crisis and multilocality case kurdistan – north iraq · 2014-11-19 · −background...

Crisis and Multilocality case Kurdistan – North Iraq

Dr. Hasan Sinemillioglu Technische Universität Dortmund,

Spatial Planning in Developing Countries (REL) [email protected] http://www.rp.uni-dortmund.de/pliq

Conference „Multilocality in the Global South and North: Factors, features and policy implications“,

18-19 September 2014, TU Dortmund

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.rp.uni-dortmund.de/pliq�

Disputation Sinemillioglu | 09|11 | 2011

−Background

−Reconstruction: overlapping processes and emergence of Multilocality

−The case Welati Jeri

−Recent cases: Yazidis and Assyrians

−Concluding remarks

Preview

Development in Kurdish Autonomous Region in Northern Iraq


− Background

− Reconstruction: overlapping processes

− The case Welati Jeri

− The Case Shingal

− Concluding remarks

Source: UN


Destruction of the villages, from 1975 to 1988

− Background





Governorate Cities / towns

Total Villages

Destroyed villages

Dohuk 14 1,200 867 (72%)

Erbil 22 1,238 1,025 (83%)

Suleimaniyah 41 2,021 1,994 (99%)

Total 77 4,459 3,886 (87%)

Source: Sinemillioglu 2011, p. 113


− Background




Iraq after the crisis, 1991



Reconstruction of the villages, march 1996

− Background





Governorate Total Villages

Destroyed villages

Resettled villages

Dohuk 1,200 867 (72%) 600 (69%)

Erbil 1,238 1,025 (83%) 868 (85%)

Suleimaniyah 2,021 1,994 (99%) 1,004 (50%)

Total 4,459 3,886 (87%) 2,472 (64%)

Source: Sinemillioglu 2011, p. 113, translation by Sinemillioglu


− Background





Returnees in the village Bile



− Non-existent sphere of Power (Weber, Dahrendorf): the establishment of Kurdish Autonomy

− Liminality und Communitas (Turner): returnees aim to re-establish the villages

The main obstacles for both processes:

− Lack of organisation was hindering the returnees to articulate their interests; communicative action (Habermas) is often not possible

− Lack of social and financial resources

− Background





Crises accelerate the social change, which requires in different fields an immediate response


− Background





Model of Reality (traditional or existing concepts)

Reconstruction

Model for Reality (Future oriented concepts)

Concepts influencing future action: the field of reconstruction

Source: Sinemillioglu 2011, p. 65, translation by Sinemillioglu


− Background





Reconstruction in regions

Internal inputs

Competitive

Mobilising

Com

patib

le

Com

plem

enta

ry

Continuousnes

Model of reality Model for reality

Financial resources

External inputs

External and internal factors influencing the field of reconstruction

Source: autors own construction


− Background





Welati Jeri, 1992

Welati Jeri Source: Sinemillioglu 2011, p. 16

Presenter

Presentation Notes

9 villages in a remote area trying to re-establish their former village life


− Traditional life world contra modern life world?

− Region as a whole versus individual family interests: developing community awareness

− Increasing the local capacity for the self sufficiency and self management

− Background





Welati Jeri as a learning region


− Background



− The case Shingal


Iraq after the recent crisis, 2014

Shingal Source: Sinemillioglu 2011, p. 16


− Background






Source: Sinemillioglu

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The IDPs from Shingal Region – 30 000 out of 300 000 in the small town of Sharia near Dohuk – getting food...


− Background







Source: Sinemillioglu

Presenter

Presentation Notes

These Assyrians are not doing picnic – they are IDPs from Nineveh plain near Mosul, sheltered in the backyard of a church in Kani Mase


− Addressing the impacts of crisis: the migrants are forced to move or to leave their places of origin.

− survival strategies are the main response by the refugees – as long as they live in refugee camps.

− Background


− Theoretical approach




Presenter

Presentation Notes

The migrants are forced to move or to leave their places of origin. This is not comparable with the classical livelihood strategies, e.g. sending one or more family .


− Moving to the developed countries might be still a part of survival-strategies; the crisis destroys the trust to the home country.

− The migrants are forced to move or to leave their places of origin. This is not comparable with the classical livelihood strategies, e.g. sending one or more family members for cash earning in the larger locations.

− Background






Presenter

Presentation Notes

The migrants are forced to move or to leave their places of origin. This is not comparable with the classical livelihood strategies, e.g. sending one or more family.


− The original location, i.e. the village might no more exist or the family moved to a larger settlement in the own country (IDP).

− From refugee to multi-locational household: Kurds in Europe, North America, Australia... and in Kurdistan.

− Nevertheless: the sharp cut in the ‘life world’ of people doesn't allow a gradual transformation process.

− Background






Presenter

Presentation Notes

The migrants are forced to move or to leave their places of origin. This is not comparable with the classical livelihood strategies, e.g. sending one or more family.


− “Thus most of the studies from Africa and Asia (...) converge on the statement that forming multi-locational households, thereby spreading assets and risks across space, is not simply an interim phenomenon but a strategy which may be upheld for generations.” (Einhard Schmidt-Kallert, 2009)

− Background






Presenter

Presentation Notes

One can add that the modern transportation means make multi-locality easier, for example, the elderly and more traditional family parts can continue to live in the home country/location while the younger family members live in another country/location.

crisis and multilocality case kurdistan – north iraq · 2014-11-19 · −background...

Documents