Mass relocations by governments have
created a vast number of internally displaced persons in the Great Lakes
region of Africa dependent on external aid. Jon Bennett reports on the
dilemma facing aid.
Governments often claim that uprooting
entire communities and transferring them to militarily controlled sites
is the best way of protecting civilians from political insurgency. The
truth is that forced relocation is more often than not a part of government
counter-insurgency tactics.
The Geneva Conventions lay down clear conditions for the forced movement of populations. Mass relocation is allowed only if it is necessary to protect civilians from attack by rebel forces, or where there are strong military reasons for it. However, if certain conditions - including adequate provision of food, water and shelter and freedom of movement - are not met, compulsory relocation is illegal under international law. A worrying aspect of recent relocations in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi is the way in which international aid agencies have been co-opted to supply these basic means of survival. In some cases, the life-saving interventions of NGOs can inadvertently legitimise infringements of international law.
Burundi
The negative consequences of forced relocation were starkly demonstrated by a ruthless policy deployed in Burundi. In September 1999, the government forced nearly 350,000 civilians to move into 53 regroupement camps, mostly in the province of Bujumbura Rural. These displaced people often suffered serious human rights violations from both government and rebel forces. And although many people moved to the camps to flee the fighting, the regroupement policy was in fact a government plan to deprive the rebel forces of local support and to regain control of territory.
International pressure
International pressure resulted in the dismantling of the regroupement camps by the end of July 2000. A UN assessment pointed out that the government had failed to provide assistance during the resettlement process and some 200,000 people who left the camps were unable to go back home due to insecurity. However, by December 2000 the government had once again begun to implement its forced relocation policy in the south-east of the country.
The protection and assistance needs of internally displaced persons (IDPs) largely fell to the NGO community because UN assistance had been scaled down from mid-October 1999. The imposition of Phase IV security rules which means no expatriates in the field, only armed convoys and restricted visiting times, coincided with widespread reports of extra-judicial killings, sexual abuse and harassment in the camps.
In northern Uganda and north-west Rwanda, forced relocation continues to present an acute dilemma to the international community. In both countries relocation initially seemed acceptable because rebel activities in remote rural areas were causing untold suffering to people who could not be reached by international aid agencies. The only way to supply them with essential services and a modicum of protection was by taking them to camps near government-held roads.
Systematic attacks
However, there are now more than 350,000 IDPs in northern Uganda. Human rights violations by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) have included systematic attacks on the civilian population and the mass abduction and forcible recruitment of children. Meanwhile, the government backed Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF) have shelled villages they suspected of containing LRA units and have conducted a number of 'clearances'.
Since 1996, Uganda's so-called 'protected villages' have turned into permanent settlements dependent on food provided mainly through the UN World Food Programme and other assistance. Adequate provisions of food, shelter and health facilities in the camps depend heavily on external assistance. It is unlikely that any form of compensation for lost or destroyed property, crops or land will be available to returnees.
In Rwanda, the creation of imudugudu or grouped settlements has been government policy since 1995. From June 1997 onwards, the security situation in the north-west region deteriorated following the massive return of refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo. In April 1998, the UN World Food Programme was asked to provide emergency food aid assistance to some 100,000 IDPs in makeshift camps organised by military and local government authorities. By the end of the 1998, the IDP population had risen to a massive 450,000 in 17 extremely crowded and ill-equipped centres. Women and children comprised 60% of the displaced population.
Malnutrition
The handful of agencies in the field were unable to cope with the needs of the population. Malnutrition, particularly among young children, had reached alarming levels and inadequate water and sanitation were causing enormous problems for people crowded under plastic sheeting and branches on the completely bare hillsides. The government's response was to swiftly implement its imudugudu policy in the communities where large camps had been created.
The process was relatively straightforward and orderly, though accompanied by very little consultation with international agencies. Families were relocated to new sites where they were given housing plots, usually near to an access road and in close proximity to their original plot of land, or to land that was to be allocated for cultivation. The logic was simple: clearing the hinterland gave the army unimpeded access to rebel hideouts while ensuring that the farming population was more secure in valley settlements.
Although the UN had affirmed its commitment to address the crisis in the north-west and to engage in dialogue with the government over resettlement policy, providing technical and material assistance as necessary, the imudugudu policy presented significant challenges to the international community. Some NGOs did not want to be involved in the process at all. Meanwhile, international agencies were obliged to provide shelter, health and food to people who had been reduced to total dependency by constant displacement over many months and who were still unable to cultivate land.
International dialogue
The success of forced relocation policies depends on three indeterminate factors: political compulsion and leadership; local initiative and enterprise; and sustainable external aid. However, many agencies in Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi were able to proceed without reflecting too deeply on the developmental consequences of their actions, because in each of these countries compulsory relocations had been introduced during emergencies.
There is now a lively debate in Burundi about the circumstances in which international organisations should challenge governments over forced relocation. In January 2000, following a statement by the UN Secretary-General to the Security Council, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) issued a policy statement on Burundi which listed the following condition under which humanitarian aid should be provided to the camps. These conditions provide a blueprint for aid organisations that are obliged to intervene on behalf of the 'victims' of forced relocation.
- The purpose of assistance should be
to sustain life - the provision of food, essential health services, water
and sanitation. The only exceptions should be the supply of seeds and tools
and educational supplies for temporary schools.
- Assistance should be provided to people
returning to their homes or, in exceptional circumstances, to those voluntarily
resettled elsewhere. Both should be provided alongside support for the
host communities.
- Permanent site structures should not
be supported (apart from those required for delivery of water and sanitation).
- Existing local services should be supported,
especially where they also service the IDP population.
- No assistance should be given to the
creation or administration of the camps.
- Assistance should be provided on the
basis of an independent assessment of needs, independent monitoring of
distribution and unhindered access of humanitarian workers to the sites.
- Assistance should be provided on a case
by case basis. Each stage of assistance should be dependent on a fresh
assessment of needs.
- Full and free access of human rights observers to the sites must be ensured, to allow them to monitor and report any abuses which may occur. The government should set up a forum in which these reports can be reviewed and action taken.
Current UN policy includes two components: legal instruments and documents defining government responsibilities and obligations in particular; and diplomatic approaches. For instance, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on IDPs visited Burundi in February 2000 to promote the concept of 'sovereignty as responsibility'. But basic operational dilemmas remain. The international community, perhaps best represented through the UN Resident/Humanitarian Co-ordinator, must now advocate a range of viable alternatives to forced relocation, rather than simply react to unpalatable government policy.
Jon Bennett is a Senior Associate at Oxford Development Consultants who has worked in the Great Lakes region for the UN's World Food Programme
This article is published by Humanitarian Affairs Review. For more information, please contact Julie Bolle by e-mail julie.bolle@humanitarian-review.org or by phone on +32 2 738 75 92"