Living in the Enduring 2015 “Refugee Crisis”: The Perspectives of Lesvos’ Local Populations By Dimos Sarantidis (LLB, LLM) Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in International Development Development Policy and Practice Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences The Open University January 2021 Thesis Abstract In this thesis I focus on the ongoing consequences of the 2015 “refugee crisis” for the local populations of the Greek island of Lesvos, whose voices have been overlooked by various intervening state and non-state actors. A key contribution of this work is its focus on the voices and concerns of local populations, which offers a new analytical lens for exploring the refugee crisis. Drawing on a qualitative, field-based research on Lesvos I explore why and how a phenomenon that was initially framed as a crisis and a temporary emergency became enduring and mundane. I also examine how this protracted and exceptional situation affected locals’ everyday lives by amplifying pre-existing problems related to the Greek financial crisis. In considering the various actors that have intervened on Lesvos, I explore their roles and interactions with locals in order to understand how these relationships play out on the ground. By using the perspective of locals, I am seeking to shed more light on the impact of certain interventions. In that respect, I explore how the endurance of the state of emergency impacted regular democratic procedures on Lesvos as well as Greek state sovereignty. I found that, first, the impact of the refugee crisis needs to be analysed in conjunction with the lasting effects of the financial crisis. This “crisis within a crisis” created a suffocating environment for locals, with various economic, social, psychological, and environmental implications. Second, I found that the various interventions and exceptional policies on Lesvos have become normalised. Lesvos has become an exceptional space where the rule of law is systematically violated in the name of crisis, emergency, humanitarianism and security. Local populations, in turn, have found themselves being abandoned by law, because the border regime policies are devoid of democratic legitimacy and public contest. Third, various intervening actors contributed to enabling exceptional policies on the ground. Humanitarian actors’ dependence on donor funding has made them align with certain interests and agendas. This frequently resulted in silencing injustices that the EU border policies produce and gave space for exceptional political agendas to be embedded locally. Finally, I found that the “state of exception” in Greece and Lesvos during the past 10 years has resulted in the escalation of an already established “crypto-colonial” context, which expresses itself in overt ways, with political, economic and discursive components. [1] Acknowledgements Foremost, I would like to thank all local research participants who shared with me their lived experiences, stories and concerns during a period of uncertainty and social tension on Lesvos. Additionally, I would like to thank the (I)NGOs’ staff, volunteers and activists for the time they dedicated to discuss with me the sensitive issue of the refugee crisis and its consequences on Lesvos’ local community. Also, huge thanks to my friends from Lesvos and members of social networks and in particular Zoi, Hlias, Evris, Vasiliki, Ehsan, Aliki, Fotini, Aziz, Matina, Naim, Vasilis, Vaso and Dimitris for their care, encouragement and our productive conversations. I would also like to thank my supervisors Prof. Giles Mohan, Dr. Sara de Jong and Dr. Agnes Czajka for their support and patience during this beautiful and challenging journey. Thank you for your kindness, for reading and commenting on my lengthy drafts, and for guiding me throughout the PhD process. Your feedback and support have been invaluable to me and I was privileged to have you as supervisors. I would also like to thank Prof. Helen Yanacopulos for supervising and supporting me in the early stages of this journey. Your support and feedback have meant a lot to me. I also owe big thanks to Prof. Theo Papaioannou for supporting me as a third-party monitor, for listening and advising me during emotionally difficult periods. I would also like to thank the academic and non-academic staff of the Department of Development Policy & Practice (DPP) for creating a friendly, welcoming and supporting environment for me. I have also received a great deal of support from the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Thank you for awarding me the scholarship and for giving me the opportunity to make this research possible. I also want to thank my fellow students, namely Lizzie, Raktim, Frangton and Katelin. Your help, support, advice and conversations were invaluable to me. Last but not least I owe a huge thank to my mother Mary, my siblings Giotis and Thomi and my dearest friend Giorgos for their unconditional love and support. Evgenia, words are not enough to say thank you; as Nâzım Hikmet wrote, “the most beautiful sea hasn’t been crossed yet … and the most beautiful words I wanted to tell you I haven't said yet...”. To my father Christos, in loving memory. [2] Contents Thesis Abstract.................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 2 List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................................................... 7 Abbreviations and Acronyms .............................................................................................................. 8 Introduction: The refugee crisis and the voices of local populations ............................................ 10 1. A permanent emergency? ............................................................................................................. 11 2. The silencing of locals’ voices ...................................................................................................... 16 3. Theoretical framework .................................................................................................................. 19 4. Structure of the thesis .................................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 1: Methods and methodological approaches .................................................................... 25 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 25 1. Research context ........................................................................................................................... 25 1.2 The population of interest .......................................................................................... 26 1.2.1 Who is local? ....................................................................................................... 27 1.2.2 The multiple international actors ........................................................................ 30 1.2.3 The Greek state ................................................................................................... 31 2. The research approach .................................................................................................................. 31 3. Research process ........................................................................................................................... 33 3.1 Negotiating access ...................................................................................................... 33 3.2 Entering and staying in the field ................................................................................ 35 3.3 Leaving the field ........................................................................................................ 36 4. Research tools and techniques ...................................................................................................... 37 4.1 Qualitative interviews ................................................................................................ 37 4.2 Non-participant observation ....................................................................................... 39 4.3 The analysis of documentary sources ........................................................................ 43 5. Data analysis ................................................................................................................................. 44 6. Problems and barriers ................................................................................................................... 47 6.1 Positionality ............................................................................................................... 47 6.2 An over-researched location ...................................................................................... 49 7. Ethical considerations ................................................................................................................... 51 7.1 Harm or risk to participants........................................................................................ 51 7.2 Informed consent ........................................................................................................ 52 7.3 Confidentiality and anonymity ..................................................................................