|
|
|
|
|
|
KHRG Working Paper #2005-W1 Abstract: This paper examines the nature and dynamics of Karen internal displacement in Burma through perspectives expressed by villagers themselves, and then contrasts their view of the situation with that projected by international labels and definitions. Initially, it contrasts the prevalent way of viewing internal displacement, which it argues is built upon state sovereignty, and a ‘popular sovereignty’ perspective which attempts to understand displacement by beginning from the viewpoint of local people rather than internationally-accepted definitions. It then looks at Karen internal displacement using the latter perspective and finds it to be an ongoing and sociocultural process rather than a spatial displacement from ‘home’. Though occurring in a context of armed conflict, it is not caused by armed conflict but by state efforts to consolidate territorial sovereignty over civilians who are used to local-level sovereignty and ‘non-state’ identities. Villagers therefore respond with survival strategies which in themselves constitute resistance to state authority. International perspectives, however, ignore this when they apply misleading assumptions and oversimplifications like ‘conflict-induced displacement’ and overdetermine people’s identities with labels like ‘IDP’ which depict people as helpless bystanders to their own context. Such labels ignore people’s capacities to respond to their own situation and the resistance aspect in their responses, and lead to top-down relief-based solutions which favour the repressive state and weaken the position of displaced people themselves. The importance of which epistemology is chosen to understand internal displacement situations is illustrated by the contrast between covert local-level aid to Karen village survival strategies, which is unabashedly political and empowers people in their resistance to state control, versus UNHCR’s agreement with Burma’s military junta to prepare the ground for refugee repatriation, which claims ‘humanitarian neutrality’ but strengthens the state, ignores local perspectives and poses a serious threat to the lives and livelihoods of the internally displaced. The paper concludes that most interventions in internal displacement situations fail to improve conditions for the displaced because they apply internationally-developed labels to people and situations which ignore local perspectives and dynamics, and calls for a new look at ‘internal’ displacement which is much more politically engaged and gives much greater weight to local visions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
