Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis by nataliachild

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis The Case of CĂşcuta, the Border City

Natalia Child PelĂĄez MSc Building and Urban Design in Development

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis The Case of CĂşcuta, the Border City

Natalia Child PelĂĄez MSc Building and Urban Design in Development

10,951 words Supervisor: Giovanna Astolfo A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc Building and Urban Design in Development

Development Planning Unit, University College London 2 September 2019

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all those who supported me throughout this year and contributed to this work. Especially my supervisor Giovanna for her patience and guidance, as well as the rest of the BUDD team for their constant encouragement and invaluable knowledge shared. Thanks to all my BUDDies for being my biggest inspiration. You were not only a central part in my learning process but the most amazing friends throughout this year. You have marked me forever. Finally, I would like to thank my friends back home, especially Nathalia who introduced me to this incredible programme and helped me throughout the process. I thank my mom and sister, for being always my main network of care and my strength when I needed it. To my dad, to whom I own the enthusiasm for learning and who keeps on being my main motivation. To Camilo, for his unconditional love and support, for always believing in me, and sending me the best energy and impulse to reach my biggest dreams.

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

Content Acknowledgements

List of Acronyms List of Figures

9 9

Introduction

Chapter 1 Contextualizing the south-south migration within the logics of Latin America 1.1 1.2

Regional level: Disarticulation of South America National level: Migration in a Post-conflict scenario

13 15

Chapter 2 Unfolding the Network of Care in Hospitable Relations within Migration 2.1 2.2 2.3

The Necessary Act of Care The Triad of Care Hostipitality: The Paradox inside Care and its presence in Migration

17 19 23

Chapter 3 Conceptual Framework and Methodology 3.1 Analytical Approach 3.2 Methodology

27 29

Chapter 4 Beyond the ‘brotherhood’: Hospitality within the care ecosystem in the border city of Cúcuta

1. 2. 3. 4.

The Jump: Crossing the Border The Adjustment: Settling in All in the Bed or all in the Floor: The Struggle Wait till Dawn to See: The Indefinite Stay

Chapter 5 Moving beyond Hostility: Re-framing Care 5.1 Discussion 5.2 Conclusions References

32 34 36 38

41 42 44 7

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

List of Figures Figure 1 . In front of uncertainty Source: (Watson, 2018)

Figure 2 . Migration Flows in South America Source: Author

Figure 3 . Associations within the network of Care Source: Author

Figure 4 . The bridge Source: (Moncada, 2018)

Figure 5 . The first stay Source: (Moncada, 2018)

Figure 6 . Expanding care Source: (Murillo, 2019)

Figure 7 . Temporary vs. permanent Source: (Hernรกndez, 2017)

Figure 8 . The journey continues Source: (Watson, 2018)

Acronyms CNMH

Centro Nacional de Memoria Historica

IDMC

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre

IDP

Internally Displaced Person

IOM

International Organisation for Migration

FARC

Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia

UNHCR

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

INTRODUCTION

It was during the mid 20th century that Gabriel Garcia Márquez (1974), as an undocumented immigrant in Venezuela, passionately wrote a magazine article named “Adiós, Venezuela”. Concerned, he described the lives of thousands of Italian immigrant workers that were exploited there, and how still within those harsh conditions they appreciated their hosts for how welcoming and caring they were. Surprisingly, sixty years later, the situation of that ‘prosperous nation’ turned towards a socioeconomic and political crisis that led to one of the current largest emigrations of the region. The Venezuelan crisis has become an inevitable emergency with more than four million migrants spreading through all of South America. Consequently, by being a south-south migration, the susceptibility of the migrants has continually changed, as well as their relation with the receiving societies. Due to the urgency, this massive displacement has only been analysed from a legal point of view and has not yet reached an in-depth socio-spatial theoretical debate. For that reason, the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of the infrastructures of care within the Venezuelan southsouth migratory crisis, in the border city of Cúcuta, Colombia. In order to do so, it questions how the networks of care between migrants and hosts evolve over time and space. Additionally, it examines the processes of hospitality and their rapid change into actions of hostility, showing that host communities feel vulnerable as foreigners root in their territory. Therefore, I suggest that in the context of south-south migrations, there is a predictable deterioration of the guest-host relation in time, which leads inevitably into a broader social crisis. This paper begins with the contextualisation in chapter one of the regional and national settings, revealing how the past and current problematics have had an impact on the migratory crisis. It then focuses, on chapter two, into deepening the analysis around care and extending Tronto’s and Puig’s notion of it. Then, it broadens the meaning of care and defines it as a situated practice that has to be ethically rethought and politically redistributed in order to sustain life. Consequently, the chapter expands the theories of hospitality and opens a debate beyond Derrida’s definition of it. Furthermore, and based on Fiddian’s work, it understands how the relations of care between humans can transform and expand

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

within a migration process. That leads to claim that hospitality should always be understood within the local logics of space and time. Within the literature there are various theoretical agendas beyond the scope of this paper, therefore I express that its selection was focused uniquely in the case of study. The review of the literature suggests, in chapter three, the concept ‘associations of care’ in order to question the relation between the subjects. This concept is used in chapter four to analyse the case of Cúcuta, which is structured in four stages that represent the encounter of migrants and hosts. It begins with the ‘jump’, followed by ‘the adjustment’, then ‘the struggle’ and finally ‘the indefinite stay’. These stages expand the knowledge on the relations between hosts and foreigners, and how they grow, adapt and evolve in a spatio-temporal framework within the border city. Finally, chapter five discusses the findings and claims the urgency to go beyond the mainstream notions of care. It implies re-thinking care as a systemic network, essential for maintaining life and recognising the neglected. Conclusively, I argue that the understanding of the associations of care is essential as they give us a route to manage the uncertainty through the improvement of the pre-existent networks of care.

Introduction

Figure 1 . In front of uncertainty Source: Author (Watson, 2018)

CHAPTER

Contextualising the South-South Migration within the logics of South America

1.1

Regional Level: Disar ticulation of South America

The migration crisis of Venezuela is certainly an emergency that is, and will, continue to impact South America. According to a report done by UNHCR and the IOM (2019), the number of displaced people has reached 4 million in 2019, expecting it to grow exponentially during the next months. With a colonised past, Latin America is not new to immigration processes, although it has a dichotomic position regarding the newcomers. During the 19th century it was ‘open’ to receive foreigners, but ‘close’ by being selective and categorising them. This is the case of the European populations, who were invited to migrate to ‘whiten’ the local population. Nowadays, the debate within South America has been a legal discussion based on how the Venezuelans should be ‘treated’ as subjects. Nevertheless, the conditionality of ‘being open and close’ depending on the foreigner is problematic given that they face this unpredictable crisis. The events of the last century have affected the position of the South American governments with regards to the current crisis. Migrant rights were globally outlined by the Geneva Refugee Convention of 1951, in which the definition of refugee was redacted (Freier, 2018). All South American countries were active participants of this reunion and signed it accordingly. In the 70’s a wave of right-wing military dictatorships began, which led in the ’80s, to disperse coups in the region. This provoked the rise of centre-leftist governments in South America, which would be called later the ‘pink tide’ (Freier & Parent, 2018a). The new left-wing governors searched for broader refugee rights which led to a regional meeting in 1984 where the Cartagena Declaration was signed. That statement, very progressive for the global standards, extended the refugee definition and included “the right to protection for victims of generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other situations that have seriously disturbed the public order” (Freier, 2018). In the last ten years, South America has started to see right-wing governments emerge which, coincidentally or not, have not effectively applied the Cartagena declaration to the case of Venezuelan migrants.

Chapter 1: Contextualising the South-South Migration within the Logics of Latin America

Currently, South America has received the majority of Venezuelan migrants around the world being the main hosting countries Colombia (1.3 million) and

Venezuela Colombia

Peru (768,000) (UNHCR, 2019). Still, the positions with regards to the migrants are different within the region. Some countries are using pre-existent regulations and apply them to the migrants, others have created ad-hoc legal instruments to specify the conditions of the migrant neighbours, and some have not created an answer yet. So, why is the Cartagena framework not applied, if they all signed it? The main circumstance to understand the positionality of these countries is the fact that the Venezuelan displacement is fundamentally a south-south migration. This makes the conditions of the host countries different to, for example, the positions recently taken by the US or certain European countries regarding other migratory crises, that are

Figure 2 . Migration Flows in South America Source: Author

mostly south-north (Freier & Parent, 2018b). The Cartagena declaration has not been applied in South America because it costs money, that they do not have, and because some still argue that the situation is going to be solved promptly. The confusion amongst Venezuelans is evident given that the disjoint efforts around the region are given them different status and hence different rights. Furthermore, this is also creating fluctuating environments that go from hospitality to hostility. Some legal experts agree that Venezuelans should be acknowledged as refugees (Freier & Parent, 2018a) throughout the region, in order to protect their rights within the transversal migration they are going through. Given that it is not the competence of this paper, the displaced Venezuelans will be named migrants, as it is the current term used within the case of analysis. I clarify that the legal debates that are occurring may quickly change the terminology used. Nevertheless, I leave an open question for further discussion; outside the lens of law, are refugees and migrants the same?

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

1.2 National Level: Migration in a Post-conflict scenario

After signing a peace process for an internal war that lasted more than fifty-year, the conflict in Colombia is not yet over. Other armed groups have taken the FARC’s drug routes and violent areas, generating recent waves of IDPs. Some years ago, the internal war made Colombians emigrate, hence receiving immigrants is a new and challenging task for them (Carvajal, 2017). According to Diego Moya, a political risk analyst, the Venezuelan displacement has happened in three main stages (Freier & Parent, 2018b). The first in 2002 after the failed coup against the former president Hugo Chavez. Later in 2007, when the first expropriations of industries occurred, and lastly one from 2014 to the present day, when their currency declined, and the actual president Maduro got into power. The impact of the crisis has worsened in the last years, and each day, there are more actors that ‘want to help’. The Colombian government has created two options for the migrants to remain legally in the country. The first one is the ‘Special Permit of Stay’ (PEP in Spanish), which authorises them to work from ninety days to two years (Freier & Parent, 2018a). The other is the ‘Border Mobility Card’ which is only for the border residents and lets them travel freely between both countries without needing a passport. Currently, there is only a small percentage of migrants that have either of them; hence the rest remain illegal in Colombia. As a response to that situation, the media, international organisations, and some civil society groups, have joined the intention of helping the migrants. Some of the efforts have become campaigns of inclusion, such as #somospanascolombia, MigraVenezuela, and ‘Los hijos del exodo’. However, even if there is a good intention to receive the migrants, the everyday situation is getting more sensitive, dramatic, and complex to understand.

Chapter 1: Contextualising the South-South Migration within the Logics of Latin America

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

CHAPTER

Unfolding the Network of Care in Hospitable Relations within Migration

2.1 The Necessar y act of Care

The literature about care is immense. Theorist from geography, psychology, ethics, among others, have found support in care as a primordial social act that has defined our history and relations as human beings (Puig, 2017). During the last decades, care has been used by feminist theorist to deepen the understanding of how the role of women in the globalising world has dramatically changed. As Raghuram (2016) explains, the fact that women started working and earning money had two main effects in terms of care. Care reappeared as a paid job that was mainly executed by women, and these women mainly came from the Global South to supply the necessities of the Global North. Although these situations do not portray the meaning of care, they focus on care only as a physical practice for serving others, and they made the ‘matters of care’ a critical topic becoming a “public issue of wider concern to society” (Raghuram, 2016, p515). According to Tronto, a theorist who commenced the discussion around the ‘ethics of care’, the definition of care presupposes “everything that we do to maintain, continue and repair our world so that we can live in it as well as possible. That world includes our bodies, ourselves, and our environment, all of which we seek to interweave in a complex, life-sustaining web” (Tronto, 1993, p103 cited in Puig, 2017). This view is supported by additional care authors such as Maria Puig (2012), who expanded Tronto’s debate around care and expressed that, although Tronto’s definition is too broad, it indicates how care is inevitable within all relations in the world. The types of care, or ways of caring, change in every individual, and they affect us and our close environment. Consequently, Puig (2012) claims that nothing could survive without care. These relationships of care, that will be explored subsequently, have much in common as they involve “non-symmetrical, multilateral, a-subjective, obligations that are distributed across more than human materialities and existences” (Puig, 2017, p221), meaning that care encompasses all types of relations: natural -artificial, human society-nature, human-human and within the last one a vast scope of associations.

Chapter 2: Unfolding the Network of Care in Hospitable Relations within Migration

The extensive definition of care is widening the scope of what we once limited care to. Puig (2010, p164) cites Carrasco (2001), to express that the sphere of care goes beyond the conventional “care of children, of the elderly, or other dependants, care activities in domestic, health care and affective work”. Care maintains life; hence we are always in necessity of care. Even when there is a negligence of care, it does not mean that care is not present in that situation, but that the consequence is a state of “carelessness” (Puig, 2017). The arguments of many theorists of care trigger, from different research perspectives, the idea that the web of life works within power relations which are represented within relationships of care. Furthermore, when Maria Puig (2010, p164) proposes that “we need to insist on this ‘interweaving’ in order to be able to think how care holds together the world as we know it and allows its perpetuation”, it portrays the importance of analysing the possible “logics of domination that are reproduced or intensified in the name of care” (Puig, 2017, p56), which turn care into a tool beyond the mainstream notions of it. However, one questions must be asked; why research about care? Puig (2010) argues that the research of care works as a mechanism through which we can analyse the spaces, relations and situations where care is not provided, and therefore understand deeply the acts of neglect as well as its repercussions on the marginalised. This leads to the recognition of care as a social struggle and “an ethico-political issue well more problematic than it could initially seem to be” (Puig, 2017, p29). This view is supported by Raghuram, a researcher focused on geography, gender and migration, who argues that care should be considered “a political project and a public issue of wider concern to society” (2016, p515). Although care should be given importance in the political realm, there is still a limitation on its research. In many Global-South countries, the scope of its study is still narrow, relying on its mainstream perspectives. Nevertheless, I agree with Raghuram’s (2016) claim on how care creates new forms of knowledge and ways to understand the relations that connect all existences -natural and artificial- in the world. Therefore, I take that affirmation to widen the thinking process in this thesis, particularly within the human’s relations in a south-south migration context.

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

2. 2 The Triad of Care

In line with Puig’s argument on the three visions of care, “doings-practice/affectivity/ethics-politics” (2017, p70), I subdivide my analysis in what I claim are the central branches of care: politics, ethics and practices. Each one of those represents a general question regarding the what, why and how to care or not to care.

Politics of Care what ?

Raghuram’s understanding of care as a political project lead to argue that, in order to maintain life, care has to be understood to then be distributed. Certainly, the politics of care play an essential role in these activities as they are characterised by multiple ideologies. Raghuram states that the politics of care “aim to address some of the shortcomings of other normative theories” (2016, p114), and they provide guidance concerning the main political question: what to do, or not to do? Care should be thought within the political realm, since the web of care depends on the decisions taken by governments over the provision or neglection of care. However, sometimes those choices are unthought and directed by political pressures. Smith (1998, p27), having a human-geography and ethics background, makes an emphasis on the politics of care and cites Tronto (1993), as she explains how care “is probably ultimately anti-capitalistic because it posits meeting needs for care, rather than the pursuit of profit, as the highest social goal”. Although I claim there can be a strong provision of care in capitalist nations, the scope of this paper is not wide enough to cover a discussion on it. However, the relation between the politics of care and forms of governments in the Global South should be a priority in further researches. Within the politics of care, some theorists have focused on justice as the outcome of it. Justice is a broad and provocative term that figures typically as part of the political powers of a nation. Additionally, it has been the term used mistakenly by many as the way to pursuit redistribution, but beyond that, it represents the moral part of the politics of care. According to Gilligan (1987), cited by Smith (1998, p31), the visions of care and justice are recurrent in our general “human experience” since we are all susceptible to “oppression and abandonment” and thus we are put in a position of looking for justice in care. The limitation is that these two concepts have not been combined in the theory of politics. As Smith (1998,

Chapter 2: Unfolding the Network of Care in Hospitable Relations within Migration

p31) argues that “justice is for the public realm, care for the private”, Tronto (1993) suggests that it must be necessary to connect the theories of justice with care. Furthermore, Clement (1996) agrees with the importance of linking the perceptions of care and justice and it leads to claim that these two should be “indispensable to one another in our attempts to create a world more conducive to human well-being” (cited in Smith 1998, p34). Accordingly, the discussion leads to consider the politics of care as the way justice and care connect to support each other; by understanding care as a basic necessity of life and justice as the vehicle used to get what people deserve from it. Although there are not enough arguments to support this claim, it portrays the scope of one of the main theoretical branches of care: politics. Furthermore, Tronto’s, Clement, Smith’s and Gilligan’s positions strongly suggest the importance of thinking the politics of care beyond any mainstream agency impositions. This way, the politics of care could be woven through justice, to a theoretical question that asks, ‘what to do or not to do?’

Ethics of Care why ?

Ethics is the branch of care that has been the most written about. As Proctor (1998) describes it, ethics is the moral segment of philosophy, and it encompasses reflections on dichotomic concepts such as “good or bad, right or wrong”. In social sciences, ethics is taken into consideration to target the moral enquires within the research studies or general professional actions. Nonetheless, authors like Puig (2010) argue that we are living in the “age of ethics”, given that the term is reminded constantly in every action people make. These include the acts of care performed, or not, by every individual, which have a consequence in our ethical status as a society. As Tronto (1993 cited in Smith 1998) defends, there must be a satisfactorily provision of care for everyone in a community, so that it can be judged as an ethically admirable community. Tronto’s (1993) statement falls short to explain how the care delivered by society should have an ethical reason behind. Instead, her discussion directs the attention to a superficial problem: is there a pressure in order to be judged positively? Nowadays, many acts of care are not done consciously, but rather are defined as unthought actions that focus on instant relief, instead of the long-term consequences. Consequently, care, as a superficial act, has become an ‘ethical competition’ in some societies that demonstrate

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

who cares the most. Accordingly, I highlight on the question ‘why to care?’ the ethics behind the acts of care that are performed only for its recognition. In a way to contest this situation, Smith (1998, p24) argues that care should be prioritised as a moral value, in order to “motivate [a provision of] unconditional care for special others, due to the need of all humans to receive care”. Smith (1998) also claims that geography has a direct impact on morality, hence an effect on the ethics of care, given that the geographical position of societies influences the moral boundaries and norms they have. He also explains how the geographical position, the spatial relationships with others, and the surrounding environments, situate the people’s morality (1998). I agree with his position of declaring the need to situate the ethics of care and contextualise the research about it. The ethics of care also comprehends the moment when there is no care, described as an act of negligence (Puig, 2010). In these situations, Puig claims that care becomes an ethical obligation that must be achieved towards the neglected. So, should care become an elemental right? Smith’s (1998, p25) states that “the provision of care has to be institutionalised, not only for effectiveness but also because of a right to care”. Although debating this right may be ethically-wrong, I do agree with Held’s (1993 cited in Smith 1998, p35) argument in which he points the impossibility of providing care to everyone. As he suggests, the ethics of care also implies having the “moral guidelines for ordering priorities” of the practices of care.

Practices of Care how ?

Through this analysis, it has been discussed how politics and ethics are essential for the conception of care. Given that care is transmitted through acts, the practices of care are about its materialisation. Tronto (1993 cited in Raghuram 2016, p516) argues that within care there are four elements: “giving, receiving, caring about and caring for”, which represent both care as ethics -caring about- and care as practices -caring for- (Popke 2006 cited in Raghuram 2016). Within Tronto’s discussion of which element is more appropriate, I argue instead, that the debate should focus on questioning how the practices of care lead to analyse how should we care, or avoid caring? The practices of care not only relate with an individual but with a collectivity. Puig (2010) exemplifies it in the individual act of caring for a child or an older person, which translates into a collective benefit. These practices describe care as a unilateral network that grows continuously by its multidimensional

Chapter 2: Unfolding the Network of Care in Hospitable Relations within Migration

acts. However, I question if those collective practices of care demand a level of reciprocity. Puig (2017) quotes Iris Marion Young (1997), a feminist theorist who focused on social justice, as she argues that the reciprocity of care is not symmetrical. She explains that each individual has different ethical values; hence the questions ‘why we care?’ and ‘how we care?’ change within each subject, since there is no assurance that an act of care can be responded. According to Puig (2017), many governments believe that if care is provided to some people, it will be naturally reproduced to others. This makes people responsible to reciprocate care within a citizen-citizen relation, which is sometimes impossible. Care is then a situated practice that sustains life and a mechanism that understands the networks where it is neglected. It is also a powerful tool that must be ethically rethought and politically redistributed (Puig, 2017; Raghuram 2016). In line with its theoretical nature, care encounters various limitations. One of them being the scope of its research, which is so broad that its importance can be lost within other disciplines. Additionally, the care relations between humans have been mainstreamed and defined by being a ‘private activity’ that is found in caregivers and therapist. Nevertheless, there is a long way to expand the notions of care, especially within its significant role within the analysis between migrants and hosts.

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

2.3 Hostipitality: The Paradox inside Care and its

presence in Migration

Following the discussion around care, this thesis focuses on one of the care relations that are offered only by humans to humans: hospitality. Hospitality is represented in the relation between hosts and guests, and some suggest it starts even before the foreigner is identified by the host (Derrida & Dufourmantelle, 2000). When asking the foreigner the first question, the intention is to classify the newcomer and decide if taking care of it or not (Derrida, 2000). This leads to claim that hospitality is an act of care because it initiates a particular relation between a guest and a host in order to maintain the life-sustaining web. Still, the hierarchies within care and hospitality should be acknowledged, since not all acts of care include hospitality, but all acts of hospitality evoke care (Bulley, 2015). Although hospitality is not essential within Tronto’s, Puig’s and Smith’s discussions around care, it is fundamental for this work in order to understand the unique characteristics that define the role of guests and hosts in a south-south migratory crisis. Hospitality has been discussed thoroughly as a theoretical and abstract concept by philosophers such as Kant and Derrida, and recently it has been taking an essential focus on the current debates of the global migration crises. In order to render it a practical concept, it is crucial to comprehend the theories behind it. Starting from Kant’s arguments, hospitality means “the right of a stranger not to be treated with hostility when he arrives on someone else’s territory” (Kant in Derrida & Dufourmantelle 2000, p5) meaning that he could be hosted -care is given- or rejected -care not given- in a non-hostile manner. Kant (cited in Yarbakhsh 2018) also suggests that hospitality is universal because humans own the earth’s surface, hence the foreigner has a right to claim resort, which must be differentiated to the right of residence which is not a privilege for everyone. Nevertheless, Derrida goes beyond Kant’s notion of hospitality as a right, and critiques his definition by expanding the concepts of right of resort and right of residence by shaping them into “hospitality of visitation and hospitality of invitation” (Derrida, 2000, p14). The difference between them, he states, is that hospitality of visitation is given when there is no need for a door because “anyone can come at any time and can come in without needing a key for the door” (2000, p14), while in the situation of a foreigner with an invitation, hospitality per se becomes the door.

Chapter 2: Unfolding the Network of Care in Hospitable Relations within Migration

The notion of dependent hospitality leads Derrida to mark the difference between a hospitality with conditions to an unconditional one. To differentiate them, he named accordingly; the laws of hospitality (plural) and the law of unconditional hospitality (singular) (Derrida & Dufourmantelle, 2000). The first one consists on the host designating rights, parameters, and obligations by questioning, limiting or rejecting the foreigner (Derrida & Dufourmantelle, 2000). On the contrary, the second one corresponds to an “unquestioning, absolutely open” act, that consists on receiving the foreigner “without asking a name, or compensation, or the fulfilment of even the smallest condition” (Derrida & Dufourmantelle, 2000, p77). According to Dufourmantelle (2011), a philosopher and psychoanalyst directly linked with Derrida’s work, Derrida’s biggest aim is for the society to reach unconditional hospitality. However, he finds a contradiction in its statement as he exposes how the two types of hospitality are always attached, as they are in constant need of the other. He argues that the “absolute openness” is impossible to achieve in a real-world since the political realm would not be able to manage it and the host’s possession of the house could be rescinded (Derrida 2003 cited in Bulley, 2015).

Beyond Hospitality Furthermore, the contradiction within hospitality leads Derrida (2001) to argue that hospitality and hostility are indeed intertwined with each other (Yarbakhsh 2018). He explains that by their dichotomic essence, hospitality cannot always be “positive or fair” hence, he proposes the word hostipitality as the connected representation of both (Derrida & Dufourmantelle, 2000). The migration academic Fiddian-Qasmiyeh (2016c) finds this concept relevant when it comes to an understanding and “problematising, the relationship between welcoming and rejecting neighbours in times of conflict and peace”. However, she questions how Derrida’s concept generates anxiety concerning the arrival of the foreigner and positions the tension as something habitual and unavoidable (Berg & Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2018). Fiddian’s argument to contradict this notion relies on her discussion between hospitality and hostility, in which she states that they do not have to be always entwined because hostility can be preventable. In order to achieve it, she proposes to contest the “fatalistic invocations of hostipitality” and comprehend the potentialities within that relation of guest and host, that can reproduce “care, generosity and recognition” (Berg & Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2018). As a result, I suggest that Fiddian (2016b) surpasses Derrida’s notion of hostility, by stating it is intrinsic in every hospitable relation. Additionally, she uses hostipitality as a mechanism to analyse the realities of the encounters in migration settings, stressing the fact that hostility can be avoided.

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

In recent years, the researches studying the relationship between hosts and guests in migration contexts have expanded. The tendency has been to explore the transformation of these two subjects (guest and host) into diverse variations in situated settings, and a clear example of that investigation is the Refugee Host project, which Fiddian leads with other academics. They opened the scope of the host-guest relation and acknowledged the possibility of transformation within it, which brought to analysis the host-host, migrant-IDP, former migrant-host relations, among others. However, it is essential to go back and draw upon Dufourmantelle’s (2000) intriguing question: where is this relation happening? Beyond the dual relation within hospitality, place is introduced, emphasising in the necessity “to start from the certain existence of a dwelling to offer hospitality or accept it” (Dufourmantelle, 2000, p56). According to Dufourmantelle (2000), the place enacts another job, which is being the witness of the relation between host and foreigner. This role is determinant to Derrida, as he questions if one can only become a host if experienced being homeless (Derrida & Dufourmantelle, 2000). In a much radical view of space within hospitality, I introduce Bulley, an academic focused on global politics. He argues that not only “concrete hospitality is a spatial”, but that hospitality per se “produces a space” (Bulley, 2015, p5). Bulley also explains how hospitality demarcates the space by boundaries and assigns it to the host and the foreigner. As a response, Fiddian goes further and endorses space in dimensions beyond the physical: socially and emotionally. She also explains how the relationship between refugees within a shared space is still unresearched, and it should evolve to a broader lens that goes beyond the mainstream notions of care in migration contexts (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2016b). In a certain way, I agree with Bulley’s (2015) point of seeing hospitality as a necessary practice, because it pushes the ethics of ownership and invites us to dissolve the thresholds that contain us. Nevertheless, I defend Fiddian’s (2016) conception of space as a much broader dimension that can help us redefine and discern the nature of the relations within hospitality. Furthermore, Bulley (2015) analyses Derrida’s theories on hospitality, which according to him, emphasise the study of the acts of inclusion and exclusion that happen at a threshold within the encounter of two subjects. However, Bulley criticises Derrida’s work as it falls short in the propositional and practical level. That is why he argues that hospitality has a bigger potential than Derrida’s scope. He claims that it could be an essential tool within the realm of international ethics and as a theory that improves the practice of hospitality per se. Similarly going beyond Derrida, Fiddian argues that humanity is facing settings of prolonged displacement. By trying to “destabilise the assumption that refugees are always hosted by citizens” (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2016a), she exposes that former migrant groups have become

Chapter 2: Unfolding the Network of Care in Hospitable Relations within Migration

hosts to the recent waves of displaced people. Nevertheless, she claims not to romanticise this ‘new’ relations within hospitality “since they are framed by power imbalances and processes of exclusion and overt hostility” (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2016a).

Consequently, Fiddian (2016c) argues that displacement, in addition to being continuous, has layers that overlap. Understanding this statement in a global context where “more than 32,200 people per day are forced to leave their homes and seek hospitality elsewhere” (UNHCR 2014 in Bulley 2015), led Yarbakhsh (2018) to state that the current era is indeed defined by displacement. Even though it represents a big part of the world’s migration, Fiddian (2016c) claims that the academic community has marginalised south-south migration. Primarily, she argues that it is invisible to the Global North, as there are no direct consequences in their territories. Nevertheless, she states, within the Global South the programmes and policies created to assist the crisis have induced “resentment and insecurity among hosts” (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2016a). Although there are evident pressures generated by the different hosts, migrants and guests, Fiddian claims they could be avoided by “implementing development-oriented programmes that aim to support both refugees and host communities” (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2016a). Therefore, I claim that hospitality, as a situated practise, should always be understood within the local logics of space and social relations that are transformed continuously in time.

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

CHAPTER 3 Conceptual Framework

3.1 Analytical Approach Given that migration continues to grow unmeasurably within the Global South, the fact that it is not on the spotlight of the worldwide debates has become an issue. In order to advocate for a further understanding of these humanitarian crises, I claim that theories of care have to be included as a central part of its discussions. To do so, I draw upon Tronto’s (1993) notion of care as a web that sustains life and Puig’s (2010) idea of care as a way to think for the marginalised, and I define care as a systemic network that is essential in maintaining life and crucial in the recognition of the neglected. As discussed in the former chapter, the triad of care contains the notions of politics, ethics, and practices of care. These represent accordingly the questions; what to do in order to care? why do it or not do it? And, how to do it? They are all focused on understanding the connection of care between the two subjects. As the aim of this paper is to understand how the networks of care between migrants and hosts evolve over time and space, we find there is a gap in order to get to it. There is no still no explicit approach (Puig’s is very vague) to understand the changes in the subjects per se, leading to the question: who cares? Acknowledging that there is “not only one way of caring” (Puig, 2017, p61) the discussion about who cares and is cared is essential. Therefore, I suggest covering that gap by proposing a fourth category to join the already explained triad: the ‘associations of care’. The ‘associations of care’ encourage an analysis of how and why each subject changes in order to get associated with another. Given that this paper focuses explicitly in the human-human relations, this category leads the understanding of situations when some practices of hospitality change to reactions of hostility. To get to it, it is fundamental to study the incentives of the people (the who) that shows hospitality or hostility (Berg & Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2018). Moving beyond from Derrida’s and Fiddian’s binary, I declare that within any act of hospitality, there is always a particular hostility, created by the fear of the unknown (guest). However, I defend the idea that any act of hostility can be avoided in order to make hospitality work as a useful tool within migration.

Chapter 3: Conceptual Framework

In order to apply the associations of care within the analysis of the case, I refer to Wagner, cited by Fiddian (2018), as she declares that “to understand the relationship between hospitality and hostility, we need to pay close attention to social relations and social practices: their social texture, spatiality, and temporality”. These three lenses are the key to approach the analysis in diverse contexts of migration and further comprehend the relations of care. Fiddian’s focus on the evaluation of these encounters is based a temporal dimension of “past, present, and future” (Berg & Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2018), which leads me to claim time as the most critical lens for understanding migratory spaces. Taking into account the scope of this work, I will only use temporality as a lens and mechanism to analyse the south-south migratory crisis in the border city of Cúcuta, Colombia. The research will then be divided into four different stages that go in chronological order, in which the central analysis will concentrate on the question: who? This will lead to the understanding of the changing relations between guest and host (and even beyond that binary categorisation) in order to recognise how they change through time and how the other conditions of care -politics, ethics and practices- are affected by it. Each stage has been named based on local colloquialisms and how people refer to their situation: The Jump: crossing the border, The Adjustment: settling in, All in the Bed or all in the Floor: the struggle, Wait till Dawn to See: the indefinite stay.

Figure 3 . Associations within the network of Care Source: Author

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

3.2 Methodology Acknowledging the scope and short amplitude of this thesis, I recognise there are some limitations within it. One is the focus given to one part of the care-network (human-human relations), which marks it with a debatable anthropocentric point of view. This is determinant for the evaluation of the relations of hospitality, represented in human-human, guest-host and migrant-citizen relations. However, I suggest that the knowledge of the host-guest relations within this paper can be a metaphor to further researches in humans-earth associations. Furthermore, the four stages proposed in the case of study are not meant to be shared in all the migration contexts. The highlight on them is their articulation and the method of analysis, which is based on temporality and aims to understand, phase by phase, how hosts and guest transform or remain the same. Looking into the Venezuelan crisis and its impact on the city of CĂşcuta, it should be clarified that there is still a lack of academic research on this specific migration. It may be a consequence of the general belief, a few years ago, that these migratory events were sporadic and were going to be solved promptly. As the situation is getting worse, the investigations about this human emergency are just starting to materialise. Consequently, most of the information relies on local newspaper articles, regional media, international agencies reports and grey literature. Given that the political situation is changing rapidly, I acknowledge that these sources of information can run out of validity at any time. However, I state that this paper was written according to the socio-economic and political situation on the day of its publishing. I also recognise that there is a risk of bias as the case of study relies on those types of sources, but not having any other option I decided to be as partial as possible. Within all the reports and newspaper articles referenced, there has been a fair number of interviews. Although I acknowledge that bias can be present even before the interviewee speaks, I suggest that most of them have not been edited and thus portray the least biased information about the situation. With regards to this case, these interviews are essential as they are continually referring to the changes in each subject (migrant and host) within space and time. It is concerning how the discussions currently taking place have not been opened to critically analyse those ground stories from the voice of the hosts and migrants in the crisis. Instead, these debates have been based on political aspects that go from criticisms to international conversations with other governments. From the regional to the national responses, they have all been superficial, and none have deepened the analysis on the power relations happening within the migrant or host groups. As the situation is aggravated and the responses are generated at a slower pace, I express the primordial necessity to look beyond what the tip of the iceberg shows.

Chapter 3: Conceptual Framework

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

CHAPTER 4 Beyond the ‘brotherhood’: Cúcuta, the bond between two burdened nations

Not only historically, but currently, Cúcuta has been an essential city in the relations between Colombia and Venezuela. It has always represented the ‘brotherhood’ between them, and it is a reminder that they were once the same nation. Consequently, it is not a surprise that almost 80% of its population has family members in Venezuela, which represents the high bi-nationality in this territory. As Arteta (2018) expresses, Cúcuta “has the advantage and disadvantage of being a border city”. What was once the gate of escape of Colombia’s violence, is now the door of re-entrance for those fleeing Venezuela’s economic crisis. Although there was a time where it was a prosperous city, today Cúcuta barely survives within the hectic environment of displacement and poverty (Arteta, 2018). Cúcuta has transformed into a space of survival; the first place of encounter of migrants with a network that intends to care all those that desperately seek for help. It turned into the hosting space for displaced people, who stay for some months until they can either continue the migration or establish in the city. The situation is getting out of control as the city is not prepared to receive all of the migrants, hence it became an overcrowded place to live. Even though people thought the crisis was not going to last long, this phenomenon is now unpredictable, producing more than a million migrants every year (UNHCR, 2019). The transformations in time of the hosts and the foreigners, as well as the changes in their relation, are the gate to understand how the networks of care are effective or not. Consequently, it leads to understanding why the human-human behaviours change in a south-south migration when these two subjects are struggling to survive while trying to provide care for the others in need.

Chapter 4: Beyond the ‘Brotherhood’. Hospitality within the care ecosystem in the border city of Cúcuta

The Jump: Crossing the Border

The most iconic object of the frontier between Venezuela and Colombia is the bridge that connects them, named after the leader of their independence: Simón Bolivar. This crossing was inaugurated in 1962, and the act reminded everyone that the “boundary line between the two countries was never meant to divide but to unify” (Meléndez, 2018). Its 315 meters connect the city of Cúcuta, Colombia, with the city of San Antonio del Táchira, Venezuela, crossing the natural border, the Táchira river. Currently, it represents the massive fleeing from a humanitarian crisis and, for some, a point of departure to a longer migration to the rest of the country and South America. Back when Venezuela was a prosperous country and had a stable economy, many ‘Cucuteños’ (from the city of Cúcuta) depended on the border’s economy. Since “the Venezuelan side was bustling with business” (Martinez, 2018), many would cross to find goods. Today, at the end of the bridge in the Colombian side, there are hundreds of informal vendors and streets full of hostels, making the ‘reception’ a hectic experience (Meléndez, 2018). The chaos of the arrival is evident, and it has become the first stage of desperate survival for the thousands of Venezuelan migrants that cross the bridge every day. Throughout the crisis, the waves of migration have been distinctly characterised by different ‘types’ of foreigners. Within these stages, the characterisation of the migrants has changed, from being high-educated upper-middle class in the ’90s and early 2000s to being poor and having no education at the moment (Freier & Parent, 2018a). It is essential to understand one particular phenomenon of the migration through Cucuta’s bridge; the pendular migration, where fifty thousand Venezuelans cross the border every day and return at night to sleep in Venezuela. Their purpose is to find what they no longer have in their country and receive the care needed in order to survive. Young children walk more than two hours to go to school, and some shop owners buy supplies that are impossible to find in Venezuela (Meléndez, 2018). Help is based on “showers, medical consultations, and legal aid” (Splinder, 2019) that migrants can obtain in migration centres, which seem to not be enough for the vast demand that there is. Here, migrants and pendular migrants meet, requiring the same needs. Some Cucuteños state that hospitality should only be given to the ‘definite’ migrants starting a new life in Colombian, but the reality is that, in order to maintain the life-web, care is meant to be provided to everyone.

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

Figure 4 . The bridge Source: (Moncada, 2018)

Jose Luis is one of the 8,000 hungry Venezuelan that queue to receive food in a Cucuta’s Religious Centre (Splinder, 2019). Every day he risks his life working in the Táchira river in one of the “200 informal crossing-points” (Teff & Panayotatos, 2019) and helps his compatriots to cross illegally by carrying their belongings (Splinder, 2019). Even more dangerous is what this ‘border helpers’ face when they encounter armed groups that control the crossing of contraband and people (Splinder, 2019). They commonly steal, rape and blackmail the susceptible foreigners who have no other choice but to risk it all. This situation illustrates how the experience of the foreigners starts being defined since the traumatic crossing of the border. Additionally, it differentiates the type of guests from the beginning, since the pendular migrants receive care as they cross the border, but they are in no need of a ‘complete-hospitality’ as they refuse to leave their homes in Venezuela. Evidently the violence within the border is not only perpetuated to migrants but also executed by themselves. Some international agencies have reported migrants performing crimes, given that they have no other options but to join the criminal groups dedicated to “cultivate coca, transport drug or become sex workers” (Teff & Panayotatos, 2019). The constant shootings, in addition with the weekly dismembered bodies found along the frontier, make it an ungovernable space in which apparently, and although it sounds contradictory, the first ‘care’ givers are the same that perpetuate violence against them (El Tiempo, 2019). This leads to claim that hospitality is not always a ‘positive’ experience, as it can be aligned with contradictory ethics of care that involve illegality and violence in the foreigner’s position. It also suggests that since the beginning of the migration, there are overarching power structures that decide the destiny of each foreigner.

Chapter 4: Beyond the ‘Brotherhood’. Hospitality within the care ecosystem in the border city of Cúcuta

The Adjustment: Settling in

When the bridge closes at night, the struggle begins for the migrants that stay at Cúcuta. Informal hostels and wrecked houses receive the migrants that can pay the low fees for staying the night in a wornout mattress (Arteta, 2018). Some others move to the peripheries of Cúcuta and arrive in neighbourhoods such as La Fortaleza, Camilo Daza and Las Delicias. These suburbs have very much in common, as they were created and now are inhabited by victims of the internal displacement of the Colombian war. The IDP’s have been rebuilding their lives in such places, and now they share their space with the Venezuelan migrants, making them the 50% of the total settlers (Hinojosa, 2019; Hernandez & Sevilla, 2018; Martinez, 2018). It is not a coincidence that most migrants in Cúcuta went to this neighbourhoods rather than to, for example, the city centre. As the International Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC, 2017) portrays it, “in a spirit of reciprocity, it has acknowledged that in the past, Colombians have flowed into Venezuela in search of better opportunities or to escape conflict and violence”. This feeling of empathy, in addition to the IDP’s position of having to go through a similar situation, has emerged a sense of solidarity that has led to accepting the migrants as guests and providing them hospitality (Martinez, 2018). Although historically Colombia has been a country that ‘produces’ migrants, it needs to transform quickly in order to receive them (Daniels, 2017). However, how to offer hospitality without knowing? I go back to Derrida’s (2000) question about having to be a foreigner in order to offer hospitality, and I agree that in the case of Cúcuta, it could be true. Fourteen years ago, when the internal war knocked at her door, Angélica Ballesteros crossed the border with a handful of belongings and started from cero her life in Venezuela. She was forced to return to Colombia five years ago, and since that secondary displacement happened, she decided to help people experiencing the same situation. She declares: “I lived there, I worked there, I had a life there (Venezuela), so I know what it is like to have to leave it all behind. People arrive here with nothing, so the priority is to give them somewhere to stay” (Daniels, 2017). This migrant – former migrant relation only lasts for a few months, since she hosts them “until they can stand on their own two feet” (Daniels, 2017). A similar situation happens at hairdresser Rosa’s home, were several migrants have been her guests without paying for accommodation or food, under the condition of cooking and cleaning for her. Rosa was displaced twice, and she became an activist against xenophobia and hostilities against the Venezuelan that are escaping the crisis (Hernandez & Sevilla, 2018). Hospitality is continuously reproduced by other Colombian’s that have experienced similar situations. Graciela Sánchez lived in the southern part of the country, and she was brutally displaced twenty years

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

ago by guerrilla groups (Alvarado, 2018). She left her family and arrived in Cúcuta to start a new life. She explains how her experience of losing everything and withstanding hunger incited her solidarity and her urge to care by “opening her door to Venezuelans” (Martinez, 2018). Her hospitality has helped more than fifty migrants that arrive in groups of more than five. Graciela exposes their challenge; getting a job is not easy, but “while they have a morsel, we will all eat from it” (Alvarado, 2018). Consequently, it is essential to understand the primary condition of this context: it is a south-south migration where foreigners are leaving inhumane conditions and arrive to poor circumstances. As Graciela states, “the conditions of the rummage are hard, but we (host and guests) support each other” (Alvarado, 2018). The solidarity of the hosts that once were foreigners has become essential in the first stage of the migration by providing essential care in a team job. Still, the hard conditions make some of the hungry foreigners’ state that “It was just like Venezuela when I got here” (Daniels, 2017). It is now common to hear in the media how Colombian people should help Venezuelans for the support they gave Colombians before. The civil society even made a public statement recently exposing how our Venezuelan ‘brothers’ needed our urgent care. The fact is that solidarity is not only created by how, in the past, Venezuela hosted hundreds of thousands of Colombians that had to cross the border to save their life from violence (CNMH, 2019). It goes further, to the reason why we call ourselves ‘brothers’ and ‘panas’ (mates). Following Fiddian’s discussion under the etymology and meaning of the word ‘neighbour’, I claim that there is a general nostalgic though in both, Colombians and Venezuelans, that reminds them that they were once one nation under the same territory. This feeling of brotherhood has been the ignitor, most of the times, to enact acts of care. Nonetheless, for some Colombians this feeling is not enough, like for Endry Báez. She claims that her neighbourhood has changed drastically and that the newcomers have made the insecurity increase. She reveals how there is an elevated fear of the foreigners as there are stories of them killing their Colombian hosts (Meléndez, 2018). Inevitably, as the situation progresses, the guest and host change, and so does their relationship.

Figure 5 . The first stay Source: (Moncada, 2018) Chapter 4: Beyond the ‘Brotherhood’. Hospitality within the care ecosystem in the border city of Cúcuta

All in the Bed or all in the Floor: The Struggle

With an unprecedented growth, migrants living in the streets of Cúcuta have reached the two thousand people (Hernandez & Sevilla, 2018). In a city with approximately six hundred thousand inhabitants it represents an enormous percentage, making it even more shocking when the majority live on informality (Arteta, 2018). The risks for these migrants are high, as hostility becomes tangible within situations of constant threat. Consequently, the labour market of Cúcuta has had the most significant impact of the Venezuelan migration as getting a formal job is not easy, given that most of the migrants have no passport or Special Residence Permit. A report done by World Bank states that there has been an incremental loss of formal jobs, given that they are now in direct competition with the lower prices of the informal sector (Arteta, 2018). Within the latter one, that represents the 68% of Cúcuta’s economy, there is an increasing rivalry between the IDPs and Venezuelan migrants (IDMC, 2017), which is creating a tense atmosphere in the city. As IDMC (2019) exposes, “two displacement crises converged in Colombia in the last years”. The impact of this juxtaposition has gone beyond the social aspect to the economic, since “the international community’s attention and resources [have been redirected] away from ongoing internal displacement in Colombia” to the migratory crisis (IDMC, 2017). This affects the relation of hospitality within the city of Cúcuta directly as some are given more care than others. Therefore I question, who deserves to be cared for first? Cúcuta’s challenge is more significant than any other city, because besides of being the “busiest border crossing between Colombia and Venezuela”, it is also one of the leading destinations of IDP’s (IDMC, 2017). The condition of being a south-south migration implies that the government cannot tackle both issues at the same time. With more than 5 million internally displaced people (IDMC, 2017), it is concerning how easily the government is forgetting about them. Aiding the migrants is an urgency across South America, but in Colombia, it should not be at the cost of risking the peace agreement priorities; hence I agree with what Teff and Panayotatos (2019) expose, “these two issues should not have to compete”. The economic competition portrays a survival strategy that has expanded the xenophobia within the city. As it was exposed, Cucuteños have been known for their hospitality, but each day, intimidations against migrants become more common. Some migrants, as Bryan Roman, express how they have received immediate no’s in some jobs, just by their Venezuelan accent (Hernandez & Sevilla, 2018). These

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

Figure 6 . Expanding Care Source: (Murillo, 2019)

acts of hostility represent how care is neglected by some even before knowing the foreigner. The newcomers that experience discrimination and rejection tend to have two positions; some are not afraid because they are proud to be working humbly, and others feel that xenophobia takes their strength to survive (Marin, 2019). This hostile environment has made many families keep on walking until reaching other cities or countries (IDMC, 2017), although the situation in the rest of South America does not get any better. The latter suggest that xenophobia is a tangible act that breaks the care network, not only by neglecting but eliminating any positive bond. In Cúcuta, the police recently prohibited any informal commerce in public spaces, a measure that may seem very common in urban areas (La Opinion, 2019). Nonetheless, the only affected workers have been Venezuelan migrants. This demonstrates how xenophobia is not only at the people’s (host-foreigner) level, but it permeates within the power structures that govern the city. Additionally, many migrants have reported recent deportations of people that are working legally in the border city. They claim the country a right of hospitality, as they continuously remember the thousands of Colombians that reached Venezuela twenty years ago, and care was provided (Euro News, 2018). According to them Colombians and Venezuelans are family, so xenophobia should not exist, and hostility should not be perpetuated.

Chapter 4: Beyond the ‘Brotherhood’. Hospitality within the care ecosystem in the border city of Cúcuta

Wait till Dawn to See: The Indefinite Stay

The efforts done by the public and private sector to confront xenophobia in Cúcuta are increasing, aiming to concentre the response to the “region’s unprecedented displacement crisis” (IDMC, 2017). Evidently, it is a difficult task, given that more than 50% of Cucuteños considers that the Venezuelan migration is a threat to the city (Arteta, 2018). The truth is that facing an uncertain future, the struggle within the city worsens and, as Arteta (2018) assures, the ones that survive are linked to the contraband. It can be explored how hospitality has been provided primarily by armed groups, that saw in the migrants an opportunity of cheap labour for their criminal activities, and conversely, they sustain their lives within the illegality. This situation is not only ‘refuelling’ the internal conflict in Colombia, but it is also putting in danger the hundreds of lives of the migrants that, having no other option, choose criminality. It has reached a snowball effect in which, as more Venezuelan migrants joined the armed groups, more power they have in the region. With more power, they displace more people. Also, with more IDP’s in Cúcuta, less care is provided to migrants, and thus they recur to armed groups in order to survive. The two conflicts merge into one within a city that does not have the resources or the capacity to manage it (Teff & Panayotatos, 2019). The urgency for acting is palpable, and the scale of the problem exceeds any response given (Meléndez, 2018). Although many highlight the Colombian hospitality as the ongoing solution, some claim that within those relates the migration crisis has been overshadowed (Ferrero & Alvarado, 2019). What most people (migrants, Cúcuta’s citizens, international agencies and public sector members) agree upon is that there must be a provision of jobs to any displaced person (Arteta, 2018). Indeed, that is a difficult task, taking into account that the 70% of informality and the almost 20% of unemployment are not new numbers in Cúcuta, followed by the fact that the majority of migrants does not have the necessary documents to enter a formal job (IDMC, 2017). Some politicians argue that the city needs a cultural change to create a generalised sense of belonging (La Opinion, 2019). Others suggest escaping the “moral panic towards strangers” to create balanced and practical solutions, and others believe that the crisis can turn into an asset to the national economy if it is taken advantaged on (Ferrero & Alvarado, 2019). These top-down solutions explain how the provision of care is planed within a challenging context where the understanding of the migrant-migrant and host-guest relations have not been given the needed priority.

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

Consequently, the solutions that have been provided target only the tip of the iceberg. This year food and medicine were distributed only for the Venezuelans that live legally in Colombia. This measure left out the Venezuelan pendular migrants that are equally in need, the illegal migrants that were not able to get a passport to cross the border, and the hundreds of IDP’s that are similarly starving in their new city: Cúcuta. Recently (August 2019) the Colombian government finally decided to grant the nationality to more than 20 thousand children that were born in Colombia and have Venezuelan parents (Proyecto Migración Venezuela, 2019), in the act of pressure to achieve any hospitality towards them. It is relevant to discuss Held’s (1993 cited in Smith 1998) argument, in which he states that by not having enough resources to care for everyone, there must be moral guidelines to distribute them. To do so, there must be a more sensitive approach to the crisis and all the networks within it.

Figure 7 . Temporary vs permanent Source: (Hernández, 2017)

Chapter 4: Beyond the ‘Brotherhood’. Hospitality within the care ecosystem in the border city of Cúcuta

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

CHAPTER 5 Moving beyond Hostility: Re-framing Care

5.1 Discussion As they live with fear of the uncertain future, hosts, migrants, and IDP’s keep alive the networks of care in Cúcuta, reflecting the local saying ‘today for you, tomorrow for me’. When facing the unknown, Fiddian’s discussion is relevant by questioning “how sustainable can migrant-migrant humanitarianism be, in contexts of precariousness and violence” (Fiddian B). In the context of Cúcuta, there is an evident transformation in time, that is seen when acts of hospitality become reactions of violent hostility. Derrida’s argument regarding hosts, and how they must have experienced at least once, a guest’s position in order to offer hospitality, is a reality in Cúcuta. Therefore, the acts of hostility are commonly portrayed by people that cannot identify with the precariousness and urgency of the situation the migrants live. So, some hosts are hospitable since the beginning by a feeling of solidarity, which can change in time. Some others are never hospitable as they do not relate with the newcomers. This leads to believe that if the host changes in time, it tends to be from a ‘positive’ (hospitable) position to a ‘negative’ (hostile) one. I claim that this transformation of the host population represents a fear of succumbing to a vulnerable position, which at the end, incites acts violence. Beyond having been in a foreigner position, the perceptions of all hosts are continually changing with regards to the guests. That is why migrant-migrant relations cannot be idealised as they all become unsustainable at one point (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2016a). Furthermore, it is evident that the acts of xenophobia are increasing and could be likely connected with thoughts of aporophobia, the fear of poor people. These conditions lead to understanding how power imbalances and forms of oppression within the displaced population are worsening the situation. The question remains in how to prioritise the care that has to be given since not only Venezuelan migrants require care and there are not enough resources to help everyone. Furthermore, IDP’s are in a critical situation given that there is a common misconception of their situation in which the government tends to think they are more established; hence, they do not need care. Nevertheless, some have indeed become ‘active providers of support for migrants rather than needing recipients’ and thus being essential hosts. As a Latin song says: ‘there is no bed for this amount of people”, and there is no one to organise who deserves it more. Space, as the witness of hospitable relations, is falling short to be the platform where care actions should be taking place.

Chapter 5: Moving beyond Hostility: Re-Framing Care

5.2 Conclusions

To develop a critical analysis of the Venezuelan south-south migratory crisis and the aiming at understanding how the networks of care between migrants and hosts evolve and space, I would like to highlight three main arguments, from the most specific to the most general. The first one regards explicitly the case of Cúcuta concerning the fact that there is still no solution for the crisis. Recently, several politicians and the media have implied that the migrants should be taken as an opportunity, given that they could contribute to the economic development of the country (Freier, 2018). It should be acknowledged that it is not only a difficult task but also an unreasonable one. The fact that it is a south-south migration implies that the host country, in this case, Colombia, does not have the economic capacity to include migrants in the formal job system. I claim that in the context of a southsouth migration, the responses for the government have to be bottom-up, as the state cannot provide top-down solutions. The proposed solution by the politicians is a paradox, as the country does not have even sufficient jobs for its citizens, so what opportunities can it give to the migrants? A pertinent recommendation would be to look deeper into the networks of care that have been breaking down and within the logics of the local people. The care network’s links can be ‘fixed’ gradually by reducing xenophobia and hostility. Furthermore, there should be a precise analysis of the current positive acts of hospitality, which could create further bottom-up sustainable strategies. Some of them are naturally happening, such as former migrants that host and offer job solutions for Venezuelan migrants. If intentions like these were supported economically by the government and international organisations, the solutions would be locally based and sustainable in time. The priority is to understand that putting a band-aid on the crisis is not going to solve it, hence the answer to the crisis has to be thought to work in the future. This leads to think that, although in a south-south migration crisis the ‘associations of care’ tend to transform into acts of hostility, something can be done to stop those actions.

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

Secondly, I argue that within a migratory crisis, the relation between host and guest needs to be unpacked in order to find any potential for care and recognition (Berg & Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2018). It is crucial to analyse each subject to then understand the link that associates them. Additionally, this process should go beyond, by researching within the networks of care that connect migrants and hosts, in order to understand how they evolve over time and space. I insist that in order to preserve life, care has to be understood and then distributed. Going further, I conclude that is not only understanding how the relationship changes but why. Knowing the why, can create precise solutions that could solve hostility in a context from a bottom-up strategy. As a fundamental recommendation, I claim that the relations of hospitality that provide care should be protected and maintained, as they are the ones keeping the network of care alive in a particular community or city. To do so, care should be re-though and understood as s a systemic network that recognises the neglected. Lastly, I emphasise on care within the theoretical debates around migration. In line with Smith (1998), this fundamental concept should be institutionalised and converted into an indispensable tool when thinking of solutions. Care should be essential as a method of investigation where the networks of care are studied in detail. The research of it, is the mechanism to analyse situations, spaces, and relations where care is not delivered, and it affects the excluded. The politics of care should, not only advocate for an institutionalisation of care, but for a tangible connection with justice from the public sector. Consequently, the ethics of care should define the path of care, as a right and a moral value, that understands its positionality based on the context. This leads to the practice of care, which implies a collective effort for the distribution of care beyond its mainstream notions. Finally, all of these should be framed primarily by the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;associations of careâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, which seeks to understand the crisis from the ground, and the subjects in need of care. It is primordial then, to disentangle this concept in order to provide a complete hospitality to all the displaced people, and outline a route for the uncertain future this humanitarian urgency.

Chapter 5: Moving beyond Hostility: Re-Framing Care

REFERENCES

Acosta, D., Blouin, C. & Freier, L. F., 2019. La emigración venezolana: respuestas latinoamericanas. Documentos de Trabajo: Fundacíon Carolina, March. Alvarado, A., 2018. La casa en Cúcuta que jamás le cerrará la puerta a los venezolanos. [Online] Available at: https://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/venezuela/colombiana-desplazada-acoge-a-venezolanos-en-su-casa-en-cucuta-264106 [Accessed June 2019]. Arteta, C., 2018. Cúcuta en busca de una salida. [Online] Available at: https://migravenezuela.com/web/articulo/cucuta-en-busca-de-una-salida/703 [Accessed Junes 2019]. Berg, M. L. & Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E., 2018. HOSPITALITY AND HOSTILITY TOWARDS MIGRANTS: GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES—AN INTRODUCTION. [Online] Available at: https://refugeehosts.org/2018/10/31/hospitality-and-hostility-towards-migrants-global-perspectives-an-introduction/ [Accessed July 2019]. Bulley, D., 2015. Ethics, power and space: International hospitality beyond Derrida. Hospitality and Society, 5(2-3), pp. 185-201. Carvajal, D., 2017. Migration Policy Institute. [Online] Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/colombia-emerges-decades-war-migration-challenges-mount [Accessed June 2019]. CNMH, 2019. Solidaridad con la crisis migratoria. [Online] Available at: http://www.centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/vocesdelexilio/index.php/noticias/ item/192-solidaridad-con-la-crisis-migratoria-en-venezuela.%20Solidaridad%20con%20la%20Crisis%20Migratoria%20(13%20de%20abril [Accessed July 2019]. Daniels, J. P., 2017. Refugiada colombiana abre su hogar a venezolanos en necesidad. [Online] Available at: https://www.acnur.org/noticias/stories/2017/8/5af2e9a13d/7d7936877eb6d35f3ffa1d7af3c308ef.html [Accessed July 2019]. Derrida, J., 2000. HOSTIPITALITY. Angelaki, 5(3), pp. 3-18. Derrida, J. & Dufourmantelle, A., 2000. Of Hospitality. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Dufourmantelle, A., 2011. The philosophy of hospitality, s.l.: s.n. El Tiempo, 2019. Frontera de miedo: van 6 cuerpos desmembrados en pasos ilegales. [Online] Available at: https://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/otras-ciudades/descuartizamientos-en-frontera-entre-cucuta-y-venezuela-392340 [Accessed August 2019]. Euro News, 2018. El éxodo venezolano confluye en Cúcuta. [Online] Available at: https://es.euronews.com/2018/03/26/el-exodo-venezolano-busca-un-refugio-en-cucuta [Accessed July 2019]. 44

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

Ferrero, S. & Alvarado, M. A., 2019. La diáspora venezolana: simbolismos, realidades y retos de la respuesta regional. [Online] Available at: https://www.lavanguardia.com/internacional/20190117/454186623372/diaspora-venezolana-colombia-inmigracion.html [Accessed July 2019]. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E., 2016a. Refugees hosting refugees. Forced Migration Review, October, Volume 53, pp. 25-27. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E., 2016b. REFUGEE-REFUGEE RELATIONALITY: HOSPITALITY AND ‘BEING WITH’ REFUGEES. [Online] Available at: https://refugeehosts.org/2016/12/14/refugee-refugee-relationality-hospitality-and-being-with-refugees/ [Accessed July 2019]. Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E., 2016c. Repressentations of displacement from the Middle East and North Africa. Public Culture, 28(3). Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, E. & Qasmiyeh, Y. M., 2018. Refugee Neighbours & Hostipitality. [Online] Available at: https://refugeehosts.org/2018/03/20/refugee-neighbours-hostipitality/ [Accessed July 2019]. Freier, L. F., 2018. Understanding the Venezuelan Displacement Crisis. [Online] Available at: https://www.e-ir.info/2018/06/28/understanding-the-venezuelan-displacement-crises/ [Accessed June 2019]. Freier, L. F. & Parent, N., 2018a. Migration Policy Institute. [Online] Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/south-american-migration-crisis-venezuelan-outflows-test-neighbors-hospitality [Accessed June 2019]. Freier, L. F. & Parent, N., 2018b. The Venezuelan exodus: placing Latin America in the global conversation on migration management. [Online] Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/latamcaribbean/2018/07/31/the-venezuelan-exodus-placing-latin-america-in-the-global-conversation-on-migration-management/ [Accessed June 2019]. Garcia-Marquez, G., 1974. Adiós, Venezuela. In: Cuando era Feliz e Indocumentado. Barcelona: Plaza y Janés. Hernández, R., 2017. El Colombiano. [Online] Available at: https://www.elcolombiano.com/internacional/la-indigencia-cotidiana-de-miles-de-venezolanos-en-cucuta-DY7364342 [Accessed August 2019]. Hernandez, R. & Sevilla, R., 2018. Una Rosa en el Camino. [Online] Available at: www.dejusticia.org/especiales/cucuta-salida-de-emergencia/una-rosa-en-el-camino.html [Accessed June 2019]. Hinojosa, C., 2019. Venezolanos levantan su nuevo hogar en asentamientos informales de Colombia. [Online] Available at: http://cronica.uno/venezolanos-levantan-su-nuevo-hogar-en-asentamientos-informales-de-colombia/ [Accessed July 2019].

References

IDMC, 2017. Colombia Tackling protracted displacement post-conflict, s.l.: GRID. La Opinion, 2019. Los cambios que Cúcuta necesita están por darse. [Online] Available at: https://www.laopinion.com.co/cucuta/los-cambios-que-cucuta-necesita-estan-por-darse176220#OP [Accessed July 2019]. La Opinion, 2019. Vendedores ambulantes deben irse, dice juez. [Online] Available at: https://www.laopinion.com.co/cucuta/vendedores-ambulantes-deben-irse-dice-juez178650#OP [Accessed July 2019 ]. Marin, N., 2019. Migrantes venezolanos: vivir a la deriva y con miedo al futuro. [Online] Available at: https://www.elespectador.com/noticias/el-mundo/migrantes-venezolanos-vivir-la-deriva-y-con-miedo-al-futuro-articulo-868359 [Accessed July 2019]. Martinez, M., 2018. Displaced Colombians open their doors to Venezuelan refugees and migrants. [Online] Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/news/stories/2018/12/5c12bbae4/displaced-colombians-open-doors-venezuelan-refugees-migrants.html#_ga=2.254075080.174273816.15656760681910834199.1559575216 [Accessed June 2019]. Meléndez, L., 2018. Puente Simón Bolívar: el testigo de una crisis. [Online] Available at: https://www.dejusticia.org/especiales/cucuta-salida-de-emergencia/puente-simon-bolivar. html [Accessed June 2019]. Moncada, A. D., 2018. Cucuta: Salida de Emergencia. [Online] Available at: https://www.elespectador.com/static_specials/261/cucuta-salida-de-emergencia/ puente-simon-bolivar.html [Accessed August 2019]. Murillo, V., 2019. UNHCR. [Online] Available at: https://www.acnur.org/noticias/noticia/2019/8/5d5775ac4/corea-tiende-la-mano-a-la-poblacion-afectada-por-el-desplazamiento-en-colombia.html [Accessed August 2019]. Proctor, J. D., 1998. Ethics in geography: Giving moral form to the geographical imagination. Area, 30(1), pp. 8-18. Proyecto Migracion Venezuela, 2019. Así se garantizará la nacionalidad de los 24.000 nuevos colombianos. [Online] Available at: https://migravenezuela.com/web/articulo/cuanto-costara-nacionalizar-a-los-hijos-de-padres-venezolanos/1399 [Accessed August 2019]. Puig de la Bellacasa, M., 2010. Ethical doings in naturecultures. Ethics, Place & Environment, 13(2), pp. 151-169. Puig de la Bellacasa, M., 2012. Nothing comes without its world: thinking with care. The Sociological Review, 60(2), pp. 197-216. Puig de La Bellacasa, M., 2017. Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Re-Contextualising Care: Questioning Hospitality in a South-South Migratory Crisis

Raghuram, P., 2016. Locating Care Ethics Beyond the Global North. ACME, 15(3), pp. 511-513. Smith, D. M., 1998. H ow far should we care? On the spatial scope of beneficence. Progress in Human Geography, 22(1), pp. 15-38. Splinder, W., 2019. Venezuelans risk life and limb to seek help in Colombia. [Online] Available at: https://www.acnur.org/noticias/noticia/2019/4/5ca7819b4/las-personas-venezolanas-arriesgan-sus-vidas-y-sus-extremidades-por-buscar.html [Accessed July 2019]. Teff, M. & Panayotatos, D., 2019. CRISES COLLIDING: THE MASS INFLUX OF VENEZUELANS INTO THE DANGEROUS FRAGILITY OF POST-PEACE AGREEMENT COLOMBIA, s.l.: Refugees International. UNHCR, 2019. Refugees and migrants from Venezuela top 4 million: UNHCR and IOM. [Online] Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2019/6/5cfa2a4a4/refugees-migrants-venezuela-top-4-million-unhcr-iom.html#_ga=2.185896169.174273816.1565676068-1910834199.1559575216 [Accessed June 2019]. Watson, K., 2018. BBC. [Online] Available at: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/resources/idt-sh/venezuela_bridge_mundo [Accessed July 2019]. Yarbakhsh, E., 2018. Reading Derrida in Tehran: Between an Open Door and an Empty Sofreh. Humanities, 7(1), p. 21.

Figure 8 . The journey continues Source: (Watson, 2018)

MSc Building and Urban Design in Development Development Planning Unit University College of London