Returnees in Eritrea
The meaning of ‘home’

More than 250,000 refugees returned from Sudan to Eritrea between 1991 and 2002, the majority of them without receiving international assistance. Though the causes of this displacement were removed more than ten years ago, there are still some 100,000 Eritrean refugees remaining in Sudan. What factors influence the return of refugees?

A research project currently focuses on Eritrean returnees, dealing also with Eritrean refugees in Sudan. A key issue in this research is whether belonging is rooted in a territory or if it is possible to belong to a group that is not grounded by territory. This is linked, on the one hand, to the question of how a group becomes ‘deterritorialised’ or de-placed and, on the other hand, to the extent to which it is possible to set up viable ‘homes’ elsewhere.

A second issue is whether belonging has an intrinsic value or if it is a means to an end. Scholarly opinions are divided here but the research findings suggest it is a means to an end: once refugees are in their country of origin, their choice of destination is mainly influenced by livelihood concerns regardless of their location within their country of origin.

Furthermore, to what extent are return movements the result of a desire to belong to one’s homeland and community of origin, or the result of lack of opportunities to make a new home elsewhere – in exile, for example? This research shows that return movements reflect more than anything else a lack of citizenship rights in receiving societies rather than refugees wanting to belong to particular communities and places.

In looking at what ‘home’ means to the returning Eritrean refugees, the research found that the meaning which the Eritrean returnees apply to ‘home’ is ambiguous and continuously shifting, depending on the goal they want to realise.

The majority of returnees (over 85 per cent) have settled elsewhere instead of returning to their places of origin. Factors that influenced their choice of destination were:

• undesirability and impossibility of returning to the past
• opportunities for employment and self-employment
• proximity to the country of asylum
• continuity of the trans-ethnic and trans-religious social networks established in exile
• repugnance of rural life due to cultural, social and occupational changes experienced in exile
• access to schools, healthcare and water for human and livestock consumption as well as for rain-fed cultivation and irrigation.

The implications for policy are:

• Refugees and returnees should be enabled to settle themselves rather than being resettled by outsiders.
• Intervention by governments and international agencies should focus on areas of return rather than on specific groups – for example, returnees.
• Whether stayee populations (people who remained behind) accept or reject returnees is to a large extent determined by the extent to which the new arrivals are a burden or benefit to areas of return. Stayee attitudes can therefore be influenced by a systematic provision of assistance that benefits all categories of populations regardless of their status.

Gaim Kibreab
South Bank University,
Development Studies
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
103 Borough Road
London SE1 00A
UK

T +44 (0)207 815 8072
F +44 (0)207 825 8072

kibreag@sbu.ac.uk

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DFID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Copyright remains with the original authors but (unless stated otherwise) articles may be copied or quoted without restriction, provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2005 id21. All rights reserved.