While an extended discussion on the issue of minority rights is impossible in a report that deals with one specific casehistory, it is not out of place to raise a few important issues for theoretical debate occasioned by the events under consideration. Out of General Amin’s peremptory expulsion en masse of some 50,000 Asians from Uganda in August 1972 arises the obvious question of whether the General had overstepped the boundaries of human rights in this case. But in order to determine this we have to come to some agreement as to what these rights are, and whether these can be deemed to be inherent in minority groups just as they are deemed, in liberal theory at least, to be inherent in individuals. Indeed, is there anything called ‘minority rights’? Are not all rights, including protection against discrimination on account of race, colour, tribe, religion, language, region and class inherent only in the individual? Or is a minority’s right of protection against summary mass expulsion a special kind of minority right, so that it could be argued that while an alien individual of a certain race, etc., may at times have to be expelled for reasons of state (especially if he is involved in a criminal act) the same cannot be done to a whole minority community? This would lead to a discussion of a different order: can an entire community be charged with generalised criminal behaviour? And by what process of law may they be tried for that? Preceding the Asians’ expulsion from Uganda, General Amin had launched a protracted and vehement attack on the Asian community for their alleged malpractices involving corruption, overpricing and undercutting, breaches of tax and foreign exchange regulations, and so on, amounting to ‘economic sabotage’ of the country. Is there a court anywhere, one might ask, that can try a minority on such a charge? And if individual instances might be cited as evidence, could the crimes of a few be a sufficient basis for sanctions against a whole community? Is there a sense in which a whole minority community can be deemed to be responsible for the crime of a few? This presupposes that the community has the means by which to bring to order those of its members whose negligent or criminal behaviour could bring down the house on the entire community. Indeed, General Amin apparently had implicitly given credence to this supposition. In a conference of the Asians that he had called in December 1971, he had uttered his collective charges against them and had asked them to find their own means of correcting their behaviour. What did the General have in mind then? Did he think that the Asians had the means at their disposal (perhaps an informal court to try the culprits, and informal social sanctions to bring them to book) to correct the situation? Or did he then think that in his scheme of things the Asians were doomed anyway, no matter what they did? These are not speculative questions at all. They concern vital issues relating to a determination of criminal behaviour by a whole community that might then provide a reason for their mass expulsion. For if such reason for expulsion can be found, and be found to be justified, then it could still be maintained that a minority community does have a right of protection against mass expulsion, except where it may be collectively indicted on a criminal offence. The debate on minority rights would then shift its ground. Instead of discussing simply minority rights, we would then be discussing what constitutes a ‘criminal offence’ by a community, and by what processes of law or justice might this be determined. The Asians were accused not only of ‘economic sabotage’, but also of social exclusivism. For example, they refused to allow their daughters to marry Africans. It was a special or perhaps not so special kind of racial arrogance of the Asians. Was that also a crime suitable for punishment by mass expulsion? The discussion of minority rights and the legitimacy of mass expulsion in terms of crime and punishment would lead the discussion to the narrow confines of legalistic and jurisprudential concepts. Indeed, much of the discussion following the expulsion of the Asians from Uganda did take place in these juristic terms. But there is another angle to the problem. This is related to the whole realm of thought centering round the question of historical justice. It goes much beyond the contemporary concepts of collective crime and collective punishment. It ties an explanation of contemporary action to a past injustice. It would embrace, for example, the general anti-colonial reaction of the colonised peoples of the world against their European powers. It would explain, to give a particular instance, the recovery of Goa by India by means of a quick military victory over Portugal in 1962. The question of historical justice thus raises wider issues than those of contemporary legal norms. The overall point of the argument is that, whatever the merits of a juridical debate, there are, in addition, considerations of historical injustice that must enter into the discussions on the situation of the Asians in East Africa, and the decision by General Amin to expel them from Uganda. The situation is by no means as simple as will resolve itself by a resort to principles of ‘plain morality’. Quite apart from the question of rights and morals is the purely sociological question of whether the Asian minority has a better future in a state that has declared itself in favour of capitalism (like Kenya) or one that has opted for socialism (like Tanzania). In the case of Uganda, the issue is no longer worth discussing. Uganda, under Amin, seems to have opted not just for capitalism, but for black capitalism. By definition, then, its brown residents, whether citizen or not, had no future in Uganda. The question is still worth discussing with respect to the other states in East Africa. Please note that the terminology in the fields of minority rights and indigenous peoples’ rights has changed over time. MRG strives to reflect these changes as well as respect the right to self-identification on the part of minorities and indigenous peoples. At the same time, after over 50 years’ work, we know that our archive is of considerable interest to activists and researchers. Therefore, we make available as much of our back catalogue as possible, while being aware that the language used may not reflect current thinking on these issues.

The construction, maintenance, and defense of the Panama Canal brought Panamanians, U.S. soldiers and civilians, West Indians, Asians, and Latin Americans into close, even intimate, contact. In this lively and provocative social history, Michael E. Donoghue positions the Panama Canal Zone as an imperial borderland where U.S. power, culture, and ideology were projected and contested. Highlighting race as both an overt and underlying force that shaped life in and beyond the Zone, Donoghue details how local traditions and colonial policies interacted and frequently clashed. Panamanians responded to U.S. occupation with proclamations, protests, and everyday forms of resistance and acquiescence. Although U.S. "Zonians" and military personnel stigmatized Panamanians as racial inferiors, they also sought them out for service labor, contraband, sexual pleasure, and marriage. The Canal Zone, he concludes, reproduced classic colonial hierarchies of race, national identity, and gender, establishing a model for other U.S. bases and imperial outposts around the globe.

Race and ethnicity continue to be important, if unwelcome, factors in modern politics. This is evident in East Africa: the ethnic factor is often dominant in multi-party elections, while in Rwanda and Burundi bloodshed and genocidal attacks have been linked to ethnic difference. This book examines the phenomena of race and ethnicity in general, but with particular reference to Africa, especially the East. The impact of non-indigenous groups is considered, together with ethnic differences between Africans. The relevance of tourism and religion is also examined.

This is a study of the history of global refugee movements over the 20th century, ranging from east European Jews fleeing Tsarist oppression at the turn of the century to asylum seekers from the former Zaire and Yugoslavia. Recognizing that the problem of refugees is a universal one, the authors emphasize the human element which should be at the forefront of both the study of refugees and responses to them.

One of the most striking problems following in the wake of decolonization in East and Central Africa has been the situation and fate of its minorities. Of these minorities, Asians, for reasons of colour and economic position, are the most clearly visible. The problem of Asian and other minorities did not, of course, arise only after independence. Most European colonies were plural societies, composed of various tribes and races, and the colonial period was by no means free from rivalries and tensions between these groups. European overrule, however, tended to contain these tensions within tolerable limits. This is not to say that conditions were ideal, and certainly, the European colonial authority was seldom a passive and impartial umpire, particularly where immigrant minorities were involved. These were usually more favoured than the indigenous people, though not all immigrant groups were equally favoured. The coming of independence changed the situation of minorities in significant ways. There is always a struggle for control of the new state. The forces involved draw their support from tribal or regional bases and the goal for which they contend is the establishment of a state with highly centralized powers. There is little of the ‘federal’ sharing of power. Though alliances may be struck between groups to participate in the government, there is a strong flavour of winner-takes-all about the spoils system that characterizes these new states. To be a politically weak minority is therefore an unfortunate circumstance.In many respects, the consequences are similar whether the minority is indigenous or immigrant. But there are also several important distinctions. First, an immigrant minority is regarded as alien – a view which is reinforced after independence when it is seen that large numbers of them are not and do not become citizens of the new state. Second, they tend to be more prosperous and privileged than the rest. These two factors often combine to mark them out for hostility and resentment. Indeed, many of the indigenous people wish to be rid of them altogether. Unlike even small indigenous minorities, they have little political power. On the other hand, they have greater support from the outside. Their countries of origin may take a special interest in their welfare, and the former colonial power may be ascribed certain residual obligations in regard to them. Instances of racial discrimination attract more world attention than tribal forms, and to some extent, the problems of immigrant minorities tend to get ‘internationalized’.Immigrant minorities are assumed to have the option of emigration and so their future is not regarded as irrevocably tied to the host country, as indigenous minorities might be, though with the latter, examples are not lacking emigration, if only across the border. Hence the refugee problem in Africa. Nowhere yet in independent Africa has there been enough time to make it possible to suggest any ultimate solution to the problem of immigrant minorities. But in recent years, certain trends have become apparent which have fairly clear implications for the future. This paper seeks to examine the situation of the Asian communities in East and Central Africa, which cover the countries of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia and Malawi.—Please note that the terminology in the fields of minority rights and indigenous peoples’ rights has changed over time. MRG strives to reflect these changes as well as respect the right to self-identification on the part of minorities and indigenous peoples. At the same time, after over 50 years’ work, we know that our archive is of considerable interest to activists and researchers. Therefore, we make available as much of our back catalogue as possible, while being aware that the language used may not reflect current thinking on these issues. Please note that the terminology in the fields of minority rights and indigenous peoples’ rights has changed over time. MRG strives to reflect these changes as well as respect the right to self-identification on the part of minorities and indigenous peoples. At the same time, after over 50 years’ work, we know that our archive is of considerable interest to activists and researchers. Therefore, we make available as much of our back catalogue as possible, while being aware that the language used may not reflect current thinking on these issues.

Millions of people today are forced to flee their homes as a result of conflict, systemic discrimination, persecution, and other violations of their human rights. The core instruments on which they must rely to secure international protection are the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, now complemented by international and regional human rights treaties. This book, the leading text in a field where refugee law is now a subject of global importance, examines key challenges to system of international protection, including those arising from within the asylum process, increased controls over the movements of people, and the 'new' concern with security. The situation of refugees is one of the most pressing and urgent problems facing the international community and refugee law has grown in recent years to a subject of global importance. In this long-awaited third edition, each chapter has been thoroughly revised and updated, every issue, old and new, has received fresh analysis, and 'complementary' or human rights-based protection is given special attention. Features include: analysis and assessment of developments in interpreting the refugee definition, with particular reference to 'social group', 'exclusion', procedures, and the impact of European Union harmonization initiatives. In addition, this book reviews the situation of refugee women and children; the plight of Palestinian refugees; the protection of internally displaced persons; the role and responsibilities of the UNHCR, including in the administration of camps and settlements; the current status in general international law of the fundamental principles of non-refoulement, asylum, and the right to seek asylum; and the extent of protection possibilities in human rights treaties, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights.

Decolonization of knowledge has become a major issue in African Studies in recent years, brought to the fore by social movements such as #RhodesMustFall and #BlackLivesMatter. This timely book explores the politics and disputed character of knowledge production in colonial and postcolonial Uganda, where efforts to generate forms of knowledge and solidarity that transcend colonial epistemologies draw on long histories of resistance and refusal. Bringing together scholars from Africa, Europe and North America, the contributors in this volume analyse how knowledge has been created, mobilized, and contested across a wide range of Ugandan contexts. In so doing, they reveal how Ugandans have built, disputed, and reimagined institutions of authority and knowledge production in ways that disrupt the colonial frames that continue to shape scholarly analyses and state structures. From the politics of language and gender in Bakiga naming practices to ways of knowing among the Acholi, the hampering of critical scholarship by militarism and authoritarianism, and debates over the names of streets, lakes, mountains, and other public spaces, this book shows how scholars and a wide range of Ugandan activists are reimagining the politics of knowledge in Ugandan public life.p by militarism and authoritarianism, and debates over the names of streets, lakes, mountains, and other public spaces, this book shows how scholars and a wide range of Ugandan activists are reimagining the politics of knowledge in Ugandan public life.p by militarism and authoritarianism, and debates over the names of streets, lakes, mountains, and other public spaces, this book shows how scholars and a wide range of Ugandan activists are reimagining the politics of knowledge in Ugandan public life.p by militarism and authoritarianism, and debates over the names of streets, lakes, mountains, and other public spaces, this book shows how scholars and a wide range of Ugandan activists are reimagining the politics of knowledge in Ugandan public life.

The Routledge Handbook of Africa–Asia Relations is the first handbook aimed at studying the interactions between countries across Africa and Asia in a multi-disciplinary and comprehensive way. Providing a balanced discussion of historical and on-going processes which have both shaped and changed intercontinental relations over time, contributors take a thematic approach to examine the ways in which we can conceptualise these two very different, yet inextricably linked areas of the world. Using comparative examples throughout, the chronological sections cover: • Early colonialist contacts between Africa and Asia; • Modern Asia–Africa interactions through diplomacy, political networks and societal connections; • Africa–Asia contemporary relations, including increasing economic, security and environmental cooperation. This handbook grapples with major intellectual questions, defines current research, and projects future agendas of investigation in the field. As such, it will be of great interest to students of African and Asian Politics, as well as researchers and policymakers interested in Asian and African Studies.