Paper short abstract:

This paper examines how regional, international, and metropolitan politics shaped British policy toward refugees in colonial Kenya. Between 1910s and 1930s, different refuge-seekers were rejected, welcomed and allowed to become subjects, or given the choice of repatriation or indefinite internment.

Paper long abstract:

In this paper I trace the how ‘refugee’ was used by British officials in Kenya in the 1910s through the 1930s, and how policy was developed toward refuge-seekers. I consider a series of questions: how did colonial officials deal with those whom they identified as refugees? What were the implications of referring to individuals or groups as refugees, as opposed to immigrants, migrants, deserters, or fugitive belligerents? How did regional, international, and metropolitan politics shape how a ‘refugee’ would be treated? In an era and region where there was no applicable colonial or international law, how officials would identify and deal with refuge-seekers was never simple nor predictable.

I look at three examples to trace the development of refugee policy: Degodia pastoralists seeking refuge in the 1910s-1920s; Eritrean deserters from the Italian army in 1936; and Ethiopian refugees in 1936-7. In each case, officials harbored multiple opinions, from a willingness to admit all those in danger, to a desire to reject all refugees, to a willingness to admit only ‘real’ refugees, to a consideration of how refugees could be a political bargaining chip. What to do with refuge-seekers once they were on Kenyan soil was a matter of debate as well. Policies toward refuge-seekers ultimately emerged competing, often contradictory factors. Metropolitan pressure, international politics, colonial concerns, racism, an uneven awareness of international legal norms, and the actions of refuge-seekers themselves all contributed to the series of ad hoc and legal measures toward refugees.