Understanding refugee durable solutions by international players: Does dialogue form a missing link?

This study evaluates durable solutions in relation to refugees from East Africa. It particularly focuses on the Great Lakes countries of Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. The study is based on the conviction that these four countries have never had peaceful transfer of power which in essence has been a major contributing factor to political violence that has caused forced mass migration in the region to this day. The use of force or military suppression has been a norm since independence of these countries in the early 1960s. This suppression has continuously forced many people to flee their homes facing abuse of their human rights, dictatorship, persecution, indiscriminate arrests, ethnic wars and political violence. Based on a survey used to collect data and in-depth interviews with selected refugees from the Great Lakes region living in Cape Town, South Africa, this paper seeks to understand durable solutions through analysing the current refugee situation. It demonstrates that durable solutions can present both challenges and solutions. It also revisits the concept of durable solutions and seeks to re-evaluate whether these various solutions offer a chance for dialogue. With the aid of a legal perspective on the refugee situation in the region, the paper qualifies the concepts of dialogue as a mechanism for peace building as well as driver for voluntary repatriation.IBS

Protracted crisis, food security and the fantasy of resilience in Sudan

In the past decade, food security and nutrition practices have become central in the promotion of resilience in protracted crises. Such approaches have been welcomed by the aid community because of their potential for linking relief and development. Social and political analysts, however, have criticized resilience approaches for failing to consider power relations and because they entail an acceptance of crisis or repeated risk. In this context, regimes of food security and nutrition practices have become increasingly targeted, privatized and medicalized, focussing on individual behaviour and responsibility rather than responsibility of the state or international actors. This article uses examples from Sudan to examine how and why the resilience ‘regime of practices’ has functioned as a form of neoliberal governmentality, and argues that it has created a fantasy in which conflict in Darfur is invisible. This allowed food aid to be withdrawn and removed the need for protection despite ongoing conflict and threats to livelihoods; thus crisis-affected populations have been abandoned