9 “Centers of attraction” refer to the provision of public services and the building of infrastructure in a rural settlement for the purpose of encouraging resettlement in this place as well as the immediately surrounding villages or hamlets.
hamlet in the Merkez district. In İslamköy and in the Tur hamlet of Kulp, a total of 50 houses were built and delivered to their rightful owners in 2001. The “Work on Return to Villages and Rehabilitation” memorandum states that this project administered by the Diyarbakır Governorship, the GAP Administration, and the General Directorate of Rural Services will cover drinking water, sewage systems, electricity and telephone infrastructure, road construction, and school repairs.10
Before the enactment of the RVRP, a housing complex known as “500 houses” was built for IDPs in the Merkez district of Diyarbakır and a housing complex known as “450 houses” which had previously been built as post-disaster housing was given over to IDPs. The “Work on Return to Villages and Rehabilitation” memorandum also states that letting IDPs “benefit” from the resources of the Social Aid and Solidarity Foundation (Sosyal Yardımlaşma ve Dayanışma Vakfı - “SYDV”) is considered part of the RVRP. The memorandum states that, apart from the budget of the Special Provincial Administration, the realization of these activities has also benefited from the financial contributions of the General Directorate of Rural Services and from the Electricity Distribution Corporation of Turkey (Türkiye Elektrik Dağıtım Anonim Şirketi
- “TEDAŞ”). But there is no clear breakdown showing itemized expenditures or the
distribution of the money according to districts.
Deputy Governor Erol Özer stated in February 2005 that in villages where there were collective petitions for return, RVRP funds were spent on projects such as infrastructure work, as well as on providing people with material supplies for the construction of houses. Özer said that criteria such as closeness to district centers, absence of security issues, and the existence of a significant number of households wishing to return, were used in the selection of villages where infrastructure investment (roads, water, electricity, etc.) would be made.
The following impressions can be derived from the information on RVRP provided by the Governorship: until the year 2000, there were no aid programs for IDPs apart from housing projects such as the “450 Houses” and “500 Houses” projects, which only a limited number of people could benefit from, and aid for some individuals from
SYDV. After 2000, RVRP activities intensified, especially in the form of construction material aid and infrastructure work in villages where a relatively higher number of people have returned. However, it is obvious at this stage that the said infrastructure work is still very insufficient since, as will be described below, an important problem encountered by IDPs is that they cannot return to their villages because the villages are not in livable condition.
3. RETURNS
Return is the most emphasized point in policies addressing internal displacement in Turkey, not only for the government but also for the United Nations (“UN”) and the
European Union (“EU”), both of which have an interest in the internal displacement issue in Turkey.11 However, at a stage where more than 10 years have passed since
the displacement occurred, return now presents the characteristics of a complex sociological phenomenon, rather than a simple choice on the part of households. There are five principal elements that will influence individuals’ and households’ decision to return in the near future: 1) what return means; 2) who wants to return; 3) whether returns are economically viable; 4) obstacles to return such as the village guard system and security concerns; and 5) the attitude of the government concerning returns. These five elements will be examined below in light of the findings from the Diyarbakır fieldwork and the data from the field study held in Istanbul.12
Responses to the question “do you want to return to your village?” by members of internally displaced households in Diyarbakır and Istanbul show how complex the issue actually is. First of all, the concept of “return to villages” has different meanings for different people. Moreover, the answers to this question show significant differences according to variables such as the interviewee’s age, sex, socio-economic status, position within the household, and place of residence.
3.1. What Does “Return” Really Mean?
The first point that needs to be emphasized is that return must be seen as return not only to villages, but also to places of residence. As stated in Chapter III, internal displacement occurred not only in rural settlements but also in district centers in the Southeast where there was intensive armed conflict. Diyarbakır is important in this respect. The district center of Lice especially (to a certain extent also some other districts such as Kulp and Hani) was the stage for intensive armed clashes between the armed forces and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan - “PKK”) in the first half of the 1990s. As a consequence, fearing for theirlives, many people who lived in district centers migrated to the provincial center or to provinces in Western Turkey. One of the most crucial points emphasized in this book is that, although their villages were not directly evicted, these people are included, all the same, in the definition of “internally displaced person” in the Guiding Principles. In fact, among the IDPs interviewed in Diyarbakır and Istanbul were members of households who had been obliged to leave their places of residence because of fear for their lives rather than due to being evicted.
The second point to emphasize is that return has different meanings for people who left their living spaces involuntarily, suddenly, and in a traumatic way.13 While some