One out of every 120 persons is living outside his or her homeland, because they are fleeing political persecution or natural disasters, civil wars and other situations which threaten their safety and their lives.[1] Such a tragic state of affairs has ramifications not only for the people who have been forced from their homelands, but also for those who must receive and subsequently host them. The implications of hosting refugee communities are vital to understand if nations are to be encouraged to uphold their responsibilities pertaining to the provision of asylum. The problem is not simply how best to help refugees, but, given the climate of restrictive and temporary asylum, it is about how to find solutions that are acceptable to host countries - for without the host country's acquiescence and active involvement it will be much more difficult to help refugees.[2] That the host nation is becoming a more crucial topic today is also undoubtedly a product of the rapidly growing number of refugees.[3] In addition, we are witnessing a situation where repatriation and third-country resettlement as traditional durable solutions, are becoming more difficult to accomplish and therefore less relevant than in the past, thus placing the burden of the refugee crisis on countries of first asylum.[4]

Despite the increasingly clear and significant consequences of refugee influxes[5] for those countries on the receiving side of the border, they have been virtually ignored by media, often treated as incidental by aid agencies, and especially in the past, neglected by academics in the field of refugee studies - a terms some may be familiar with as 'refugee-centricism'.[6] In action and in analysis, the focus remains on the plight of the refugees themselves. This imbalance in attention is accepted because their situation is often so desperate and their numbers so vast, that they appear to deserve all the interest that can be given. In describing the aims of this paper it is of vital importance to make one point clear. Although this research is performed from the perspective of the host nation and focuses on the host society as the central topic of study, in no way does it seek to undermine or negate the traumatic and devastating plight of the refugee. This paper does not aim to shift attention away from the story of the refugee, but rather to redress the balance toward a more informed story. This is a story which includes the people who receive, and often welcome into their communities, those who have experienced a loss of the worst kind: that of their own communities.

This paper will examine the impact or consequences refugees often pose for host nations within the developing world. The choice to confine attention to developing countries is based on the fact that virtually all of today's refugees are fleeing countries within the developing world and seeking asylum in neighbouring developing nations.[7] It has become increasingly evident that host communities within developing countries are considerably affected by mass influxes of refugees, whether it be in the arena of economics, the environment, politics or as is often the case, a combination of all these factors. Although some forms of impact (such as the economic for instance) are quite obvious and consequently heavily explored in the literature, other areas of impact are more subtle. The socio-cultural form of impact is one such area and it comprises the focus of this paper. It can be defined as encompassing social or relational as well as religious, linguistic and ethnic based issues that arise when large groups of refugees arrive within a given host community. This type of impact will be explored in relation to communities within the case study nations of Pakistan[8] and the United Republic of Tanzania - two of the main refugee hosting nations in the world. Pakistan currently provides asylum for around 2 million Afghans,[9] a number which has continued to rise and fall since 1979 when the Soviets invaded that country during the Cold War. This paper will explore examples around 1987 when the number of Afghan refugees peaked at 3.5 million.[10] Tanzania which currently hosts around 600 000 refugees has generously hosted refugees from her bordering nations since its inception as an independent state. The plight of refugees from Rwanda, Burundi, and Democratic Republic of Congo made international headlines between 1993 and 1998. Within this context, nearly 1.3 million people sought refuge in western Tanzania. The populations of the Kagera and Kigoma regions (with a local population of nearly 2.5 million) increased by over 50 % with the refugee influx and in some areas refugees outnumbered locals five to one.[11] It is this particular crisis that will be considered here in more detail. In order to explore these case studies with some understanding, we must briefly define the concept of hosting in more detail.

The Host Nation

Here the host nation will be defined as any sovereign nation which whether through proactive choice or through the inability to act, receives asylum seekers and actively allows them to reside within their borders on a long-term basis (or at least acknowledges their existence). With regard to policy, the term hosting can be broad. There are frequently significant differences in the administrative and policy arrangements set out for refugees by individual states, and indeed considerable discrepancies within a single host country with regard to different groups of refugees.[12] In the simplest of terms the host government is faced with a threefold choice in its response to an influx of refugees. First it can respond positively, providing assistance and although rare, offering national citizenship for refugees, which suggests that it is prepared to work according the guidelines of the UNHCR and fulfil its duty in international law. This, put simply, is what the UNHCR considers the durable solution of local integration. Second, a host government can do nothing about an influx of refugees which appears at its borders, often suggesting that it lacks the capability for action.[13] This is happening increasingly within the developing world, thereby leaving asylum seekers to fend for themselves and settle independently without official assistance or recognition from the government and international agencies.[14] Finally the host government can respond negatively toward refugees, sometimes suggesting it holds a fear that refugees might pose a threat to national security.[15] In this situation refugees are often housed in camps or settlements and are discouraged or out-rightly prevented from mixing with the host population - although in practice this rarely succeeds. In its most extreme manner this form of hosting may be equivalent to outright detention - an arrangement more common in industrialised nations than their developing counterparts. Whether in the North or South, it is clear that all host governments realise that large influxes of refugees have significant consequences for their own populations and are hence increasingly reluctant to implement policy based on local integration or in any way act to prolong the length of their asylum.

The Socio-Cultural Impact of Refugees in a developing context

Where reluctance to accept asylum seekers in the countries of the industrialised North are largely based on fears of high economic costs relating to the administration and resettlement of new refugees, as well as opposition from an increasingly insecure electorate, states within the developing world face different concerns. These include the allegedly negative impact mass refugee influxes have on the economy as well as the political security of the country. Although rarely discussed in the current literature, many developing host communities also often face forms of socio-cultural change, including a challenged sense of identity and the increased visibility of ethnic, religious, racial, linguistic or ideological tensions between refugees and locals. The socio-cultural impact of refugees on the receiving community can occur simply through their presence, in that they can play a role in altering the ethnic balance of the host community, and if the influx is sizeable, according to some, pose a threat to the cultural values and norms of the nation.[16] From the perspective of various host governments in the developing world, there is a huge possibility that tensions may arise as a consequence of admitting outsiders into traditional social structures. Factors which might lead to social instability include barriers deriving from the differences in culture and values between host country nationals and the refugees themselves. These barriers include the most obvious language and cultural obstacles that may lead to miscommunication at one level, but at a far deeper level to racism, ethnocentrism and xenophobia -cultural conditions increasingly common amongst many developing nations today.[17] Thus in this respect, it is argued by those reluctant to take on more refugees that their increasing numbers can endanger social stability within civil society, particularly in countries where ethnic rivalries may already be virulent, where the central government is weak and consensus on the legitimacy of the political system is scarce.

Communities in both Pakistan and Tanzania experienced considerable socio-cultural change as a result of their refugee hosting role, two examples of which will be explored here. First, this paper will look at the perceived effects of the refugee presence on the moral and social fabric of society within mainstream sectors of the host community. Closely linked with this, as we will see in relation to Pakistan, is the alleged consequences of refugee presence for the security and safety of host communities, what can be defined as the socio-political impact of refugee presence. The socio-political implications of mass refugee influxes are often a result of direct political mobilisation on the part of refugees, usually regarding objectives associated with their country of origin, and thus have implications not only for the local communities receiving refugees but also domestic political structures and international relations. Second, this paper will discuss the role of common ethnic and cultural affiliation between refugees and hosts, asking whether this has any significance upon altering host-refugee relations in situations where refugee presence is prolonged because repatriation or third country resettlement are probable or even possible. In this context, the changing role of xenophobia in developing host societies will be touched on.

In Pakistan, it was in the provinces of the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP), Baluchistan and Punjab, that the bulk of the Afghan refugees settled in camps or what commonly became known as Refugee Tent Villages, amongst UNHCR officials. These villages were crowded accommodation and located amongst Pakistani districts in both rural and urban areas. Usually an Afghan refugee village constituted an accommodation unit in itself, but in some cases, local and refugee villages are interconnected.[18] Inevitably social relations formed between the two groups. A survey conducted by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) in 1986 suggested that although friendships were established between hosts and refugees in each of the three provinces, on the whole relationships - particularly friendships - were limited, despite frequently common linguistic and cultural affinities. Conflicts were also rare, but when they occurred they related to firewood collection, pasture land, employment, rights of passage over local land, the use of vehicles belonging to refugees and access to Pakistani cemeteries. These can all be described as dilemmas facing many developing countries today - with or without refugees.[19]

In Tanzania, the influx of people arriving from Burundi and then Rwanda was both large and more sudden than that facing Pakistan. In October 1993, more than 250,000 Burundians escaping a bloody coup crossed the border into Tanzania, followed by 250 000 Rwandans fleeing genocide in their home country during April the next year. A high proportion of this latter number arrived within a 24 hour period. By early May, the population of refugees at the Benaco camp in Ngara district stood somewhere over 500 000: the Benaco camp had become the second largest city in Tanzania after its capital Dar es Salaam.[20] The presence of large refugee populations inexorably altered social dynamics in Tanzanian host communities such as Benaco. Villagers in this formerly quiet and remote area of the country, suddenly had sites resembling cities in their midst, and accordingly experienced the same positive and negative opportunities, associated with other cities around the world.[21]

Local Tanzanians often established far more extensive social relations with refugees, than did Pakistani communities, particularly in areas close to the camps. The two groups socialized together, visited one another, and attended social functions such as weddings and funerals of the other. Rwandan and Burundian refugees, with their impressive dance and drum routines, were often asked to entertain at local ceremonies. Refugee and local teams frequently competed in soccer and other sports. Some Tanzanians even took refugees as wives.[22] Social relations between refugees and hosts also had some negative consequences. As one observer described, certain locals tended to disappear into the "cities" or "Kigali", as the refugee camps were known, and did not return to their home villages for hours and even days. The camps were also associated with social problems such as drunkenness, prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and mischief. Elderly people perceived a breakdown of the traditional social structure and a change in the attitudes of youth toward their elders and their roots during the time of the refugees. Hosts, according to the particular researcher who observed those specific changes, did not blame the refugees for these changing social dynamics, but rather saw them as an inevitable result of the drastic population increase in the area.[23] As we will see, however, this lack of blame is quite unusual.

Host perceptions regarding the integrity and security of their communities, in the face of mass refugee influxes

Many host communities correctly equate refugees with change, but they often view this change as that of the worst kind. Refugees in developing countries are often blamed for pre-existing social or economic problems (such as rises in crime or declining standards of living), which often stem more from a range of rapid and disorienting economic, social, and political changes (such as the imposition of structural adjustment programs or the nation's involvement in conflicts) than the refugee presence alone. In this context, refugees often become scapegoats for signs of moral deterioration within host societies. Other research performed in Tanzania, for example, indicated that despite the benefits of refugee labour for Tanzanian land owners, many blamed theft - particularly of food crops - on such workers. They claimed that refugees worked on local farms during the day and scouted out which crops were ready to harvest, only to return later at night and take whatever was ripe. In some areas, the problem was so pervasive that villagers perceived refugee labour as a cost rather than a benefit. "But yet," remarked one district official to an observer, "local Tanzanians continue to keep refugees in their houses and keep on hiring them".[24] Certainly it is true that Western Tanzania experienced high levels of crime and insecurity - particularly theft - after the refugees came. Everything from household items to bicycles was taken, but the primary targets were agricultural crops and livestock. But the fact remains that refugee and Tanzanian thieves cooperated with one another to rob local communities. Locals were generally used as inspectors to scout out what was available and to alert refugees about where to go. Frequent theft, and the fear that Tanzanian neighbors were involved, combined to create a widespread sense of insecurity in host communities. When asked if Tanzanians might not have been somehow involved with the district's crime wave, people would suggest one of two things with almost equal frequency. First, that conditions had become so bad as a result of the refugees' presence, that violent crime was all but a necessary survival strategy. Second, that Burundians in particular had somehow corrupted the Tanzanian's pacifism![25]

In Pakistan as well, refugees gradually became scapegoats for the maladies and crises facing Pakistani society. This is best illustrated by the situation in the NFWP where the largest concentration of refugees settled. At the social level, increases in law and order disturbances, such as burglaries and incidents of violence, were described by locals as a by-product of their presence.[26] In addition, according to both locals and government officials, the influx of Afghans led to a greater militarisation of Pakistani society. The Afghan refugees, still heavily involved with the war in their homeland, played a large role in introducing an illegal arms markets and with that easier access to ammunition which would not have been available in the absence of the Afghan crisis.[27] Another cause for concern, particularly during the 1980s, was the involvement of refugees in smuggling, especially drugs. With the various Afghan groups fighting each other and the Soviet troops in Afghanistan, there were elements within the Refugee Tent Villages - especially amongst lorry drivers - who smuggled opium throughout Pakistan to raise funds for their cause and, in the process taught the locals to cultivate poppy and to produce opium. This certainly led to increasing drug addiction in Pakistani society, yet it certainly did not instigate the problem per se.

At the same time that we recognise that socio-political problems can arise as a product of mass refugee influxes, we must also acknowledge that refugees, by themselves, do not constitute a threat to the host country. As well as involvement by host nationals in rising crime rates and social problems -as illustrated by the situation in Tanzania - it can be the manipulation of refugees by the host governments to achieve foreign policy objectives which makes them a threat. For example, the arming of Afghan refugees by Pakistan to fight the Soviets was an important factor in the increased militarisation of Pakistani host communities. Furthermore, it has been claimed that the Pakistani state used the Afghans who were proficient in poppy cultivation, drug production and trafficking to finance the jihad against Soviet forces in the 1980s.[28] In both host countries then, security concerns at a grass roots level ensured that initial sympathy and willingness by community members to help the refugees, or at least accept their presence, often turned into resentment when they were perceived to create or aggravate problems which already existed or in which hosts also were involved.

The role common ethnicity and culture in shaping the socio-cultural impact on host societies

The general socio-cultural impact of a mass refugee influx on a host society, is shaped to a large degree by the relationship between the refugees and their hosts. This relationship in turn is related to a variety of factors which include, for example, common ethnic and cultural affiliation between refugees and their hosts, as well as the beliefs and expectations held by both the host community and the refugees, regarding the duration of asylum and their chances for repatriation. Host communities generally view refugees as their guests who have left their countries for reasons of conflict or political problems and who will return when they are able. This belief motivates local people's initial willingness to assist refugees within the community. In protracted situations, the belief in temporariness proves to be false as refugees either do not return, or new influxes take place. Many within the host community may become resentful - an attitude compounded by other factors such as beliefs regarding refugees increased access to assistance and employment. This evolution of attitudes by locals - from initial welcome and assistance, to rising concerns about threats and burdens, to outright xenophobia- is increasingly widespread within many developing nations.[29]

Within many Pakistani host communities, for example, there have been signs of growing hostility to the prolonged presence of the Afghans despite strong common religious and cultural affiliation between the two groups. The majority of Afghan refugees in Pakistan are for the most part Afghan Pushtuns who have sought asylum in a Pathan (Anglo-Indian name for Pakistani Pushtuns) territory in Pakistan. In this respect then, the Afghans sought asylum amongst a population with whom they share the same language, culture and value system as well as religion. This is a particularly interesting case because of the religious significance and traditional meaning of the refugee-host relationship. The Islamic tradition ordains sympathetic treatment as well as the care and rehabilitation of people who are forced to abandon their homes on account of persecution. Indeed leaving ones homeland including ones kin is almost an obligatory course of action for Muslims to escape persecution for protecting their religious beliefs or social traditions. According to the Holy Koran "those who have believed and have chosen exile, and have fought for their faith, and those who have granted them help and asylum: these are the true believers".[30] For the Afghan refugees then, escaping to Pakistan was considered the only real option in the face of atheist invasion in the form of the Soviets in 1979 and beyond. At least at the beginning of that enormous migration, they considered themselves beneficiaries of traditional hospitality offered by the Pakistanis of the NWFP : their Pushtun cousins on the other side of the border. At least initially, then, they comprised not a mass of unarmed and helpless individuals, as the UNHCR may have believed, but an organised group seeking temporary shelter among kin - amongst their equals as fellow Muslims and as fellow tribesmen.[31]

As time progressed however, and the Afghans have continued their exile in Pakistan, neither common cultural links nor shared religious values have guaranteed continued sympathy from receiving host communities. The Afghans were not the only ones to have found a new identity by redefining themselves in relation to the situation of exile: many communities within Pakistan, or at least certain of their inhabitants and leaders, also initially considered themselves, ansar or neighbours, and poor but gracious hosts to guest in trouble. As exile became prolonged however, the hosts began to define themselves in a new light - less related to Pushtun culture or Islamic religion, and more concerned with the national economic and security burdens perceived to stem from their presence. Today, it would not be contentious to state that many Pakistanis generally feel weighed down by the overwhelming burden of 3 million refugees. Indeed studies conducted as early as the mid 1980s, revealed that hostility and conflict occurred between the two groups, frequently over access to natural resources such as wood for fuel, water or pastures and also over employment. In the opinion of many of them, the free aid and the camp infrastructures available to the Afghan refugees permit them to accept lower wages than those demanded by Pakistani workers, thus enabling them to compete more easily for employment. In addition the mohajer[32] is perceived as a 'false' refugee who does not conform to a dependent role and threatens the security of Pakistan by guerrilla activities as carried out against a neighbour.[33] For much of the Pakistani population today, the traditional image of the guest-host relationship is no longer valid. For them, the Afghans are too numerous, have remained in the NWFP for too long, and are suspected of all sorts of trafficking. Their behaviour is far from being that of melma - guests with rights - and especially the duties described by the Pushtunwali. As one local in Peshawar commented to a journalist as early as 1989:

It will be good when they go back ....We have received them as our Muslim Brothers , but Peshawar is no longer our city".[34]

Thus it is clear that where shared identity, in the form of cultural, linguistic or ethnic affinity was often seen in the past to create social expectations and facilitate communication and conflict resolution between refugees and locals, illustrations such as this reveal the effect is more complex: the 'ethnic card' is often trumped by other factors and the importance of affinitive links should not be over-emphasized.

In Tanzania common ethnicity and cultural affiliation has also proved dubious in encouraging positive attitudes long term by the hosts towards refugees.. Nowhere are the absurdities of colonial cartography and the utter artificiality of African political borders more apparent than in Kasulu. If historical accounts are to be believed, the Ha (now Tanzanians) and the Hutu (now Burundians) were at one time indistinguishable, each living under a Tutsi oligarchy reinforced by subsequent colonial governments Although ensuing policies created the grounds for differentiation, the Ha and the Hutu actively continued to trade and relocate, inter-marry, and even settle across the border until the mid-1990s. Today the condition is dramatically different. One researcher discussing interviews he conducted amongst Tanzanian hosts, stated that with the exception of a few elderly men, few people would admit the possibility that the two groups were once one. Whereas the Ha, as Tanzanians, claim to revere peace and unity, the Hutu are portrayed as crooks and murderers incapable of eliding their belligerent essence. Tenuous security conditions in the area surrounding the camps are often cited as irrefutable evidence of this.[35] The Burundians are even accused of been uneducated peasant farmers, perhaps indicating the value Tanzanians place on their national education campaign. (Such a charge is somewhat farcical given that in Kasulu, current primary school attendance is somewhere near 30 percent).[36]

The resentment toward and increased xenophobia against the Burundians reached crisis point in mid-March 1995, when after having being so generous in its hosting capacity, the Tanzanian state abruptly decided to close its borders to Burundians.[37] In part this change in policy can be attributed to the restrictive policies currently employed in the industrialized countries to keep out refugees which have unintentionally emboldened African states to take steps within their means to achieve the same ends. In addition, it can be stated that the mood of the Tanzanian people, particularly in refugee hosting areas, was quite hostile to refugees and consequently politicians tapping into popular sentiment promised to send these refugees back.[38] Finally, and associated with this, there has emerged a growing xenophobia in many African countries. This is because today's refugees come from independent African countries and local populations do not have the same sympathy for them as they had for asylum seekers in the 1960s and 1970s who fled from armed struggles against colonialism, racial domination and apartheid. Also, economic hardship and the austerity programmes imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which have forced governments to curtail free services to their populations, have made it difficult for the people to accept the same services being provided free to refugees, whether by their governments or other bodies. Coincidentally, these xenophobic sentiments have emerged at a time when most of Africa is democratizing and governments are compelled to take into account public opinion in formulating various policies. The result has been the adoption of anti-refugee platforms by political parties which result in anti-refugee policies and actions by governments.[39]

An important factor which might have been contributory to these xenophobic attitudes may have been the quest for 'purity' that often seems to emerge in communities facing what they perceive to be an external threat.[40] The reasons underlying the negative images of refugees amongst host communities in both developed and developing nations remain the same. Local inhabitants are fearful that a large influx of foreigners will overwhelm them, reducing them to a demographic minority and threatening their cultural and political dominance.[41] Where before such situations were confined to the industrialised world, increasingly they are becoming characteristic of developing countries such as Tanzania and Pakistan. Host countries have begun to feel 'refugee fatigue' and there is a growing sense of xenophobia among their own populations against their visitors.

Conclusion

That this paper has concentrated on socio-cultural problems mass refugee influxes can generate with their arrival in developing countries does not mean that there are no positive changes as well. Environmental programmes, new economic opportunities and access to infrastructure generated by the UNHCR and NGOs on the scene often benefit the host communities, at least in the short-term. The UNHCR is only just beginning to recognise however that significant socio-cultural and indeed socio-political change - both positive and negative - can also be a product of mass refugee influxes for developing communities. The latest version of its Handbook for Emergencies makes a small reference to steps that can be taken to minimize security issues and also to reduce tensions between refugee and host populations. The latter for example include arranging regular meetings between the representatives of the refugees and the leaders of the local communities; sensitizing the local population to the plight of refugees through local media such as radio and TV and sensitizing refugees to local customs and traditions.[42] Such steps, although seemingly small, may make a considerable difference to communities within developing nations such as Pakistan and Tanzania which, as we have seen, experience rising communal tensions and where political instability grows more problematic by the day. For these communities, and particularly those directly receiving large numbers of refugees, the perceived burden of hosting refugees often becomes too much, leading host states to follow the example of their industrialized counterparts and shirk their asylum responsibilities. For the concept of asylum to survive, then, recognition and assistance must be given not only to the economic and environmental impact experienced by developing host communities, but also the more understated forms of impact such as the socially based cultural and political.

Notes

[1] Blume, 1996, M.A 'Refugees Today: The Reality and Our Response', Migration World, vol. xxiv, no. 3, p 18.

[2] Jacobsen, K. 2001, 'The forgotten solution: local integration for refugees in developing countries', New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 45, UNHCR, p4.

[3] At the start of 2001 the number of people 'of concern' to UNHCR was 21.8 million, or one out of every 275 persons on Earth. In 1990 this number was 14,916,498.

[4] Repatriation is becoming an increasingly impossible affair largely due to the protracted and complex nature of conflicts in the post cold-war era. All the major crises since the early 1970s have lasted for more than ten years: Tigreans and Eritreans in Sudan; Afghans in Pakistan and Iran; Salvadorians in Honduras, Cambodians and Laotians in Thailand, Mozambicans in Malawi, Angolans in Zaire and Vietnamese boat people in various countries of South East Asia. The list continues. Third country resettlement is also become a less utilized path as countries of the industrialized world are implementing a more narrow view of the UNHCR definition of refugee and becoming more restrictionist in their policies. Only 97,660 refugees were settled in third countries in 2000 - out of a total of over 22 million.

[5] I will adhere to Jacobsen's research and define the term 'refugee influx' as people who flee their country en masse. A mass influx of refugees is defined as that which occurs when, within a relatively short period of time (a few years), large numbers (thousands) of people flee their places of residence for the country of asylum. See Jacobsen, K. 1996, 'Factors influencing the policy responses of host governments to mass refugee influxes', International Migration Review, vol. 30, no. 3.

[6] See Chambers, R. 1986, 'Hidden Losers? The Impact of Rural Refugees and Refugee Programs on Poorer Hosts', International Migration Review, Volume XX, no. 2, p 245.

[7] At the end of 2000, Asia hosted the largest refugee population - 44.6% of the world's refugees, followed by Africa which hosted 30%⁷.

[8] Despite the fact that Pakistan has played a significant hosting role, it is not a party to the 1951 UNHCR convention although it receives massive assistance from the agency.

[9] UNHCR, Refugees by Numbers 2001 Edition, 2001, [https://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+gwwBmeLqZw_wwwwMwwwwwwwxFqzvx8n+wwW6mFqhT0yfEhFqoUfIfRZ2ItFqnp1xczFqn7uFPAFqoUfIfRZ2IDzmxwwwwwww1Fqn7uFP/opendoc.htm]

[10] Chandran, S. 1999, Non Military Threats to the Security of Pakistan, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi, Article no. 188, 28 April, [https://www.ipcs.org/issues/articles/188-pak-suba.htm]. This number stands despite the recent events of September 2001 when the number of Afghans in Pakistan reached 3.01 million by the end of that month.

[11] B. E., Whitaker 2000, 'Changing opportunities: refugees and host communities in western Tanzania', New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 11, UNHCR, p2.

[12] Jacobsen, K. 1996, 'Factors influencing the policy responses of host governments to mass refugee influxes', International Migration Review, vol. 30, no. 3, p655.

[13] Gordenker, L. 1987, Refugees in International Politics, Croom Helm, London.

[14] The largest refugee population increase during 2000 was recorded in Pakistan, where the estimated number of Afghan refugees in Pakistan increased by some 800,000 due to the inclusion of Afghan refugees living outside camps, who do not receive assistance from UNHCR.

[15] Jacobsen, K. 1996, 'Factors influencing the policy responses of host governments to mass refugee influxes', International Migration Review, vol. 30, no. 3, p 666.

[16] Lebanese rejection of permanent re-settlement of Palestinians on their soil, for example, is at least partially based on the fear that Palestinian resettlement would upset the already fragile confessional balance of the country. The Lebanese Christians are weary of implantation because it would increase the number of Muslims. The Shia Muslims are afraid of the Palestinian Sunni majority. The Druze are anxious they would become an even smaller minority and the Lebanese Sunnis themselves pin their hopes on a cohesive Lebanon and not on their stateless co-secterians

[17] Martin, S.F. 1992, Refugee Women, Zed Books, London, p11.

[18] Christensen, H. & Scott, W. 1988 Survey of the Social and Economic Conditions of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, p 14.

[19] Christensen, H. & Scott, W. 1988 Survey of the Social and Economic Conditions of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, p 14.

[20] Rutinwa, B. 1996, 'The Tanzanian Government's response to the Rwandan Emergency' Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 9(3), p295.

[21] Jacobsen, K. 2001, 'The forgotten solution: local integration for refugees in developing countries', New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 45, UNHCR, p9.

[22] B. E., Whitaker 2000, 'Changing opportunities: refugees and host communities in Western Tanzania', New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 11, UNHCR, p10.

[23] B. E., Whitaker 2000, 'Changing opportunities: refugees and host communities in Western Tanzania', New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 11, UNHCR, p10.

[24] B. E., Whitaker 2000, 'Changing opportunities: refugees and host communities in Western Tanzania', New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 11, UNHCR, p4.

[25] From interviews. See Landau, L.B. 2001, The humanitarian hangover: transnationalization of governmental practice in Tanzania's refugee-populated areas, New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 40, UNHCR, p13-14.

[26] Shah, N.H. 1997, 'Pakistan: Policies and Laws with reference to refugees', UNHCR + SAARCLAW, Seminar Report, Refugees in the SAARC Region: Building a Legal Framework, 2-3 May 1997, New Delhi, p38.

[27] Noman, O. 1987, 'Effects of Afghan refugees on the situation in Pakistan' A talk given on March 31, 1987 at The Crisis of Migration from Afghanistan - Domestic and Foreign Implications Symposium at Queen Elizabeth House, Oxford University.

[28] Chandran, S. & van Wonterghem, P. 2000, 'The Refugees Situation in South Asia and its Security Implications ' Report on the IPCS Seminar held on 26th November 2000 [https://www.ipcs.org/issues/articles/442-ref-suba.html]

[29] Jacobsen, K. 2001, 'The forgotten solution: local integration for refugees in developing countries', New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 45, UNHCR, p20.

[30] Quoted in Shah, N.H. 1997, Pakistan: Policies and Laws with reference to refugees, UNHCR + SAARCLAW, Seminar Report, Refugees in the SAARC Region: Building a Legal Framework, 2 -3 May 1997, New Delhi, p34.

[31] Centlivres, P. and Centlivres-Demont, M. 1988, 'The Afghan Refugee in Pakistan: an ambiguous identity', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, p144.

[32] Mohajer is a term used to describe those who have arrived in Pakistan, yet are still fighting for the cause of Islam in their home country of Afghanistan.

[33] Centlivres, P. and Centlivres-Demont, M. 1988, 'The Afghan Refugee in Pakistan: an ambiguous identity', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, p146.

[34] Girardet, E. 1989, 'No Peace for Peshawar', World Monitor, June, p50.

[35] Landau, L.B. 2001, 'The humanitarian hangover: transnationalization of governmental practice in Tanzania's refugee-populated areas', New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 40, UNHCR, p13-14.

[36] Landau, L.B. 2001, 'The humanitarian hangover: transnationalization of governmental practice in Tanzania's refugee-populated areas', New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 40, UNHCR, p13-14.

[37] Rutinwa, B. 1996, 'The Tanzanian Government's response to the Rwandan Emergency', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, p295.

[38] Rutinwa, B. 1996, 'The Tanzanian Government's response to the Rwandan Emergency', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, p295.

[39] Rutinwa, B. 1999, The end of asylum? The changing nature of refugee policies in Africa, New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 5, UNHCR, p2.

[40] Landau, L.B. 2001, 'The humanitarian hangover: transnationalization of governmental practice in Tanzania's refugee-populated areas', New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 40, UNHCR, p13-14.

[41] Weiner, M. 'Ethics, national sovereignity and the control of immigration', International Migration Review, vol. 30, no. 1, 1996. pp 171 - 198 at [https://web7.searchbank.com/infotrac/session/815/97/2509339w3/14!bmk_]

[42] UNHCR, Handbook for Emergencies, Second Edition, [https://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+zwwBmTe9c_dwwwwcwwwwwwwxFqzvx8n+wwW6mFqhT0yfEhFqhT0yfEtFqnp1xczFqn7uFPAFqhT0yfEDzmxwwwwwww1Fqn7uFP/opendoc.pdf]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blume, M.A 'Refugees Today: The Reality and Our Response', Migration World, vol. xxiv, no. 3, 1996,

Chambers, R. 'Hidden Losers? The Impact of Rural Refugees and Refugee Programs on Poorer Hosts', International Migration Review, Volume XX, no. 2, 1986.

Chandran, S. & van Wonterghem, P., 'The Refugees Situation in South Asia and its Security Implications ' Report on the IPCS Seminar held on 26th November 2000 [https://www.ipcs.org/issues/articles/442-ref-suba.html], 2000.

Chandran, S. Non Military Threats to the Security of Pakistan, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi, Article no. 188, 28 April, [https://www.ipcs.org/issues/articles/188-pak-suba.htm], 1999.

Christensen, H. & Scott, W. Survey of the Social and Economic Conditions of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, 1988.

Christensen, H. Afghan Refugees in Pakistan and their relationship with surrounding populations - some preliminary survey findings, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, 1987.

Centlivres, P. and Centlivres-Demont, M. 'The Afghan Refugee in Pakistan: an ambiguous identity', Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, 1988

Girardet, E. 'No Peace for Peshawar', World Monitor, June, p50, 1989.

Gordenker, L., Refugees in International Politics, Croom Helm, London, 1987.

Jacobsen, K. 'The forgotten solution: local integration for refugees in developing countries', New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 45, UNHCR, 2001. see [https://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+WwwBmeR4xU_wwwwhwwwwwwwxFqzvx8n+wwW6mFqhT0yfEhFqhT0NuItFqnp1xczFqn7uFPAFqo20I0E2glDzmwwwwwwww5FqVIZu2g0acoAnaeTxmA2QfNHeTGktqn7uFP/openlist.html]

Jacobsen, K. 'Factors influencing the policy responses of host governments to mass refugee influxes', International Migration Review, vol. 30, no. 3, 1996. Landau, L.B. The humanitarian hangover: transnationalization of governmental practice in Tanzania's refugee-populated areas, New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 40, UNHCR, 2001. see [https://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+WwwBmeR4xU_wwwwhwwwwwwwxFqzvx8n+wwW6mFqhT0yfEhFqhT0NuItFqnp1xczFqn7uFPAFqo20I0E2glDzmwwwwwwww5FqVIZu2g0acoAnaeTxmA2QfNHeTGktqn7uFP/openlist.html]

Martin, S.F. Refugee Women, Zed Books, London, 1992.

Noman, O. Effects of Afghan refugees on the situation in Pakistan A talk given on March 31, 1987 at The Crisis of Migration from Afghanistan - Domestic and Foreign Implications Symposium at Queen Elizabeth House, Oxford University, 1987. Rutinwa, B. The end of asylum? The changing nature of refugee policies in Africa, New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 5, UNHCR, 1999. see [https://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+WwwBmeR4xU_wwwwhwwwwwwwxFqzvx8n+wwW6mFqhT0yfEhFqhT0NuItFqnp1xczFqn7uFPAFqo20I0E2glDzmwwwwwwww5FqVIZu2g0acoAnaeTxmA2QfNHeTGktqn7uFP/openlist.html]

Rutinwa, B. 'The Tanzanian Government's response to the Rwandan Emergency' , Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 9 (3), 1996.

Shah, N.H. 'Pakistan: Policies and Laws with reference to refugees', UNHCR + SAARCLAW, Seminar Report, Refugees in the SAARC Region: Building a Legal Framework, 2-3 May 1997, New Delhi, 1997.

UNHCR, Refugees by Numbers 2001 Edition, 2001, [https://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+gwwBmeLqZw_wwwwMwwwwwwwxFqzvx8n+wwW6mFqhT0yfEhFqoUfIfRZ2ItFqnp1xczFqn7uFPAFqoUfIfRZ2IDzmxwwwwwww1Fqn7uFP/opendoc.htm]

UNHCR, Handbook for Emergencies, Second Edition, [https://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+zwwBmTe9c_dwwwwcwwwwwwwxFqzvx8n+wwW6mFqhT0yfEhFqhT0yfEtFqnp1xczFqn7uFPAFqhT0yfEDzmxwwwwwww1Fqn7uFP/opendoc.pdf] Weiner, M. 'Ethics, national sovereignity and the control of immigration', International Migration Review, vol. 30, no. 1, 1996, pp 171 - 198.

B. E., Whitaker 2000, 'Changing opportunities: refugees and host communities in western Tanzania', New Issues In Refugee Research, Working Paper No. 11, UNHCR, 2000 see [https://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+WwwBmeR4xU_wwwwhwwwwwwwxFqzvx8n+wwW6mFqhT0yfEhFqhT0NuItFqnp1xczFqn7uFPAFqo20I0E2glDzmwwwwwwww5FqVIZu2g0acoAnaeTxmA2QfNHeTGktqn7uFP/openlist.html]

Sanjugta Vas Dev is a Masters by Research candidate in the Department of Politics, University of Adelaide. She is studying the impact of mass refugee influxes on developing nations with regard to cultural and political changes and, more specifically, is examining the case studies of Tanzania and Pakistan, which have played host to mass influxes of displaced persons over the last decade. Sanjugta has spent time conducting this research at the Oxford Centre for Refugee Studies in 1999. She is currently employed as the administrator at the Hawke Research Institute, University of South Australia and as a researcher at Flinders University. In her research post, she is examining the use of information technology as a tool for participation by the World Bank. She is a member of Austcare and voluntarily teaches English to recently arrived migrants and refugees.

Paper presented at the International Conference "The Refugee Convention, Where to from Here?" convened by the Centre for Refugee Research (Sydney, December 2001).

Back to [the top of the page] [the contents of this issue of MOTS PLURIELS]