Refugees from Burma in Thailand and
Repatriation Preparedness:
Issues of Dialogue, Representation and Trust
15 Januar y 2016
Int ernational Development Studi es
10898255
zupper.sophi e@gm ai l.com
Supervi so r: Dr. Li d ew yd e H. Berckmo es
Sophi e Zupper
MSc Thesis
MSc International Development Studies Graduate School of Social Sciences Sophie Zupper 10898255 zupper.sophie@gmail.com 15 January 2016 Supervisor Dr. Lidewyde H. Berckmoes
Programme group: Anthropology of Health, Care and the Body Graduate School of Social Sciences
University of Amsterdam l.h.berckmoes@uva.nl
Second Reader
Dr. Enrique Gómez-Llata Cázares
Programme group: Governance and Inclusive Development Graduate School of Social Sciences
University of Amsterdam E.G.GomezllataCazares@uva.nl
Local Supervisor Ariana Zarleen
Co-founder and Programme Director Burma Link
voice@burmalink.org
Word Count: 26,894
This thesis would not be lying in in front of you as it is right now if it was not for a number of people who supported me throughout the process of preparing for the research, navigating the field in Thailand, and analysing and writing after my return to the Netherlands.
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the refugees who made this research possible. Despite the terrible events they experienced and the conditions they live in I was met with outstanding hospitality and eagerness to help wherever I went. I thank them for taking the time to participate in sometimes lengthy interviews and answering all questions I had, often beyond expectations, sharing meals and inviting me to their homes. I am especially grateful to my interpreters – without you I would have been lost – and my local assistants who helped me transcribing due to my lack of skills in the diverse local languages.
Secondly, this research would have been significantly more difficult without the invaluable help of Ariana Zarleen and Patrick Kearns. Ariana filled the role of my local supervisor and facilitated contacts, interviews, travels and accommodation and always took the time to share her extensive local knowledge and to provide feedback. Thank you for your guidance and the confidence you gave me. Without Patrick it would have been impossible to access the refugee camps in the first place – thank you, for your time and perspective and for the opportunity to visit the camps.
Furthermore I would like to extend my gratitude to Lidewyde Berckmoes, who provided the necessary academic guidance, theoretical stimuli and highly appreciated feedback. Thank you very much for your supervision and support throughout the whole research and writing process.
On the less academic, but not any less important side I would like to thank my friends for their genuine interest, (hopefully mutual) motivation and support as well as the necessary distractions. Wendy, Jonathan and Lucy – without you, studying here in Amsterdam and writing the thesis would have been significantly less enjoyable and I am grateful for being able to call you my friends.
Thank you to Jack Barber, who probably had to deal more than anyone else with my concerns and several rounds of proof-reading until the final product. Thank you for your support and comfort.
Lastly I would like to acknowledge my grandparents Reinhard and Johanna Zupper – without your unwavering support, selflessness and love I would not be where I am today. Thank you.
Scholars in recent years have emphasised the necessity of including disaster-affected communities in decision-making processes regarding their lives and futures, underscoring the agency of refugees and benefits of participation such as increased resilience and empowerment. Especially in protracted refugee situations, refugees face several limitations and uncertainty. The Communication with Disaster Affected Communities Network calls for a prioritisation of communication within such settings. This study explores both enabling and constraining factors regarding refugees’ meaningful participation in decision-making processes, particularly in repatriation planning.
Drawing on qualitative field research in 2015 in three refugee camps along the Thai-Burmese border, this study builds upon the accounts of the 20 interviewed refugees. The first refugees arrived in Thailand three decades ago, making it one of the most protracted refugee scenarios worldwide. Due to apparent reforms in Burma, UNHCR and other agencies initiated the ‘repatriation preparedness’ phase, leading to fears of premature and involuntary repatriation among the refugees, accompanied by a critique of a lack of refugee participation. The research shows a prevalent lack of effective dialogue and information. As informed decision-making is at the core of voluntary repatriation, this lack of refugee-informedness is highly concerning, rendering the aspect of voluntariness questionable. Inadequate representation further complicates the issue, as CBOs and the refugees themselves are excluded from the majority of decision-making processes. In addition, the research unearthed a widespread lack of trust between the general refugee population and camp leaders, UNHCR, NGOs and the Thai and Burmese governments. This corresponds to recent research by Hargrave (2014) who suggested a trust-based approach towards such planning. While she focused on how distrust in the country of origin results in refugees’ resistance against repatriation initiatives, this study emphasises the importance of dialogue and trust as pre-requisites for effective communication and participation in the preparedness phase.
It is argued that a prioritisation of two-way communication and trust-building among all actors and placing the refugees at the centre of decision-making processes should be a pre-requisite to any further planning activities. Truly participatory and dialogical processes need to be implemented now, reflecting the refugees’ conceptions of their future.
Keywords: Refugees, Participation, Communication with Disaster Affected Communities, Durable Solutions, Protracted Refugee Situations, Burma, Myanmar, Thai-Burmese Border, Repatriation
Acknowledgements ... iii
Abstract ... iv
List of Figures ... vii
List of Abbreviations ... vii
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Theoretical Framework ... 3
2.1 Introduction ... 3
2.2 The Strategic-Relational Approach and Refugee Agency ... 3
2.3 Citizenship Participation, Refugees and Communication with Disaster-affected Communities .. 5
2.4 Options for the Future – Repatriation, Local Integration, Resettlement ... 9
2.5 Conclusion ... 11
3. Research Context ... 13
3.1 Introduction ... 13
3.2 The Conflict in Burma ... 13
3.3 The Situation along the Thai-Burmese Border ... 14
3.4 Recent Developments ... 16 3.5 Research Location ... 19 3.6 Conclusion ... 20 4. Research Design ... 21 4.1 Introduction ... 21 4.2 Research Questions ... 21 4.3 Conceptual Scheme ... 22 4.4 Methodology ... 23 4.5 Sampling ... 23 4.6 Methods... 25
4.7 Method of Data Analysis ... 26
4.8 Challenges and Limitations ... 27
5. Refugees’ Perspective on their Future ... 30
5.1 Introduction ... 30
5.2 Thinking about the Future ... 30
5.3 Relating Future Aspirations to Location ... 31
5.4 Conclusion ... 36
6. Causes for Refugees’ Fear of Imminent Repatriation ... 37
6.1 Introduction ... 37
6.2 Activities by other Actors ... 37
6.3 Rumours and Lack of Accurate Information ... 44
6.4 Conclusion ... 44
7. Mechanisms for Participation in Repatriation Planning and Communication ... 46
7.1 Introduction ... 46
7.2 Existing Structures for Participation and Communication ... 46
7.3 Conclusion ... 51
8. Synthesis of Main Findings and Exploration of Underlying Processes ... 53
8.1 Power Differentials ... 54
8.2 Trust as a Prerequisite for Efficient Joint Repatriation Planning ... 56
8.3 Discussing Representation and Inclusiveness ... 59
8.4 Conclusion ... 61
9. Reflections ... 63
9.1 Methodological Reflection ... 64
9.2 Policy Recommendations ... 65
9.3 Future Research Agenda ... 67
References ... 69
Appendix ... 77
Appendix I – Map of Burma and States of Ethnic Minorities ... 77
Appendix II – Operationalization Table ... 78
Appendix V – List of Interviews... 84
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Modes of Participation (Cornwall, 2003:1327) ... 7Figure 2 - Map of the Thai-Burmese Border (Burma Link, 2015d) ... 19
Figure 3 - Conceptual Scheme ... 22
Figure 4 - Age group of respondents ... 24
Figure 5 - Cartoon illustrating pressure felt due to ration cuts (Karen News cited in Hargrave, 2014) 39 Figure 6 - UNHCR post box ... 48
Figure 7 - Amended Conceptual Scheme ... 63
Figure 8 - Map of Burma with Ethnic States (as used in Bjornstad, 2010) ... 77
List of Abbreviations
CBO Community-Based Organisation
CCSDPT Committee for Coordination of Services to Displaced Persons in Thailand CDAC Communicating with Disaster-Affected Communities
CMWG Camp Management Working Group IDP Internally Displaced Person
INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation ISC Information Sharing Centre
KCBOs Karen Community-Based Organisations KnRC Karenni Refugee Committee
KRC Karen Refugee Committee KWO Karen Women Organisation
MFLF Mae Fah Luang Foundation under Royal Patronage NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
RTG Royal Thai Government
SRA Strategic Relational Approach TBC The Border Consortium
THIGJ The Hague Institute for Global Justice TMFA Thailand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
1. Introduction
Worldwide, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, 2015c) reports rising numbers of displaced people. At the same time, refugee situations are increasingly protracted. In some cases, refugees1 live in camps for up to 40 years (Gerstner, 2008), resulting in average durations of 17 years (Zeus, 2011).
Traditionally, refugees were seen as traumatised victims of conflict and were regarded as in need of help, food and general support. UNHCR, governments and other organisations fulfilled the role of the provider and decision-maker. Accordingly, “powerful narratives of refugees as dependent victims have shaped reality in justifying mechanisms for international protection and incapacitating refugees” (ibid.:256). As a result, refugees “are dictated upon and decided for […]; UNHCR […] [treats] the refugees like children” (Kaiser, 2005:361).
In contrast, the narrative of refugees as agents took shape in recent years. Zeus argues that it is “crucial […] to recognise refugees’ agency and potential and for refugees to be able to incorporate this potential into their identity” (2011:270), especially in protracted refugee situations. Research commissioned by the Network for Communicating with Disaster-Affected Communities (CDAC) shows how dialogue and information increase the resilience of refugee communities, empowering them and diminishing the uncertainty inherent to protracted refugee situations.
The situation of the refugees from Burma2 in Thailand represents such a protracted case – some of the refugees fled their country of origin already 30 years ago (Burma Link, 2014). Since then, they are confined to a restricted live in refugee camps along the border. When the military government in Burma initiated reforms and ceasefire negotiations with the different groups involved in the conflict in 2011 (Burma Link, 2015b), the Royal Thai Government (RTG), UNHCR and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) initiated the repatriation preparedness phase. The refugee communities do not support this premature focus on repatriation and call for wide participation of refugees in the decision-making and planning processes (KCBOs, 2012). They emphasise that “repatriation should arguably be a refugee-led voluntary operation and not enforced by outside actors” (Burma Link, 2015e).
This research aims to explore the current dynamics of refugees’ participation in the Thai-Burmese context and to what extent refugees have the opportunity to be in charge of and meaningfully contribute to decisions regarding their future. Refugees’ agency is a central concept for
1 A refugee is anyone, who “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it” (UNHCR, 2010:14).
2 Throughout the thesis I make use of the traditionally used names in Burma. In 1989, the military government introduced new names for the country (now ‘Myanmar’) and locations within it (Hargrave, 2014). Many of the ethnic groups in conflict with the military government reject these new names (Demusz, 1998). As the focus of this research will be on the perspectives of refugees from such a background, the use of the old name ‘Burma’ only seems appropriate. I only use the new names if the source I cite from employs these terms.
this approach. The research aims to contribute to the discussion about refugees’ centrality to programming and planning and the supposed benefits of their meaningful participation in decision-making processes. Highlighting the enabling and constraining factors of the context this participation is placed in, the following research question is explored:
How can refugees from Burma along the Thai-Burmese border participate in decision-making and planning processes regarding repatriation and what possibilities and constraints exist?
The theoretical framework underlying this research is detailed in Section 2. It builds firstly on the Strategic Relational Approach (SRA) as a basic framework to underscore refugees’ agency and the relevance of contextual structures. Secondly, the concept of citizenship participation is explored, describing what makes participation meaningful and relating it to the SRA. The idea of Communication with Disaster Affected Communities (CDAC) relates to the idea of meaningful participation and is important to understand for the document at hand. The third concept revolves around the durable solutions – repatriation, local integration and resettlement – which are commonly envisioned for the cessation of refugee status. This thesis focuses especially on repatriation as it is the most relevant for the case study of refugees from Burma in Thailand.
The following section gives greater insight into the research context, including a brief description of the history of conflict in Burma, the refugees in Thailand and relevant actors along the Thai-Burmese border. Section 4 describes the research design, which also encompasses a discussion of limitations and ethical considerations.
The next three chapters concern the analysis of the data from the field research. First, refugees’ conceptions of their future are described. Second, recent activities by other relevant actors and their effects on the refugee population are examined. Thirdly, current mechanisms for participation and communications are assessed. The following chapter then examines the underlying structures in more detail and synthesises the main findings of the preceding three chapters. This is followed by a concluding chapter, reflecting on theory and formulating recommendations for policy and future research.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the theoretical concepts this thesis is based upon. First, it introduces the Strategic-Relational Approach (SRA) and discusses refugee agency as this constitutes the basis for the following concepts. Second, it explores the idea of citizenship participation. It relates it to the SRA and defines characteristics of meaningful participation, emphasising dialogue and information. The third part is concerned with the durable solutions designed for refugee, particularly repatriation as this is the most relevant of the three for the chosen research context. It addresses the question of the voluntariness of repatriation and the importance of refugee participation in repatriation planning.
2.2 The Strategic-Relational Approach and Refugee Agency
Understanding the concept of agency and its relation to context-specific structures is crucial for discussing refugee agency and refugees’ participation in decision-making processes. Therefore, this section starts with a definition of agency and a description of the SRA. This is then applied to refugee situations to provide a foundation for the following sections.
Sewell describes agency as being “capable of exerting some degrees of control over the social relations in which one is enmeshed, which in turn implies the ability to transform those social relations to some degree” (1992:20). Bakewell (2010) also emphasises that agency is relational and Lopes Cardozo describes agency as the individuals’ “space of manoeuvre […], in which they develop intended or unintended strategies of action” (2015:6) in order to engage with their environment.
Agency is therefore inherently connected to the specific context, but also has the potential to transform social relations. Thus, one cannot look at agency without considering social structure (Jessop, 2005; Bakewell, 2010). Structures constrain and enable individual and collective actors and are subject to transformation and reproduction depending on the actions taken by the agents (Jessop, 2005; Bakewell, 2010; Coffey & Farrugia, 2014). Thus, structures “are never reproduced through self-identical repetition but […] the future remains pregnant with a surplus of possibilities” (Jessop, 2005:53).
The SRA is based on this conception of agency and structure and examines “structure in relation to action, action in relation to structure, rather than bracketing one of them” (ibid.:48). It introduces the idea of structural selectivity, meaning that structures are strategically-selective, thus privileging “specific forms of action, tactics, or strategies and [discouraging] others” (ibid.:49). This rewards actions which are ‘structurally coherent’, i.e. reproducing existing structures, while at the same time the “scope for actions to overflow or circumvent structural constraints” (ibid.:51) always exists.
Actions are conceived as “structurally-oriented strategic calculation[s]” (ibid.:48) as actors are capable of reflection and structuring. Actors respond to selectively privileging structures by means of strategic-context analyses informing their actions, whilst they “face possible opposition from actors pursuing other strategies or tactics” (ibid.:51). This potential for “reflexive reorganisation of structural configurations” (ibid.:49) means that there can be both path-dependent and path-shaping strategies, depending on the actors’ capacities and experiences. The SRA also takes time into account, as it emphasises that “a short-term constraint for a given agent or set of agents could become a conjunctural opportunity over a longer time horizon if there is a shift in strategy” (ibid.:51).
Actors can therefore be regarded as acting strategically to shape or reproduce existing structures. Refugees are often not considered as agents in the prevalent discourse as forced migration can be seen as a ‘non-decision’ (Bakewell, 2010) and refugees often experience highly constraining environments. As such, they are seen as incapable of actively contributing to their own present and future (Zeus, 2011). It is the role of international and local organisations and governments to protect them and provide for them (ibid.).
This research follows the contrary narrative of refugee agency. According to Bakewell, refugees can “retain some degrees of freedom (agency) and can be seen as following some strategy” (2010:1699), “even under the most extreme forms of coercion” (N. Long, 2001:16). As such, a clear line between forced and voluntary migration cannot be drawn (Richmond, 1998) as flight is “an attempt to use whatever power, control, and mobility the person still possesses to escape from danger to safety” (Stein & Cuny, 1994:178), constituting therefore an agentic act.
For refugees in situations of encampment, it is difficult “to break free from enforced reliance on external assistance and from this powerful narrative” (Zeus, 2011:268). Especially in protracted refugee situations which are still being managed from a ‘top-down’ relief perspective instead of a development perspective this leads to incapacitation of refugees over time. As a result, they might end up internalising the ‘victim narrative’, which can prevent them from taking any initiative (Pouw & McGregor, 2014). In contrast, where host governments’ policies have been less restrictive, refugees have been able to gain self-reliance and even become economic assets for their hosts (Harrell-Bond, 1998). The refugees from Burma in Thailand are an example of how the refugee community has been able to develop a complex educational system, despite a restrictive policy by the Thai host government (Oh & Stouwe, 2008).
It becomes clear that it is the structural limitations in terms of discursive and material constraints (Jessop, 2005; Bakewell, 2010) which impede refugees’ agency, but “they are not completely powerless” (Zeus, 2011:269). Currently, there is a clear lack of “participatory approaches for refugees to become actively involved and shape policy and planning processes concerning their own situation” (ibid.:268) and the existing power structures “do not allow them to become self-reliant, contribute to and have a positive impact upon their own and their host communities’ development”
(ibid.). Seeing them as agents will enable refugees to act on their own behalf and participate actively in decisions regarding their current and future situation, plus it “would facilitate dismantling the power structures from within, as they are sustained in great part by the narrative of refugees as victims” (Zeus, 2011:270).
The application of the SRA allows to analyse refugees as strategic actors, “who are located in and might (or not) constantly respond to a strategically selective context” (Lopes Cardozo, 2015:6). This requires the analysis of the “unevenly distributed configuration of opportunity and constraint“ (Hay, 2002:381) in their environment. It allows to understand why they choose or do not choose specific strategies and tactics to transform or reproduce the societal structures within which they are operating in, including an exploration of “their levels of access to particular strategic resources” (Lopes Cardozo, 2015:6) and potential opposition by other actors (Jessop, 2005).
2.3 Citizenship Participation, Refugees and Communication with
Disaster-affected Communities
The concept of the SRA can also be applied to refugee participation. Participatory approaches have been part of development for decades now, but how they are conceptualised changed over time. A relatively recent idea is the one of “people’s participation in development as ‘makers and shapers’” (Cornwall, 2003:1326), turning “towards political participation and increasing poor and marginalised people's influence over the wider decision-making processes which affect their lives” (Gaventa, 2002:3). This approach towards people-centred or citizenship participation is concerned with “issues of power, voice, agency and rights” (Cornwall, 2003:1326), making participation a “right that can be claimed by excluded or marginal peoples, and thus provides a stronger political, legal and moral imperative for focusing on people’s agency” (Hickey & Mohan, 2005:258).
Accordingly, Arnstein defines citizenship participation as:
The redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future. It is the strategy by which the have-nots join in determining how information is shared [and] goals and policies are set […]. In short it is the means by which they can induce significant social reform.
(1969:216)
Using this quote one can draw connections between the concept of citizenship participation and the SRA. The ‘have-not citizens’ (the agents) use it deliberatively as a means and strategy (their structurally-oriented actions) to reform their respective society and existing power structures (the
strategically-selective context) in order to be included in the future. Gaventa describes it as the “ways in which […] people exercise voice through new forms of deliberation, consultation and/or mobilisation designed to inform and to influence larger institutions and policies” (2002:1).
But is the concept of citizenship participation applicable to the case of refugees, who are displaced from their country of origin and thus their ‘country of citizenship’?
Several authors (Samuel, 2002; Gaventa, 2002; Zeus, 2011) see this nation-oriented approach to citizenship critical. We live in a world which is ordered along state lines, thus refugees are often seen as outsiders to the international community (Zeus, 2011). In terms of citizenship they ‘belong’ to their countries of origin, but are seeking refuge in a country where they are not citizens in legal terms. Gaventa argues, that ‘citizenship’ as a term can also be employed for “the act of any person taking part in public affairs” (2002:4), going beyond the notion of ‘state-citizen’ and including “both citizens as well as disenfranchised people not recognised by the state as citizens” (Samuel, 2002:9) as possible actors in citizenship participation. This way, citizenship becomes “an ‘ensemble of different forms of belonging’” (Gaventa, 2002:6). Depending on how the people at the centre of citizenship participation conceptualise and act upon their right to participation, citizenship is framed by the agency of “non-state participants in claiming, monitoring and enforcing rights themselves” (ibid.:2).
In the case of refugees, one can argue then that if they are exercising their agency and claiming their right to participation towards state and other powerful actors, it is possible to transfer the idea of citizenship participation onto the refugee context. Following this more flexible approach to citizenship, refugees can be “recognised as political agents capable of […] voicing legitimate and meaningful concerns” (Ilcan et al., 2015:8).As such, mobilisation for participation can give refugees “a voice that is often omitted from top-down processes; it serves as a space of information-sharing, networking, and capacity-building” (García-López & Arizpe, 2010:199). This can eventually lead to the alteration of unequal power “relations and [opening] new spaces of participation through the pressures put on governments or other powerful actors” (ibid.).
2.3.1 Meaningful Participation
But not every form of participation is meaningful and its transformative potential can be severely constrained by contextual factors, the strategically-selective structures. Cornwall (2003), building on Arnstein’s (1969) ‘ladder of citizenship participation’ sees different forms of participation on a continuum reaching from tokenistic enlistment to genuinely transformative modes of participation:
It is crucial to emphasise that not all forms of participation will result in actual influence, as the ones in power “may have no intention of changing their agendas” (VeneKlasen & Miller, 2002:34). Powerful actors might just employ tokenistic forms of participation to diffuse criticism and let the decision-making processes appear to be inclusive and consultative (ibid.). Adding refugee representatives to committees and meetings thus will not result in transformation and influence if they are actually not capable of raising their voices or no one is listening to their concerns (Cornwall, 2003). For this reason it becomes necessary to analyse the underlying power structures as “participation without redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless. It allows the powerholders to claim that all sides were considered, but […] maintains the status quo” (Arnstein, 1969:216).
Further, aspects of inclusiveness and representation, i.e. “structured opportunities for broad participation” (THIGJ, 2013) need to be considered to establish whether participation is meaningful. Giving all citizens the same rights does not necessarily result in inclusiveness (Gaventa, 2002). Again, differences in resources and power need to be considered as they impact the opportunities for citizens to claim their rights differently, perhaps encouraging some while discouraging others. Here, the strategically-selective context comes into play, which might be strongly influenced by power holders, who could have a stronger interest in the reproduction of existing structures than their transformation into a more equitable society (ibid.). One has to closely examine “who participates, decides and benefits from ‘participatory’ interventions” (Cornwall, 2003:1327) to assess their claims to inclusiveness. Often, specific efforts are needed to “enable marginal voices to be raised and heard” (ibid.:1337) in order to achieve truly inclusive participation.
The transformative potential of citizenship participation also depends on whether the spaces in which participation takes place have been ‘created’ from below by the citizens themselves or if they constitute ‘invited spaces’ which have been established in a more top-down process (Gaventa, 2002; VeneKlasen & Miller, 2002). Created spaces often result in citizens having “a stronger position to influence policy choices” (VeneKlasen & Miller, 2002:34) as they themselves exerted the pressure which led to their creation. Arnstein states “in most cases where power has come to be shared it was taken by the citizens, not given” (1969:222). Invited spaces might require stronger efforts and demonstrations of power or perhaps even resistance on behalf of citizens as they are more strongly shaped by the interests of the already powerful (Gaventa, 2002). Thus, even if no space for participation is ever neutral, attention needs to be paid to who creates them and with what underlying objectives in order to understand the dynamics which shape the processes.
2.3.2 Dialogue is key: Communication with Disaster-Affected Communities
At the heart of meaningful participation lies dialogic flow of information (Ardon, 2002). Arnstein argues that “informing citizens of their rights, responsibilities, and options can be the most important first step toward legitimate citizen participation” (1969:219), combining it with the possibility for feedback and the option for negotiation. It is necessary to involve people from the beginning of a planning process, so that they will not only be presented the final product at a stage where they have little opportunity to influence the decisions concerning their own situation.
In recent years, actors in the humanitarian sector started paying closer attention to the role of communication and the often prevalent lack of information (Wall & Robinson, 2008). This led to the establishment of the Communicating with Disaster Affected Communities (CDAC) Network in 2009 (CDAC, 2015). It places a “priority on communicating with people affected by disaster” (IFRC, 2005:9) so that “they can take greater control of their own lives” (ibid.). Further, the affected populations are the ones with “the deepest and most immediate knowledge about their greatest needs” (CDAC, 2014). Effectively informing and communicating with them improves “their ability to make decisions” (Abud et al., 2011:6) and increases their chance at engaging in their own rehabilitation and other planning processes – especially in times of uncertainty, information is crucial (IFRC, 2005).
Refugee situations represent such uncertain contexts where information is critical. Often, information flows are very poor and refugees frequently have to rely on rumours. Kaiser describes a case of refugees in Uganda where “far from being invited to participate in planning and implementation processes, the refugees were left in ignorance and confusion about issues that directly affected them” (2005:359). In another study conducted in Dadaab, Kenya, Abud et al. describe that the majority of their respondents indicated that “they have never been able to voice their concerns or ask questions of aid providers or the government” (2011:4). Besides severe implications for the possibility of these refugees to participate in decision-making, it also decreases the effectiveness of
programmes, accountability and trust in other actors, be it NGOs, UN agencies or government bodies (ibid.; IFRC, 2005).
Therefore, dialogue forms a critical part of participation, especially in contexts of high uncertainty and the dependence of the respective population on humanitarian actors. It empowers these communities “to start [making] decisions about their own lives” (Abud et al., 2011:38) and “to create knowledge about and give meaning to their own situation” (Horst, 2006:144).
2.4 Options for the Future – Repatriation, Local Integration, Resettlement
This thesis discusses the possibilities and constraints for meaningful participation by refugees in the context of repatriation planning. In order to do so, this last section of the theoretical framework briefly examines the solutions designed for refugee situations, including the principle of non-refoulement and voluntariness of repatriation.
The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the amending 1967 Protocol are at the centre of today’s refugee protection (UNHCR, 2010:2). They codify the rights of refugees at the international level and are both status and rights-based. UNHCR is responsible for promoting the protection of these rights and their application.
Central principles of the 1951 Convention are the ideas of discrimination, non-penalization and non-refoulement. The principle of non-refoulement is described in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention:
Prohibition of expulsion or return (‘refoulement’)
1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
(UNHCR, 2010:30)
It is one of the most important mechanisms for protecting refugees, ensuring that refugees cannot be sent back if they would be persecuted there (Holdorp, 2011). Even where states are neither signatories of the convention nor the protocol, the principle of non-refoulement is widely regarded as “embedded in customary international law” (UNHCR, 2010:4).
UNHCR is further responsible for finding solutions for refugee situations, “by way of voluntary repatriation or assimilation in new national communities” (Goodwin-Gill & McAdam, 2007:426). This results in three durable solutions for refugee situations: voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement to third countries (Holdorp, 2011). Ultimately, they should allow refugees to rebuild their lives in dignity and peace.
Repatriation links directly to the principle of non-refoulement, thus the emphasis on voluntary repatriation. Local integration means the “assimilation and naturalization of refugees” (Scott, 2006:351) in their host countries, eventually leading to them obtaining citizenship. The third solution – resettlement – means integration into a third country and “is advocated when it is impossible for a refugee to stay in the host country or return to his or her country of origin” (Holdorp, 2011:38).
Especially when large amounts of refugees are concerned, repatriation is often regarded as the preferred option by the host governments and UNHCR (UNHCR, 2006). Thus, refugees are often “not encouraged to explore alternative options for reintegration and economic sustainability” (Weiss Fagen, 2011:12). Weiss Fagen criticises this prioritisation of repatriation as the conditions for a sustainable return are often not met and “people who have been displaced may not necessarily want to return to their homes, and international and national efforts need not be devoted overwhelmingly to making this possible” (ibid.). She argues that they “do not necessarily surrender the right or desire to return, but they often prefer to postpone returning because they recognize that the institutional conditions needed to facilitate genuinely sustainable returns will probably be lacking for many years” (ibid.:3).
2.4.1 The Voluntariness of Repatriation
In theory, as long as the conditions in his/her country of origin which rendered the respective person a refugee did not fundamentally change, a refugee only cedes to be one by returning voluntarily. Voluntariness in this respect is related to the “conditions in the country of origin (calling for an informed decision); and the situation in the country of asylum (permitting a free choice)” (UNHCR, 1996:10). ‘Free choice’ entails freedom from any pressure to repatriate, be it physical, psychological or material, thus if “their rights are not recognized, if they are subjected to pressures and restrictions and confined to closed camps, they may choose to return, but this is not an act of free will” (ibid.). ‘Informed decisions’ form the other part of voluntariness, “[ensuring] that refugees’ decisions are taken in full knowledge of the conditions of the country of origin” (Willems, 2009:15). This approach is intended to give “refugees a chance to break away from being victims of persecution and become a genuine part of the solution” (UNHCR, 1996:2), thus placing refugees as agents at the centre of any repatriation decision.
In practice, “voluntariness for all is difficult to ascertain or verify” (Stein & Cuny, 1994:175) as repatriation often takes place in situations where there is at least some degree of coercion (ibid.; Gerver, 2015). As a result, some authors recognise a shift in focus from voluntariness to the preconditions of ‘safety’ and ‘dignity’ of return, as these are supposedly more objectively assessable. Accordingly, if UNHCR determines that “objectively, it is safe for most refugees to return and that such returns have good prospects of being durable” (UNHCR, 1996:14), the agency initiates activities to advocate for repatriation.
2.4.2 Refugees’ Participation in Planning Processes for Durable Solutions
The shift towards more ‘objective’ criteria like ‘safety’ and ‘dignity’ of return also leads to a shift away from refugees at the centre of repatriation decision making to UNHCR and other actors as “the decision to promote repatriation is based not only on the refugees’ preference but more
fundamentally on UNHCR’s objective assessment of whether life is better at home relative to life
in the camps” (Barnett, 2001:34). As such, “policy responses are made without listening to [the refugees]” (Zimmermann, 2012:55) and planning processes are rather top-down, disqualifying refugees’ voices (Malkki, 1996).
Katy Long (2012) argues that exactly the opposite should be the case as repatriation also has the goal of remaking the social contract and trust between refugee-citizen and their state of origin. Thus, it is an inherently political process, which requires that refugee-citizens have governance power to participate. Planning and decision-making processes which undermine refugees’ agency and disregard their point of view undermine the durability of the solution (South & Jolliffe, 2014). Building upon the value of dignity in repatriation, Katy Long (2008) suggest that participatory decision-making should be part of repatriation planning, “[reflecting] the priorities and desires of the returnees” (Stein & Cuny, 1994:186). Ensuring ‘dignity’ thus commences before the actual return, “through the process of deciding upon the content and timing of return” (K. Long, 2008:35). Including refugees’ point of view in the planning process increases the legitimacy of such processes as well as increases accountability and transparency, which can ultimately help establish trust between the refugee-citizens and other actors (THIGJ, 2013). Shah and Cardozo write that “how stakeholders’ participation is facilitated […] can foster constructive interactions and relationship building or promote distrust and entrench intolerance” (2015:194f), thus it is important to set up participatory planning processes for repatriation in congruence with the characteristics of meaningful participation described earlier.
2.5 Conclusion
For this research, the SRA has been integrated with the concept of citizenship participation in order to apply it to refugee repatriation scenarios. The SRA provides the basis for the understanding of refugee agency and the analysis of the structures influencing their actions. Refugees’ participation in decision-making processes is a potentially transformative action, but in order to be meaningful a variety of enabling and/or constraining factors has to be taken into consideration. These include context-specific power relations, questions of representation and inclusivity, and whether the spaces for participation have been created by the refugees or other actors. Most importantly, participation becomes meaningful when it encompasses the dialogical flow of information. The importance of two-way communication gains increasing importance in the discussion of humanitarian programmes, as in situations of uncertainty – such as refugee situations – information is highly critical and the inclusion of the refugees’ voices becomes crucial in order for them to regain power and control over their lives.
Projecting this onto the more specific case of refugee repatriation and the difficulty of ensuring true voluntariness of return, it becomes clear that the meaningful participation of refugees in repatriation planning is critical for ensuring their dignity, making their voices heard and ultimately ensuring the durability of repatriation.
3. Research Context
3.1 Introduction
The following chapter describes the context of the field research. It is far beyond the scope of this thesis to give a detailed account of the long history of conflict in Burma. Nevertheless I give an overview at the beginning of this chapter to foster understanding of the reasons for the refugees’ flight and obstacles to their return. Then the focus shifts to the Thai side of the border, describing the refugees’ situation in their host country, introducing the main actors relevant for this thesis. The following section concerns recent developments in Burma and Thailand which impact the refugees’ situation and perspectives. Finally, I briefly specify the geographic location of the research.
3.2 The Conflict in Burma
Burma gained independence from colonial rule in 1948, with the central government in the hands of Burma’s ethnic majority3
. As the central government did not implement a 1947 agreement, which would have granted ethnic groups ‘full autonomy in internal administration’, but “increased efforts to ‘Burmanize’ ethnic groups by suppressing local languages and cultures” (Randolph, 2013), fighting broke out. Nevertheless the country moved towards democracy and development (
Kurlantzick, 2002)
. In 1962 though, the military seized power in a coup, pushing the country in the following years into socialist totalitarianism (ibid.
) and leading to a severe deterioration of its economic and developmental situation, while fighting against the different ethnic ‘insurgents’.In 1987, Burma belonged to the least-developed countries worldwide. In the same year, protests erupted against the government’s policies, calling for liberalisation and democratisation. In 1988, a newly formed military government declared martial law and promised reforms and elections in 1990. These took place, but the military government ignored the results, which were unfavourable for them. In the following decade, the Burmese society was under strong military control with frequent and arbitrary offensives against ethnic armed groups (
Kurlantzick, 2002
) and imprisonment of thousands of activists. In 1996, the Burmese government initiated the ‘four cuts’ strategy against insurgent groups to limit their access to food, intelligence, funding and recruits (Green & Mitchell, 2007). Cease-fire deals were sealed and broken again; human rights abuses were wide-spread, “including massacres, torture, forced labour and forced relocation” (Hargrave, 2014:18). Already in the middle of 2001, “several international aid agencies cautioned that Myanmar was on the brink of a humanitarian crisis” (Kurlantzick, 2002) as a result of decades of mismanagement of the
country and conflict, which led to “widespread poverty and barely functioning health and
3 Ethnic groups according to the CIA (2015): Burman 68%, Shan 9%, Karen 7%, Rakhine 4%, Chinese 3%, Indian 2%, Mon 2%, other 5%
education systems” (IRC, 2007), accompanied by the exclusion of ethnic minorities from
political participation.
3.3 The Situation along the Thai-Burmese Border
3.3.1 The Research Population: Refugees from Burma
Over the course of the conflict in Burma, thousands of villages were destroyed and millions of people ended up displaced (Green & Mitchell, 2007). The first Burmese refugees arrived in Thailand in 1984 after an offensive by the Burmese military against ethnic groups (Yeni, 2009). The majority of the refugees are from the Karen ethnic group, but other ethnicities from Burma are represented as well, for example Kachin, Karenni, Mon and Shan (Oh & Stouwe, 2008) as well as pro-democracy Burmans (Hargrave, 2014)4.
Refugees from Burma arrive in Thailand for several reasons. Whilst the majority is fleeing from the conflict, human rights violations and repression (Burma Partnership & Burma Link, 2015b), the dismal economic situation in Burma also has driven many outside the country (Yeong Cheah et al., 2010). Besides this, frequent relocations of ethnic groups inside Burma destroyed the livelihood bases of many, forcing them to seek refuge along the border. A few also “left Burma to the camps to gain better access to education” (Burma Partnership & Burma Link, 2015b:8).
By now, the situation presents “one of the most protracted refugee situations in the world” (CCSDPT & UNHCR, 2013:5). Over the course of the three decades since the arrival of the first refugees, hundred thousands of Burmese fled to Thailand (Burma Link, 2014; Yeong Cheah et al., 2010), resulting in currently 110,439 refugees5 in the ten refugee camps on the Thai side of the border (TBC, 2015a). According to human rights organisations a large number, perhaps up to 80% of migrant workers from Burma in Thailand are de facto refugees as well (Burma Link, 2015c). Yeong Cheah et al. thus describe the border region as “a place of convergence of refugees, migrant workers, displaced people and day migrants” (2010:123).
From early on, the refugees coming to Thailand set up administrative structures and relied on extensive self-governance through camp committees, health and education departments (Thompson, 2008)., while NGOs provided only limited support. Despite a shift towards greater dependence on external support and less autonomy, these structures are still in place.
As such, the Karen Refugee Committee (KRC) and the Karenni Refugee Committee (KnRC) represent the camp residents, supervising the camp management and coordinating with NGOs, UNHCR and Thai authorities. The everyday camp management and administration is under the
4 A map of Burma with the States of the respective ethnic minorities can be found in Appendix I. 5
This number represents the verified caseload of refugees, published monthly by The Border Consortium (TBC). It includes all persons living in the camps, no matter whether registered or not. They usually differ slightly from the verified population numbers provided by UNHCR.
authority of Camp Committees, which are elected every three years in each camp. The camp leaders are the main connection between the general population of refugees in the camps and the external organisations providing services to them. Each camp is comprised of different sections as administrative units, which themselves are headed by section leaders.
This is complemented by a wide range of community based organisations (CBOs). The most well-known are the Karen Women’s Organisation (KWO) and the Karen Youth Organisation, which are represented in all nine camps next to their Karenni counterparts. Besides these, a plenitude of CBOs exists, which cover matters of health, relief, environment, human rights and community development.
3.3.2 Thai Authorities – Restrictive Policies
Another important actor to consider is the Thai government as it represents the host nation. Thailand is neither a signatory of the 1951 UNHCR Convention nor the 1967 Protocol concerning refugee protection. The Thai policy towards refugees over the past three decades resulted in strict confinement of “the ‘persons of concern’ to their ‘temporary shelters’ until the situation in Burma would improve and the displaced could go home” (Burma Link, 2015c). None of the durable solutions described above have been made available to the Burmese refugees until 2004 (Burma Link, 2015d), when a temporary campaign for resettlement has been permitted by the Thai authorities. In 2012, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) reported the resettlement of the 100,000th refugee to a third country (IOM, 2012), resulting from this temporary opportunity for registration. Local integration is officially prohibited by the RTG and their rights are severely limited, to prevent refugees from “[getting] too comfortable and [wanting] to stay” (Demusz, 1998:237).
Refugees in the camps live very restricted lives. They are not entitled to any employment, education in the camps is sanctioned and they cannot move freely. Organisations working with refugees are limited to providing “assistance in the areas of basic relief goods, health and sanitation” (ibid.:237). The protracted situation of the Burmese refugees in Thailand and the isolation in the camps “prevents refugees from making a positive contribution to regional development and peacebuilding” (Zeus, 2011:257) and has “created a deadlock situation in which it is extremely difficult for the refugees to control the development of their own society” (Oh & Stouwe, 2008:590). They are “almost entirely dependent on international assistance” (IRC, 2007).
Every refugee outside the camps without any legal visa is regarded as an illegal alien and faces detention and deportation. Nevertheless, a significant number of refugees choose this option as it allows them to follow at least some kind of employment and contribute to their livelihoods. This highly uncertain situation leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and maltreatment (Human Rights Watch, 2012).
3.3.3 UNHCR and NGOs working in the border region
UNHCR entered the context of the Thai-Burmese border region in 1998 (Thompson, 2008) after attacks on camps led to a tightening of Thai policy and a shift towards containment in the camps, putting the refugees’ self-governance system under pressure. The UN agency is responsible for protection and monitoring activities and the development of durable solutions strategies – as such it currently leads preparedness programming (UNHCR, 2015a) – while the NGOs continue to be responsible for more operational issues (Hargrave, 2014).
A total number of 18 NGOs jointly form the Committee for Coordination of Services to Displaced Persons in Thailand (CCSDPT), covering diverse sectors ranging from camp management and education to livelihoods and shelter, to name a few (CCSDPT, n.d.). They collaborate and coordinate with UNHCR and formulate joint frameworks and strategic plans (CCSDPT & UNHCR, 2013). Further, the CCSDPT represents its members in front of the RTG and thus serves as a link between the two. Its current chair is Patrick Kearns, who also holds the position of Country Director for World Education, providing support for education for refugees and migrants in the border region.
One of the members of the CCSDPT is The Border Consortium (TBC), which “is the main provider of food, shelter and other forms of support” (TBC, n.d.) to the camp populations since 1984. As TBC is in charge of the rations provided to the refugees, the organisation came up repeatedly during the research as rations are decreasing in recent years. TBC focuses in its Strategic Directions
2013-2017 on readiness for return, economic and social development, humanitarian support,
participation in governance and organisational development (ibid.).
3.4 Recent Developments
In 2010, a nominally civilian government was established in Burma under the leadership of the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party and its President Thein Sein (South & Jolliffe, 2014), which has been accompanied by ceasefire talks and reforms. Shortly after these changes in the neighbouring country, Thai authorities initiated talks about repatriation of the Burmese refugees back to their home country (Burma Link, 2015d). The military junta in Thailand, which took power in May 2014, announced plans to repatriate all refugees by 2015 (Saw Yan Naing, 2014c). Simultaneously, restrictions on the movement of refugees have been increased, cutting off access to opportunities to sustain their livelihood and increasing dependence on outside aid (Burma Partnership & Burma Link, 2015b).
Reflecting these developments, UNHCR and the CCSDPT started planning for repatriation scenarios. In 2012, UNHCR released the Framework for Voluntary Repatriation: Refugees from
Myanmar in Thailand, which has been updated in May 2014 (UNHCR, 2014). The CCSDPT and
UNHCR jointly declared “that programmes in Thailand need to be reoriented” (Hargrave, 2014:43) in order to prepare for repatriation and realign their strategies (CCSDPT & UNHCR, 2013). In a Letter
of Understanding, the Burmese government and UNHCR defined each other’s responsibilities in creating conditions for the return of displaced people (UNHCR, 2013b). In the same year, UNHCR initiated a Return Assessment project to understand spontaneous returns and collect information (UNHCR, 2013a). In 2014, UNHCR published a document answering Refugees’ Frequently Asked
Questions underscoring the voluntariness of return and that there is no set time frame (UNHCR,
2014); the CCSDPT reiterated this statement in several publications as well, for example in their
Standards and Principles in Voluntary Repatriation form Thailand to Myanmar (CCSDPT, 2012).
The latest version of UNHCR’s Strategic Roadmap for Voluntary Repatriation has been published in March 2015, describing the five strategic pillars or phases of repatriation from preparedness till cessation of operations (UNHCR, 2015d). This was followed by the presentation of an Operations Plan draft in July 2015, which details the strategies defined in the former.
They recognise the need for information on the refugees’ side, thus “assistance prior to departure will focus on counseling and provision of information [and] verification of voluntariness” (UNHCR, 2015d:7). “Information-dissemination is a priority to help refugees make informed decisions about their futures and also to recognize the contribution and role they play in the preparedness processes” is a statement made by the CCSDPT and UNHCR in their Strategic Framework (2013:3), “recognis[ing] the contribution of refugees, and need for further self-empowerment” (ibid.).
Organisations like Burma Link6 or Burma Partnership regard these talks about repatriation as premature (Burma Link, 2015d) as the ethnic areas in Burma are still far from any form of positive peace and refugees returning to Burma have several reasons to fear for their life. Despite ceasefire agreements and peace talks, conflict and fighting are still ongoing in some ethnic areas. Just at the beginning of 2015, around 100,000 people have been displaced in the Shan State because of torture, rape, air strikes and killings (Burma Partnership & Burma Link, 2015b). Where ‘peace’ exists, the presence of the Burmese military is increasing (ibid.).
Zoya Phan, a former refugee and now activist, thinks that “the changes in Burma so far are superficial, which were designed by the military to ease domestic and international pressure” (Nyein Nyein, 2015b) and that the “government is not interested in solving the conflicts in ethnic areas” (ibid.). Soe Aung from Burma Partnership states that “if the concerns of the refugees are unaddressed and the preconditions for safe and dignified return are not ensured, the refugees will again be caught in a cycle of conflict and displacement after their return” (Burma Partnership & Burma Link, 2015a).
6
During the field research from June to August 2015, Burma Link’s cofounder and programme director Ariana Zarleen acted as my local supervisor. More information about Burma Link can be found on their website: http://www.burmalink.org/
For these reasons, CBOs, NGOs and civil society emphasise more than ever the necessity to include refugees in the planning and preparation processes for a possible return:
Meaningful consultations and diverse participation of refugees and CBOs working with the refugee community in the planning and preparedness of their return is key to their sustainable return. […] Genuine and timely consultation with the refugees as primary stakeholders is fundamental in deepening the trust and improving communication with the refugee community, paving the way for the provision of clear information as regards to their future. There must be genuine and regular consultations in identifying possible relocation sites as refugees can provide expert local knowledge on this matter.
(KWO, 2015)
This is directly related to upholding the “humanitarian principle […] that refugees return voluntarily and with dignity” (Syrota, 2015; Brees, 2008). Brees further suggests that “the alternative of local integration should not be taboo and needs to be assessed as a realistic option” (2008:393), as not all refugees will be able to resettle or repatriate. This and the inclusion of refugees in participatory processes require the “commitment [...] on the part of agencies, refugees and the RTG” (Demusz, 1998:243).
3.5 Research Location
The research was based in Mae Sot, a town on the border between Thailand and Myanmar. The biggest camp for Burmese refugees, Mae La, is in close proximity and was one of the three visited camps. Mae Rama Luang and Umpiem Mai are the other two camps. In total, ten refugee camps exist along the Thai side of the Thai-Burmese border, one of them being a camp for ethnic Shan close to Chiang Mai further North (TBC, 2015a). Many organisations working with refugees are based in Mae Sot or have offices there.
3.6 Conclusion
The protracted situation of refugees from Burma along the Thai-Burmese border, combined with the complicated and still ongoing history of conflict in Burma and the restrictive policies by the RTG, presents a complex scenario for ensuring liveable futures and developing durable solutions for the refugees. Nevertheless, the long established community structures on the refugees’ side provide a viable option for the inclusion of refugees in decision-making and planning processes. Given the current narrative of reforms in Burma (Hargrave, 2014) and the accompanying shift towards preparedness planning by UNHCR and the CCSDPT, the urgency of establishing participatory mechanisms is highly relevant to the described context. Whether the reality currently experienced by refugees on the ground in Thailand reflects this is analysed in the empirical chapters 5, 6 and 7. First, the next chapter details the design used for this research.
4. Research Design
4.1 Introduction
This chapter first presents the research and sub-questions, followed by a discussion of the conceptual scheme, which aims to illustrate the above discussed theoretical concepts against the background of the Thai-Burmese context and the relevant research questions. After a brief description of the methodological foundation for this research, the applied research and sampling methods are specified to demonstrate how data collection and analysis were conducted. A methodological reflection and ethical considerations conclude the chapter.
4.2 Research Questions
Based on the purpose of the research and the theoretical concepts discussed above, the following research questions have been derived:
How can refugees from Burma along the Thai-Burmese border participate in decision-making and planning processes regarding repatriation and what possibilities and constraints exist?
Sub-question 1a: How do refugees envision their future?
Sub-question 1b: How are these aspirations connected to durable solutions?
These questions aim to explore the refugees’ aspirations regarding their future and how these relate to questions such as whether they want to stay in Thailand, resettle or return to Burma and under what conditions. They will provide the background for the following questions.
Sub-question 2: What role do other actors play?
This question revolves around other actors, such as the RTG, UNHCR and the CCSDPT. It aims to demonstrate how these actors’ and their activities are perceived by the refugees.
Sub-question 3a: What structures exist for participation of refugees in the preparation for repatriation?
Sub-question 3b: What are enabling and constraining factors related to these?
These two questions examine existing mechanisms for participation and related issues, reflecting upon the characteristics established for meaningful participation in Section 2.3.
4.3 Conceptual Scheme
The following conceptual scheme illustrates the interrelation between the discussed theoretical concepts against the research context:
The conceptual scheme is based on the SRA. On the left side, the current contextual structures are described. Accordingly, the left side describes the current contextual structures, based upon which the refugees and other actors inform their strategies. These strategic choices and actions reflect the enabling and constraining factors prevalent in their environment. As the refugees are not the only relevant actors, other actors’ actions and positions are influential too, which is reflected in ‘opposing’ and ‘supportive’ actors. Refugees’ rights could form another enabling factor as they provide a legal basis for refugees’ participation. Further, the willingness of more powerful actors to concede power to refugees can be regarded as another condition which would provide opportunity for increased participation. Restrictive policies and opportunity costs on the contrary restrain the refugees in participating in decision-making processes.
Eventually – and this is where the ‘actions-arrows’ pass from the blue-lined box of the strategically-selective context on the left to the red-lined box on the right – these actions result in a transformed (or reproduced) future structure. Relating to the specific context of the research, these two structures (the current and future one) are also placed on a continuum reaching from tokenistic modes of participation to transformative ones. How these concepts have been operationalised for the data collection in the field can be seen in Appendix II.
Figure 3 - Conceptual Scheme
Transformed structures Strategically- selective context Exclusionary, ‘top-down’ planning, leading to involuntary return Fear of premature repatriation Disempowerment of refugees Distrust Lack of informa-tion, no dialogue Inclusive, ‘bottom-up’ decision-making processes Voluntary, sustainable return or the development of other solutions Empowerment of refugees Trust Dialogue Restrictive policies Opposing actors Opportunity Costs Constraining Factors Structurally-oriented strategies Enabling Factors Supportive actors Powerful actors concede power
Rights
tokenistic Modes of Participation transformative
Refugees exercising agency through
participation
4.4 Methodology
This research followed a qualitative research approach. It reflects the combination of a critical realist perspective inherent to the SRA with social constructivist ideas and seemed appropriate given the sensitive research context along the Thai-Burmese border. This sensitivity results from the uncertain environment the refugees live in and safety concerns for the respondents. Due to this sensitivity and other limitations such as time constraints, the sample is relatively small in size, which I expected beforehand and deemed unsuitable for quantitative methods. Further, a strong emphasis was placed on gaining in-depth understanding of the informants’ perspective, which also justified a more qualitative approach in order to accommodate different individual conceptions. The research followed a case study design as it aims to understand the “complexity and particular nature of the case in question” (Bryman, 2012:66), here the situation of the Burmese refugees along the Thai-Burmese border.
4.5 Sampling
When designing this research, I expected that access to the refugees living in the refugee camps would be impossible. Fortunately, once in the field it was rather unproblematic to gain access as Patrick Kearns from the CCSDPT facilitated the issuance of a camp pass. In total, five visits to three refugee camps took place, one of them including two over-night stays in the Mae Rama Luang camp due to the remote location of the camp. Thus, refugees living inside the camps form the majority of the sample whereas a two refugees currently living in Mae Sot are included in it as well. They lived previously in the camp, so that they were able to add insights based on these experiences. In addition, interviews with experts working for the refugees from Burma in Thailand were conducted.
The respective informants were identified using a purposive or non-probability convenience sampling approach (Bryman, 2012), which is common in qualitative research in order to gain access to “participants who have experienced the central phenomenon or the key concept being explored in the study” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011:173). Both my local supervisor and contact persons in local organisations acted as gatekeepers into the refugee communities and helped identify informants. Inside the camps, the first contact person – often the respective interpreter – would refer further useful contacts and informants, thus snowball sampling was another method which I employed.
Despite the possibility to gain access to the refugee camps the sample is relatively small, which is due to the sensitivity of the context and logistical as well as time constraints. Creswell and Plano Clark argue that a small sample is unproblematic in the context of qualitative research, as even a small sample can give “in-depth information about the central phenomenon or concept” (2011:174). Using saturation as an indicator for sufficient sample size and after having achieved “a reliable sense of thematic exhaustion and variability within [the] dataset” (Guest et al., 2006:65), I feel confident to argue that even though it is a small sample, the number of informants and methods used produced a reliable dataset for this research.
