Land and exile: revisiting the case of Burundian refugees in Tanzania

Abstract

In 2007, the Government of Tanzania and the Government of Burundi in partnership with the UNHCR adopted the Tanzania Comprehensive Solutions Strategy (TANCOSS). TANCOSS offered a choice between repatriation and naturalization to 220,000 Burundian refugees who had been living in three rural settlements in Western Tanzania (Ulyankulu, Katumba and Mishamo) since 1972. It was an unprecedented intervention and it garnered international attention and support (Milner 2014). Initially, obtaining citizenship was meant to be conditional on relocation away from the refugee settlements. This plan, however, was renounced, and ultimately those who opted for citizenship were permitted to remain on the land of the settlements. Following naturalization, new citizens' relationship with the land they occupy in Tanzania has changedboth in legal and symbolic terms. This article explores how former Burundian refugees were able to access land in exile and how, following naturalization, they seek recognition of their land rights. In the existing literature, scholars have highlighted the prominence of discourses of autochthony in the ways that both citizenship and land rights have come to be defined and asserted in contexts of migration. There is a risk that this emphasis hides other instances, in which autochthony is not the dominant trope through which citizenship or land rights are claimed, as this article demonstrates in the case of Burundian refugees in Tanzania.

Beyond the Eurocentrism of immigration ethics: Tanzania and pan-African Ujamaa

“…These numbers were dwarfed 10 years on, when Tanzania experienced its biggest population movement into the country during its ‘open door’ era. Over 150,000 mainly Hutu refugees ultimately arrived in the country after fleeing from a selective Tutsi genocide in Burundi that left at least 100,000 dead (Kuch, 2018: 109).…”

“…Tanzania’s was a complex, changing, non-uniform welcome. And yet, faced with the largest crisis it had seen until that point, with around 150,000 Burundian Hutus fleeing genocide in 1972, Tanzania maintained its ‘open door’ to safely welcome the majority of this population (Kuch, 2018: 112). Nyerere’s government swiftly finalised a tripartite agreement with the UNHCR and the Tanganyika Christian Refugee Service (TCRS), an NGO operated by the Lutheran World Federation (LWF).…”

Borders and violence in Burundi: regional responses, global responsibilities

“…Plans for resettlement were abandoned and the newly naturalised migrants were permitted to remain in the areas of the settlements in which they had lived for the past four decades. As a result, it remains unclear when and how a transition to local governance will take place and what rights to the land the newly naturalized migrant in these settlements have (Kuch, 2018). As Kuch describes it, it is like being 'left in limbo'.…”

Refugees Integration and National Security Risks in Tanzania: A Case of Katumba Old Settlement

“…Furthermore, Rwezaula (2022) puts forward that, the refugees' influx in Tanzania is the source of community tension, security tension and an insecure environment. Following the increasing number of naturalised refugees, concerns began looming, especially on the issue of national security (Kuch, 2016;Danish Refugee Council, 2017;Kuch, 2018).…”

“…Mass naturalisation of such a large number of refugees in Tanzania has been cited as a historical and extraordinary phenomenon that has never happened elsewhere in the world (Kuch 2016(Kuch , 2018Ogude et al, 2018). Yet, scholars and institutions such as the World Bank & UNHCR indicate inadequate research, knowledge and information on the effect of refugee integration in Tanzania (Ongpin, 2008;Kuch, 2018;Ogude et al, 2018). This raises the question of the security risks posed by refugee integration.…”