Zimbabwe October 2006 |
|
| Zimbabweans spurn British offer of repatriation assistance, (Zim Observer, 2006-10-29):-The Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP) comes with a bait of £3000 for those submitting themselves for removal from the UK. With a few days to go before the amount is reduced to only £1 000, figures do not indicate any last-minute stampede. A total of only 105 have so far accepted voluntary repatriation this year, despite a more draconian approach towards failed asylum-seekers by new Home Office minister, John Reid. The number of Zimbabweans accepting repatriation is generally regarded as minute. The thousands of Zimbabwean immigrants spurning the offer believe the VARRP merely offers temporary relief before one sinks into abject poverty back in their own country. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), which runs the scheme, has over the years mounted a spirited media campaign, selling the repatriation and reintegration programme as aimed at assisting returning Zimbabweans to set up sustainable business projects. Still, the package has proved unattractive to most Zimbabweans. During 1999 - the year when the VARRP was launched - not a single Zimbabwean took up the offer. Over the two years, only two submitted themselves for voluntary removal. After the financial package was increased to £3 000, under an enhanced repatriation programme, the figures picked up considerably. Unofficial figures put Zimbabwe’s immigrant population in the UK at no less than £100 000, a substantial number of them illegal. The total voluntary returns therefore represent only a drop in the ocean, according to officials. In an interview with The Zimbabwe Times, IOM communications officer, Niklas Bergstrand said: “There is no such thing as a satisfactory figure. The programme is entirely voluntary and we do not try and persuade or force anybody to take up the programme. “Our aim is to inform as many people as possible about the option of voluntary return. The circumstances that determine whether they decide to return or notare something which we do not, and cannot, get involved in.” Most of the people accepting repatriation are failed asylum-seekers seeking to salvage a benefit rather than face the ignominy of deportation and leaving empty-handed. Bergstrand could not provide the total amount paid to those returned so far. The IOM receives some of its funding from the Home Office, which processes asylum applications, and deports failed asylum-seekers. This relationship has triggered accusations, voiced at a stormy meeting with Zimbabweans in London recently, that the IOM is paid to undertake dirty work for the government. But Bergstrand rejected the suggestions. He told The Zimbabwe Times: “We are an entirely independent organisation. The fact that we are partly funded by the Home Office does not compromise our mission. Many other NGOs, such as Oxfam, Save the Children, receive funding from the UK government. “We do not believe that we are doing any ‘dirty work’. Rather, we have helped hundreds of Zimbabweans to resettle and rebuild their lives. Again, I need to stress the voluntary nature of our programme.” “We simply offer an option for people to return in an orderly and dignified way, with a chance to make a new start once they are back. If a person judges that returning home is not a good option for him, it is simply not in our interest to persuade him to do so.” Sarah Harland of the Zimbabwe Association (ZA) in the UK said: "Generally 99 percent of our members are highly suspicious of it (VARRP) and don't think even the enhanced scheme offering £3 000 is worth (it). Occasionally we'll recommend it to a Zimbabwean who came on a different nationality passport to which they are entitled and consequently are unlikely ever to get asylum here. “We are also aware of people who returned under IOM, who have been abducted and not heard of since. Of the people we know of who have returned successfully under IOM, some are alleged to have highly- placed relatives in the Zanu PF or government structures.” The ZA, among other groups, represents Zimbabweans in the UK Harland said the association knew of some people featured in the promotional literature of IOM as successful returnees to Zimbabwe but were known to have since returned to the UK. She refuted claims by IOM that it remained in contact with the returnees. “In many cases this contact is a phone call every three months. Can you seriously imagine that they'll keep on trying if they don't get through?” she said. She also dismissed suggestions by Bergstrand that the great majority of people who had returned through IOM had been “very happy” with the assistance they received. “We have received letters from very unhappy returnees who went back under IOM asking for help because their situation is so bad economically,” she said. The voluntary return programmes would continue beyond 31 October, said Bergstrand. Although returnees would no longer benefit from the enhanced reintegration package of £3000 pounds, they would still receive the original £1000 in reintegration assistance as well as the other benefits such as help in obtaining travel documents, flight tickets, help at airports of departure, and onward domestic travel. But many Zimbabwean illegal immigrants are still holding out, preferring to live a cat-and-mouse existence with immigration officers, rather than accept a one-way ticket to an uncertain future back at home. | |
South African Migration Project (SAMP) - Queen's University - http://www.queensu.ca/samp |