCR

and the 1951 Refugee Convention. New Issues in Refugee Research. Research Paper No. 227. Geneva:

UNHCR Policy Development and Evaluation Service.

Dryden-Peterson, S., Hovil, L. (2003, September). Local integration as a durable solution: refugees, host

populations and education in Uganda. New Issues in Refugee Research. Working Paper No. 93. Geneva:

UNHCR Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit.

Eastmond,M. (2002, April). Reconstruction and the Politics of Homecoming: Repatriation of Refugees in

Cambodia. Working Paper N°1. Göteborg University. Department of Social Anthropology.

European Union. (2011, September). EU Tanzania News. Dar Es Salaam: Delegation to the United Republic

of Tanzania.

Feller, E. (2008). Trapped in Exile: UNHCR’s Evolving Response to the Problem of Protracted Refugee

Situations. Metropolis World Bulletin, 8, 11-15

Fielden, A. (2008). Local integration: an under-reported solution to protracted refugee situations. New

Issues in Refugee Research. Working Paper No. 158. Geneva: UNHCR Policy Development and Evaluation

Service.

Fog Olwig, K. (1998). Epilogue. Contested Homes: Home-making and the making of Anthropology. In: N.,

Rapport, A. Dawson (eds.). Migrants of identity, perceptions of home in a world of movement. New York

and Oxford: Berg. pp225-236

53

Ghorashi, H. (2004). Identities and the sense of belonging: Iranian women activists in exile. In: P. Essed,

G.Frerks, J. Schrijvers (eds.). Refugees and the transformation of societies. Agency, policies, ethics and

politics. Oxford: Berghahn books. pp106-120

Gupta, A., Ferguson, J. (1997). Beyond “Culture”: space, identity and the politics of difference. In: A. Gupta,

J. Ferguson (eds.). Culture, power, place: exploration in critical anthropology. Durham (N.C.) : Duke

University Press. pp33-51.

Hall, S. (1990). Cultural Identity and Diaspora. In Jonathan Rutherford (ed). Identity: Community, Culture,

Difference. London: Lawrence and Wishart, pp222–237.

Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who needs identity? In: S. Hall, P. Du Gay. (eds.). Questions of cultural identity.

London: Sage.pp1-17.

Hernandez et.al (2007). Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 27(4) ,310–319.

Hiruy, K. (2009). Finding home far away from home: place attachment, place-identity, belonging and

resettlement among African-Australians in Hobart. Unpublished Master thesis. School of Geography and

Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia.

Hovil, L. (2010, April 29). Naturalization of Burundian refugees in Tanzania: A new home? Pambazuka News.

Available at http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/comment/64063. Last consulted on 2 July 2011.

Human Rights Watch (1999). In the name of security: Forced rounds up of refugees in Tanzania. Human

Rights Watch, 11(4A), July.

Hyndman, J. (2008). Waiting for What? The Humanitarian Dilemma of Protracted Refugee Situations at

Home and Abroad. Metropolis World Bulletin, 8, 24-28

IRIN News. (2012, February 24th). Burundi-Tanzania: Refugees face mounting pressure to go home. Dar Es

Salaam/Bujumbura. Available at: http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94945/BURUNDI-TANZANIA-Refugees-

face-mounting-pressure-to-go-home. Last consulted on 15 March 2012.

Jacobsen, K. (2001). The forgotten solution: local integration for refugees in developing countries. New

Issues in Refugee Research. Working Paper No. 45. Geneva: UNHCR Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit.

Kaiser, T. (2010). Dispersal, division and diversification: durable solutions and Sudanese refugees in Uganda.

Journal of Eastern African Studies, 4(1), 44-60. doi: 10.1080/17531050903550116

Kamanga, K. (2005). The (Tanzania) Refugees Act of 1998: Some Legal and Policy Implications. Journal of

Refugee Studies, 18(1), 100-116. doi:10.1093/refuge/fei005

54

Kebede, S.S.(2010). The struggle for belonging: Forming and reforming identities among 1.5-generation

asylum seekers and refugees. Working Paper Series NO.70. Refugee Studies Centre, Department of

International Development, University of Oxford.

Kibreab, G. (1999). Revisiting the debate on People, Place, Identity and Displacement. Journal of Refugee

Studies, 12(4),384-410

Kibreab, G. (2011, June 22). How Durable are the ‘Durable’ Solutions to the Refugee Problem? Think

Africa Press. Available at: http://thinkafricapress.com/refugees/how-durable-are-

%E2%80%98Durable%E2%80%99-Solutions-refugee-problem. Last consulted on 4 February 2012.

Kumsa, M.K. (2006). No! I’m Not a Refugee!’ The Poetics of Be-Longing among Young Oromos in Toronto.

Journal of Refugee Studies, 19(2), 230-255. doi:10.1093/jrs/fel001

L’Ecluse, W. (2010). Refugee Politics in Tanzania: Receding Receptivity and New Approaches to Asylum.

Unpublished Master thesis. Manama of Conflict and Development. University of Ghent, Belgium.

Landau, L.B. (2003). Beyond the losers: transforming governmental practice in refugee-affected Tanzania.

Journal of Refugee Studies, 16(1),19-43.

Legal and Human Rights Centre (2008). Tanzania Human Rights Report 2007. Dar Es Salaam: author.

Loescher, G., Milner, J. (2005) The Long Road Home: Protracted Refugee Situations in Africa. Survival,

47(2),153-174.

Loescher, G., Milner, J. (2006a). Protracted refugee situations in search for practical solutions. In: UNHCR.

The State of the World's Refugees: Human Displacement in the New Millennium. Geneva: UNHCR. pp 105-

127.

Loescher, G., Milner, J. (2006b). Rethinking Durable solutions. In: UNHCR, The State of the World's

Refugees: Human Displacement in the New Millennium. Geneva: UNHCR. pp129-151.

Loescher, G., Milner, J. (2011).Responding to protracted refugee situations. Lessons from a decade of

discussion. Forced migration policy briefing 6. Refugee Studies Centre. Oxford University.

Long, K. (2008, August). State, Nation, Citizen: Rethinking Repatriation. Working Paper Series N° 48.

Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford University.

Long, K. (2010). Home alone? A review of the relationship between repatriation, mobility and durable

solutions for refugees. Geneva: UNHCR Policy Development and Evaluation Service.

Long, K (2011). Refugees, repatriation and liberal citizenship. History of European Ideas, 37, 232–241

55

Malkki , L. (1992, Feb). National Geographic: The Rooting of Peoples and the Territorialization of National

Identity among Scholars and Refugees. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 24-44.

Malkki, L. (1995a). Refugees and Exile: From "Refugee Studies" to the National Order of Things. Annual

Review of Anthropology, 24, 495-523.

Malkki, L. (1995b), Purity in Exile: Violence, Memory, and National Cosmology among Hutu Refugees in

Tanzania. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press.

Malkki, L. (1996, Aug). Speechless Emissaries: Refugees, Humanitarianism, and Dehistoricization. Cultural

Anthropology, 11(3), 377-404.

Morel, M. (2009), The Lack of Refugee Burden-Sharing in Tanzania: Tragic Effects. Afrika Focus, 22 (1), 107-

114.

Mosselson, J. (2006, December). Roots & Routes: A re-imagining of refugee identity constructions and the

implications for schooling. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 9(1), 20-29.

Panapress (2010, April 20). Burundi hails Tanzania for granting citizenship to refugees. Dakar. Available at:

http://www.panapress.com/Burundi-hails-Tanzania-for-granting-citizenship-to-refugees--12-535496-101-

lang2-index.html). Last consulted on 27 September 2011.

Rapport, N., Dawson, A. (1998). Home and movement: A polemic. In: N., Rapport, A. Dawson (eds.).

Migrants of identity, perceptions of home in a world of movement. New York: Oxford Berg, 19-38.

Refugee Study Centre (2010). Forced Migration Research and Policy Overview of current trends and future

directions. Oxford: University of Oxford Department of International Development.

Refugee Studies Centre (2011). Information about the Protracted Refugee Situations Project. Available at:

http://www.prsproject.org/. Last consulted 5 November 2011

Rutinwa, B. (2002). The end of asylum? The changing nature of refugee policies in Africa. Refugee Survey

Quarterly, 21(1-2), 12-41.

Rutta, E., Williams, H., Mwansasu, A., Mung’ong’o F., Burke, H., , Gongo, R., Veneranda, R., Qassim, M.

(2005). Refugee perceptions of the quality of healthcare: findings from a participatory assessment in Ngara,

Tanzania. Disasters, 29(4), 291-309. doi: 10.1111/j.0361-3666.2005.00293.x

Southern Africa Human Rights Non-Governmental Organization Network-Tanzania Chapter [SAHRiNGON]

(2007, October). Research Report on Socio-Economic Impacts of Refugees in Tanzania: A Case study of

Kasulu district, Kigoma region. Available at: http://www.sahringon.or.tz/. Last consulted 6 February 2012.

56

The Citizen (2011, April 30). Process of refugee integration criticised by leaders. Dar Es Salaam. Available at:

http://thecitizen.co.tz/news/51-other-news/10439-process-of-refugee-integration-criticised-by-

leaders.html. Last consulted on 12 September 2011.

The Citizen (2011, June 16). Government says decision to naturalise refugees in country will stay. Dar Es

Salaam. Available at http://thecitizen.co.tz/news/4-national-news/11983-govt-says-decision-to-naturalise-

refugees-in-country-will-stay.html. Last consulted 12 September 2011.

The Citizen (2011, July 26). Camp opposes land licence to investor. Dar Es Salaam. Available at:

http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/news/5-political-news/13180-camp-opposes-land-licence-to-investor.html.

Last consulted 12 September 2011.

The Guardian on Sunday (2009, October 25). Tanzania Earns Kudos in Refugee Handling. Dar Es Salaam.

Available at: http://www.ippmedia.com/. Last consulted on 27 September 2011.

The Guardian on Sunday (2011, July, 31). Green revolution or Green plunder? Dar Es Salaam. Available at:

http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=31766. Last consulted on 12 October 2011

Thomson, J. (2009, Sept). Durable solutions for Burundian refugees in Tanzania. Forced Migration Review,

33, p35-36.

Toft, M.D. (2007). The Myth of the Borderless World: Refugees and Repatriation Policy. Conflict

Management and Peace Science, 24: 139-157.

Tomlinson, F. (2010). Marking Difference and Negotiating Belonging: Refugee Women, Volunteering and

Employment. Gender, Work & Organization, 17: 278–296. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00399.x

Turner, S. (1999). Angry young men in camps; Gender, Age and Class relations among Burundian refugees in

Tanzania. Working paper N° 9. New Issue in Refugee Research.

Turner, S. (2006). Negotiating Authority between UNHCR and "The People". Development and Change,

37(4), 759-778. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2006.00500.x

United Nations General Assembly (1951). Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951.

United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 189. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3be01b964.html

Last consulted on 21 October 2011.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (1996, January). Handbook - Voluntary Repatriation:

International Protection. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3510.html. Last

consulted 4 January 2012.

UNHCR (2003a, October). Agenda for Protection. Third edition. Geneva: author. Available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4714a1bf2.html. Last consulted 6 January 2012.

57

UNHCR (2003b, May). Framework for Durable Solutions for Refugees and Persons of Concern. Available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4124b6a04.html. Last consulted 4 January 2012.

UNHCR (2004). 30th

Meeting of the EXCOM Standing Committee on Protracted Refugee Situations. Geneva:

author. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/40c982172.html Last consulted 23 October 2011.

UNHCR (2007a, October). Opening Statement by Mr. António Guterres, United Nations High Commissioner

for Refugees. Fifty-eighth Session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme

(ExCom), Geneva. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/admin/ADMIN/4700eff54.html. Last consulted 22

October 2011.

UNHCR (2007b, July). UNHCR’s 2006 Global Trends. Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Returnees, Internally

Displaced and Stateless Persons. Geneva: author. Available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgibin/texis/vtx/home/opendocPDFViewer.html?docid=4676a71d4&query=global

trends 2006. Last consulted 5 February 2012.

UNHCR (2008a, December). Protracted Refugee Situations: High Commissioner’s Initiative. Geneva: author.

Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/4937de6f2.html. Last consulted on 14 January, 2011.

UNHCR (2008b, November). A discussion paper prepared for the High Commissioner’s Dialogue on

Protection Challenges. Geneva: author. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-

bin/texis/vtx/search?page=search&docid=492ad3782&query=protracted%20refugee%20situations. Last

consulted 5 February 2012.

UNHCR (2008c, June). Protracted Refugee Situations: Revisiting the Problem. Executive Committee of the

High Commissioners’ program. Geneva: author. Available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/486903142.html. Last consulted: 22 September 2011.

UNHCR (2009a, Dec). UNHCR Global Appeal 2010-2011 - United Republic of Tanzania. UNHCR Fundraising

Reports. Geneva: author. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e45c736.html. Last consulted on 27

January 2012.

UNHCR (2009b). EXCOM Conclusion on Protracted Refugee Situations: No. 109 (LXI) – 2009. Geneva:

author. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/4b332bca9.html. Last consulted on 25 January 2012.

UNHCR (2010, October). Chapter III: Durable Solutions and New Displacement. In: Statistical yearbook

2009. pp29-34

UNHCR (2011a). Global appeal 2011 update: United Republic of Tanzania. pp40-44. Available at

http://www.unhcr.org/4cd926ea9.html. Last consulted on 20 October 2011.

UNHCR (2011b, June). 60 years and still counting: UNHCR’s 2010 Global Trends. Geneva: author. Available

at: http://www.unhcr.org/4dfa11499.html Last consulted on 4 November 2011.

58

UNHCR (2011c, June). A thematic compilation of executive committee conclusions. UNHCR Division of

International Protection Services.

UNHCR Tanzania (2011d, September 1). UNHCR Operations in Tanzania, Fact Sheet 1. Dar Es Salaam:

author.

UNHCR Tanzania (2011e). Tanzanian Local Integration Programme. April 2010 to May 2011. Dar Es Salaam:

author.

UNHCR Tanzania (2012, February). UNHCR Bulletin Tanzania, N°6. Dar Es Salaam: author.

United Nations News Centre (2010, April 16). UN agency lauds Tanzania’s move to naturalize ‘1972

Burundian refugees’. Available at:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34388&Cr=burundi&Cr1. Last consulted on 27

September 2011.

United Republic of Tanzania (2012). Information about the Refugee Service Department. Available at:

http://www.moha.go.tz. Last consulted on 14 March 2012.

United Republic of Tanzania (s.d.) Compilation of TANCOSS 3: 19723 Burundian refugees in the Old

Settlements in Tanzania. Dar Es Salaam: author

Van Hear, N. (2003). From Durable Solutions to Transnational Relations: Home and Exile among Refugee

Diasporas. UNHCR New Issues in Refugee Research. Working Paper No. 83. Geneva: Evaluation and Policy

Analysis Unit.

Warner, D. (1994). Voluntary Repatriation and the Meaning of Return to Home: A Critique of Liberal

Mathematics. Journal of Refugee Studies, 7 (2-3): 160-174.

Washoma, K.L.K. (2003). Impact of refugees in North-western Tanzania: Executive summary. Dar Es Salaam:

Centre for the Study of Forced Migration, University of Dar Es Salaam.

Whitaker, B.E. (2002). Refugees in Western Tanzania: The Distribution of Burdens and Benefits Among Local

Hosts. Journal of Refugees Studies, 15(4), 339-358. DOI: 10.1093/jrs/15.4.339

Zetter (1999). Reconceptualizing the Myth of Return: Continuity and Transition Amongst the Greek-Cypriot

Refugees of 1974. Journal of Refugee Studies, 12(1), 1-22.

59

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Overview of the respondents

Interview Setting Generation Sex Location of interview Date Translator

Interview 1 Settlement Second F Dar Es Salaam 05/10/2011

Interview 2 Settlement Second F Dar Es Salaam 05/10/2011

Interview 3 Settlement Second M Dar Es Salaam 24/09/2011

Interview 4 Self-settler First M Kigoma 10/09/2011

Interview 5 Self-settler Second M Kigoma 12/09/2011 x

Interview 6 Settlement Second F Kigoma 14/09/2011

Interview 7 Settlement Second F Kigoma 16/09/2011 x

Interview 8 Self-settler Second M Kigoma 16/09/2011 x

Interview 9 Self-settler First M Kigoma 28/08/2011 x

Interview 10 Self-settler First F Kigoma 06/09/2011 x

Interview 11 Self-settler First M Kigoma 06/09/2011 x

Interview 12 Self-settler First M Kigoma 07/09/2011

Interview 13 Settlement Second M Morogoro 24/09/2011

Interview 14 Settlement Second F Morogoro 24/09/2011

Interview 15 Settlement Second F Ulyankulu 01/09/2011 x

Interview 16 Settlement second M Ulyankulu 01/09/2011 x

Interview 17 Settlement First M Ulyankulu 01/09/2011 x

Interview 18 Settlement First M Ulyankulu 01/09/2011 x

Interview 19 Settlement First M Ulyankulu 01/09/2011 x

Interview 20 Settlement First M Ulyankulu 01/09/2011 x

Interview Location Date With

Interview B1 Kigoma 06/09/2011

15/09/2011

Informant 1

Interview B2 Tabora 02/09/2011

03/09/2011

Informant 2

Interview O1 Kigoma 25/08/2011 Burundian Government Official, Consul

General, Burundian Consulate Kigoma

Interview O2 Kigoma 08/09/2011 UNHCR, Protection Officer, Sub-Office

Kigoma

Interview O3 Dar Es Salaam 07/09/2011 UNHCR, Officer Durable Solutions

Department, Representation Office Dar

Interview 04 Dar Es Salaam 04/10/2011 Tanzanian Government Officials,

Refugee Department, Ministry of Home

Affairs

Private Email conversation

23/08/2011

13/09/2011

06/10/2011

05/04/2012

Informant B3

Private Email Conversation 19/10/2011

03/02/2012

28/02/2012

Interviewee 17

60

Annex 2: In illustration of NVivo 9©

61

Annex 3: Encoding lists

Does the granting of citizenship and therefore the allocation of certain rights and plights, influence the

sense of identity of the (former) refugees? If so, how?

General category Sub- categories

Rights, possibilities,

freedoms

References to:

⋅ Official certificates - papers

⋅ Specific rights and freedoms (political rights, owning property and land,

freedom of movement – travel, education, health care…)

⋅ Livelihoods -access

Recognition and equal

treatment

References to:

⋅ Getting rid of a label

⋅ Ending uncertainty

⋅ Ending discrimination

⋅ Being part of a community

⋅ Belonging

⋅ Protection

⋅ Active involvement

Pragmatic Citizenship References to:

⋅ Opportunities and chances

⋅ Assimilation of identity and citizenship

Dual Citizenship

How do (former) refugees define belonging and has the process of naturalization and future integration an

influence on this conceptualisation?

General descriptions of

belonging

References to:

⋅ Feelings of belonging

⋅ Feeling at home

⋅ Feeling part of society

Facilitators and

obstructions to

belonging

References to:

⋅ Facilitators

- Networks, bonds, links

- Proximity of family

- Belonging to a group

- Cultural habits and customs

- Everyday life interaction and activities

- Rights and freedoms

⋅ Obstructions

- Labeling

- Harassment

- Exclusion

62

- Lack of rights and freedoms

Roots References to:

⋅ Origin and background

⋅ Burundi

⋅ Return to roots

⋅ Unclear roots- Identity in between

⋅ Sentimental feelings – hearth

Integration References to:

⋅ Past experiences of integration

⋅ Future integration

⋅ Resistance

Attachment to places

Reference to:

⋅ Place-connectedness through lived experiences of farming, working,

burying dead, raising children… at a certain place

Contributing and

participating

References to:

⋅ Commitment – realizations

⋅ Feelings of dignity –respect

Negotiating belonging References to:

⋅ Contesting non-belonging

⋅ Claiming feelings of belonging

⋅ Keeping quiet – hiding background

⋅ Multiple identities

How do (former) refugees define home and has the process of naturalization and future integration an

influence on this conceptualisation?

General descriptions of

home

Feeling at home References to:

⋅ Lived experience of home

⋅ Facilitators

- Social and economic rights

- Social capital, network, bonds

- Feeling safe and secure

- Realizations

⋅ Obstructions

- Mistreatment and discrimination

- Resistance

- Isolation

- Uncertainty

Home- Feelings References to:

⋅ Belonging to a certain place

⋅ Homing desire

63

Real and imagined home References to:

⋅ Making and remaking of home

⋅ Personal space of identification

⋅ Physical place

⋅ Symbolic place (narratives, symbols, customs…)

⋅ Homeland

Boundaries References to:

⋅ Processes of exclusion and inclusion

64