Search

The current situation is looked at from the perspectives of the different actors, in terms of commitment to finding a solution and to carrying on funding when change appears distant. The attitude of the different actors to the standard durable solutions is examined; international humanitarian agencies have long favoured local integration as a sustainable solution, one which the Royal Thai Government (RTG) implacably opposes. Resettlement has had some effect, but there is a question mark over its continued operation, and it has not reduced camp size, because new arrivals have replaced those who have gone. Gradually, there is an acceptance among most actors, including long-term donors, that voluntary repatriation must be at the heart of any sustainable solution; the challenge remains how to make Myanmar feel like a safe place of return for those who have fled, and for those born in the camps who have no memory of Myanmar.

The current levels of support within the settlements are assessed from the perspective of the displaced persons. In general, despite differences in approach from different actors, and the RTG’s stated policy of confinement and restriction of movement and access to services that might encourage local integration, the displaced persons themselves feel they have been well supported in terms of basic food, shelter, education and healthcare. However, problems resulting from long confinement are starting to impact, in terms of loss of self-confidence and self-reliance. There are also signs that funding is slowing down, partly related to the economic crisis in Europe and North America. Women, in particular, have experienced some disadvantage as a result of the way agencies and the RTG have supported traditional, male-dominated administration of the camps. There is consensus amongst all actors that change is needed now.

The root cause of this issue remains unresolved; the conflict within Myanmar. At the same time, there are signs of change in Myanmar, with the release of Aung San SuuKyi and the increasing engagement of ASEAN and the wider international community. Donors and funders are urged to maintain their support for now, and to increase pressure through trade and other links to make Myanmar a safe place for repatriation. The agencies are encouraged to continue moving from emergency response to developmental programmes, including within Myanmar. Collaboration on solutions, such as CCSDPT/UNHCR’s 5-year plan, is encouraged as long as all options are considered, not just local integration. The RTG must continue to be flexible, and to see strategies to encourage self-reliance of the displaced persons as preparation for eventual repatriation of the majority once Myanmar is free of conflict.

Generally, the displaced persons themselves are relatively contented with the way they have been treated in the settlements by all the various stakeholders. They have found relative safety and security, and have access to basic life requirements such as food and shelter and, increasingly, to education, health care and other services. However, the displaced persons are in limbo, and have been for a long time in some cases, and lack hope and motivation, leading to increasing social and community issues in the shelters. For the donors, the issue has become a strain on resources, and a peripheral issue in world affairs. For the UN agencies and NGOs, with no solutions in sight, this protracted situation has taxed resources and patience. For the RTG, also, there are more major issues to attend to. All parties have different perspectives, and communication between them is poor. The RTG’s approach has been more flexible in practice than is its policy, but it has been unable to agree a solution with the other actors.

The funding of the humanitarian and developmental programmes with the displaced people is examined in more detail, including how bodies such as UNHCR receive their funding. The relationship between the RTG and international actors is explored, looking in particular at the different perspectives that exist and how these have made joined-up policy and practice more difficult. The relationship between NGOs and other actors is also reviewed, and between them and the RTG, showing that communication has been a weakness. The 5-year strategic plan of CCSDPT/UNHCR is evaluated in terms of its scope and likelihood of success; it fails to put forward a solution based on a combination of the durable solutions. The relationship of actors with the RTG remains a barrier, in terms of culture and understanding of each others’ perspectives.