contributing factors. The official South African figures of how many Zimbabweans consider themselves to have fled for political reasons must therefore be deemed far too low, and should be considered to represent a rather small proportion of those who would have asylum seeker status if they could access it. 5. Attitude of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to Zimbabweans The reluctance to recognise Zimbabweans as having a legitimate claim to refugee status is also found within the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Johannesburg. RI reported in August 2004 that their office was unable to give a clear answer on whether Zimbabweans qualified as refugees or not, saying they were still waiting for clarification from Geneva, themselves.110 In RI’s opinion, the UNHCR office is playing down the political crisis in Zimbabwe, and does not consider that Zimbabweans have a legitimate claim to asylum. RI accuses the UNHCR of having “lost sight of its mission”, and of making “appallingly cynical comments” about Zimbabweans in South Africa.111 For example, UNHCR personnel questioned whether the political situation in Zimbabwe was really so bad when Zimbabwean activist groups in South Africa felt able to speak out, saying, “why would so-called refugees seek publicity when they are afraid?”112 In the current authors’ experience, most Zimbabweans are too afraid to speak out, and it is only a handful of the most hardened activists who are prepared to draw attention to themselves by attending protests in Johannesburg, risking deportation or persecution by Zimbabwe government agents active in South Africa by so doing. But if persecuted people are brave enough to speak out, does this disprove or diminish their persecution? Such reasoning ignores, for example, the huge antiapartheid movement that continued worldwide for decades, including in countries neighbouring South Africa; those who protested against apartheid expected to be recognised as persecuted and to be given asylum – which they were. Ahead of the Presidential election in March 2002, the UNHCR and the South African Department of Home Affairs prepared for a potentially large influx of Zimbabweans as a result of political persecution, and identified sites for camps in the border area. When the influx did not happen, it seems there was an assumption that claims of persecution had been exaggerated and that the ‘genuine refugee moment’ was over. The UNHCR has failed to visit the Zimbabwean border area for more than one year, or to visit the Johannesburg RRO for eight months, which in the opinion of RI, epitomizes “the lack of commitment of UNHCR to protecting Zimbabwean asylum seekers in South Africa.” 113 The authors of the current report would suggest that a massive influx of political refugees has occurred and continues to occur, but in nightly flows of a few hundred people, who some for “economic” and some for “political” reasons, cross the border illegally and do not remain in the border area but head largely in the direction of Johannesburg, where they are absorbed into an ever-expanding underground community of Zimbabweans. UNHCR and issues of resettlement: are Zimbabweans safe in South Africa? 110 Refugees International, South Africa: UNHCR inattention places Zimbabweans in jeopardy, 11 August 2004. RI, South Africa: UNHCR inattention places Zimbabweans in jeopardy, 11 August, 2004. 112 RI, 11 August, ibid. 113 RI, 11 August, ibid. 111 49