1.1 The Rise of Return Migration as a Multi-tool for Policy
āWhen migrants return home after conflict, they will contribute to development and peace-building.ā This optimistic mantra in current European national policies (ICMPD and ECDPM 2013) is the result of a changing discourse over the past 25 years with regard to migration. In this globalizing world, it has become common ground that development, security and mobility are interdependent. As a result, European host states now see modern migration movements as instruments for policy that (1) need to be managed, controlled and regulated to (2) defend domestic security and welfare and (3) promote international development and peace-building (Carling 2002; Duffield 2006; Skeldon 2008; Raghuram 2009; De Haas 2010).
Efforts by host states to manage these three overlapping goals have led to the formulation of migration and development policies. Within this policy domain, return migration has evolved from being āthe great unwritten chapter in the history of migrationā (King 2000, 7) to being a multi-tool that is used to work towards all these goals at once (see Skeldon 2008). Gradually, return migration came to be considered as both a movement back to normal, which restores the pre-conflict natural and social order, and a movement forward to change, in which returnees contribute to development and peace-building (Koser and Black 1999; Faist 2008).
Although global discussions on the link between migration and development have focused on successful economic migrants, countries throughout the European Union (EU) have expanded this link to encompass the return of refugees, failed asylum seekers and undocumented migrants1 (ICMPD and ECDPM 2013). However, several scholars wonder why and how some of the worldās most exploited people should contribute to development when official aid programmes have failed (Castles and Miller 2009, 58). In addition, the question is raised why returning migrants from high-income countries, who constitute a minority of all migrants, are targeted (Skeldon 2008).
This book takes a transnational and multidimensional approach in order to overcome the dichotomies, generalizations and empirical shortcomings that surround the understanding of return migration within the migrationādevelopmentāpeace-building nexus. Building on an in-depth case study among 35 voluntary and involuntary return migrants from Europe to Afghanistan, it explores the circumstances under which Afghans returning from European countries are willing and able to contribute to change with regard to development and peace-building in their āpost-conflictā country of origin.
Afghanistanās protracted history of conflict and migration is a relevant case in the study of return migration, development and peace-building, for various reasons. First, the four decade-long history of Afghan conflict and migration shows how the globally changing political discourses of the past decades have shaped migration strategies (Monsutti 2008). Second, two major trigger events of this shifting discourse, the Cold War and the events of 11 September 2001, played a direct and crucial role in the history of Afghanistan (Turton and Marsden 2002; Stigter 2006). Third, the fact that in 2015, Afghans comprised the second largest group of asylum seekers, after Syrians, makes it again a relevant and timely case to focus on. Although media and policy responses to conflict and migration tend to be short-term oriented, framing events in terms of ācrises,ā the case of Afghanistan is an example that shows the longitudinal and cyclical nature of conflicts and migration flows. In a time where return to Afghanistan is ongoing alongside strongly increased numbers of out-migration, the question of what happens after return is particularly relevant.
This chapter first introduces the debate on the linkages between return migration, development and peace-building. It highlights the tensions, contradictions and questions that remain with regard to (1) the heterogeneity of the post-return experience and the complex meanings of and motivations for return migration, (2) the hierarchization of returneesā mobility and immobility and (3) returneesā room to manoeuvre in their negotiation between spaces of belonging. It then discusses how this book addresses these issues in order to (4) interrogate the expectations on which the linkages between return migration, development and peace-building are based.
1.1.1 From Cold War Protection to Return Migrants as Agents of Change
The end of the Cold War set in motion a number of changes in Europe that led to a gradually shifting discourse, from integration to return and from viewing migrants as victims of rival regimes to seeing them as agents of change in their country of origin. The first consequence of the end of the Cold War was an increasing impatience about accommodating asylum seekers. Protecting refugees from rival regimes had been a powerful source of propaganda while the non-departure regime of the Iron Curtain countries had kept refugee levels manageable. After the end of the Cold War, the protection of refugees lost its geopolitical and ideological value for Western states. In addition, changing political and economic boundaries, growing inequality and increased civil conflicts in the post-Cold War period caused increased numbers of refugees and asylum seekers (Black and Koser 1999; Chimni 2000; Hyndman 2012; Castles et al. 2014, 226).
Along with these increasing immigration flows, the notion emerged that a general increase in migration flows threatens social cohesion, welfare and security in destination countries. This resulted in growing public and political resistance towards immigration in the 1990s. The events of 11 September 2001, which linked migration to issues of security, conflict and terrorism, led to a further decrease in tolerance towards non-Western, Muslim and/or immigrant groups (Skeldon 2008; Raghuram 2009; Castles et al. 2014, 226, 324). Finally, the interest in managing migration increased further in the context of the economic recession in Europe from 2008 onwards (ICMPD and ECDPM 2013).
The perceived need of host countries to contain migration led to a change from policies that were designed to welcome Cold War refugees to regimes that were meant to exclude unwanted or unproductive migrants (Chimni 2000; Blitz et al. 2005; Duffield 2006; Castles et al. 2014, 226, 324). Obtaining refugee status became more difficult (Koser and Black 1999; Black and Gent 2006), and the act of leaving oneās home and seeking asylum was progressively criminalized (Duffield 2006). Migrants were increasingly seen as āexploitingā refugee status rather than being in genuine need of protection from persecution (Koser and Black 1999). New legislation, such as laws setting up temporary protection regimes instead of permanent refugee status, was passed to ensure the eventual return of asylum seekers (Castles et al. 2014, 226).
A second trend after the collapse of the former superpower hegemony was a discourse change towards individualization, which also appeared in the fields of migration, development and conflict. In migration policy, individualization meant that return back āhomeā after conflict, to restore the natural and social order, came to be portrayed as a basic human right (Chimni 2000). Since the early 1990s, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other international bodies have promoted and facilitated return as the most desirable of all solutions for refugees (Malkki 1992; Stein and Cuny 1994; Hammond 1999; Zetter 1999; Omata 2013). In practice, however, a strong interest in the return of unwanted migrants led host countries to put pressure on migrants and rejected asylum seekers to return much sooner than the migrants themselves found feasible, through financial inducements or the threat of deportation (Blitz et al. 2005; Black and Gent 2006).
In the context of the growing significance of civil conflicts, the limited success of classic development institutions and reduced budgets for aid and defence, the discourse of individualization led to the search for alternative grassroots actors for development and peace-building (Zunzer 2004; Duffield 2006). Governments and international agencies became attracted to the idea of ascribing to migrants the moral responsibility fo...