Tanzania's Unannounced Expulsion of Refugees

Going on a year now the government of Tanzania has expelled persons of Rwandan and Burundian descent according to an article from Reuters news service. The article reports that in the process upwards of 15,000 people (a vast majority of whom are from Rwanda) have been forced to leave. What is most shocking about this is not that those being expelled are refugees (though that would certainly be shocking enough) but that even some who have lived in Tanzania all their lives, having been born to parents from Rwanda or Burundi, are also being targeted.



Thanks to Human Rights Watch the president of Tanzania, Jakaya Kikwete (pictured), has heard word that the world will not stand idly by and watch this flagrant abuse of the mandates governing the protection of refugees. Since it is not party to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees but since it is a member-state of the United Nations I am not sure what legal implications would apply here but what Tanzania is doing is certainly unsettling.



Article 1 (full-text of the Convention to be found here) requires that, "The Contracting States... apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin." That's strike one. As for subsequent strikes, look to Article 32, which states that refugees cannot be expelled unless it's for reasons of national security, one must have been given "due process" before being expelled, and that one must be given sufficient opportunity to seek refuge in another state.



As I said I don't know what the legal ramifications would be in this case since Tanzania is not party to the Convention. However, according to the article Allison des Forges of HRW seems to think that what Tanzania is doing is "in serious violation of international law." At the very least I think that what Tanzania is doing is morally reprehensible and it should be made to think twice about removing the welcome mat for these people who have gone through so much.

A modern Exodus?

The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles has a heart-wrenching story of a Darfuri couple, Ahmed and Fatima, searching for safety in Israel. There are a number of Darfuris seeking asylum there (most currently in prision), but this story, coming out in the middle of Passover, is particularly poignant and raises important questions of responsibility to shelter victims of genocide.

Saddest part:
Even as he sits in an Israeli prison, Ahmed's fate and the fate of his fellow refugees could still be determined by Egypt. Both the government of Israel and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) would prefer to see the deportation of the refugees in Israel back to Egypt, if they were guaranteed not be to be deported back to Sudan.

Given Egypt's record with Sudanese refugees (the Mustafa Mahmoud Park incident of 30 Dec. 2005 in which at least 27 innocent refugees were killed, many more beaten) it is really upsetting that both Israel and UNHCR would rather have Ahmed and Fatima on their own there than safely in Israel. There are obvious security concerns - Sudan is officially an enemy state of Israel - but Ahmed and Fatima are also enemies of their own government! They have been victimized and tortured by the Government of Sudan, and deserve a safe place to rebuild their lives.

Leaving (on a jet plane)

That's what the initial wave of survivors of the Gatumba massacre did when they boarded planes bound for the United States today , as news24.com reports. All of this is due to the work of the UNHCR (the UN's High Commission for Refugees) and the US government. This first group includes some 35 refugees but, in total, 500 could benefit from claiming refugee status in the United States. The UNHCR wants to make sure that once these refugees make it to the States they all have a chance for a productive life. This is why, pre-departure, all took part in "basic Enlgish training." Further, efforts have been coordinated in cities where refugees are headed in terms of acclamation to daily life. Over the course of the next few weeks, until April's end, up to 100 will fly to the US each week until all are safely on US soil.

I find this news incredibly exciting and a very definite step in the right direction. Having been subject to a horrible tragedy in which upwards of 150 died the least that can be done for those who survived is to help make a better life possible. In the United States I hope that the refugees will be able to have more than just their basic needs met. I hope that they will be able to benefit from an environment in which their safety is assured and not under constant doubt. I hope, too, that they will become inspired by living in a democracy and one day be able to return to their homes. You see, this will not be the first move for these people, as those in Gatumba were already refugees from DRC at the time of the massacre. DRC is certainly not without its problems; nor is Burundi, for that matter. However, where deep damage and hurt have been done there is also room for immense healing and rebuilding. For those refugees making their way to the United States as spring approaches and the earth is renewed I hope that their faith will be renewed and that they will one day be able to return home, if they so choose, to bring that same hope back to their fellow citizens.

Two Years Later: Have Promises Materialized in Southern Sudan?

According to UNHCR, the death of Dr. John Garang, a Sudan People’s Liberation Army leader and the newly appointed Vice President of South Sudan in early 2005, did not compromise the peace of the region. Only months before Garang’s death, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed on January 9, 2005, terminating Sudan’s Civil War of more than twenty years. The country expects to vote on a referendum in 2011 to determine South Sudan’s autonomy.

Meanwhile, according to the Sudan Tribune, as Southern Sudanese approach the two year anniversary of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, they are skeptical of the progress that has been made. Alleged corruption looms, while one third of the budget, according to the Tribune, is unaccounted for. While a main tenet of the war was to loosen the grip of Northern Islamists on the diverse tribes in South Sudan, Southerners regard another aspect of the war as equally important. They cite social, political, and economic injustice as their reason for fighting.

Two years later, the people of Sudan remember Dr. Garang’s pledge to create self-sufficient households with the advancement of agriculture, to build roads within the first eighteen months of governing, and to funnel oil profits through the people, eliminating an elite government party. Yet these promises have not become realities, in the eyes of the people, who are asking their government to explain just what has been done and where the money has gone. While the government appears to have forgotten Dr. Garang’s vision for South Sudan, the Tribune asserts, the people will hold their leaders accountable for ending the injustice they fought for twenty-two years to defeat.

If the Government of South Sudan is viewed as reinforcing the economic marginalization of the people, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement will be unable to sustain peace and stability in the region. In just four years, Southerners will vote on whether to secede from Sudan, a situation that already threatens to further unravel unrest in the country. The Government of South Sudan’s inability to deliver tangible results to its people can only further undermine this temporary façade of peace.

Introduction: Hello! My name is Elizabeth Milligan, and I am a junior at Lake Forest College in Chicago, where I am most active in STAND, Hillel, and theater. This fall, I spent a semester in Washington, DC in a foreign policy program at American University and completed an internship with the Committee on Conscience. My topic of focus on this blog will be Southern Sudan.