Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

VII. CONCLUSION: ENHANCING SECURITY WITHOUT VIOLATING REFUGEE RIGHTS

No government can, in the name of security, trample on the rights of refugees. The responsibilities of a government to ensure national security and to uphold its obligation to respect refugee rights are not contradictory. Long-term security interests are best served through the implementation of mechanisms that uphold the rule of law. Ultimately, abusing the human rights of refugees and indiscriminately penalizing refugees without due process or individual accountability is neither an acceptable option under international law nor does it provide the most effective and sustainable security policy.

Notwithstanding the round-ups, rebel activity and crime around the border areas remains a concern as does the tense relationship with the Burundian government, which continues to accuse Tanzania of allowing rebel activity. As recently as April 1999, the Burundian government complained to the Tanzanian authorities that 500 Burundi rebels, supported by refugees from one of the camps, had attempted to infiltrate the country's eastern border in lateMarch, an indication that rebel activity is occurring independently of most refugees.104 One diplomat told Human Rights Watch:

The round-ups were a mistake from a policy perspective. The sweep of the Burundians was solely a response to [Burundian President Major Pierre] Buyoya's complaints of rebel activity in Tanzania. To show Buyoya they were cooperating, the Tanzanians conducted the round-ups. In retrospect, it was a mistake. Nothing was achieved by it from a security standpoint. It doesn't reduce Burundian hostility toward Tanzania. It doesn't reduce the rebel activity at the border. Buyoya is not going to give Tanzania credit for taking any action, and in fact it is in his interest to continue to blame Tanzania for his problems rather than have to make changes within Burundi. Look how he treats his own citizens. It was a misguided decision on the part of the Tanzanians. What did the round-ups achieve?105

A UNHCR staff member analyzed the round-ups purely from a logistics perspective and concluded that:

The round-ups were unnecessary. The cost to the army for the round-ups would have been far better spent on increased border patrols, improving the security surveillance within the camps, and ensuring that the camp layout is conducive to enhanced safety. As it is, the young boys do not stay in the camps. It was the older people and children that were brought there. There were even some school teachers arrested. They are not the security problem. So who is stuck in the camps? The wrong people.106

International relief workers in the area speculated that the round-ups may have been counterproductive to enhancing security. Some relief workers made comments such as: "The Tanzanian government has done something unfair. There is now growing resentment against the government."107 "It was uncalled for to uproot the refugees. The government said security reasons but ultimately rebel activity continues."108 One UNHCR staff member noted that "the Tanzanian government has created a greater security risk by rounding up refugees. There have been more allegations of security problems in the camps since the round-ups."109 Forcing Burundian refugees into the camps in this manner can only fuel resentment against the Tanzanian government, play into the hands of the Burundian government as it threatens to invade by reinforcing the erroneous accusation that all Burundian refugees are rebels, push refugees to identify more closely with the Burundian political alliances in the camps because of the hostility they have experienced at the hands of the Tanzanian army, and increase the likelihood of rebel recruitment among the old caseload refugees who have gone from being self-employed farmers to idle refugees situated in camps close to the border.

The Tanzanian government can take other, more just steps to address security and prevent covert rebel activity, such as increased police patrols and intelligence surveillance along the border or among communities with high numbers of Burundians, the relocation of the refugee camps and settlements with Burundians further away from the border, and the investigation and prosecution of those Burundian individuals responsible for criminal activity. Each of these proposals is less restrictive than the indefinite detention of thousands of people who have not historically jeopardized Tanzania's safety, and would allow for a more sustainable and rights-respecting security policy over the long-term. The Tanzanian government's recent announcement that it will increase the number of markers denotingthe border with Burundi to "remove confusion" over the frontier is the type of measure that can serve to augment security without violating refugee rights.110

Additionally, Tanzanian residents in the border areas could benefit from the government adopting a more sustainable security policy, both because local residents' safety would be better assured and the Burundian refugee contribution to the local economy would be restored.

104 U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) Central-Eastern Africa Weekly Round-up, No. 15, April 10-16, 1999 available at http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int. 105 Human Rights Watch interview, diplomat, Dar-es-Salaam, May 21, 1998. 106 Human Rights Watch interview, UNHCR staff member, Kibondo, July 3, 1998. 107 Human Rights Watch interview, U.N. staff member, Kigoma, May 25, 1998. 108 Human Rights Watch interview, U.N. staff member, Kigoma, May 25, 1998. 109 Human Rights Watch interview, UNHCR staff member, Kigoma, May 25, 1998. 110 U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) Update No. 632 for Central and Eastern Africa, March 18, 1999 available at http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page