Southern Methodist University SMU Scholar Anthropology Theses and Dissertations Anthropology Spring 5-18-2019 Rethinking Repatriation: Karen Refugees on the Thai-Myanmar Border Carrie Perkins Southern Methodist University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/hum_sci_anthropology_etds Recommended Citation Perkins, Carrie, "Rethinking Repatriation: Karen Refugees on the Thai-Myanmar Border" (2019). Anthropology Theses and Dissertations. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25172/td/14463626 https://scholar.smu.edu/hum_sci_anthropology_etds/7 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. RETHINKING REPATRIATION: KAREN REFUGEES ON THE THAI-MYANMAR BORDER Approved by: _____________________________________________ Professor Caroline Brettell _____________________________________________ Professor Nia Parson _____________________________________________ Professor Nicolas Sternsdorff-Cisterna _____________________________________________ Professor Ward Keeler RETHINKING REPATRIATION: KAREN REFUGEES ON THE THAI-MYANMAR BORDER A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of Dedman College Southern Methodist University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a Major in Cultural Anthropology by Carrie Anne Perkins B.A. University of North Texas M.Sc. University of North Texas M.A. Southern Methodist University May 18, 2019 ii Perkins, Carrie B.A., University of North Texas M.Sc., University of North Texas M.A., Southern Methodist University Rethinking Repatriation: Karen Refugees on the Thai-Myanmar Border Advisor: Professor Caroline Brettell Doctor of Philosophy conferred May 18, 2019 Dissertation completed March 22, 2019 In this dissertation, I explore the experience of Karen refugees living inside a refugee camp along the Thai-Myanmar border in one of the world’s most protracted refugee situations. This research situates displacement within theories of time, (im)mobility and resistance while also drawing on literature in forced migration concerning repatriation, exile, protracted refugee situations and policy development. A key component of this work focuses on analyzing the relationship between resistance and waiting by applying these concepts to the experience of Karen refugees who have spent decades waiting in camps while currently being faced with a voluntary repatriation program. I frame voluntary repatriation as a globally accepted durable solution to protracted refugee situations and as such, the preferred outcome of protracted displacement by the international refugee regime. Building on conceptualizations of waiting as an active strategy, I add both strategy and resistance to this concept in the context of protracted refugee situations, showing how I will further develop this theoretical iii framework through my own ethnographic work. Since my contribution to this theoretical trajectory is to make ‘waiting as resistance’ and ‘waiting as strategy’ central to an analysis of the repatriation framework, I will explain how holistic frameworks of return can guide effective policy implementation. This dissertation also traces the specific histories and geo-political situations that gave rise to the current state of a protracted refugee crisis along the Thailand-Myanmar border. With special consideration paid to the emergence of a voluntary repatriation program being implemented by the UNHCR in the region, I explore how Karen refugees respond to the notion of return to Myanmar. In the concluding chapters I offer an applied contribution in the form of a policy recommendation for Thailand that I have termed Protracted Sanctuary Status. Within this framework I offer a suggestion that is modeled after the U.S. immigration category of Temporary Protected Status with a few key changes that address both the need for legal employment in Thailand as well as the precariousness refugees from Myanmar currently face. To explore these issues, this dissertation is based on three months of archival research at The University of Oxford’s Refugee Studies Centre in addition to a total of 10 months of fieldwork in Yangon, Myanmar, Mae Sot, Thailand and Mae La Refugee Camp on the Thai-Myanmar border. During this time, 28 interviews were conducted during the pilot phase of research in 2015, and an additional 40 interviews were conducted with both refugees and other stakeholders during the primary fieldwork period in 2017. Other data was collected through the use of participant observation while living inside Mae La Refugee camp as well as two focus groups and an ongoing analysis of local publications, media, art and music related to repatriation and the refugee experience along the border. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF MAPS, FIGURES, TABLES and PHOTOS viii A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY AND PSEUDONYMS xii LIST OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS xiv MAP: THAILAND xv MAP: MYANMAR xvi Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Thai-Myanmar Friendship Bridge 1 1.2 Mae La 4 1.3 A Brief History of the Karen 8 1.4 Overview of Theoretical Orientations and Contributions 16 1.5 Overview of Chapters 20 2. RESEARCH CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY 23 2.1 Introduction 23 2.2 Preliminary Research and Feasibility 25 2.3 Returning to the Field 31 2.4 Methodological Approaches 38 2.5 Concluding Remarks about Ethical Challenges in the Field 47 3. POLITICS AND THE PRECARIAT 50 3.1 Introduction 50 3.2 From Siam to Thailand 53 v 3.3 Negotiating Refugee Status in Thailand and the Case of the Missing Bangkok Principles 59 3.4 A New Myanmar, a New Outlook on Refugees? 64 3.5 Conclusion 75 4. WAITING: Experiences of Exile and Protractedness 77 4.1 Introduction 77 4.2 Time, Waiting and (Im)mobility 79 4.3 Waiting for Change: resistance in its many forms 89 4.4 Refugee Experiences of Exile 97 4.5 Christianity and the Karen 102 4.6 Conclusion 105 5. NEGOTIATING RETURN: Strategies, Compromise and Barriers 107 5.1 Introduction 107 5.2 Durable Solutions 110 5.3 The Current State of Voluntary Repatriation on the Thai-Myanmar Border 122 5.4 Barriers to Return 130 5.5 Conclusion – An Impossible Choice 140 6. BEYOND DURABLE SOLUTIONS: Rethinking Repatriation 141 6.1 Introduction 141 6.2 Moving Beyond Three Durable Solutions 142 6.3 Labor Migration as the Fourth Durable Solution 144 6.4 Self-Reliance Pending Return 148 6.5 The Case of Lay Kay Kaw 152 6.6 Conclusion 156 7. CONCLUSIONS 158 7.1 Introduction 158 vi 7.2 Scholarly Contributions 161 7.3 Applied Contributions: Towards Protracted Sanctuary 163 7.4 Final Remarks and Recommendations for Future Research 167 APPENDIX 170 1.1 UNHCR Documents 170 1.2 Interview Guide 183 REFERENCES 184 vii LIST OF MAPS 1. Thailand xiii 2. Myanmar xiv 3. The nine camps on the Thai-Myanmar border 15 4. Mae La Refugee Camp 36 5. Southeast Asia during the high colonial age, 1870 - 1914 54 viii LIST OF FIGURES 1. An illustration highlighting the cultural mandates of Phibun's Ratthaniyom 56 2. Myanmar GDP Growth 2012-2022 66 3. Major refugee-Hosting Countries 2015-2016 113 4. Resettlement of Myanmar Refugees in Thailand 2005-2018 117 5. INGO Repatriation Strategy Political Cartoon 124 ix LIST OF TABLES 1. Timeline of Repatriation Activity 25 2. Summary of Interview Data Collected (2017) 44 3. Summary of Current UNHCR Mandate for Voluntary Repatriation 122 4. KSNG Position Paper on Refugee Return to Burma 127 5. Protected Status (TPS) vs. Protracted Sanctuary Status (PSS) 166 x LIST OF PHOTOS 1. Repatriation at the Mae Sot-Myawaddy Border Crossing 3 2. Lay Kay Kaw Village, Kawkareik Township, Southeastern Myanmar 154 3. An overview of Lay Kay Kaw as seen from footage shot by drone 154 4. Care Villa for Landmine Survivors, Mae La Refugee Camp, Thailand 160 xi A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY AND PSEUDONYMS Myanmar or Burma? The military government of Burma officially changed its name to the “Union of Myanmar” in 1989, while also renaming many of the cities and regions that bore English translations that dated back to Burma’s colonial period. Many political and ethnic opposition groups contested the renaming as they did not recognize the legitimacy of the ruling military government or its authority to rename the country. Political reforms in Myanmar between 2011-2012 resulted in the dissolution of the military junta and the country was once again renamed to the “Republic of the Union of Myanmar”. Subsequently, general elections were held in November 2015, marking the first openly contested elections since 1990. While the results gave the National League for Democracy and its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, an absolute majority of seats in both chambers of the national parliament, the military retained 25 percent of seats, effectively making any constitutional changes impossible without their consent. In light of this, many of those who have fled the country as the result of civil war and persecution, still refer to the country as Burma and reject the legitimacy of the name Myanmar. However, as a result of on-going democratic reforms, many people and organizations now recognize the country as “Myanmar” including the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). xii Throughout this dissertation I have chosen to use “Myanmar” when speaking generally about the country, and “Burma” when relating conversations or quotations from individuals who have used this name, out of respect