Historical Background:

The Republic of Sudan is considered one of the first developing countries that signed during the first years of independence the Geneva Convention of 1951 on Refugees and the 1967 subsequent International Protocol annext to it and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) 1969 Convention on Protection of Refugees in Africa.

The first nucleus of the Sudanese refugees commissioner's office was a committee formed in 1966 at the Internal Affairs Ministry to supervise resettlement of Southern Sudan refugees who had resorted to neighbouring countries.

Many bilateral agreements were held during this period with Uganda, Zaire and Ethiopia to facilitate the return of Sudanese refugees in those countries to keep pace with the spirit of the infant OAU Charter at the time.

Acting on the principles and goals of the international and regional agreements and conventions, Sudan led the other African counties when it issued its own act pertinent to organizing the refuge in 1974.

Experts regarded this act as the first of its kind in Africa as it provided all guarantees needed for the protection of refugees inside the country without discrimination or bias of any kind.

With the increasing numbers of refugees during the 1960s Sudan government set up an administrative technical organ specialized in tackling all problems resulting from refuge in a studied scientific way instead of addressing them as casual events.

According to this, a ministerial decree was issued in 1967 for the establishment of an office entitled "Refugees Commission" to assume the task of addressing all issues related to refugees including reception, hosting, feeding, protection and accommodation.

In 1968, branch office of the U.N. High Commission for Refugees was opened in Khartoum as an international counterpart for the Refugees Commission to cater for refugees throughout the country by fully co-ordinating in planning and implementing projects meant for rendering services to refugees.

In this sense, the Commission represents a central official organ tasked with refugees' affairs and discharges its duties from Khartoum through its branch offices in the states which host great numbers of refugees, the Eastern, Central Southern States of Sudan and some other Western parts of the country.

General Goals and Objectives:

1 - Offering recommendations to Sudan government on policies towards refugees in the context of the state's general strategy.

2 - Co-ordinating efforts being exerted by Sudan government, UNHCR, organizations and donor countries in planning and implementing projects for the refugees in Sudan.

3 - Attracting aid and international assistance by concluding bilateral and multi-lateral conventions on behalf of Sudan government.

4 - Making sure that these projects are consistent with the Comprehensive National Strategy and the states' goals and plans devoted to realizing development according to the priorities set by the state.

Tasks and Duties:

(1) Studying the legal status of asylum-seeking refugees in accordance with the refugee organizing act, 1974 and the international and regional conventions and protocols related to the treatment of refugees.

(2) Registering and listing the number of refugees and issuing their identification papers and their travel documents as stipulated by the 27th and 28th Articles, the 1967 protocol, the Geneva Convention, 1951, and the 12th and 13th Articles of the 1974 refuge organizing act in cooperation with the concerned organs.

(3) Concluding and implementing agreements meant for voluntary repatriation of refugees, as the optimal solution for the refugees problem.

(4) Providing health care for refugees and receiving them in centres and accommodating them in permanent camps and implementing all projects for achieving that end.

(5) Co-ordinating with organs, central ministries and state authorities in implementing and planning these projects in refugee-affected areas.

External Relations:

(1) Aquainting the international community with problems ensuring from the influx of refugees in the country and urging it to render material and technical assistance.

(2) Signing all conventions concerning refugees in general on behalf of Sudan government and conducting international and regional contacts with the UNHCR, donor countries and voluntary organizations to render services to refugees in affected areas.

(3) Representing Sudan government in international and regional forums and in all internal and external conferences related to refugees and their humanitarian issues with a purpose of obtaining international sympathy and support for them.

(4) Implementing charters and conventions concerning protection of refugees and guaranteeing their acquired rights according to all local, regional and international charters as well as guaranteeing their human rights and drawing their attention to their duties towards the host country.

Refugees Status:

The number of refugees in Sudan reached its peak in 1986 when it exceeded the million mark, reaching 1,000,165 persons of various nationalities.

Since that time and up to the beginning of the first stage of the voluntary repatriation operation (1995), the approximate number of refugees remained steady at a million. it decreased now to around 929,000 following completion of the first and second stages of operation for the repatriation of the Ethiopian refugees according to the tripartite agreement reached with the UNHCR and the Ethiopian government in 1993.

Since that time till March 1997, a total of 56,646 Ethiopian refugees had been repatriated as efforts are still being exerted to go on with the voluntary repatriation operations.

The following Table shows the Number of Refugees in Sudan from 1980-1996:

Table (1) : Number of refugees in Sudan according to their nationalities (1980-1996).

(the number in thousands). 

 The refugees problem has been a heavy burden to Sudan both people and government, especially at this crucial time at which the country is facing internal economic difficulties, undeclared blockade by the international community and silent economic boycott by the international organizations which have now withdrawn their assistance needed for facing problems created by the presence of this huge number of refugees.

About one third of the number or refugees in Sudan receive direct assistance from the international community represented in the UNHCR. Those are the refugees who live in permanent camps. But most f the refugees live spontaneously in towns, sharing the local citizens their life necessities and competing with them in the labour market, while Sudan alone bears the burden of hosting them.

So, we can say that Sudan is the main donor for refugees.

The refugees who live spontaneously outside the camps form about 81.5% of the whole number of refugees in the country. These refugees do not receive any international assistance, whereas, the international community caters for 18.5% of the refugees, those living in the camps.

Despite this, Sudan witnessed a continuous shrinkage in the size of international assistance although the number of refugees was relatively steady.

In 1980, the per capita international assistance was about $31. Then it increased in 1982 to $40 and it reached in 1985 a maximum of $110.

In 1986, when the number of refugees in the country exceeded a million, the per capita aid amounted to $63 and in 1989 it dropped to $36 and went further down to $12 in 1992 till it plummeted in 1993 to less than $7.

Table (2) : Total Number of Refugees Inside and Outside Camps (1997).

Percentage:

* Refugees outside the caps = 81.5%

of the total number of refugees.

* Refugees inside thecamps = 18.5%

Table (3) : Budget Allocated by UNHCR for Sudan 1982-1996

Refugees and their Nationalities:

Sudan hosts various ethnic patterns of refugees who came from many neighbouring and non-neighbouring countries top of which are Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, Chad and Domocratic Congo, formerly Zaire.

These refugees have come to the various parts of the country including South, East and West as they live in either permanent camps or at spontaneous residential sites outside the camps - a situation deemed by the international law as falling outside the UNCHR's concern.

Zairean Refugees:

The number of Zairean refugees in Sudan reaches about 9,000. The first group of them entered the country in 1963 in the aftermath of the civil war there at the time. This group was composed of about 5,000 who increased to 9,000 and were granted asylum in 1968.

This group of Zairean refugees were concentrated at Al-Rajjaf area working as farmers as some of them moved to Khartoum and Port Sudan and shined as good watch-repairers.

Since that time, about 5,000 of them returned to their country, leaving about 4,000 at Al-Rajjaf area, southeast of Juba.

Some of them moved to a number of Northern States such as Khartoum and Port Sudan where they engaged in marginal crafts, depending mostly on themselves.

Eritrean and Ethiopian Refugees:

The second group of refugees came from Eritrea in 1967 following the forceful annexation of the Eritrean region by Ethiopia. As a result, the number of Eritrean refugees in Sudan increased and finally they settled at Galal-Nahal area in east Sudan in 1969.

In 1974, a military coup d'etat took place in Ethiopia and toppled the government of Emperor Heila Selasi. As a result of the new repressive Communist regime, a large number of Eritrean refugees, in their various races and sectors including civilians and military men, fled their country and made their way into Sudan.

The 1983 - 1984 famine period witnessed an influx of refugees estimated at about 300,000 who rushed into Sudan in search of food and shelter, a matter which swelled the total number of Eritrean and Ethiopian refugees in the country to 830,000, mostly from Tigray region.

The total number of Eritrean refugees in Sudan now stands at about 571,721 of them a small portion live in permanent camps, whereas the majority live spontaneously among the local citizens, forming 55.8% of the total number of refugees.

Table (4) : Number of Refugees According to their Nationalities June 1996. 

Table (5) : Density of Refugees in the States.

Chadian Refugees:

The racial disputes in Chad had deep historical roots as they cause large numbers of refugees of defeated tribes flee their homeland.

The Sudan sheltered some of these refugees in 1981 who numbered 22,000.

Then another 121,000 refugee wave followed in 1985 of which 45,000 were resettled in permanent accommodation villages.

The rest of these refugees scattered in the various areas of central Sudan, leading a spontaneous life there.

The 145,846 Chadian refugees form about 14.4% of the total refugees population, of whom only 4918 were living at Azrani settlement in Al-Geneina town.

Ugandan Refugees:

The influx of Ugandan refugees started in 1972 during the rule of former Ugandan President Eidi Amin.

Their number reached 160,000 in 1978.

After the downfall of Amin's government, conditions did not improve as had been expected. On the country, refugees continued to flow tirelessly into Sudan until their number soared to 250,000 in 1985.

When conditions started to improve in 1988, some 75,000 returned to their country.

Their number continued to decrease gradually after the implementation of an extensive voluntary repatriation programme until their number dropped to only 43,000, making an equivalent of 4.2% of the total number of refugees in Sudan.

Tables No. 4 and 5 show the number of refugees according to their nationalities, percentage and the way in which they are distributed in the various states of the country according to the 1996 census.

Table (6) : Refugees in Urban Centres

 Source : Refugee Commissioner's Assistants in the States and Local Authorities (1989).

Sudan Policy towards Refugees:

At the beginning Sudan had no clear policy towards refugees except from religious values and humanitarian traditions popular among Sudanese people as a hospitable nation which welcomes all help-seeking people resorting from neighbouring countries.

Acting on that principle, Sudan left its borders invitingly open for large columns of refugees to flow into the country, believing that the right to refuge is a humanitarian problem that has to be met with humanitarian means.

However, the unprecedented increase in the number of refugees from all sides, the aggravation of relief and housing problems and the intervention by the international community to render assistance to Sudan had eventually necessitated formulation of a clear-cut policy to be adopted towards refugees instead of working out temporary solutions to the problem.

With this in mind, we can say that this policy did not crystalize except after the national committee for refugees had finalized its work.

The national committee for reviewing refugees' conditions submitted its report on the issue at the end of September 1989 to the National Salvation Revolution Command Council and the Council of Ministers in a joint session.

The recommendations stressed the need for working out a general policy to be adopted by Sudan government for officially solving problems of asylum in Sudan.

The U.N. High Commission for Refugees was then informed about the contents of that policy which became an established rule in dealing with this issue between Sudan and the international and regional organizations.

This policy has been derived from a number of basic sources that can be summed up in the following factors:

(a) The religious and social values based on solidarity and offering assistance to those seeking help and aid.

(b) The social situation in terms of tribal intermingling across common border.

(c) Sudan geographical situation as one of the largest countries and the greatest of them in terms of length of borders as it is bordered by nine countries.

(d) Taking into consideration the international solution regarded as acceptable according to charters and conventions.

(e) Commitment to the main content of the international and regional solutions adopted, which include:

1 - Voluntary repatriation as the best solution to the refuge problem.

2 Resettlement in another country.

3 - Local assimilation of the refugee society.

From all these perspective, Sudan formulated its policies towards the receiving, housing and protecting of refugees in what is called an "open-door policy," which was dictated by some objective circumstances most important of which is the government's inability to establish control over the country's very long borders in the face of the continuous political unrest, racial and tribal disputes, changes in climatic conditions and other phenomena which affected the African continent.

All these factors and principles ere translated into the following:

(a) Safeguarding the integrity of Sudanese territories and Sudanese people's legitimate interests against the intensified presence of refugees in most parts of the country.

(b) Regarding the international community as the first responsible for assisting refugees, recognizing the fact that Sudan is the largest donor country and hence it should not be saddled with additional burden accruing from the continuous flow of refugees.

(c) Non-interference in the internal affairs of countries from which refugees flow should be observed, seeing that asylum-seeking is a humanitarian issue, not meant for meeting out hostility to anyone and security borders against any aggressive activity hostile to neighbouring countries.

The torrential and continuous influx of refugees during a period of three decades and their concentration in areas with little development and poor absorption ability besides low international assistance compared to the size of the refugees population have led to transformations as regards dealing with the refuge issue. These are summarized in the following :

A. Government's serious concern with refugees aid should take on a wider range, proceeding from provision of food to development for the following reasons :

1 - The presence of refugees has no longer become a temporary phenomenon as many of them have remained in the country for more than two decades.

2 - The increasing number of refugees has directly affected many of the country's developmental capabilities.

3 - The principle of self-reliance for refugees, which is an end eagerly sought by the international community, is unattainable, away from the economic and social environment they deal with. Hence, it is necessary to promote this environment to achieve the desired goal.

It is to be recalled that this policy had been suggested to the Khartoum conference for refugees in 1980 when the government was able to convince many of the donor countries and organizations working in the field. Concrete successes had been scored in this connection, a matter which proved the viability of that policy.

Taking all these factors into consideration, Sudan has set and determined its policy towards receiving and hosting refugees in what is known as an "Open-Door Policy" which is based on the religious heritage of the nation, international commitments and the country's inability to control its 7,000-km-long borders against the population movements in the area.

Since the National Salvation Revolution government approved this policy, great developments have occurred at the international level and directly affected the goals and the humanitarian activities of the commission which largely depends on the international assistance and the support of the international community and the donor countries in particular.

Some of these most important developments include :

1- The shifting of the international concern from Africa to Eastern Europe, a matter which resulted in transferring all humanitarian assistance to Eastern Europe and the spots of tension such as the African Great Lakes area and other areas.

2- The inclination of the New World Order towards involving international aid and assistance in politics with the aim of exerting pressure on host countries, thus violating the humanitarian principle needed for addressing refugees' problems and hence aggravating their situation and the life of those affected by them.

3- The waning desire and enthusiasm by the donor countries in offering assistance following the long stay of refugees and the failure of finding permanent solutions to their problems such as voluntary repatriation, assimilation or resettlement.

Sudan persisted in exerting efforts towards receiving and hosting refugees despite these adverse developments and despite its difficult economic situation resulting from the war imposed on it and the tangible shrink of international assistance (Table 3).

Sudan acted like that out of if its deep-rooted principles which call for supporting the needy and the oppressed people from neighbouring countries whatever the costs may be.

It is worth mentioning that Sudan has called since 1980 for connecting the extension of assistance to development to move from the stage of relief help to the stage of comprehensive development to realize self-sufficiency for refugees to gradually manage without foreign assistance and relief aid. Yet, the response of the international community and the donor countries was disappointing.

Refugee Camps : Location and Kind:

One of the greatest contributions of Sudan government, as part of the efforts being exerted by the other international and regional bodies towards supporting refugees materially and morally, is its allocation of wide agricultural and residential areas for refugees to provide them with food and shelter.

The criteria adopted for determining these housing sites for the refugees were based on many considerations related to the patterns of the refugees' traditional life on the one hand and some other legal considerations on the other.

We can sum up these criteria in the following points :

1 - The land should be owned by the government and must be free from disputes and other barriers.

2 - The land or site should have a constant source for providing drinking water, whether ground water or water from rivers or streams.

3 - The area should be linked with states' and local roads.

4 - There should be an availability of forests to obtain firewood as a source of energy.

5 - The site should at least be about 50 kms away from the borders.

These are the main traditional conditions which are usually taken into account when choosing a site for housing purposes.

However, the whole thing is governed by some other considerations related to the quality and pattern of life of the category that has to inhabit the camps.

The commission has come to adopt four patterns of housing including :

(1) Farming housing where every family is assigned an agricultural plot of land of an area of 5 to 10 feddans.

(2) Reception and transit centres at which basic services are extended to all new-coming refugees including health care, temporary housing services during their stay and provision of food until their permanent place of residence is prepared.

(3) Joint housing and income: the refugees here are allocated housing near development projects to provide chances of employment for them as it is the case in Al-Souki Scheme, New Halfa, Kilo 26 and Al-Rahad Scheme.

(4) Semi-urban housing system: Refugees who have roots in urban areas are resettled near towns to benefit from them in providing chances of work and employment as it is the case in camps of Tawawa in Gadaref State.

(a) Moreover, some other cultural, civilizational and geographical features concerning every ethnic and religious category have been taken into account with regard to refugees who decend from different origins for the purpose of creating social harmony and peaceful co-existence among the various nationalities.

(b) The homogeneous cultural background among the refugees themselves and between them and the local population in the area-an example of this is the preference of Moslems and Christians to live with their brothers in faith.

(c) The refugees themselves prefer to live in places which are similar in nature and climatic conditions to those of their area of origins.

Optinions and views of notables and shiekhs are observed and followed in such matters.

Table (7) Refugees in aided Camps and Spontaneous Refugees 1995. 

Table (8) : Kinds of Settlements and Number of Refugees according to the 1995 Statistic. 

These creteria have achieved tangible success, especially in security and social safety as the various nationalities and religious affiliations have been living in a spirit of peaceful co-existence.

Throughout this period, Sudan did not experience what can be called a serious ethnic unrest which remained the dominating feature in some neighbouring countries and other countries of the world which received enormous flows of refugees during the past decades.

Voluntary Repatriation:

Voluntary repatriation remained, in our view, the optimal solution to the refugees' problem. Despite this fact, international charters and conventions concerning refugees do not clearly stipulate how this process can be completed.

Nonetheless, regional charters, especially the OAU charter, 1969, clearly pointed out the way in which this issue can be addressed, notably Article (5) which elaborated on this matter, stressing the principle of the process, the need for co-operation between the country of origin and the host country to make the necessary arrangements for the safety of those willing to return to their native countries.

Article (5) also included the provision of all guarantees necessary for refugees' resettlement in their native countries and finally the provision of all help and assistance by the three parties concerned including the country of origin, the host country and the U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

Table (9) : Number of Refugees who had been repatriated to their native countries during the period December 1995-June 1996 

 Source : Full report of the Ethiopian Voluntary Reptriation Programme which was implemented during the period 30/11/1995-30/6/1996 Prepared by Mr. Al-Bagir Nasr.

Table (10) : Voluntary Repatriation According to Refugees' Nationalities

Source : Refugees' Commission.

To keep in line with this regional legal framework, the international community settled on the necessity of holding tripartite agreements between the three parties in question (the country of origin, the host country and the U.N. High Commission for Refugees) to set forth this legal commitment and determine the duties of each one of the three parties including the formation of joint technical committees to follow up implementation of the repatriation process according to fixed programmes and timetables agreed upon by the three parties.

With this in mind, it is necessary that an agreement should be reached between the three parties to set an optimal example for tackling the problem of voluntary repatriation.

From our past practical experiences vis-a-vis tripartite agreements as was the case with Ethiopia and bilateral conventions as was the case with Eritrea, some negative aspects resulted from the latter, most important of which is that: Sudan's role, as a host country, should not end up at the implementation of the voluntary repatriation operations according to the fixed and organized plans and programmes, but also it should make sure that the following conditions are met:

* It is necessary to be assured and certain that the country of origin has prepared all the basic needs for receiving its returnees in peaceful and quiet areas where they can resume their normal life without trouble.

As Sudan has undertaken the responsibility of hosting refugees, it is therefore liable to very sensitive and critical questions from the refugees themselves on the personal guarantees for their life, the quality of programmes mapped out for their reception to ensure means of their resettlement and other guarantees related to their civil rights......etc.

Undoubtedly, these questions are legitimate and they represent a top task in the stage of the voluntary repatriation operation when a general mobilization of refugees is launched to encourage them to embark on the process if their questions were adequately answered by the three parties (country of origin, host country and the UNHCR).

Perhaps, the country of origin is mainly held responsible for that task as it is wholly concerned with the repatriation of its own nationals.

According to this background, the tripartite agreement system is to be mainly adopted because it sets very clearly the role of each party and its commitments and duties so that all three parties are fully aware of the consequences resulting from any violation of agreement by any one of them.

Whereas, the bilateral agreement, as past experience shows, gave the country of origin the chance to disavow all its duties and responsibilities to its nationals, a matter which resulted in doing great harm to the host country by placing a heavy burden on them. One of the most prominent negative aspects of the past experience is the country of origin adoption of slectivity in admitting its returnees, a matter that contradicts with the simplest principles and rules of the international and regional charters governing this issue.

Another negative aspect is the reversed return of refugees which poses an additional burden on the host country. This is because the UNHCR used to treating these returnees as a category falling outside the range of its power and concern.This results in the whole burden shifted to the host country.

From this simple explanation, it becomes crystal clear that the country of origin is the pivot in the process and that its duties are quite necessary. Besides, if it was dictated by necessity that we should stick to the bilateral agreement system (government and refugees' high commission), then we must make it incumbent upon the second party signatory to the agreement (the UNHCR) to fully assure us of the country of origin fulfilment to all its commitments and duties.

The UNHCR should also make a binding commitment towards addressing the reversed immigration of refugees in a positive way by bearing its full responsibilities towards this category.