Notes
and
Acknowledgements
iii
Notes on Terminology













iv
Abbreviations
















iv
Note
on
Spelling
iv
Map of Burma















v

Chapter 1
Introduction
















1
The research problem













1
Research questions













2
The research process













2
Scope and limitations













2
The research context













3

Chapter 2
Contending
Perspectives
on
Internal
Displacement
5
State
sovereignty-based
perspectives
5
-

Framing
displacement
5
-

Framing sovereignty












6
-

Framing causation













6
-

Analysing displacement











7
A
popular
sovereignty
perspective
8
-

Rethinking displacement











8
-

Re-examining state sovereignty









9
-

Rethinking causation












10
-

Analysing
dynamics
of
displacement
10

Vulnerability













11

Survival strategies












12

Resistance














12
Concluding remarks













13
Summary of the two perspectives outlined above






14

Chapter 3
Karen
Displacement:
Analysing
Local
Perceptions 15
Identities:
communal
and
individual
15
Local conceptions of human rights and human security




16
Contending
conceptions
of
sovereignty
17
Local
conceptions
of
conflict
18
Karen
experiences
of
displacement 19
-

The roots of displacement











19
-

The
nature
of
displacement 20
Village
responses
to
displacement 21
-

Vulnerabilities and capacities










21
-

Survival strategies













22
-

Aspects of resistance












26
Concluding remarks













27
Figure 1: Schematic of the dynamics surrounding Karen displacement
28

i
Chapter 4
Looking Outward: Questioning Norms and Frameworks




29
Epistemology and international responses 29
-

Causes
of
displacement 29
-

Dynamics
of
displacement 30
-

Local responses and agency










30
-

Human security and sovereignty









32
International
action
to
help
Karen
IDPs
33
Concluding remarks













35

Chapter 5
Conclusions
















36

References 39

ii 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 peoples
identities with labels like IDP which depict people as helpless bystanders to their own
context. Such labels ignore peoples 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
UNHCRs agreement with Burmas 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.


Notes and Acknowledgements

KHRG is releasing this as a working paper in the hope that it will stimulate debate and
change in the way that internally displaced people (IDPs) are viewed in Burma and
elsewhere. The views expressed herein are those of the author, and this should therefore not
be viewed as a KHRG report. The author retains full rights to this paper, but it may be freely
reproduced, distributed, and cited provided that the source is appropriately acknowledged.
This is the first working paper released by KHRG, but we hope to have the opportunity to
release more in future.

This paper was initially submitted as part of postgraduate studies at the Institute of Social
Studies in The Hague, Netherlands. The author would like to thank Dr. Thanh-Dam Truong
and Professor Martin Doornbos for their support and supervision while writing this paper,
KHRG researchers for doing much of the ground work upon which it is based, and all of
those close to me who provided moral and intellectual support while it was being written.
Most of all to Bel, who made this possible and provided support and inspiration all the way
through.

iii Notes on Terminology

Burma/Myanmar: Burma never existed as an entity prior to its creation as an
administrative province of British India in the 19
th
Century. Burmans historically used the
adjective Myanmar to refer to things related to their country (meaning the Burman kingdoms
of the heartland). In 1989 the military junta decreed a name change from Burma to
Myanmar Naing-Ngan. Though accepted by the United Nations, this is seen by non-
Burmans as part of the juntas ethnic assimilation project, and the change has been rejected
by the government elected in 1990 which was never allowed to take power. This paper will
therefore use the name Burma.

Burman/Burmese: Burman is used to refer to the dominant ethnic group in Burma,
making up approximately half of the population. Burmese is used as adjective for things
related to the nation-state of Burma, such as Burmese citizens or the Burmese state. One
exception is that Burmese is the name given to the language of the Burmans.

Tatmadaw: The Burmese armed forces, the bulk of which is the Army (Tatmadaw Kyi).

Guiding Principles: The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, developed by a legal
team led by Francis Deng, UN Secretary-Generals Representative on Internally Displaced
Persons, and released in 1998.


Abbreviations

IDP
Internally displaced person

SPDC
State Peace and Development Council, the name of Burmas military junta since
1997
SLORC State Law & Order Restoration Council, the name of the military junta from 1988-
97
KNU
Karen National Union
KNLA
Karen National Liberation Army (armed wing of the KNU)
DKBA
Democratic Karen Buddhist Army, created in 1994 by a breakaway group from
the KNLA. It has a ceasefire with the SPDC and still fights the KNLA.

UN United
Nations
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
ICRC
International Committee of the Red Cross
NGO Non-governmental
organisation


Note on Spelling

This paper uses Canadian English spellings. In most aspects this resembles British spelling
(as in realise, centre, labour), but it does not hyphenate in cases such as cooperate.
Spelling in quoted passages remains as it appears in the original.

iv



v Chapter 1
Introduction

The research problem

Over the past twenty years several million people have been displaced within Burma, several
hundred thousand of them in Karen State, and tens of thousands more continue to be
displaced each year. Most are displaced by a combination of human rights abuses committed
by state forces, including forced labour, forced relocation, systemic extortion and looting,
arbitrary detention and torture. Several hundred thousand now live in hiding throughout
Burma, while state forces search out and destroy their crops and shoot them on sight. More
are living in relocation camps, where nothing is provide