Towards a more constructive analysis of forced migration : the case of Zimbabwean migrants in Zambia

D E F I N I T I O N S

In dealing with issues such as migrants and refugees, it is all the more important to define the terms applied and chosen as it implies political choices which could lead, in the case of refugees, to consider migrants as legal or illegal on a territory, giving them different rights according to their status.

The main distinction used to separate voluntary migrants from non-voluntary migrants. The first ones are considered as «economic migrants», who voluntarily decide to leave and come back, whereas the latter concerns migrants who are forced to leave their country. However, this distinction seems obsolete as the reasons for migration are complex and take into account different aspects, such as political conflicts, economic crisis, and even ecologic crisis. Moreover, these two categories are also divided into sub-categories, such as «refugees», «internal displacees», «deported people», «illegal/undocumented immigrants», «asylum seekers» and other displaced people. As the notion of forced migration is more holistic and integrate all the terms pre-cited, this will be the word used to characterize the Zimbabwean migration, and the notion of forced migrants will characterize the Zimbabwean migrants. Forced migration is «a general term that refers to the movements of refugees and internally displaced people (those displaced by conflicts) as well as people displaced by natural or environmental disasters, chemical or nuclear disasters, famine, or development projects^1(*)». The specific status of refugee implies certain rights, not granted to other categories of migrants. Those recognized as refugees are better off than other forced migrants because they have a clear legal status and are entitled to the protection of the UNHCR. The legal definition of a refugee, which is enshrined in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines «a refugee as a person residing outside his or her country of nationality, who is unable or unwilling to return because of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a political social group, or political opinion».

The term officially used by countries affected by the Zimbabwean exodus (neighbouring states to which Zimbabweans are fleeing) is «migration». South Africa, Zambia, and Botswana clearly want to avoid a confrontation with the Mugabe government, not addressing properly the issue of forced migration characterizing the Zimbabwean migration.

I. The regional impacts of the crisis in Zimbabwe: the example of Zambia

a. The Zimbabwe crisis: its origins and aspects, and the consequences for the region

For about ten years now, Zimbabwe is facing an economic crisis, exacerbated by social and political aspects. The economic crisis arose from two main causes : the military engagement in the Republic Democratic of Congo conflict, where President Mugabe decided to send over one-third of the Zimbabwean troops between 1999 and 2002. This cost around US$500 millions to the Zimbabwean government^2(*). Meanwhile, the land reforms and agricultural policies undertaken by Mugabe had serious negative impacts on the economy. Until 2000, the white farmers owned most of the best lands, which enabled Zimbabwe to keep its food self-sufficiency, being, until 2000, the breadbasket of Africa, because of its abundant harvests. In 2000, Mugabe launched his land redistribution after demonstrations led by black Zimbabweans for a better access to lands for them. The farms of the white farmers are devastated by the armed branch of ZANU-PF, the ruling party of Mugabe; the Whites are expropriated and forced to flee; whereas the farms are redistributed to government members close to Mugabe, who did not have the necessary technical or financial means to assure a durable management and production.

The land redistribution policy, as well as the financial investment in the DRC conflict led Zimbabwe into a deep economic crisis. Unemployment and hyperinflation are the main consequences of this crisis. In 1990, only 30% of the population were unemployed, whereas in 2007, not less than 80% of the population could not find a job. In December 2007, the inflation was as high as 100,000%, according to the IMF. Today, almost half the population does not have food security^3(*).

The challenges faced by ordinary Zimbabweans has been further emphasized by the effects of Operation Murambatsvina (Clean-up Operation, 18^th May 2005). The International Crisis Group reported that some 700,000 people were directly affected through the loss of shelter and/or livelihoods^4(*). The relocations from cities to villages have affected thousands of people throughout Zimbabwe and the displaced have placed an additional burden on the rural community to which they used to provide financial support. Many others, who could not be relocated, continue to be homeless and destitute. Social unrest and state repression are also very present in Zimbabwe, with the introduction of new laws restricting people's freedoms and rights. Basic services, such as education, health or energy (fuel, electricity) are not properly provided.

The Zimbabwe crisis appears to threaten the population in every single aspect of their life, which is highlighted by the spread of HIV & AIDS, which has now contaminated 25% of the population, according to the WHO.

Because of the crisis, from 2000 onwards, migration has risen sharply in Zimbabwe. The unsuccessful land reform process, widespread poverty and hunger, high unemployment in the formal sector and the adoption by ZANU-PF of harsh measures restricting civil and political liberties have driven millions of Zimbabweans to leave the country, either to find work abroad or just to be able to survive and live more freely. By doing so, these vulnerable people are marginalized from their families and networks in Zimbabwe, which is perhaps one of the most tragic consequences of migration from Zimbabwe. Consequently, the forced migrants are seeking refuge in the neighbouring countries of Zimbabwe, but also in further countries, such as the United-kingdom or the United States.

The crisis in Zimbabwe has regional ramifications and the whole region is affected in one way or another by this crisis. South Africa, Zambia, and Botswana are the three main countries of the region affected by the situation in Zimbabwe. As poverty is increasing in Zimbabwe, it may be spreading across the region, through forced migrants. Zimbabwe is therefore exporting poverty into the Southern African Development Community region and it is the poorest countries in the region that are most likely to suffer from the situation. This negative impact on SADC will be reflected in the African Union objectives such as poverty eradication, as well as in the Millennium Development Goals.

b. The regional impacts of the crisis: a legal and political imbroglio

So far, the SADC governments have claimed that the situation in Zimbabwe is an internal one and that they should not interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. In this context, any recognition of large numbers of Zimbabweans inside their borders could be seen as problematic, as it point out the humanitarian crisis inside Zimbabwe. Up to now, the SADC does not want to take any official position on the migrant (refugee) problem. Governments have maintained that most Zimbabweans entering South Africa, Zambia or Botswana are «economic migrants» although the legal definition of a refugee also includes «persons who leave their country because of events seriously disturbing or disrupting public order^5(*)». While the governments of host countries consider the current Zimbabwean migration to be of economic nature, a wide range of civil society groups are calling for Zimbabweans to be recognized as refugees. It is clear that not all Zimbabweans have a fear of persecution.

However, economic and political reasons are often mentioned to explain why they left Zimbabwe (Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation, July 2007 and Daniel Makina, September 2007). Still, many displaced Zimbabweans in neighbouring countries could be qualified as refugees under the 1951 Convention because of legitimate fears of persecution. Refugees International^6(*) interviewed teachers, policemen, soldiers, journalists, and political activists who have been threatened, beaten or tortured inside Zimbabwe and who are now seeking refuge in the SADC region. Qualifying migrants as economic migrants, does not take into account the political side of the problem.

To make such a decision so as to decide whereas a Zimbabwean migrant can be considered as a refugee, or only an economic migrant, has political implications, but has also humanitarian consequences for the migrants themselves, giving them the right - or not - to be qualified to receive international aid, or to ask for asylum-seeker status. Given the Mugabe government's eagerness to use violence against its opponents, some people do risk persecution or worse (physical attack, murder), if they return to Zimbabwe.

Although the size of its economy and the employment opportunities makes South Africa the most favoured destination for forced migrants from Zimbabwe, there are no visa requirements for Zimbabweans travelling to Zambia and many simply stay on after their visitor's permit has expired. That is one of the main reasons why Zambia is hosting a large number of Zimbabwean migrants. The other one being the rather generous policy towards immigrants, and refugees in particular.

Zambia is a landlocked country in Southern Africa. It shares borders with eight nations: Malawi, Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Zambia has a long tradition of taking in refugees from neighbouring lands (such as Mozambique, Angola and the DRC), the Great Lakes region (Rwanda, Burundi) and even the Horn of Africa (Somalia). Despite the potential of political destabilization, Zambia has continued to maintain an extremely open asylum policy. Zambia has an original policy, as it combines a rural settlement policy for helping refugees toward self-sufficiency and local integration, and also a repatriation policy aimed at reintegrating forced migrants to return to their country of origin, once conflicts are over. Most refugees have been grouped not in camps, as it is often the case, but in agricultural settlements, where they are granted land and farm implements.

The Zambian government is supported in its efforts by international organizations, such as the UNHCR, which is implementing government policies. In response to the refugee situation in Zambia, local integration is one of the three durable solutions implemented by the UNHCR, the two others being voluntary repatriation and resettlement in a third country of asylum. Local integration means «allowing and helping refugees to recreate viable communities in the country of first asylum enabling them to take part in economic and social activities in the host country» (Véronique Lasailly-Jacob, June-July 2007). As most Zimbabweans are not yet considered as refugees, the UNHCR can not directly work with them.

According to Refugees International, there are no organizations working directly with Zimbabweans as a matter of policy, although many organizations recognized that Zimbabweans were in their service base. The organizations that were most interested in this issue include Oxfam, Catholic Relief Services, and the International Organization for Migration. The Southern African Legal Aid Center (part of the Legal Resources Foundation) in Lusaka was also conducting some surveys into the Zimbabwean population.

For the last thirty years, Zambia has provided a safe haven for Africans fleeing colonialism, racist oppression and occupation. During this time, there has been little conflict between the host and refugee populations. Today, Zimbabwean migrants in Zambia want to find there a safe place where they will be able to work and live. Regarding the number of Zimbabweans in Zambia, the Government and the United Nations refused to put an official number on the population^7(*). During the last Annual Southern African Development Community Heads of State and Government Summit^8(*), the Zambian government decided to ban peaceful demonstrations by local and Zimbabwean civil societies, who wanted to raise their voice against the restriction of liberties in Zimbabwe. More than forty activists on their way to Lusaka were deported back to Zimbabwe. This single event could sum up the attitude of the Zambian government towards Zimbabweans in its country.

According to an article published on the 5^th August 2007 in the International Herald Tribune, «Zambian immigration authorities are struggling to cope with a sudden upsurge in Zimbabweans crossing the border to shop for basic products^9(*)». The Immigration Department of Livingstone, a southern city of Zambia located on the border of Zimbabwe, reported that «the number of Zimbabweans crossing into Zambia had daily risen from 60 to 1,000 persons, with long lines forming at the border post every day». Most people are crossing into Zambia to buy basic goods such as bread, corn flour and milk that are now unavailable or unaffordable in Zimbabwe. Some of them return home after buying the products, but more and more Zimbabweans seek to remain in Zambia.

Up to now, as it was said before, Zimbabweans in Zambia are considered as economic migrants, and not refugees, who, under Zambian law, have equal rights as Zambian citizens. It is therefore important to understand by which means the Zimbabwean migrants in Zambia are protected and managed, according to the domestic laws of Zambia, but also to the ratified international laws.

The Constitution of Zambia grants fundamental rights «to all persons in the country, not limited to citizens, including the rights to life, liberty, property, protection from torture or degrading treatment, and protection of the law». It includes, however, exceptions to the right to personal liberty in the cases of people who entered the country illegally. This restriction has important consequences for the Zimbabweans as most of them are and remain illegal. In Part III concerning the protection of fundamental rights and freedom of the individual, Article 22 describes the freedom of movement, in which «No citizen shall be deprived of his freedom of movement», but a restriction is made for «the freedom of movement of any person who is not a citizen of Zambia». In the same part, Article 13 reinforces this distinction between citizens and non-citizens, saying that «No person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person», but this right is «Not accorded to persons who are not citizens of Zambia».

The Immigration and Deportation Act is an Act «to regulate the entry into and the remaining within Zambia of immigrants and visitors; to provide for the removal from Zambia of criminals and other specified persons». This Act classifies the persons who are "prohibited immigrant", and states that «Any prostitute or person who in Zambia has knowingly lived wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution or has procured any other person for immoral purposes» is considered as a prohibited immigrant. The other two main aspects concern «Any person [who is] not the holder of a valid permit to remain in Zambia», but also «[Any person who] is likely to become a charge on the Republic in consequence of his inability to support himself and any of his dependants in Zambia and to provide for the removal of himself and such dependants from Zambia».

Zimbabwean immigrants are indeed much concerned with the Immigration and Deportation Act, as the main reason for them to be in Zambia remains the will to find there a place where they could earn money, for in Zimbabwe money has become obsolete. It is not difficult to understand how important it could be for them to be regularize, as it would give them the right to remain in Zambia, without the fear of being deported for not having a permit or enough money.

The Refugee Control Act is an «Act to make provision for the control of refugees». In this Act, refugees are «persons who are, or prior to their entry into Zambia were, ordinarily resident outside Zambia and who have sought asylum in Zambia owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion». The position of the Zambian government for not recognizing Zimbabwean migrants as refugees seems unusual in a country where Congolese, Mozambicans and Angolans have been granted the status of refugees after fleeing conflicts in their country.

Zambia ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Convention), its 1967 Protocol, and the 1969 Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. In the last convention, The term refugee «shall also apply to every person who, owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality, is compelled to leave his place of habitual residence in order to seek refuge in another place outside his country of origin or nationality». This introduces a new notion for the recognition of a person as a refugee, that-is-to-say the «events seriously disturbing public order». With this new element, not only Zimbabweans who fear persecution could apply for the status of a refugee, but also any Zimbabwean, as Zimbabwe can be considered as a country where pubic disorder is present, because a lot of people were forced to leave their «habitual residence» (Operation Murambatsvina).

However, as the government refuses to recognize Zimbabweans as refugees, they can not be granted protection by these international laws. International organizations in Zambia such as UNHCR can not provide any assistance or food to the Zimbabwean population as they do not «fit in the boxes».

As it was described in the first part, the Zimbabwean crisis, originally emerging from economic aspects has led to social and political consequences in Zimbabwe itself, but also in the region surrounding Zimbabwe. South Africa, Zambia and Botswana are trying to deal with a growing number of forced migrants willing to escape the worsening situation in Zimbabwe. Zambia, usually known for its rather generous policy towards refugees, is leading an opposite strategy towards Zimbabwean migrants, not recognized as refugees, even if most - if not all - of them could be granted that status. That paradoxical behaviour implies a certain political position taken by the Zambian government vis-à-vis Zimbabwe government and its President. The position of the Zambian government is however quite problematic, as there are more and more Zimbabweans entering the country, and if the government does not make an effort to address the issue correctly, Zimbabweans could become a more essential problem than they are now.

* ¹ http://www.forcedmigration.org/

* ² http://www.caat.org.uk/publications/countries/zimbabwe-0900.php

* ³ The figures precited are for information only and are based on different sources, as there are no official figures available

* ⁴ http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3618

* ⁵ 1969 Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa

* ⁶ Most information from Refugees International come from interviews with Sean Mariano Garcia, Advocate for

Refugees International

* ⁷ Information delivered by Refugees International

* ⁸ On the 17^th August 2007

* ⁹ http://www.osisa.org/node/10167