The Myth of Self-Reliance. Naohiko Omata

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ href="#ulink_9c8bbe02-3609-5fe2-bd0b-ee2b9c7c6f6e">Chapter 4 probes into the roots of inequality by employing a historical approach. Drawing upon life-history analysis, it first focuses on the wealthiest refugee groups and demonstrates the ways in which their social and economic privileges in Liberia have contributed to bringing them large sums of money through remittances. The chapter also investigates the difficult prewar life of indigent refugees in the camp, and illustrates the structural inequalities between richer and poorer refugees within the same refugee population. By situating refugees’ current economic differences in the specific historical contexts of Liberia, the chapter unveils the hidden implications of class and privilege that are reflected in refugees’ socio-economic status and livelihood strategies during exile.

      Chapter 5 turns to refugees’ experiences of repatriation and economic reintegration in Liberia. The chapter begins by looking into the dilemma of decision making about repatriation. For the majority of Liberians, the decision to repatriate after their protracted sojourn in Ghana was a much more complicated task than the original decision to seek asylum. Drawing from the study of returnees from Buduburam, the research shows the continuity of inequality from exile into post-repatriation life. In particular, the chapter looks into the different degrees of economic reintegration in the country of origin, and analyses what the factors are that underlay these variations. By ‘following the people’ on their repatriation journey, the findings reveal the relationship between people’s economic status in exile and the level of reintegration upon repatriation, and they further challenge the idealization of repatriation as the ‘best’ solution for all refugees.

      Returning the focus to Buduburam camp, Chapter 6 sheds light on how the remaining Liberian refugees in Ghana responded to the ending of their refugee status. In January 2012, the UNHCR announced the cessation of the refugee status of remaining Liberian refugees globally, given the restored peace and stability in Liberia. The remaining 11,000 Liberian refugees in Ghana were left with two options: either repatriate before the invocation of the Cessation Clause by the end of June 2012, or stay in Ghana to be locally integrated as citizens of the member countries of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Again, depending largely on their socio-economic resources, the refugees responded differently to the sudden closure of their formal refugee status. Whereas some wealthier refugee households had more options and finally decided to repatriate to Liberia, those with scarce resources were often ‘forcibly immobilised’ (Lubkemann 2008a) in exile. Drawing upon follow-up interviews in 2012 and 2013, the chapter highlights the diverse reactions of refugees and sheds light on their dilemma, unfixedness and uncertainty in the face of the ending of their official refugee life. It also looks into ECOWAS-based integration and poses some crucial questions about the sustainability of this sub-regional ‘solution’.

      The concluding chapter revisits the feasibility of the self-reliant camp model in prolonged displacement. It unveils the role of UNHCR politics and interests behind the promotion of the self-reliant image of Buduburam. The chapter also addresses the neoliberal discourses that underpin and support the sector-wide promotion of refugees’ self-reliance and the interest in the role of social networks. By integrating the findings, the final chapter offers a theoretically and empirically informed understanding of refugees’ livelihoods, remittances, social capital and return migration in protracted contexts.

      Notes

1. All dollar amounts are in US dollars.

2. Dick (2002b) is a report commissioned by UNHCR as part of its Protracted Refugee Situations Initiative. Therefore, to a certain extent, it is reasonable to think that the views presented in the article might have been influenced by staff members of the funding agency.

3. Interview, Accra, September 2008.

4. Related to the concept of self-reliance, some scholars explore the notion of ‘self-sufficiency’. For instance, Fiddian-Qasmiyeh (2015) argues that there are diverse understandings of self-sufficiency. In the present book, I will use both self-reliance and self-sufficiency interchangeably.

5. Elsewhere, UNHCR’s assistance programmes for refugee self-reliance tend in practice to be reduced to professional qualifications and income-generating techniques without taking the condition of refugees’ rights and entitlements into consideration (see e.g. UNHCR 2007).

6. Interview, Buduburam, October 2008.

1

      ‘Guests Who Stayed Too Long’

      Refugee Lives in a Protracted Exile

      This chapter provides the research context of this book. It first sketches out both the demographic and geographic information of the camp and its residents, as well as distinctive features of Buduburam refugee life. Then, in order to contextualize refugees’ current living conditions in Ghana, the chapter takes a chronological approach, starting from Liberia’s prewar era and moving though its civil war and on to refugees’ displacement history, and then to their prolonged exile in Ghana. In particular, it details the recent socio-political environment surrounding the Liberian refugees in Buduburam.

      Buduburam Refugee Camp: Location, Demography and Governance

      The total number of Liberian refugees in Buduburam camp reached a peak of about 42,000 in 2003, but when my fieldwork began in 2008, the number of Liberian camp residents had fallen to about 18,000, in addition to a small number of refugees from other West African states. This Liberian refugee population had been listed as one of the thirty-eight major protracted situations by UNHCR (2004a: 10). There were no longer any makeshift tents in the camp as most of the refugees’ houses had already been converted by refugees themselves into permanent structures built with bricks and cement.

      The area of the camp was approximately 140 acres, although the camp boundary had never been defined clearly. Over time, due to the continuous influx of refugees from Liberia, refugees had spread beyond the designated site of the camp. Thus, in some areas surrounding the camp, the Liberian refugee population coexisted with local villagers.

      Buduburam refugee camp was in a semi-urban area, approximately a one-hour drive from Accra, the capital of Ghana. The camp was established on one of Ghana’s main highways, which follows the coastline of several West African states, making the camp relatively accessible. The semi-urban location of the camp had both advantages and disadvantages in terms of making a living. For refugees who were engaged in trade, the relative proximity of Accra was a major advantage for them, allowing them to purchase goods from markets there. Conversely, the locality constrained refugees’ access to natural assets such as arable land and rivers. In and around the camp area, cultivatable land and natural water were very limited, reducing the options for subsistence farming.

      The Ministry of the Interior is the governmental body responsible for issues regarding refugees in Ghana. Established in 1995 under the 1992 Ghana Refugee Law, the Ghana Refugee Board (GRB) was delegated to act on behalf of the ministry for the management of activities relating to refugees in the country, such as refugee status determination and refugees’ welfare. For dealing with daily activities in the camp, the GRB СКАЧАТЬ