Governing Refugee Mobility : Contrasting Genealogies of Encampment in Uganda and Kenya (1930s to 1990s)

Abstract

Abstract

en Most scholars and humanitarian practitioners agree that refugee encampment does more harm than good. Nevertheless, camps are still a major dispositif to govern the mobility of refugees in Africa. However, there exist striking differences in the refugee host policies of different African countries. One explanation for this difference can be traced to the specific historical trajectories and genealogies of refugee encampments. This paper highlights these differences by contrasting the histories of Kenyan and Ugandan encampment policies from the colonial to the postcolonial period. In Uganda, the first refugee camps were established in the 1940s for Polish refugees, followed in the 1950s by Sudanese and Rwandans fleeing violence related to independence conflicts. Especially in setting up the camps for Rwandan refugees, Ugandan officials mainly followed existing plans for agricultural settlements. In the context of the post-war “developmental colonialism” the Ugandan government regarded the refugees as assets for settling underpopulated regions, combat animal diseases and increase productivity. In Kenya, the first refugee camps were set up in the 1930s for Ethiopian refugees from the war with Italy. Strictly supervised and placed in the arid Northern Frontier District, these refugees were not supposed to form permanent settlements but to return as soon as feasible. The most extensive camp system in Kenya developed in the 1950s and consisted of the internment camps during the counterinsurgency war against Mau Mau. The post-colonial government continued the practice of internment during the Shifta War in the 1960s to 1970s. The Kenyan policy of refugee encampment developed in the 1990s out of this legacy of securitization. Today, Uganda’s policy of granting rights and land to refugees stands in stark contrast to Kenya’s restrictive encampment policies. In Uganda, refugees were seen as resources for cultivating land whereas in Kenya they were regarded as a danger and possible competitor over the already contested lands. In this paper, I argue that history and socio-economic structures play a crucial role in understanding these differences. Based on archival research and historiography, this paper argues that refugee camps are locally specific yet globally entangled mobile devices for the care and control of mobile people.