Refugee conundrum

IT WOULD be churlish not to sympathise with the group of foreign refugees who had been camped on the roadside outside the Lindela repatriation centre on the West Rand since before the weekend, despite the fact that they are clearly in the wrong. What may seem irrational behaviour — the 600-strong group was refusing to provide the personal details required for them to be issued with temporary identity documents — is entirely understandable in the context of the trauma such victims of the recent xenophobic attacks have experienced. Officials from the home affairs department, representatives of the South African Human Rights Commission and even the immigrants’ own legal representatives have explained that the documentation is intended to benefit them and does not invalidate their refugee status, but such is the level of fear and frustration that the group was no longer open to logical argument. However, that does not justify the department’s threat to arrest and deport those who did not vacate the area voluntarily. Apart from the likelihood that heavy-handed action against legitimate asylum seekers would violate both international law and various treaties to which SA is a signatory, the circumstances surely called for more carrot than stick. The government has gone to some lengths to promote the concept of ubuntu in SA — this is an ideal opportunity to put it into practice. The Lindela situation is, in any event, the outcome of yet another policy failure on the part of the government, which has been shown up repeatedly in the aftermath of the xenophobic attacks. After years of denying that the influx of refugees from other African countries might pose a problem, refusing to seek help from international agencies, and worsening the situation through an ill-considered diplomatic approach to Zimbabwe in particular, the state was ill-prepared for the social implications of the attacks on foreigners living in SA’s townships. The response to the initial emergency in Gauteng was too slow, allowing the xenophobic virus to spread throughout the country. Emergency measures were eventually taken, but there seems to have been little attempt to think beyond the short to medium term. There is still a policy vacuum, and the result is not only incidents like the standoff at Lindela, but ongoing xenophobia that reinforces the fears of those who were attacked in the first wave of violence and are being asked to go back to the same communities. The government is right to emphasise reintegration, and there have been examples — Cape Town’s Masiphumelele township near Fish Hoek stands out — where this has been highly successful. But it cannot be the only option other than repatriation, since there is a sizable number of refugees who are justified in refusing to consider either. The government needs to swallow its pride and allow international organisations such as the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Refugees to play a bigger role in helping find a long-term solution. If that means asking the UN to establish a permanent facility for refugees who cannot be either reintegrated or repatriated, the decision needs to be taken sooner rather than later. There is no shame in admitting mistakes, as long as something is done to rectify them.