To Resettle or not to Resettle

I am on the schedule to conduct interviews in Sudan from late August to early September, but everyone at the office is pessimistic with regards to whether the Sudanese Embassy will actually grant me a visa. Apparently the Sudanese government is not the biggest fan of Americans, even those who would arguably be helping the government by giving refugees in Sudan a chance at resettlement. The last time an American from CWS-RSC Nairobi was granted a Sudanese visa was 2008!  Let me be the devil's advocate though and explain Sudan's possible reasoning for long denying us access to their refugee populations...

Ronhingya mother with child

Refugees in Sudan

Opening up the opportunity to resettle in a third country, especially one well-off like the USA, can be seen by country of asylum (CoA) governments in two opposing ways. Aid workers will often argue that 3rd country resettlement is not only benefitial to the refugees, but is also a means to lessen the burden on a CoA government to provide protection/aid to those seeking asylum within its borders. The  argument goes that the more refugees there are who are resettled, the  less aid-reliant refugees there will be  in the CoA.

The above is not always completely true, however. The mere rumor that refugee resettlement applicants will be accepted in a given CoA is often a Pandora's Box of sorts acting a potential catalyst for increased migration flows to the CoA. Regardless of the refugee population, word always travels fast, particularly when it is in regards to aid access.  I can't even begin to count the number of Somali and Ethiopian refugees in Uganda, for instance, who have told me that the reason why they did not remain in Kenya (their 1st CoA after leaving their country of origin) was because they had "heard" that refugee assistance was "better" across the border. It goes to follow that such tendency of word-of-mouth translates into both  an increase in migration flows to a given CoA,  as well as an increased burden on the CoA's government to provide aid to a mushrooming displaced population. This line of thinking seems to mirror that of the Sudanese Government. Though morally corrupt, the Sudanese government can justifiably argue that as long as the country refrains from accepting more international aid workers (resettlement staff inclusive), the burden on the Sudanese government to assist displacees will  not increase, but remain at the the status quo. They could even argue that dependency on the Sudanese government by its refugee population may lessen. As refugees realize that there is little hope in the foreseeable future for them to access international aid they may very well decide to leave Sudan for better aid opportunities elsewhere. Unfortunately for the refugees however, most are unable to travel at will due to financial restraints. The vast majority of refugees that I have interviewed (which by now must amount to more than a thousand) are poor both by American and Kenyan standards. It goes to follow that when they flee their home countries, they are not financially able to flee to the country of asylum of their choice. Rather, they tend to flee to the nearest and/or easily accessible, safe location.