Making a right turn next to Yasser Arafat’s graffiti on the wall, passing by the blue one-dollar store then another right after the huge water tank, left by the lightbulb picture, a right after the Mecca graffiti then going down the stairs; this was my routine every day for a month when I worked at mukhayyam (1) Burj-El-Barajneh in the Southern suburbs of Beirut. As I walked to work every morning at nine and between two glances at my phone to make sure I was following the directions I wrote down in my notes, I could not stop thinking about how much the camp reminded me of the Medina back home in Tunisia. A cemented building with pending cables and dripping water, holding within its walls the lives of an entire community, the history of a people. I found myself interested not only by the giant edifice, its proximity to the airport and its distance from the energy of the capital, but also by the sense of solidarity and understanding it fostered between the people living inside it. Burj-El-Barajneh and other camps all across the Arab region positioned themselves at the intersection of law, politics, humanitarianism and kinship within an urban landscape that simultaneously marginalized and swallowed their populations. In order to better understand the power dynamics at play in this context, this essay questions how refugee camps embody the complex interactions between the humanitarian order and refugee agency. It will inspect the camps as spaces of internal exchanges between the humanitarian order and refugee sovereignty and external interactions between the refugee camp structure and the urban landscape it exists in. In that sense, this essay is an attempt to explore the spatial and social presence of refugees within the context of the city and centers their attempts in finding a sense of permanency within a sea of temporariness. In order to do that, the essay will elaborate on the theory of humanitarianism presented by Barbara Harrell-Bond, Giorgio Agamben’s state of exception, Diana Martin’s notion of ‘campscapes’ and Ayham Dalal’s socioeconomic approach to the Zaatari camp. 

 

First, it will analyze the conceptual framework of humanitarianism in its various dimensions, its neoliberal technologies and how it expresses itself in the Azraq camp. Then, the essay proceeds to critically examine the state of exception as applied to the camps and discuss how the case studies of the Zaatari and Shatila camp and how they challenge this vision by respectively producing an architectural and economic side system and blending into the urban fabric of the city. 

  

The Humanitarian Order 

Connecting Humanitarianism & Neoliberalism 

​

The humanitarian order is a structure and intrinsic interactions and power dynamics between various actors. This essay will focus on the nature of these interactions and the space in which they actively work, namely the refugee camp. This section will also explore the ways in which the camp itself becomes another expression of the humanitarian order through urbanism and architectural technologies. Refugee camps are usually designed as temporary spaces for refugee reception and protection. They are also the main context in which the distribution of internationally funded assistance to refugees takes place. However, despite their ostensible temporary nature, these settings have become the main living environments for many refugees for years and in some cases, for more than one generation (Harrell-Bond, 2002) with some of them being born there and having never seen their homeland (in the case of Palestinians especially). These claims, which are presented by various humanitarian organizations, enable them to shape their interventions and center them around resource allocation and distribution of goods and services for residents within a framework of emergency management and crisis resolution. These missions contribute to the establishment of a giver-receiver relationship between the refugee and the foreign gift donor. The constant and repetitive interaction is exercised directly by the staff of the humanitarian organization working in the mukhayyam and gives a sense of power to the gift-giver to decide who deserves to receive (Harrell-Bond, 2002). Humanitarian workers are thus standing in an asymmetrical relationship, in which their role is independent from the needs of the refugees while the latter are dependent on them. This power dynamics turns refugees into clients awaiting their supply within a context of economics and trade. Therefore, to consider these characteristics in the refugee camp is to question whether humanitarianism’s moral project can be left untouched by the logic of neoliberalism. Indeed, humanitarian operations are criticized for their ironic tendency to prolong crises rather than alleviate them (Potvin, 2013). It could be argued that the reconfiguration of humanitarian processes, and spaces, brought on by the restructuring of institutions, is the ultimate expression of “capital’s quest to open up fresh space for accumulation” (Brenner & Theodore, 2002). Humanitarian action, disguised under the all-encompassing human rights flag and the securitization narrative, shifts its attention from protecting ‘bare life’ (2) to exporting western versions of peace, democracy and economic development. Furthermore, we often find international organizations misdirecting their efforts by working with corrupt mediators and local initiatives that fail to distribute the resources and aid they receive. Indeed, Mira who lives at Burj-Al-Barajneh claims that humanitarian action in the mukhayyam is only “40% successful as a lot of the aid is taken by associations and committees responsible for the camp.” She explains that a lot of the time, the beneficiaries do not even receive the aid that is allocated to them because of these middlemen. However, despite the difficulties, Farah claims that refugees do not oppose humanitarian organizations; “on the contrary, we appreciate the way [organizations] promote local initiatives and community organizers but we also want someone nadhif (clean, honest) to be able to help us with what we need” In this context, we consider the possibility that humanitarian urbanism is an expression (3). of neoliberalism, demonstrating the extent to which it adapts. 

 

Humanitarian Urbanism

​

With the increase in refugee flow to countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, refugee camps have embodied the humanitarian order through urbanism. Humanitarian urbanism refers to the production of space through humanitarian action. It lies at the intersection of two major force fields: the evolution of the humanitarian project and the dynamics of urbanization processes (Potvin, 2013). The concept offers a new analytical lens to explore the new urban condition within and surrounding the refugee camps through chronological, spatial and ideological scopes. Humanitarian urbanism also raises questions about the reciprocal impacts that humanitarian practices and new terrains of interventions have on one another; it points to a shift in humanitarian practices from intervening in the city to governing the city and much larger disempowered populations. This new way of governance denotes how people make sense of and navigate their lives in a humanitarian setting that has become routine, and that presents both constraints and opportunities (Jansen, 2020). The urbanizing refugee camp presents a novel perspective that necessitates a critical understanding of the particular condition shaped by an elaborate humanitarian governance and the spaces it produces and modifies. Following this argument, the camps do not display an unfinished or even problematic urbanization, but they rather urbanize in a particular way under a powerful and effective humanitarian rationale and management. The development of camps, and as such the development of more humane and elaborate sites of humanitarian governance, is symptomatic not only for the phenomena occurring inside the camps such as food and resource distribution, social service provision or campaigns but also for the way in which camps become attempts to curtail human mobility, in which humanitarian aspirations merge with bordering processes (Jansen, 2016). Furthermore, with the framework of humanitarian urbanism, refugee camps are the border where the failures of human mobility find ethical care and consideration despite the paradox of permanent temporariness. This state of limbo in which refugees live and struggle contradicts the technologies of control of humanitarian organizations but remains, nevertheless, the model used and followed among most camps in the region. To better illustrate this structure, we evoke the Azraq camp in Jordan which became the primary location for the reception of new arrivals. As repeated constantly, the planning of Azraq camp was informed by ‘lessons learned’ from the perceived chaos of the Zaatari camp. These lessons manifested themselves in disciplinary planning, aiming at managing the camp and its population through strict spatial arrangements, and shelter arrangements.  By organizing itself that way, Azraq enabled control over its population and ensured that the police and the humanitarian organizations were in full charge (Dalal, 2020), in contrast to Zaatari camp which was shaped by its residents. 

 

Refugee Sovereignty and the Challenge of the State of Exception 

 

When navigating this research under the umbrella of humanitarian urbanism, we observe refugees standing at the other end of the power spectrum, dependent on the edifice where they live and relying on the volunteers, they interact with to meet their needs. It is as if we suddenly looked at refugees through the lens of the state of exception as theorized by Giorgio Agamben. Buried in the margins and far away from the excitement and life of the city, refugee camps are seen as biopolitical spaces separating the alien from the nation and where bare life is hidden and confined within the folds of the urban landscape. Until recently, the discussion of refugee camps has cast them as a space where refugees become passive recipients of aid and charity, unable to overcome their trauma (Sanyal, 2011). Therefore, camps are seen as vectors of power within a disruptive framework that centers itself around policing. However, the state of exception applied to the refugee camps usually focuses on biopower technologies and overlooks the agency of refugees in accommodating themselves and appropriating the space outside of humanitarian governance and beyond the power structure instituted by international organizations and on-field workers. Looking at refugee sovereignty enables us to examine various strategies utilized by the residents of the camps in taking back spaces of temporariness and adjusting them in order to achieve a sense of home and permanency. It is important to note that the purpose behind these methods is not necessarily to settle in the host country permanently but rather to accept the current situation and lead a dignified life until it is time for them to go back to their country of origin. It is fair to say that the appropriation of the camps is not only a challenge to the power of the humanitarian order but also a way for refugees to integrate themselves in the society they live in while fostering the hope to return home. These intentions take different forms depending on the camp. We will analyze them in the context of the Zaatari camp in Jordan and the Shatila camp in Lebanon. 

 

Molding Zaatari Camp to Fit Refugees’ Economic and Social Agency

​

Refugee camps were considered to be UNHCR’s favorite choice where aid was thought to be easily delivered, distributed and monitored (UNHCR, 214b). In fact, the survival of refugees in many cases is highly dependent on the distribution of humanitarian aid, especially in emergency phases, segregated camps and camps located in remote areas like Zaatari camp, where interaction with the local economy is minimized (Dalal, 2015). However, with camps existing for longer than expected and millions of refugees reduced to being passive recipients of aid, UNHCR was left with one solution: to support and promote ‘self-reliance’ policy which is supposed to enable the community to function with a level of cohesion, social accountability and mutual dependence-taking decisions to mobilize resources and address issues (Dalal, 2015). As promising as this sounds, critiques observed that compared to other camps, refugees in Zaatari and with no self-reliance policy whatsoever, have managed to establish a market that circulates around 10 million JDs per month (UNDP, 2012; UNHCR, 2015). This is attributed to the familiarity that refugees have with the camp, the sense of community within it as well as their thorough consideration of the space according to its urban environment. 

 

The Zaatari camp is known for its experimental planning, its shifting power structure and versatile size. Early images of the camp show rows of tents placed on a deserted land near small villages (Dalal, 2020). However, the increasing numbers of refugees arriving to the camp exceeded the initial plan of 15 000 persons (UNHCR, 2012b) and could be perceived as the shelter-space gradually expanding. Slowly, UNHCR and relief organizations were losing control over the camp space so to regain their sovereignty, they referred to the Handbook of Emergencies (UNHCR, 2007). Following that decision, humanitarian disciplinary planning was imposed as a means to organize the chaos and create an alternative order. The camp was divided into districts with clear boundaries each demarcated by a wide asphalted street. The final Master Plan showed a planned area and an abstracted organic-like zone with artery streets. Both parts were to complement one another in relocating refugees and welcoming new ones. Yet, this strategic plan collapsed against the changing dynamics that altered the use of the camp every day. Refugees were able to move their shelters around the camp in response to socio-cultural relations and the camp has seen an unprecedented rise in refugee counts (Dalal, 2020). Careless of the humanitarian vision, refugees settled between and inside the planned shelter units, in schools, they proceeded to create markets, organized riots and demonstrations and made use of all available resources to plan the camp the way they saw fit (Dalal, 2020). Eventually, an alternative spatial structure appeared. It was one that responded to socio-cultural beliefs and fulfilled daily needs. The Zaatari camp was thus transformed into one of the ‘largest urban centers in Jordan’ and was associated to a ‘quiet encroachment’ in the way in which the “disenfranchised groups carried out their activities not as conscious political acts'' but were rather driven by the force of necessity to survive and live a dignified life (Bayat, 1997). In order to do so, refugees in Zaatari took part in income generating activities such as selling vouchers to buy goods directly from refugees’ market and working for humanitarian organizations in garbage collection, construction and teaching assistance (Dalal, 2015). Furthermore, at the intersection of urban renewal and economic development, we find the Zaatari souk that first appeared as a set of shacks facing the main street and now stretched for more than two kilometers inside the whole camp (Dalal, 2015). UNHCR site planner explained this emergence by referring to the asphalted streets of the camp and how they facilitated the emergence of markets as a way to keep people busy. For refugees, the market was considered as a distinctive spatial component of the camp. One shop owner explained that ‘people like to walk here, even if they do not want to buy. They keep coming and going all the time [...]’. Therefore, in addition to being an expression of refugee sovereignty and socioeconomic agency, Zaatari camp contributes to an already existing societal system of values that consolidates solidarity and commitment in the refugee community and creates a notion of public spaces usually attributed to urban settings.

 

Triggering the Spill-Over of the Shatila Camp in The City

 

Refugees in Shatila made use of resourceful ways to ingrain their presence and culture within the urban fabric of the city. Spatially, this is manifested through the blurring of boundaries separating Shatila from its outside. In place of clear-cut fences, Beirut is characterized by ‘disjunctive orders’ that divide spaces and peoples. Rather than looking at the camp, it may be more appropriate to focus on the ‘campscape’ introduced by Diana Martin. The suffix -scape gives the idea of fluidity, of something elastic and versatile. It indicates dispersal and non-static boundaries in a way that merges the camp with its surroundings. The notion of campscape seems to better render the image of what is the refugee camp today in its relation to its location thus pointing out the transcendence of the exception beyond the camp’s shape (Martin, 2014). Today, the difference between Shatila and its outside is barely perceptible as many Palestinians also live outside Shatila’s official boundaries. No fence or wall surrounds Shatila and, as it appears today, the camp has only one net on its northern side with multiple points of access. The rest of the camp is open, and boundaries are represented by streets that are wider than the narrow alleys within it. It is precisely this openness and lack of control that facilitated the increase of the camp’s population. By adopting such an open-space approach, Shatila establishes itself as an integral part of the body of the city rather than a parasitic element feeding itself off of it. The political equivalent to this metaphor is embodied by the 1987 Cairo Agreements between the Lebanese government and the refugees in Shatila (Martin, 2014). These agreements gave the Palestine Liberation Organization the right to train in Lebanon but most importantly, they permitted the Palestinians to self-administer their spaces. While in the early years of their presence in Lebanon Palestinians were prevented from expanding their camps and building what would have created a sense of permanency, from 1969 on refugees began constructing with concrete two or more storey buildings and expanding the camp beyond its boundaries. This is the moment at which the camp started meeting the informal settlements and the ever-expanding misery belt. Moreover, in 1987 after the Lebanese government abrogated the Cairo Agreements, Lebanese authorities were still not controlling the camps from within. From a technology of control in the hands of the state authorities as it was in the past, the camp turns into a technology of invisibility by the same subjects that the sovereign intended to exclude and becomes a finer form of resistance (Martin, 2014). In that sense, the natural expansion of the camp created an impossibility of distinguishing it physically and also symbolically from what lies outside it. Therefore, Shatila has now become part of the urban texture of metropolitan Beirut and the city’s ‘misery belt’, an axis of low income and informal settlements surrounding Beirut’s city center that represents the threshold where the camp and the city meet. So, while biopolitical imaginations and the humanitarian system depict refugee camps as isolated spaces, well demarcated and impermeable, this does not reflect the reality on the ground for many of them. This dimension is also reflected in the physical proximity between Lebanese citizens and Palestinian refugees with the former living in the Shatila camp and its surroundings given their low socioeconomic status. 

Beyond the walls, fences, cemented edifices and open structures, the refugee camp is a space of socialization and community organization and serves as a means of expression for the humanitarian order. This essay analyzed the mukhayyam through the lens of neoliberal technologies and humanitarian urbanism in the context of the Azraq camps, deconstructed its associated state of exception and demonstrated Zaataria and Shatila as embodiments of the refugee urban sovereignty and socioeconomic agency. We also pointed out the ways in which refugee reappropriation of the mukhayyam could be considered a challenge to the humanitarian order and situated these power dynamics in a context of permanent temporariness.

​

Explanatory Notes

​

1. Refugee Camp in Arabic

2. The term ‘bare life’ originates in Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben’s work. His argument is that the loss of the distinction between ‘life’ in the manner in which it is lived, and the biological fact of life obscures the fact that in a political context, life is the latter rather than the former. Bare life refers then to a conception of life in which the biological fact of living is given priority over the way a life is lived. Oxford Reference.  

3. Farah and Mira are both residents of the Burj-El Barajneh camp in Beirut. We wanted to include their personal stories and opinions as a way to center their narrative concerning the vast humanitarian order they live in. Their nuanced statements give a personal dimension we wanted to convey in this paper as part of the intrinsic relationship between refugees and humanitarian organizations.

Works Cited

 

Dalal, Ayham. “The Refugee Camp as Urban Housing.” Housing Studies 35, no.1 (Summer 2020) 1-23.  

​

Dalal, Ayham. “A Socio-economic Perspective on the Urbanization of Zaatari Camp in Jordan.” Migration
Letters 12, no.3 (Fall 2015) 263-278. 

​

Harrell-Bond, Barbara. “Can Humanitarian Work with Refugees be Humane?” Human Rights Quarterly 24, no.1 (2002)
51-85.

​

Hoffman, Sophia. “Humanitarian Security in Jordan’s Azraq Camp.” Security Dialogue, 48, no.2 (2017) 97-112.

 

Jansen, Bram. “The Protracted Refugee Camp and the Consolidation of a ‘Humanitarian Urbanism.’” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (2016). 

​

Janse, Bram. “Cities in the Making: Contours of the Urbanizing Refugee Camp.” Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung,
April 20, 2020. 

​

Martin, Diana. “From Spaces of Exception to ‘Campscapes’: Palestinian Refugee Camps and Informal Settlements in
Beirut.” Political Geography 44 (Fall 2014) 9-18.

​

Potvin, Marianne. “Humanitarian Urbanism under a Neoliberal Regime.” Paper presented at the International
Resourceful Cities 21 Conference 2013.  

​

Sanyal, Romola. “Squatting in Camps: Building and Insurgency in Spaces of Refuge.” Urban Studies Journal 48, no.5
(Spring 2011) 877-890. 

​

UNHCR, “2014 Syria Regional Response Plan Jordan.” ​UNDP. (2012). UNDP/UNHCR Transitional Solutions Initiative Joint Program for Refugees and their Host Communities, Eastern Sudan (Phase 1).