Burma: The Changing Nature of Displacement Crises

Abstract

Patterns of forced migration in Burma (Myanmar1) have been structured by the changing nature of conflict in the country. Since independence in 1948, Burma has been subject to armed conflict, in the form of a communist insurgency – which came close to seizing state power in the late 1940s and early 1950s (Taylor 1987) – and a series of inter-linked ethnic rebellions (Smith 1999). Following a turbulent decade of parliamentary politics, the Burma Army (or Tatmadaw) temporarily assumed state power between 1958–60, before consolidating its control, following a coup d’etat in 1962 (Callahan 2003). Since the 1960s, above-ground politics and state-society relations in Burma have been dominated by the military, in the form of a state-socialist polity (1962–88: Taylor 1987) and – since the military coup of September 1988 – in a more market-oriented, but still highly authoritarian form of military rule (South 2005). ¶ In 1989 the once-powerful Communist Party of Burma (CPB) collapsed, allowing the Tatmadaw to concentrate its forces on the ethnic insurgencies, which by this time were mostly confined to the northern and eastern border areas. Between 1989-95, some two dozen ceasefires were agreed between the military regime, and the majority of armed ethnic groups (Smith 1999, South 2005). ¶ By 2007, only two significant insurgent organizations remained at war with the regime in Yangon (Rangoon). However, more than two million people of Burmese origin were still displaced outside the country, including more than 150,000 refugees in Thailand, the first of whom had sought shelter in the kingdom in the mid-1980s (Lang 2002, TBBC July 2006). In addition, over half a million people remained internally displaced within Burma (HRW 2005, TBBC November 2006). ¶ The shifting nature of conflict in Burma over the past fifteen years has structured a range of inter-linked displacement crises. In this paper, three main types of forced migration in – and from – the country are identified: Type 1 – armed-conflict-induced displacement; Type 2 – State/society-induced displacement; and Type 3 – livelihood/vulnerability-induced displacement. Each is addressed in a case study, with material drawn from different geographic areas, illustrating different aspects and impacts of (armed and state-society) conflict in Burma. ¶ This paper shows that internal displacement in Burma is not only caused by armed conflict in the insurgent-prone eastern borderlands. While the most acutely vulnerable internally displaced persons (IDPs) do live in those few areas of the country still affected by significant levels of armed conflict, the phenomenon of forced migration is more complex and widespread – the product of decades of mis-governance by the militarized state. ¶ The paper is based on more than two hundred interviews and focus groups, conducted between 2001-06 in Kachin, Karen, Mon and Shan States, in Tenasserim and Yangon Divisions, and along the Thailand and China borders. Informants included: different categories of migrants (including IDPs and refugees) from various ethnic, social and gender groups; ‘host communities’; previously displaced communities which have found solutions to their plight; political organisations; armed ethnic groups (with and without ceasefires); local NGOs and CBOs; UN agencies, the ICRC, and INGOs; diplomats, academics and journalists. Secondary material comes from a survey of published (including electronic) sources and limited circulation (‘grey’) literature. Show more