Obstacles facing the implementation of Somali refugee agreement

Sunday, November 17, 2013

advertisements

Kenyan technocrats who negotiated the recent refugee agreement between Kenya, Somalia and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) appeared to have cleverly relieved Kenya of a great burdern.

The agreement is expected to last three years with a possibility of extension or even another possibility of a party pulling out.

But a lot will depend on Somalia and charity organisations committing to it.

The deal, known as the Tripartite Agreement, calls for Kenya to continue protecting Somali refugees on its soil, but also asks for Somalia to put in place administrative, security and judicial measures that would ensure the safety of all Somalis returning home.

Article 25 of the Agreement, labelled ‘Responsibilities of the Federal Republic of Somalia’ shows that Somalia will among other things be required to put in place administrative, security and judicial measures to ensure that the return of refugees is safe and secure.

“(Somalis would be required to) to create conditions conducive to the sustainable and reintegration of returnees,” it says adding that Somalia would therefore “commit to promote durable peace and national reconciliation”.

The agreement says that the return of all refugees would be “voluntary” and that Kenya’s other role would be to take a section of refugees back to Somalia for “go-and-see” tours. For a country which has laboured to host refugees for 20 successive years, it would be understandable that they leave.

SOMALIA STILL INSECURE

But some experts see a problem in its implementation. “Somalia remains insecure. If it was a safe place to live then Kenyan troops wouldn’t be there, and so the refugees would almost certainly return to Kenya,” observed Professor Daniel Branch, a scholar on African history.

Somalia, though more stable now, is still facing continual attacks from al-Shabaab and according to Prof Branch, no refugee would volunteer to go to a war zone. This means that the refugees would certainly only be taken to parts of Somalia secured by Amisom Forces, to which Kenya Defence Forces are part.

According to the Agreement, all parties are supposed to “mobilise resources” for this repatriation, but it is Somalia which will carry the largest burden of sourcing for funds to help returnees establish. The fact that refugees would only be taken to safer parts of Somali means Somali authorities still have another role: to ensure the refugees link up with their families.

This week, charity organisations working at the Dadaab refugee camp expressed optimism that the new deal would help end suffering what some have called the ‘city of exiles’ but warned that it would all depend on the situation in Somalia.

“The agreement is a first and important step towards finding durable solutions for Somali refugees in the region. It is important that governments talk about durable solutions in a situation that has been protracted for decades,” said Rikke Johannesen, the Deputy Regional Director in charge of the Horn of Africa & Yemen for the Danish Refugee Council. The Danish agency is one of the charity organisations working in Dadaab.

Another agency, Doctors without Borders (MSF) added: “Conflict is still going on in many parts of Somalia today and access to basic services, including health services remain extremely limited, and that is unlikely to change dramatically in the coming months or years.”

“MSF thinks that it is far too early to be talking about a safe voluntary return of refugees today, given the high level of insecurity in the country today,” added Elena Vellila, MSF's Head of Mission in Kenya.

The agency stopped its operations in Somalia this past August after a number of its staff were attacked.

Although UNHCR reports that at least 80,000 refugees have voluntarily left for Somalia, a survey conducted by MSF in September showed that 8 in every ten refugees interviewed at Dadaab said they preferred to wait and see.

However, the UN last month slashed the budget on food rations by 20 percent citing inadequate resources. The World Food Programme needs about US$10 million (Sh850 million) every month to distribute more than 10,000 metric tons of food to refugees in both Dadaab and Kakuma, according to a statement by the World Food Programme. It seems not even the refugee camps are a refuge.

Home
Email

Hiiraan Online