Also see on this page
Coping strategies
Protection

Vulnerability

In terms of vulnerability, the prevalence of threats to personal safety and security has increased since households were last surveyed in 2005. This is particularly significant in regards to the incidence of arbitrary arrest or detention and forced conscription to porter military supplies. When disaggregated by surroundings, the dangers of military patrols, landmines and artillery attack are especially acute for households hiding in the most contested areas. Villagers in government controlled relocation sites are at greater risk of arbitrary arrest or detention, torture or beatings and forced conscription as a porter and landmine sweeper. These responses support the assessments of human rights groups that SPDC’s troops and administrative authorities are the primary perpetrators of violence and abuse against civilians.

Despite the severity of threats to personal safety and security, the prevalence of threats to livelihoods is on a greater scale. Restrictions on civilian movement to fields and markets have increased significantly during the past two years. The survey findings indicate this is now the most pervasive human rights abuse, followed by forced labour and extortion or arbitrary taxation. The proportion of households affected by these patterns of abuse was highest in mixed administration areas and relocation sites, which is indicative of the oppressive conditions associated with living in close proximity to the Burmese Army. Conversely, the destruction or confiscation of food supplies and the destruction of, or forced eviction from, housing primarily targeted villagers hiding in the most contested areas. This reflects the SPDC’s counter-insurgency strategy, which deliberately targets civilians through impoverishment and deprivation.

[Rev: Feb 08]

Coping strategies

In terms of coping strategies, the significance of traders and other civilians as a source of early warning about approaching troop movements appears to have decreased during the past couple of years. Civilians have become more dependent on their own village security guards as a result of increased restrictions on movement weakening broader economic and social networks. However, accessing loans and aid from neighbours remain key mechanisms for coping with shocks to livelihoods. This highlights the continued importance of social capital within and between local communities for the development of a protective environment.

Coping strategies for dealing with shocks to livelihoods during the past year also highlight the importance of social capital. Seeking help from neighbours and loans from traders were key means of survival for internally displaced communities across all types of places. This high prevalence of accessing loans and help from neighbours reflect how maintaining strong relations between communities, and across conflict lines, is fundamental to the viability of coping strategies. The social basis of coping strategies is also reflected in responses from the most vulnerable communities in hiding sites, of whom almost half had received aid from community based organisations during the past year.

[Rev: Feb 08]

Protection

In terms of protection, there has been a contraction of humanitarian space since the purge of former Prime Minister Khin Nyunt in October 2004. Indeed, the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) publicly denounced the SPDC in 2007 for being unwilling to enter into serious discussion about stopping ongoing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.

In this context, it is not surprising that household surveys amongst conflict-affected communities in 2007 found confidence in the restoration of human rights declining. The protection dividend of humanitarian aid is still perceived positively by villagers although not as conclusively as in 2005. The majority of respondents continue to report that the provision of aid strengthens their economic and social links across political conflict lines or contributes to a decrease in human rights abuses. However in ceasefire areas, levels of satisfaction about the impact of ceasefire agreements decreased to less than half of the population surveyed. The main benefit identified was in relation to increased livelihood opportunities, with few respondents suggesting there had been any improvement in the human rights situation.

In summary, the survey findings support assessments from human rights defenders that soldiers from the Burma Army are the primary perpetrators of abuse. Further, the Government of Burma appears unwilling to support local coping strategies and protect civilians from harm. Given these trends, and the absence of fundamental political change, there is not much for internally displaced persons in eastern Burma to look forward to. It is difficult to conceive of any scenario in the near future other than ongoing violence, abuse and conflict causing more displacement and obstructing attempts at return and resettlement.

[Rev: Feb 08]