Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: MOON Ki on April 11, 2015, 07:03:52 PM
-
Deputy President William Ruto has given the United Nations three months to close the Dadaab refugee camps failing which Kenya will forcefully return them to Somalia.
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/-/1056/2682630/-/155cjanz/-/index.html
-
These two baboons should be reminded that they do not hold Title over Kenya.
Deputy President William Ruto has given the United Nations three months to close the Dadaab refugee camps failing which Kenya will forcefully return them to Somalia.
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/-/1056/2682630/-/155cjanz/-/index.html
-
Thought non-refoulement's one of those sacred, inviolable rules/principles of the world community; some say part of jus cogens. I remember once Tuju pulled the same nonsense, turned back fleeing women and children at the border. Am I missing something? Non of those Westgate, Mpeketoni, Garissa thugs needed Dadaab. Good number of them are citizens. And one can camp at the camps and root out terrorists without victimizing asylum seekers collectively. Returning refuges back to a land where they still fear war or persecution is repulsive. Uhuru needs to have a dialogue, we help him come up with a plan, scapegoating fleeing women and children wont make Kenya safer.
-
The "order" is invalid. He should issue it writing and cite the specific law that grants him the power to take such an action. Roadside declarations are outlawed in the new katiba. Sadly Ruto opposed the katiba and definitely never read it.
Ruto is not the CS in charge of refugees (Internal Security) and he can only pretend to be President. In that case he needs to comply with this:
Decisions of the President.
135. A decision of the President in the performance of any function of the President under this Constitution shall be in writing and shall bear the seal and signature of the President.
Thought non-refoulement's one of those sacred, inviolable rules/principles of the world community; some say part of jus cogens. I remember once Tuju pulled the same nonsense, turned back fleeing women and children at the border. Am I missing something? Non of those Westgate, Mpeketoni, Garissa thugs needed Dadaab. Good number of them are citizens. And one can camp at the camps and root out terrorists without victimizing asylum seekers collectively. Returning refuges back to a land where they still fear war or persecution is repulsive. Uhuru needs to have a dialogue, we help him come up with a plan, scapegoating fleeing women and children wont make Kenya safer.
-
Thought non-refoulement's one of those sacred, inviolable rules/principles of the world community; some say part of jus cogens. I remember once Tuju pulled the same nonsense, turned back fleeing women and children at the border. Am I missing something? Non of those Westgate, Mpeketoni, Garissa thugs needed Dadaab. Good number of them are citizens. And one can camp at the camps and root out terrorists without victimizing asylum seekers collectively. Returning refuges back to a land where they still fear war or persecution is repulsive. Uhuru needs to have a dialogue, we help him come up with a plan, scapegoating fleeing women and children wont make Kenya safer.
Bella:
What would you be missing? Ruto, on the other hand, seems to be missing plenty of good common sense and basic legal understanding.
* To start with, those refugees actually do have some sort of rights in the matter. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights:
Article 14: (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
* When applied to a group of people, the notion that refoulment is permissible in the interests of national security did not died ages ago. If national security issues are involved, what seems to be the accepted standard is that there must be individualized findings to that effect, and only the individuals involved should be dealt with. So Ruto immediately has two problems:
- He needs to show that particular individuals in those camps threaten Kenya's national security. (Going by standards in some legal cases in a few Western countries, the "internationally accepted bar" seems quite high: it would not be enough to merely show that those particular refugees are very bad guys.)
- He would then need to show how the particulars of those individuals extrapolate directly to the rest of the refugee population. (That seems impossible, and it is where he loses before he even starts.)
* To the extent that Somali refugees "must" return to Somalia, there is an agreement---by the governments of Kenya (UhuRuto) and Somalia and the UNHCR---to help facilitate a voluntary return. See here: http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5285e0294.pdf
I don't know how much thinking-through has gone into this matter within GoK. Probably not much.
* There are legal aspects that are worthy of the International Court of Justice and which could end up there.
* Even the most callous folks in the world have something of a sympathetic attitude to those who, through no fault of their own, must seek refuge elsewhere. I doubt that anyone has reflected on how damaging this could be to Kenya's reputation and interests.
* Many of Kenya's less-fortunate, and who are not refugees, get a lot of help from other places. That will be noted by those who provide such help.
After the tough talk is done, I can't imagine how Ruto intends that this "they must leave right now!" will be done, although I won't say it is impossible. But if I were to place a wager, it would be that ambassadors from certain countries will make certain things clear to Uhuru, and that will be the end of the idea. Some saving of face will be required, and for that, some half-hearted thing will be rushed through that is covered my the current agreement.
-
MoonKi
In addition to the rights you cite, some of those so called "refugees" are bona fide citizens having been born in Kenya.
The second group has been living lawfully in Kenya for over 7 years and has a such acquired the right to be citizens of the country upon application. It is not a favor but a right that accrues to those persons by the authority of the Constitution.
Like I suggested earlier, there is no refugee problem as such. Over 75% of those residents of Dadaab have lawfully lived between 7 - 30 years and qualify for citizenship. All that is required is for Immigation officials to go over there, hand them their passports and arrange for their departure to any part of Kenya to settle permanently.
Those who do not wish to be citizens can still be granted work permits and allowed to find work somewhere in Kenya as any other aliens such as Biwott's wife.
By my calculation you would remain with a figure under 50K which can then be housed in the 47 counties on equitable basis. The funds used to keep them at Dadaab can follow them in the counties.
There is no need for soundbytes and roadside declarations. I have seen this matter handled professionally in multiple
countries.
The fastest method is to place them with host families and channel the assistance to both the refugee and the family. I am sure there are thousands of Kenyans that would volunteer to host refugees for a while until they can get on their own feet.
-
Indeed, Omollo. That's another big one that His Excellency, the D. P. has not probably not thought about. Let's see how the UNHCR responds to this absurd ultimatum, but one thing is certain: they won't be trashing international law and accepted norms merely because Ruto has demanded it.
-
Gentlemen, you are so right. Both in terms of International and Kenyan law. I have just perused Kenya's Refugee Act 2006 and it appears to be a domestication of those international principles MoonKi talked about:
1) Non-refoulement in section 18 titled: Non-return of refugees, their families or other persons.
No person shall be refused entry into Kenya, expelled, extradited from Kenya or returned to any other country or to subjected any similar measure if, as a result of such refusal, expulsion, return or other measure, such person is compelled to return to or remain in a country where –
(a) the person may be subject to persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;
or
(b) the person’s life, physical integrity or liberty would be threatened on account of external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in part or the whole of that country.
2) Expulsion of INDIVIDUALS for purposes of national security and subject to due process of the law (and subject to section 18 that I've just cited) in section 21:
(1) Subject to 18(1) and subsection (2) of this section, the Minister may, after consultation with the Minister responsible for matters relating to immigration and internal security, order the expulsion from Kenya of any refugee or member of his familyif the Minister considers the expulsion to be necessary on the grounds of national security or public order.
(2) Before ordering the expulsion from Kenya of any refugeeor member of his family in terms of subsection (1) of this section, the Minister shall act in accordance with the due process of law.
Clearly the law contemplates an individual process that is subject to the general legal standards of justice/fairness. Sections 4 & 5 though dealing with the refugee status itself and not expulsion, nonetheless should be relevant to a judge reviewing a matter of expulsion and asking whether the particular case qualifies:
A person shall not be a refugee for the purposes of this Act if such person-
(a) has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as defined in any international instrument to which Kenya is a party and which has been drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) has committed a serious non-political crime outside Kenya prior to the person’s arrival and admission into Kenya as a refugee;
(c) has committed a serious non-political crime inside Kenya after the persons arrival and admission into Kenya as a refugee;
(d) has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations or the African Union; or
(e) having more than one nationality, had not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which the person is a national and has no valid reason, based on well-founded fear of persecution.
And part of section 16:
(1) Subject to this Act, every recognized refugee and every member of his family in Kenya –
(a) shall be entitled to the rights and be subject to the obligations contained in the international conventions to which Kenya is party;
(b) shall be subject to all laws in force in Kenya.
Gentlemen, we are dealing with yet another illegal venture by the Uhuru government. It wont go anywhere. Someone just needs to talk a walk to court. But one wonders, don't Uhuru & Ruto have advisors? What exactly is Githu's job?
@Moonki, what I was "missing" was the reasoning behind the idea that ridding ourselves of refugees as a whole will somehow take care of the Kenyan citizens who have been shooting us and throwing grenades at us all over the place.
-
I've just come across this article (http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/wiathi/kenyas-security-act-refugees/ ) on that ghastly "Security Act", parts of which the court threw out. Apparently, the Refugee Act is among the acts it had amended in that mad rush last year. This writer says that sections 11, 12, 14 and 16 of the Act were amended. Particularly worrying is the cited 16D addition, which requires that Kenya shall not host more than 150,000 refugees at a time, subject to a 6-month adjustment of the limit by Parliament. I have a question: Were these among those parts of the security bill that were thrown out by the Judiciary?
-
Yes there were part of those thrown out. Ruto first has to convince us that Daadab is the problem. The guys who attacked Garissa, WestGate and heck Mpeketoni were not refugees.
For me the somali (be they refugees or kenynas) are somalis and will continue to play host to terrorist knowingly or unkownignly.
Eve if you expel the 150-300K in Daadad..what will you do with 3M who are kenyans.
The solution has to start from responsibly withdrawing from Somali and bringing back the army to guard our borders. An impartial peacekeeping force that doesn't have Somalis should go in and do KDF job in Somalia.
I've just come across this article (http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/wiathi/kenyas-security-act-refugees/ ) on that ghastly "Security Act", parts of which the court threw out. Apparently, the Refugee Act is among the acts it had amended in that mad rush last year. This writer says that sections 11, 12, 14 and 16 of the Act were amended. Particularly worrying is the cited 16D addition, which requires that Kenya shall not host more than 150,000 refugees at a time, subject to a 6-month adjustment of the limit by Parliament. I have a question: Were these among those parts of the security bill that were thrown out by the Judiciary?
-
Bella and RV
I can confirm and add that the specific draconian provision was in fact among those initially suspended by the High court pending an inter-parties hearing and determination. It stood no chance whatsoever. The alarming thing is that somebody had the effrontery to bring it forth. This calls in to question the role of the Attorney General. Is he incompetent or simply sidelined? In which case the person serving should be removed or quit. There is no point having someone in office whose advice you neither seek nor listen to.
At the root of successive problems in Kenya over the decades is the failure / refusal by those holding office to understand the transitory nature of their positions. They fail to understand that decisions are made on behalf of the majority of the people of Kenya and shall largely respect or consider the feelings and values of the people of Kenya. This does not mean abandoning the leadership role and bowing to extremist views of certain groups - however strong their lobby.
I know there is anger especially among Evangelical Churches in Kenya directed at Muslims. I believe much of this originates from the financiers of most of the small movements who are based in the US. This has been a long lasting problem.
However this is how you must understand Ruto's utterances. I have been studying WSR and finally concluded that these extremists have some kind of control over his views. He has yet to fall out of step with the views of these evangelists. I am bereft of time these days or I would have dung up a clear pattern to the amazement of all. From my memory I am still able to make that case. Be it the constitution, abortion and now terrorism, he seems to adopt the same position.
On Somalis: Under Moi, Somalis began their long journey of rehabilitation and incorporation in the state of Kenya. There were hiccups. We had reached a point when Somalis had become a major contributor to the economic development of the Fatherland.
Why the over-reaction? Is this the first massacre in Kenya or NEP? I am not trying to be cynical but how does Uhuru think Somalis who lost 5000 people in a massacre feel about the exaggerated reaction over 148 ? Note that a life is a life so I am not denigrating any deaths as will no doubt be claimed. But what right to we have to treat one massacre with greater Vehemence (Kendi's Barometer still applies) than others? It is such acts that fuel the belief that Somalis or Muslims are less worth than Non Somali Kenyans / Christians.
Let WSR lead us in cutting down on sanctimoniousness so we can treat fellow citizens - The Kenyan Somali - fairly. This includes those born to refugees in Kenya as well as the naturalized former refugees.
Yes there were part of those thrown out. Ruto first has to convince us that Daadab is the problem. The guys who attacked Garissa, WestGate and heck Mpeketoni were not refugees.
For me the somali (be they refugees or kenynas) are somalis and will continue to play host to terrorist knowingly or unkownignly.
Eve if you expel the 150-300K in Daadad..what will you do with 3M who are kenyans.
The solution has to start from responsibly withdrawing from Somali and bringing back the army to guard our borders. An impartial peacekeeping force that doesn't have Somalis should go in and do KDF job in Somalia.
-
MOON Ki and others,
The man might have a point. The gist of the argument is summarized below.
As things stand, the state of security on the Somalia side of the border has become better than on the Kenyan side of the border. Al-Shabab have been cleared from the Somali side of the border.
Despite that fact, they are not budging. Why can't they be forcefully relocated to the safety of their own country?
I understand they have rights to be wherever they are. But those rights depend on the state of their safety back in Somalia. As it stands, that has improved to the point that is now safer than where they are.
-
Mandera governor stated this months ago. He said that Al Shabaab was relocating. Instead of being listened to they dispatched EJK squads because he was ruining tourism
MOON Ki and others,
The man might have a point. The gist of the argument is summarized below.
As things stand, the state of security on the Somalia side of the border has become better than on the Kenyan side of the border. Al-Shabab have been cleared from the Somali side of the border.
Despite that fact, they are not budging. Why can't they be forcefully relocated to the safety of their own country?
I understand they have rights to be wherever they are. But those rights depend on the state of their safety back in Somalia. As it stands, that has improved to the point that is now safer than where they are.
-
MOON Ki and others,
The man might have a point. The gist of the argument is summarized below.
As things stand, the state of security on the Somalia side of the border has become better than on the Kenyan side of the border. Al-Shabab have been cleared from the Somali side of the border.
Despite that fact, they are not budging. Why can't they be forcefully relocated to the safety of their own country?
I understand they have rights to be wherever they are. But those rights depend on the state of their safety back in Somalia. As it stands, that has improved to the point that is now safer than where they are.
That's a good one Terminator! :D Things on the Kenyan side are certainly getting so bad that Somalia might be better ... But let us focus on the bit in red.
There is an agreement in place between the government of Kenya, the government of Kenya, and the UNHCR. That agreement says that:
1. The Parties hereby reaffirm that the repatriation provided for in this
Agreement of Somali refugees who have sought refuge in the Republic of
Kenya shall take place in conformity with international law pertaining to
voluntary repatriation.
2. The Parties hereby agree that the decision of the refugees to repatriate
shall be based on their freely expressed wish and their relevant knowledge
of the conditions within the country of origin and the areas of return.
http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5285e0294.pdf
It is not for Ruto, or anyone else, to suddenly wake up and decide that it is time for them to go home.
Even when the whole of Somalia becomes as safe as a Swiss hamlet, there is a long list of things that GoK must do before anyone packs up and goes home.
-
The UNHCR responds:
UNHCR spokesman Emmanuel Nyabera told AFP in Nairobi: "We have not received any formal communication or formal request from the Kenyan government along this line."
He added: "Kenya has an international obligation to protect the refugees and that includes no forceful repatriation to the country of origin."
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/kenya-asks-united-nations-to-repatriate-somali-refugees-after-garissa-massacre-754342
So it looks like the first thing Ruto has to do is specify which UNHCR he sent his order.
Even if the UNHCR eventually receives the claimed order from Ruto, it is obviously not going to violate international norms.
-
What exactly is Ruto up to? Is it just to stir up animosity against or just pretend to be doing something refugees?
Things are very "interesting" if this is true:
UNHCR spokesman Emmanuel Nyabera told AFP in Nairobi: "We have not received any formal communication or formal request from the Kenyan government along this line."
He added: "Kenya has an international obligation to protect the refugees and that includes no forceful repatriation to the country of origin."
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/kenya-asks-united-nations-to-repatriate-somali-refugees-after-garissa-massacre-754342
So it looks like the first thing Ruto has to do is specify which UNHCR he sent his order.
Even if the UNHCR eventually receives the claimed order from Ruto, it is obviously not going to violate international norms.
-
MOON Ki and others,
The man might have a point. The gist of the argument is summarized below.
As things stand, the state of security on the Somalia side of the border has become better than on the Kenyan side of the border. Al-Shabab have been cleared from the Somali side of the border.
Despite that fact, they are not budging. Why can't they be forcefully relocated to the safety of their own country?
I understand they have rights to be wherever they are. But those rights depend on the state of their safety back in Somalia. As it stands, that has improved to the point that is now safer than where they are.
That's a good one Terminator! :D Things on the Kenyan side are certainly getting so bad that Somalia might be better ... But let us focus on the bit in red.
There is an agreement in place between the government of Kenya, the government of Kenya, and the UNHCR. That agreement says that:
1. The Parties hereby reaffirm that the repatriation provided for in this
Agreement of Somali refugees who have sought refuge in the Republic of
Kenya shall take place in conformity with international law pertaining to
voluntary repatriation.
2. The Parties hereby agree that the decision of the refugees to repatriate
shall be based on their freely expressed wish and their relevant knowledge
of the conditions within the country of origin and the areas of return.
http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5285e0294.pdf (http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5285e0294.pdf)
It is not for Ruto, or anyone else, to suddenly wake up and decide that it is time for them to go home.
Even when the whole of Somalia becomes as safe as a Swiss hamlet, there is a long list of things that GoK must do before anyone packs up and goes home.
That's true.
I am just amazed. That conditions that created these refugees have improved. But they won't go back.
Is this just a case of genuine refugees turning into economic refugees? Why would someone insist on remaining in a refugee camp even when he is no longer a factual refugee?
I have met a full-blooded Zulu man who came to the states through one of those refugee camps. Dadaab or Kakuma, I forget. I am thinking that this fact hints at one reason. They are legally, genuine refugees, but factually they are economic refugees.
Should UNHCR move them to Somalia, then they become IDPs without rights to be moved to third countries(usually somewhere in the developed west).
Should they voluntarily move back to Somalia, they also miss the opportunity to escape the economic conditions back in Somalia. I am just guessing, having no first hand understanding of these things. I could be way off.
There is also a real risk of these camps becoming havens of the more vicious types. In Goma, UNHCR had a massive refugee camp that was controlled by interahamwe. The Kagame assasins had to go in and force the refugees back home.
I understand the need for respect for norms and such. I get that. But one wants to be open to exceptions where such norms not only create avenues for abuse, but can prevent rational actions.
-
Terminator:
Convincing traumatised people that the place they fled is now a much better place is never easy (and I don't know if those refugees actually know that much of the situation in Somalia). That is why the agreement above contains bits such as
v. Facilitate "go and see" visits of refugees to areas of intended return, and
"come and tell" ...
As for "genuine refugees turning into economic refugees", some people might have a problem with that. I don't. Given what those people have endured, in their place I too would be inclined to move only to a much better situation. (Of course, in this case I don't know all the details on either side of the border.) I also note that when refugees, including African ones, are accepted in, say, Western countries, nobody really expects that them to return. Not even when they start off on "temporary visas". Not even when the place they fled becomes safe. Why would they?
Other than the fact that some of these people have pretty much nothing to return to, places like Dabaab have been open for so long that some people there probably have no real idea of Somalia. I don't know. But international law and norms in such matters have developed slowly and painfully, and I say they should be respected.
-
Terminator:
Convincing traumatised people that the place they fled is now a much better place is never easy (and I don't know if those refugees actually know that much of the situation in Somalia). That is why the agreement above contains bits such as
v. Facilitate "go and see" visits of refugees to areas of intended return, and
"come and tell" ...
As for "genuine refugees turning into economic refugees", some people might have a problem with that. I don't. Given what those people have endured, in their place I too would be inclined to move only to a much better situation. (Of course, in this case I don't know all the details on either side of the border.) I also note that when refugees, including African ones, are accepted in, say, Western countries, nobody really expects that them to return. Not even when they start off on "temporary visas". Not even when the place they fled becomes safe. Why would they?
Other than the fact that some of these people have pretty much nothing to return to, places like Dabaab have been open for so long that some people there probably have no real idea of Somalia. I don't know. But international law and norms in such matters have developed slowly and painfully, and I say they should be respected.
There is a problem with loopholes that permit non-genuine refugees in my opinion. Isn't that the whole point for criteria to determine who is deserving to be a refugee in the first place? I think that can open a can of worms. The kind that can justify ideas like the ones suggested by the hustler.
Given the history of UNHCR camps in Africa since Rwanda, the idea that some savages can take refuge in those camps cannot seem far fetched. That said, I agree, that there is an established way to go about it. If that does not work, only then should another way be suggested.
So the problem is really deeper than just UNHCR corruption and economic refugees.
I also feel that if a country can accept a refugee on the basis of conditions in the home country, then it should have the same discretion to take away that refuge when it is no longer justified. The UNHCR can still help them deal with demons and PTSD in their home country.
-
There is a problem with loopholes that permit non-genuine refugees in my opinion. Isn't that the whole point for criteria to determine who is deserving to be a refugee in the first place?
I agree with that, and most countries try to be careful about who is or is not admitted as a refugee. But once people have been admitted as refugees---and that's the Dabaab type of folks---then they are in a very different category. And the fact that they might try to "economically leverage" their position is a different matter.
Given the history of UNHCR camps in Africa since Rwanda, the idea that some savages can take refuge in those camps cannot seem far fetched.
I agree with that. From the sheer size of some of the camps in Kenya, we know, from normal distributions of humans, that there will be some bad people doing bad things in those places. But that is insufficient to justify the type of blanket-order Ruto just issued.
I spent about an hour this morning trying to find verifiable information on any serious crimes that have been committed by people in those camps---legal proceedings and convictions etc. There is little to be found. This idea that the camps pose a serious threat to the welfare of Kenyans seems to be bandied about, but without any substantive evidence. In terms of looking like GoK is serious about the problem, or just working up the native population, Ruto's is an "excellent" idea. In the other world of "what exactly have these people done?", things are very different.
I also feel that if a country can accept a refugee on the basis of conditions in the home country, then it should have the same discretion to take away that refuge when it is no longer justified.
That notion did exist at one time. Two World Wars, and the Europeans had a serious re-think. It is now largely, and partly on the basis of rather painful lessons, regarded as unacceptable. A great deal of international laws and norms in such matters come from that early post-war periods over there, as well as the acceptance of certain standards on "human rights". Not surprisingly, there is nowhere where it is more difficult to kick out refugees than Europe. And in places like Kenya there should not be any need to repeat lessons that have already been learned and codified into international law.
But away from generalities:
* What exactly have the folks in those camps done?
* Much has been made of the fact that one of the terrorists was a Kenyan, educated at Kenya's finest university, son of a government official. One, but 20%, of the attackers. Where do the people in Dabaab come in? Were they the other four (80%), or is Dabaab just the most convenient place for anyone looking for "undesirable Somalis"?
* Right after the Westgate attacks, Ruto came up with the idea of sending home all those Somalis in refugee camps. GoK was unable to come up with anything concrete to help Ruto's "case", and after some running around, everyone agreed on the agreement I have "linked" above. That there has recently been a particularly nasty attack does got give Ruto any better grounds from which to vilify all Somali refugees.
-
As for "genuine refugees turning into economic refugees", some people might have a problem with that. I don't. Given what those people have endured, in their place I too would be inclined to move only to a much better situation. (Of course, in this case I don't know all the details on either side of the border.) I also note that when refugees, including African ones, are accepted in, say, Western countries, nobody really expects that them to return. Not even when they start off on "temporary visas". Not even when the place they fled becomes safe. Why would they?
Other than the fact that some of these people have pretty much nothing to return to, places like Dabaab have been open for so long that some people there probably have no real idea of Somalia. I don't know. But international law and norms in such matters have developed slowly and painfully, and I say they should be respected.
Total agreement. I used to know a Somali female, now in her mid-to-late twenties. She arrived in Kenya as a baby in her mother's arms, so she's not a citizen. I can't imagine the audacity of asking her to go back "home" to Somalia for whatever reason. The girl is Kenyan, whatever the legal rules may say. Her "ushagoo" is at the camp, but she herself had schooled, lived, worked in Nairobi with her siblings. I'm not sure if she was in the group that was "gathered" together and forced back into the camps in the exercise after West-gate. Repatriation should be 100% voluntary after a certain number of years have passed, IMHO. Omollo's point about the qualification for residency is a good standard. Refugees/Ex-Refugees who qualify for permanent residency must not be forcefully repatriated until they have exhausted the opportunities to gain the status or make it clear they are not interested in becoming permanently resident in Kenya.
As for safer conditions back home, I'm not sure about that at all. IS Somali safer? For how long? If one has ever witnessed an RSD interview, one is familiar with the fear asylum seekers harbor about conditions back home. Those who want to go back are easily assisted by IOM, but many would rather suffer here than go back. Remember IDPs refusing to go back to their land in RV and asking to be moved elsewhere and one totally understands why someone who has been through the traumatic events of war would prefer a camp in a dessert where they get food, school, a safe place to sleep, rather than moving back. I have a cousin who had lived in Kericho for nearly 20 years. She lost everything and moved to Kisii with her large family, where she had to start all over again with nothing but shelter and a small piece of land. Her life is very hard, but moving back to Kericho? Her family prefers the hard life. She herself bravely went back to see if she could recover some of the things she left behind and only found a strange woman wearing her dress, living in her house, cooking from her sufuria. She never returned.
About the camps, I think the problem is turning them into a PERMANENT residential "home" for refugees. From my perusal of the Refugee Act, I got the impression that the camps were intended as some sort of transit for new arrivals, before their status has been established. My opinion is that once refuges have been "cleared" after sometime at the camp, they ought to be allowed to move into the rest of the country, to find gainful employment and give back to the economy. I also think that a refugee who has turned into an economic migrant is no problem at all. They were forced here. Now that they have lived here, they have established some roots and some would rather not pack up again, uproot their families and return to start from scratch and no guarantees. That is something everyone can understand.
-
It would seem by forcefully displacing that many people UhuRuto back to unsafe Somalia against their will, they would officially be committing Crimes Against Humanity. Uhuru need to fires Prof Githu given he clearly doesn't advice him properly after being intimidated earlier during AngloLeasing.
I cannot remember the time when even Moi broke the law blatantly. These two jokers have broken so many laws, I am afraid for this country. If it wasn't sinking drugs in disregard of an express court order, it issuing fatwas here and there against local and international laws.
Kenya constitutions clear says any international law we have ratified (including on Refugees) is part of the our LAWS.
Pull out of Somalia..and we can live peacefully like we have lived with Somalis for last 20yrs...despite the wars in their country.
First we moved all refugees from major towns back to Daadab..and we are now trying to move them back to Somalia...next I guess we will have to move Kenyan Somalis to Somalia?
Or perhaps grant them a country in NEP. If we cannot handle them.
-
I also feel that if a country can accept a refugee on the basis of conditions in the home country, then it should have the same discretion to take away that refuge when it is no longer justified.
That notion did exist at one time. Two World Wars, and the Europeans had a serious re-think. It is now largely, and partly on the basis of rather painful lessons, regarded as unacceptable. A great deal of international laws and norms in such matters come from that early post-war periods over there, as well as the acceptance of certain standards on "human rights". Not surprisingly, there is nowhere where it is more difficult to kick out refugees than Europe. And in places like Kenya there should not be any need to repeat lessons that have already been learned and codified into international law.
Indeed. I would just like to add to what you are saying by stating that mass/collective expulsion of aliens, that is, as a group, instead of on a case-by-case basis, is absolutely prohibited and contrary to international law standards and principles, not just as a human right standard (which it is) but as an inter-state duty/right that all states OWE to one another on a bilateral basis as part of customary international law. This refers to aliens/non-citizens in general, not just refugees and asylum-seekers. There is no country in this world that lacks the presence of groups of aliens within its own borders, or that does not have its own citizens living in groups in some other country. The modern world is becoming more and not less integrated. It is absolutely in everybody's interests to avoid acts of victimization of groups wherever/whoever they are.
Also, all in the international community understand/appreciate the concern Terminator raises...that is, you may indeed need to expel some people for your own safety. What is totally unacceptable is to carry out such expulsion on a collective basis. After centuries/decades of group-crimes of all sorts, humanity has finally come to the conclusion that the best way to prevent such injustices is to approach people as individuals and not as collectives. For example, it is not clear why exactly the Kenyan government would be incapable of fighting the actual terrorists/suspects at the camp directly. Why they need to violate such an important humanitarian principle as the one that requires all states, not just Kenya, not to force people back into an unstable environment that they fled eons ago, in order to fight those terrorists? If the arrangement at the camp is the problem, can it be sorted a different way? In any case, mass expulsion of refugees of ALL people, will be condemned universally and in the strongest terms. It will bring us the kind of ire and attention we do not need. We don't need to do it, anyway. Lets first make sure we are actually sorting the problem and not just reacting in a knee-jerk fashion.
-
It would seem by forcefully displacing that many people UhuRuto back to unsafe Somalia against their will, they would officially be committing Crimes Against Humanity. Uhuru need to fires Prof Githu given he clearly doesn't advice him properly after being intimidated earlier during AngloLeasing.
I cannot remember the time when even Moi broke the law blatantly. These two jokers have broken so many laws, I am afraid for this country. If it wasn't sinking drugs in disregard of an express court order, it issuing fatwas here and there against local and international laws.
Kenya constitutions clear says any international law we have ratified (including on Refugees) is part of the our LAWS.
Pull out of Somalia..and we can live peacefully like we have lived with Somalis for last 20yrs...despite the wars in their country.
First we moved all refugees from major towns back to Daadab..and we are now trying to move them back to Somalia...next I guess we will have to move Kenyan Somalis to Somalia?
Or perhaps grant them a country in NEP. If we cannot handle them.
I agree. It seems as if Githu only remembers to advise his bosses once they've done something and drawn unfavourable reactions from the public and other sectors. That's when he starts to try and sort things out.
The funny thing is that Jubilee doesn't even WANT to discuss the withdrawal from Somalia. They are already accusing people who suggest it of being Al-Shabaab allies. They say Kibaki and Raila chose to invade, why should CORD say no now? Well, if you make a mistake, does that stop you from changing course? We thought it was a grand idea. We were wrong. Why not give up like the USA did? When you realize you are in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. We should let other countries situated safely away from Somalia take over KDF in the AU force. Then we can focus on our own borders and security.
We can start to slowly devolve internal security on a minimal basis. I think each county should have its own Recce-unit-of-sorts that can be deployed anywhere within the county in at most half an hour. If they need assistance, the neighbouring counties can send their own units as reinforcements. Each county should have its own security plan, a way of alerting its own residents of danger and places to avoid, upon receiving intelligence from the national security apparatus. Or a way to quickly secure vulnerable areas. The national govt has shown that it is not capable of protecting places only a short distance removed from Nairobi. Let the counties protect themselves and not rely on the central government whose hands have turned out to be too short to reach all of Kenya at once. I keep thinking, so far, these terrorists are attacking Nairobi or NEP...what will happen when start seeing Kisii, Migori, Kapenguria, Busia, Nyeri, on the news with scores shot dead? This country will be ground to a halt. The county governments can also make sure to pay and equip their own forces well, so that corruption within their forces will not be so much of a problem. Let the national security apparatus stick to co-ordinating inter-county security operations and border/entry points. With less burden, maybe they can pay their officers better and focus on their reduced tasks better. Anyway, just an idea.
KDF can be kept busy at the border areas....I hope to NEVER EVER see them anywhere near an internal security crisis. I consider them to be more of a problem than an aid. And they keep ensuring I see them that way with every new crisis.
-
Githu is no Amos Wako. The soon Uhuru realizes this and go for someone who can read the law as it (not attempt to bend or break it) the better for his regime which is become a comedy of errors.
Yes Gov should at the very least devolve some aspect of security...like chicken thief. Gov should simply classify crimes..into national and local crimes....chicken thief should be handled by counties...terrorism and serious crimes by national gov.
Counties can hire goons with batons and rickety g3 to battle those petty criminals...including cattle thieves..like homeguard are doing now.
National gov definitely need help to handle security docket..and they can do that by allowing governors to pursue small time crimes, traffic management and such....that will leave national police and KDF really battling alshabaab.
Of course with rider that national gov will step in any time if need be.
I agree. It seems as if Githu only remembers to advise his bosses once they've done something and drawn unfavourable reactions from the public and other sectors. That's when he starts to try and sort things out.
The funny thing is that Jubilee doesn't even WANT to discuss the withdrawal from Somalia. They are already accusing people who suggest it of being Al-Shabaab allies. They say Kibaki and Raila chose to invade, why should CORD say no now? Well, if you make a mistake, does that stop you from changing course? We thought it was a grand idea. We were wrong. Why not give up like the USA did? When you realize you are in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. We should let other countries situated safely away from Somalia take over KDF in the AU force. Then we can focus on our own borders and security.
We can start to slowly devolve internal security on a minimal basis. I think each county should have its own Recce-unit-of-sorts that can be deployed anywhere within the county in at most half an hour. If they need assistance, the neighbouring counties can send their own units as reinforcements. Each county should have its own security plan, a way of alerting its own residents of danger and places to avoid, upon receiving intelligence from the national security apparatus. Or a way to quickly secure vulnerable areas. The national govt has shown that it is not capable of protecting places a short distance removed from Nairobi. Let the counties protect themselves and not rely on the central government. The county governments can also make sure to pay and equip their own forces well, so that corruption will not be so much of a problem. Let the national security apparatus stick to co-ordinating inter-county security operations and border/entry points. With less burden, maybe they can pay their officers better and focus on their reduced tasks better. Anyway, just an idea.
KDF can be kept busy at the border areas....I hope to NEVER EVER see them anywhere near an internal security crisis. I consider them to be more of a problem than an aid. And they keep ensuring I see them that way with every new crisis.
-
MOON Ki,
The hustler should follow due process and established rules. Like you, I haven't seen any real complaint with meat about these camps yet.
But it's not a foregone conclusion that the UNHCR will fully cooperate even if killers are in their midst. Rules are great. But at the end of the day, they are there to serve us, not the other way round.
I can't completely forget that UNHCR continued to give shelter and protection to interahamwe operatives who proceeded to carry out attacks in Rwanda and the surrounding region. Until Kagame, a far from saintly figure himself, decided to close those camps himself.
-
I have watched the Rwanda movie about Kagame mowing refugees on pretext that they were inter-hamwe. Most of folks Kagame killed were women and children..Hutus who had escaped. To this day..Kagame continue to exact his wicked form of revenge against Hutus in Congo.
I can't completely forget that UNHCR continued to give shelter and protection to interahamwe operatives who proceeded to carry out attacks in Rwanda and the surrounding region. Until Kagame, a far from saintly figure himself, decided to close those camps himself.
-
I have watched the Rwanda movie about Kagame mowing refugees on pretext that they were inter-hamwe. Most of folks Kagame killed were women and children..Hutus who had escaped. To this day..Kagame continue to exact his wicked form of revenge against Hutus in Congo.
I can't completely forget that UNHCR continued to give shelter and protection to interahamwe operatives who proceeded to carry out attacks in Rwanda and the surrounding region. Until Kagame, a far from saintly figure himself, decided to close those camps himself.
Pundit,
There was some serious butchery at Kibeho an IDP camp specifically. It was bad. Shit had hit the fan.
But overall, it was more complicated than just that.
The international camps in the Congo and Tz were controlled by interahamwe. Refugees who wanted to leave and go back to Rwanda were intimidated, harassed, beaten, hacked to death...
Nobody could leave without interahamwe's permission. They were told they came together and they will go back together. They had transplanted the same structures of interahamwe intact into those camps. Even UNHCR staff were intimidated.
Most of those camps were emptied with minimal casualties, in that context.
-
KDF can be kept busy at the border areas....I hope to NEVER EVER see them anywhere near an internal security crisis. I consider them to be more of a problem than an aid. And they keep ensuring I see them that way with every new crisis.
As long as they are on the other side of the border. Their history shows that they pose a great danger to the welfare of Kenyans. As we mourn the victims of the recent terror attack, let us not forget:
* KDF slaughtering something like 5,000 civilians in the Wagalla Massacre. From the TJRC report:
The Commission finds that the Wagalla Massacre, including the detention, torture and killing of the male members of the Degodia tribe at the airstrip, and the rapes, killing of livestock and burning of homes in the villages, was a systematic attack against a civilian population and thus qualifies as a crime against humanity.
* KDF in the 1980 Garissa Massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garissa_Massacre
* And they started well before that. From the TJRC report on the Shifta War:
The Military force committed mass killings, torture, sexual violence and rape against civilians. The police force, especially the General Service Unit, also committed violations of human rights.
...
The Military force is responsible for large-scale confiscation and killings of cattle, especially by poisoning of water sources, which killed both cattle and civilians. The owners of the cattle were never compensated for the loss, leaving many destitute.
And their history in other parts of Kenya is no better.
-
MoonKi, there is no need to "pull out of Somalia" in order to stay in Somalia. KDF need to stay on Kenyan soil protecting our borders from incoming Kebabs. They can stay away from civilians, or better still, civilians can stay away from them. I don't mind moving civilians a little more to the interior.
-
I have watched the Rwanda movie about Kagame mowing refugees on pretext that they were inter-hamwe. Most of folks Kagame killed were women and children..Hutus who had escaped. To this day..Kagame continue to exact his wicked form of revenge against Hutus in Congo.
I can't completely forget that UNHCR continued to give shelter and protection to interahamwe operatives who proceeded to carry out attacks in Rwanda and the surrounding region. Until Kagame, a far from saintly figure himself, decided to close those camps himself.
Indeed. And if the camps harbor groups like interahamwe, forcefull repatriation or expulsion of ALL the refugees is hardly the solution. We can disband the camps and seek a better arrangement or we can send more police to the camps. Moreover, Kagame did that when the refugees had a stable Rwanda to return to. I hardly think Somalia is in the same position. I'm not sure that government we are propping up can last two days without KDF.
-
Closure of the camps should be a last option. The immediate attention should be on corruption.
It can clearly be demonstrated that corruption not only led to the possibiity of the Garissa slaughter, but it actually aggravated it.
-
MoonKi, there is no need to "pull out of Somalia" in order to stay in Somalia. KDF need to stay on Kenyan soil protecting our borders from incoming Kebabs. They
That's exactly where I don't want them. They can protect the borders, but they should do it from the Somali side. Having them operate in Kenya presents to great a risk.
-
Closure of the camps should be a last option. The immediate attention should be on corruption.
Exactly. The pattern is that people stay in those camps only into they can buy Kenyan papers. So it's the last place where you will find would-be terrorists with any kind of resource. As long as Kenyan authorities are open for business, chicken-style, the Kenya-Somalia border is similarly wide open.
-
Tongaren MP Eseli Simiyu joins the most-thoughtless-utterance competition:
He said hawkers from Northern Kenya in Bungoma and Trans Nzoia should leave. “They are mapping out our churches. We do not want them here,” Simiyu said.
-
There is some good medical news for Uhuru and Ruto. They can upgrade if they can find a willing monkey:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/292306.php
-
There is some good medical news for Uhuru and Ruto. They can upgrade if they can find a willing monkey:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/292306.php (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/292306.php)
Hehehe...I think kamwana tops out at average and irresponsible. He has not lived in a world where he has had to face consequences for his actions.
The hustler is the opposite. He is bright and has had to earn everything the hard way; he knows how hard things can get. He is now between a hard place and a rock.
The head transplant is interesting. I don't see anything that makes it impossible in principle. When I get a chance I'll create a thread on that subject.
-
The head transplant is interesting. I don't see anything that makes it impossible in principle. When I get a chance I'll create a thread on that subject.
The Alcor Life Extension Foundation there in the USA foresaw that ages ago:
http://www.alcor.org/BecomeMember/scheduleA.html
Have been doing great business for over 40 years, freezing bodies (until technology catches gets good enough to reverse the process) or just the head (until a better body can be found). I note that their costs have gone down substantially: US$ 200--220K for whole body and US$ 80-100K for just the head.
http://www.alcor.org/BecomeMember/scheduleA.html
I first became aware of them years ago when they got involved in an interesting and very serious legal case. In order to make sure that the frozen head was as "fresh" as possible, they had cut off the head of someone who wasn't yet totally dead (according to the coroner). In court, they had an interesting line: yes, they had cut off the head and incinerated the body; but, no, the person wasn't really dead; she had merely undergone a "temporary suspension of life" until a new-and-improved body could be found for her ...
The fascinating part was in the testimonies of the heavy-duty "futuristic" scientists they lined up to confirm that the lady would one day be "actively alive" and so was not quite dead and definitely not dead in the sense that the law defined "death" ... but who knew when the "suspension" could be lifted ...
-
UNHCR have warned UhuRuto of possible violation of international law and if I were them; I would listen keenly. Kagame has gone scot free given what went down in Rwanda but nobody else will be that lucky.
-
Reality knocks:
http://www.nation.co.ke/news/UNHCR-boss-Uhuru-discuss-Dadaab/-/1056/2708212/-/y4hhfj/-/index.html
-
This was a dumb move from UhuRuto from get go. A red herring they bought from Kenyan Somali MPs.