The Refugee Flow Drops to a Trickle: Why?

UN and Rwandan officials were trying in September 1995 to encourage the one million mainly-Hutu refugees crammed into squalid camps in Zaire to return home to Rwanda. But with a December 31st deadline looming for their return, the refugee flow across the border dropped to a mere trickle. I reported from the Rwandan capital, Kigali.

UN and Rwandan authorities say the more than 12-thousand refugees forcibly expelled from Zaire last month have been resettled smoothly. Only a tiny number of returnees have been detained for suspected involvement in last year's genocide. The vast majority have returned to their homes without incident, resuming normal lives.

At the same time, though, these officials acknowledge the flow of refugees has slowed to a mere trickle since the Zairian-forced expulsions stopped and the United Nations promised to resume its voluntary repatriation program.

That is a major problem, given the new UN/Zairian agreement setting a December 31st (1995) deadline for moving the one-million or so mainly Hutu refugees still in camps in Zaire back to Rwanda.

Even UN officials admit that goal is simply physically impossible. But diplomatic sources say the United Nations is holding out hope that Zairian authorities will not stick to the end of the year date if an effective repatriation program is underway.

The question now is how to get such a program started. Many observers continue to blame Hutu extremists loyal to Rwanda's ousted government for interfering with refugees who may want to return home. They say these extremists use violence and other forms of intimidation to dissuade would-be returnees.

But the UN Special Representative to Rwanda, Shaharyar Khan, says he believes the problem is much more fundamental, a problem rooted in the minds of the refugees.

“They (refugees) don't want to make a choice. They there (in the camps) aren't pushed to make a choice. You see, on the one hand, there is doubt about what might happen to them when they come back. On the other hand, they feel that by living there, it's better than facing those doubts because you're betting food, water, you've got basic elements of livelihood. You've got maternity wards. You've got hospitals. You've even got shops and nightclubs I believe. So, they need a push or a strong pull.”

Mr. Khan says the strong pull is the element that is currently lacking. But he outlines a new plan which he hopes will encourage a mass refugee return.

“The refugees should be informed on what the situation is on the ground here (in Rwanda). An information campaign. Number two, that intimidation of any kind should be prevented. And thirdly, that the people who wish to go back should feel secure in doing so both in Zaire as well as in Rwanda.”

But diplomatic sources say there is nothing really new in such a plan. It consists of elements that have been discussed for more than a year. These sources, critical of the United Nations, charge deliberations over the plan's implementation remain tangled in a bureaucratic web of competing agencies looking hungrily for new sources of money and for a perpetuation of their presence in the region.

One diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, notes that the mandate of the UN mission in Rwanda expires in early December. This source, noting how UN officials are now saying their role is more important than ever in providing assurances to returning refugees, believes the United Nations, by stalling on repatriation, may be simply maneuvering for an extension of its mandate into the new year.

Given assessments like that, there is little wonder that even senior UN officials admit that Rwanda's government would be happier without a continued UN presence, even though authorities in Kigali genuinely want the refugees back and remain largely dependent on UN humanitarian assistance to help returnees resettle.