EmailMeForm



Return or Remain: Analyzing UNHCR Behavior in the Afghan and Rohingya Refugee CrisesAn Honors Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements of the Renée Crown University Honors Program atSyracuse UniversityLara HicksCandidate for Bachelor of Arts Degreeand Renée Crown University HonorsSpring 2020Honors Thesis in International RelationsCapstone Project Advisor: _______________________ Dr. Lamis Abdelaaty Assistant Professor, Political ScienceCapstone Project Reader: _______________________ Jared Van Ramshorst Instructor, GeographyHonors Director: _______________________ Chris Johnson, Interim Director ? (Lara Hicks, 2020)AbstractThis thesis is a qualitative and quantitative study of the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and its crisis response strategies. The project examines the UNHCR through semi-structured interviews and case studies on the Rohingya and Afghan refugee crises. Using thematic analysis of interviewee responses, along with the case studies, I introduce and investigate the plausibility of the Persecution-Source Theory. This theory posits that the UNHCR will respond differently to a refugee crisis depending on the type of persecution refugees experience—internal or external. It argues that when refugees fled their countries of origin due to state-induced persecution (internal), the UNHCR will opt to provide humanitarian assistance as a primary response strategy. Conversely, if refugees fled due to persecution not originating from the state (external), the UNHCR will choose to repatriate as a main strategy. Although similar in many aspects, exploration of the Rohingya and Afghan cases highlights both the easily discernable and ambiguous differences in responses to the crises by the UNHCR. The thesis seeks to identify the “why(s)” behind the UNHCR choosing to pursue a repatriation-centered response over a primary humanitarian assistance-based response in some crises and vice versa. Each case study highlights the UNHCR’s apparent priorities within these internal and external contexts, demonstrating that the constraints placed upon the agency, and humanitarian work in general, highly impact how durable solutions are pursued and implemented. The interviews shed further light on humanitarian and political constraints. The combined results of the interview data and case studies show that, despite some anomalies, the Persecution-Source Theory holds; this is especially true in situations of internal persecution. I conclude that further research on the root causes of refugee crises and their impact on the UNHCR is needed, and that causal factors should be given more weight in how we conceptualize the work of UN agencies as they endeavor to provide refugees with solutions. Executive SummaryThis thesis is an examination of the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and its responses to refugee crises in southern Asia. My research is guided primarily by two questions: 1) What impacts the UNHCR’s ability to find solutions for refugees; and 2) why does the UNHCR sometimes select repatriation as a main crisis response strategy and at other times choose humanitarian assistance as the primary crisis response tactic? The aim of this research is to investigate the various crisis response tactics of the UNHCR through two case studies—the Afghan and Rohingya refugee crises, which incorporate responses from semi-structured interviews with refugee officials in the field. Throughout the paper, the refugee crises being studied are those of mass displacement—one million or more externally displaced people. To explain the variation in the UNHCR’s responses to refugee crises, I use an original theory based on the source of the persecution causing refugee crises—a Persecution-Source Theory. Acknowledging that the UNHCR relies on voluntary funding, the UNHCR will be more likely to use humanitarian aid as its primary refugee crisis response tactic if a state is persecuting its people, or internal persecution. Conversely, the UNHCR will be more likely to use repatriation as a primary strategy if the source of the persecution is derived externally as a result of inter-state conflicts, invasion, or other means; I call this external persecution. I use both qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate the Persecution-Source Theory and how it holds within similar refugee crises. The size of the impact is reflected qualitatively by an analysis of interview responses and thematic content analyses, and quantitatively by funding trends to the UNHCR from 2014-2019. My research is built upon fifteen semi-structured interviews with UNHCR officials and International Organization for Migration (IOM) workers in Geneva, Switzerland along with scholars from different think tanks, and a U.S. State Department staff member. I perform thematic content analyses of the interview responses and assign each interviewee a numerical value on two, three-point scales. One scale looks at humanitarian aid, relief, and assistance given to arrival countries, and the other is based on repatriation. A value of “0” on either scale signals that the response is not used by the UNHCR, whereas a value of “3” represents a 100% response, meaning that the UNHCR uses that response and that response only as its way of addressing a refugee crisis. A value greater than 1.5 out of 3 is needed to be considered a primary majority response to a refugee crisis. Also factored into the scales are an analysis of the Afghan and the Rohingya refugee crises’ background, UNHCR responses, coordination, UNHCR media coverage, and funding information. The results of this research show that the Persecution-Source Theory, when applied to UNHCR responses, does hold. However, the extent to which it illustrates consistency in refugee crises is also limited by the politics of the host country and country of origin, and by how the humanitarian space for the UNHCR to work in is constrained. Furthermore, timing also plays an important role. Large crises that are protracted, after an initial “Emergency Phase” period in which humanitarian aid and assistance are readily administered, have the UNHCR develop a long-term solutions strategy to assist the refugees. In both the Afghan and Rohingya cases, the UNHCR is most impacted by the persecution that generated the crises when seeking to find durable solutions for the refugees. This work is significant in that it contributes to the growing body of research on the UNHCR and its abilities to provide solutions for refugees. While the results have their limitations, the thesis highlights the need for researchers to investigate the root causes of conflict and violence as they relate to UN agencies providing humanitarian aid. Furthermore, it highlights the confines of the humanitarian space that the UNHCR, the IOM, and other international organizations occupy. Additional research on these constraints can help to paint a clearer picture and better inform those advocating on behalf of and working with the world’s millions of refugees. My hope is to shed more light on the global issue of protracted, mass displacements through this thesis.Table of ContentsAbstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...i Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………...iiAcknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………..vAdvice to Future Honors Students……………………………………………………………..viList of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………..viiList of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………...viiiAbbreviations……………………………………………………………………………………ixChapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………1Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………………..3Chapter 2: Research Design and Theory……………………………………………………...11Theory……………………………………………………………………………………11Research Design and Data……………………………………………………………….24Chapter 3: Case Study: Internal Persecution of the Rohingya……………………………...33Background………………………………………………………………………………34UNHCR Responses………………………………………………………………………41Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………..48Chapter 4: Case Study: Afghan Refugees and External Persecution……………………….55Background………………………………………………………………………………56UNHCR Responses………………………………………………………………………63Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………..68Chapter 5: Conclusion………………………………………………………………….............73References……………………………………………………………………………………….80Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………...87AcknowledgmentsThis thesis could not have been possible without the strong support system I have had at Syracuse University. To Dr. Lamis Abdelaaty, thank you for your advising throughout the past two years. Your guidance, patience, and unwavering support has pushed me to grow as a student of international relations and as a researcher within refugee studies. A huge thank you to Jared Van Ramshorst for serving as my reader, your comments and suggestions were especially helpful to me as I sought to make this project more accessible within the forced migration literature. I am especially grateful for the generosity of the Renée Crown University Honors Program—thank you for investing in me financially and personally. A special thanks to Naomi Shanguhyia for your honors and scholarship advising, and to Laura McCall for her assistance in my travel to Geneva, Switzerland. To those I interviewed: thank you for letting me pick apart your brains and for your hospitality in Geneva. Your insights are invaluable, and your service: admirable.I am forever indebted to the International Relations Department; thank you for providing me with rigorous coursework, wonderful advising, and for recognizing the scholar in me. I am particularly grateful to the strong women of IR that have taught, advised, and encouraged me: Dr. Francine D’Amico, Dr. Terrell Northrup, Amy Kennedy, and Angela Allen. Additionally, thank you to the Maxwell-in-Washington program for a life-changing semester in Washington DC and for help with connecting me to the interviewees of this thesis (shoutout to Dr. Ryan Williams and Dr. James Keagle!). Furthermore, thank you to the Syracuse Model United Nations Team and to delegates past and present; your commitment to upholding the ethos of the UN system was what motivated me to pursue this project in the first place. To the friends that motivated me as I persevered in my writing amidst procrastination along with literal blood, sweat, and tears: thank you. I truly could not have done this without you all (especially Erin, Julia, and Patrick). And, to my family, your love and support has kept me going through the ups and downs of undergraduate life. Thank you for believing in me and for shaping me into the person I am today. ***This thesis was born out of an intense appreciation for the strength and resilience of the world’s many refugees. Thank you for sharing your stories, it is those stories that have enabled me to research and to advocate. Advice to Future Honors StudentsFirst, be kind to yourself. There will be times where you are unsatisfied with your work and have trouble remaining motivated. If you are anything like me, you will probably fret over little details and strive to be a perfect writer while conducting research amid an inherently imperfect process. Hold yourself to high standards, but recognize that there will always be more to do (and isn’t that the point of conducting original research? This is not the end but only the beginning for many of us!). I encourage you to reach out to others working on their projects or to friends and family for support. Do keep a notebook and folder with your thesis notes and drafts to refer to. It is so easy to lose track of your project if you lack a system to organize your thoughts, ideas, sources, and comments. Establish timelines as you go, one large general one with important dates, and smaller detailed ones for each semester. Communicate diligently with your advisor, and do not be afraid to ask “stupid” questions. Stick to your deadlines, try not to procrastinate, and do not get super frustrated with yourself for inevitably doing so. Finally, your advisors are more than just faculty member supervising your progress. Use this thesis as an opportunity to immerse yourself in something that matters to you and share these personal and research experiences with your advisor. It is scary to be vulnerable with those you look up to, but I believe that expressing vulnerability and understanding that there is so much we do not know is an organic part of writing an Honors Thesis. Now, get out there and write!List of FiguresFigure 1. UNHCR Response to Refugee Crisis Scales13Figure 2. UNHCR Phases in Responding to the Indochinese Refugee Crisis23Figure 3. Resilience and Solutions Measures for Inside Afghanistan—Budget26Figure 4. UNHCR's Supplementary Appeal - Myanmar Refugee Emergency—Budget27Figure 5. UNHCR Planning Framework 28Figure 6. Phases of Thematic Analysis32Figure 7. Myanmar and Bangladesh Map 34Figure 8. Rohingya Refugee Arrival Trends Since Aug. 201739Figure 9. UNHCR 2018 Rohingya JRP Protection Framework’s Four Pillars44Figure 10. UNHCR Response to Rohingya Refugee Crisis Scale51Figure 11. Map of Afghanistan and Refugee Movements56Figure 12. Afghan Repatriation Trends Since 2009 61Figure 13. UNHCR Response to Afghan Refugee Crisis Scale70List of Tables Table 1. UNHCR—Myanmar Financials 46Table 2. UNHCR—Bangladesh Financials47Table 3. Thematic Analysis of Interviews; Rohingya Case49Table 4. UNHCR—Afghanistan Financials67Table 5. UNHCR—Pakistan Financials68Table 6. Thematic Analysis of Interviews; Afghan Case69AbbreviationsHRPHumanitarian Response PlanICCInternational Criminal CourtIDPInternally Displaced PersonIGOIntergovernmental OrganizationIMFInternational Monetary FundIOMInternational Organization for MigrationJRPJoint-Response Plan MoUMemorandum of UnderstandingNGONon-governmental OrganizationOCHAUnited Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsOHCHROffice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human RightsPoRProof of RegistrationRBARights-Based AssessmentRSDRefugee Status DeterminationSSARSolutions Strategy for Afghan RefugeesUNUnited NationsUNHCRUN Refugee Agency Chapter 1Introductionno one leaves home unlesshome is the mouth of a sharkyou only run for the borderwhen you see the whole city running as well…no one leaves home unless home chases youfire under feethot blood in your bellyit’s not something you ever thought of doinguntil the blade burnt threats intoyour neckand even then you carried the anthem underyour breathonly tearing up your passport in an airport toiletsobbing as each mouthful of papermade it clear that you wouldn’t be going back…Syria, Venezuela, Central African Republic, Bosnia, Palestine—refugee crises are born out of violence, uprooting individuals and families from all over the world against their will. The United Nations (UN) estimates 70.8 million people around the world have been forced from their homes by conflict and persecution at the end of 2018. Of those, nearly 30 million are refugees—people that crossed international borders when fleeing—and that number continues to increase (UNHCR 2019). These figures demonstrate the need for a stronger and more proactive global response. Unfortunately, countries’ efforts to mitigate and alleviate these crises have been limited. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) is mandated to assist and protect refugees via refugee camps, aid distribution, documentation assistance, and through other means. The UNHCR is also tasked with alleviating crises, with the goal to repatriate or return refugees safely back to their countries of origin. However, the agency faces numerous challenges and criticisms. The UNHCR’s efforts to aid refugees are especially hampered by ongoing protracted conflicts. This contrasts with the crises that characterized the initial post-World War II period, which ended when the conflict or root causes of the forced displacements were addressed (Adelman 2001). There has been a shift in the rhetoric and conception of large-scale refugee crises since it is recognized that these displacements are likely to continue for many years to come (Harrell-Bond 1989, 50-51). Some scholars and researchers of forced migration direct attention to the existing knowledge rifts in understanding the implications of refugee-generating conditions, and the solutions to these conditions. For example, Weiner (2007) expresses “the confusion among policy makers in how to think about, much less respond to, the internal crises in Rwanda, Burundi, Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Russia’s Chechnya demonstrates how great is the intellectual vacuum” (6). His statement predates the Syrian refugee crisis, a crisis which conveyed the extent to which mass exoduses of people impact international relations, humanitarian response, and global security. This calls into question the UNHCR’s effectiveness and capacity due to the growing numbers of displaced persons. The UN Refugee Agency seeks to find solutions for refugees and promotes different strategies for different crises, but just how effective are those responses? How does the UNHCR determine a crisis response strategy for each refugee situation? What impacts the UNHCR’s ability to assist refugees in finding solutions? Does the violence or persecution that generated the refugee crisis have any influence on how the UNHCR determines a response strategy to address it? Why does the UNHCR sometimes select repatriation (voluntary return) and other times choose humanitarian assistance as a primary refugee crisis alleviation method? These are the questions that this thesis explores and hopes to answer.In an attempt to make sense of the puzzling elements in UNHCR policy and practice, I introduce an original theory based on the source of the persecution causing refugee crises in relation to funding—a Persecution-Source Theory. Acknowledging that the UNHCR relies on voluntary funding, the UNHCR will be more likely to use humanitarian aid as its primary refugee crisis response tactic if a state is persecuting its people, or internal persecution. Conversely, the UNHCR will be more likely to use repatriation as a primary strategy if the source of the persecution is derived externally as a result of inter-state conflict, invasion, or other means; I call this external persecution. Later in the thesis, I use qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate the Persecution-Source Theory and how it holds within similar refugee crises. I maintain my focus on the types of root causes in crises, or rather, refugee-generating conflicts since there is a greater need for more proactive policies and humanitarian responses—reform that centers refugee crisis prevention at the forefront.Review of the LiteratureDespite the demonstrated urgency and the global scale of the multiple ongoing refugee crises, forced migration literature often focuses on the UNHCR and its functions from a security perspective but does not examine the differing types of persecution and how they may affect the UNHCR’s work with refugees. In this chapter, I review the literature through three critical themes: 1) root causes in forced migration; 2) factors influencing UNHCR operations; and 3) categorizing persecution. This thesis researches refugee crises in southern Asia using combined aspects of these themes. Root Causes in Forced Migration A body of literature concentrates on the root causes of refugee crises. Stein (1986b) iterates in his piece The Experience of Being a Refugee: Insights from the Research Literature that scholars should analyze refugee crises using historical and comparative perspectives, which “views them as recurring phenomena with identifiable and often identical patterns of behavior and sets of causalities” (5). Researchers did just that, examining different sets of causal factors or root causes of refugee crises within different contexts. Zolberg, Astri, and Sergio (1989) write that international war may generate refugee flows. Moore and Shellman (2006) look at the effects of genocide, politicide, and state-sponsored violence on refugee movements. Hovil and Lomo (2015) stress that displacement is engendered by different interconnected causal factors, particularly those that are historical, political, legal, social, economic, and religious.?White (2017) adds to the discussion, referring to root causes as “political, demographic and climactic forces that impel people to move from their homes to safe places,” specifying that these causal factors are related to violence, climate change, and population changes (76-77). In addition to explaining how refugee law responded to changes in refugee “flights,” Jenkins and Schmeidl (1995) group the world’s refugees into five major groups: 1) political dissidents; 2) target minorities; 3) victims of generalized violence; 4) victims of state-inflicted terrorism; and 5) victims of international wars (65). Their analysis includes mapping ethnic competition, political exclusion, and other components that lead to civil wars, state repression, and international wars using the world system theory (76). They also contend that any durable solution requires addressing the “underlying root causes” of the refugee crisis (79). It is also worth acknowledging the use of case studies and detailed investigations of refugee crises that endeavor to reveal more complete causal stories. Such work has varied in scale, geography, and length; Crisp (1984), Whitaker (2008), Ogata (1999), Nair (1997), and Betts (2013b) provide compelling case studies on the refugees in Djibouti, Tanzania, Kosovo, South Asia, Yemen, and Somalia to name a few.I now turn to the factors that influence UNHCR operations, which are often tied to the root causes of the crises the agency aims to alleviate. Factors Influencing UNHCR OperationsMany scholars discuss factors that influence UNHCR operations but vary in their focuses. A significant strand of literature points to funding as a major factor influencing UNHCR operations and does so employing myriad research methods. Zeager and Bascom (1996) use game theory within international relations to research the impacts of funding on UNHCR decision-making regarding repatriation (483). They also look at how donor fatigue—a decrease in funding from donors who grow “fatigued” from contributing monetarily to a crisis that is yet to end—limits the UNHCR in enacting effective repatriation initiatives (483). Crisp (2001), Harrell-Bond (1989), Vayrynen (2001), and Whitaker (2008) review funding gaps within the refugee regime. They too find that a lack of donor support affects the UNHCR’s operations; less funding prevents the UNHCR from assisting refugees how the agency sees fit and prolongs a refugee crisis. However, the voluntary funding narrative may be more complicated than this generalization implies. Roper and Barria (2010) suggest that the use of earmarked donations signaling foreign policy priorities of industrialized states providing larger contributions “may not be linked to larger humanitarian issues” (631). Thus, the type of funding allocated to certain crises or projects can further influence the UNHCR’s work on the ground. One can assert that funding and state influence are associated with the UNHCR’s policies and practices.Loescher (2001) investigated this assertion in his work. He finds that the UNHCR is essentially a pawn for states vying for different interests, many of which are political. Furthermore, he claims that Western donors’ views carry a lot of weight in how the UNHCR implements durable solutions like repatriation. Barry Stein (1986a) had reached a similar conclusion earlier, he posits that international politics play an especially important role in constraining the UNHCR (269). Barnett (2001) describes how the UNHCR felt pressure from states to pursue certain refugee policies (256). Lischer and Milner (2003) also look at state influence but offer a more nuanced explanation: the lack of political will among states leads to inaction and depletion of voluntary funds to the UNHCR (613). Taking this point even further, the overall lack of political will hinders the UNHCR from helping refugees find and experience durable solutions (613). The discussion on the effectiveness of the UNHCR’s three durable solutions—repatriation (voluntary return), reintegration (integrating refugees into their country of origin or a host country), and resettlement (moving refugees to a third country to resettle)—has received more attention within refugee scholarship. Goodwin-Gill (2001) refers to these aspects of the literature as the “challenge of solutions,” identifying more scenarios that seem unlikely candidates for any kind of long-term solution, let alone a durable one (140). Crisp’s analyses are in consonance with Goodwin-Gill’s, he finds that durable solutions are “unrealistic,” as are the UNHCR’s expectations and responsibilities when approaching a refugee crisis (186-187). This is especially pertinent with regard to repatriation, it is possible that a continued focus on repatriation as the durable solution of choice is unrealistic and unachievable given many disruptions to traditional statecraft and UN work, of which are forthcoming (Harrell-Bond 1989). The scholarly research largely examines external factors or conditions influencing the UNHCR’s ability to assist refugees, and Adelman (2001) believes that these external conditions frame UNHCR responses (11). However, it is also important to consider the evolution of the agency itself under changing external conditions. Scholars have taken note; Pitterman (1984) was vocal about the UNHCR’s identity constraints as early as the 1980s (26). She states that the agency was amid an identity crisis, one that would prevent it from effectively fulfilling its mandate to protect the world’s refugees (26). Similarly, Barnett (2001) attributes changes in how sovereignty was conceived and acted on within the state system to greater UNHCR intervention in refugee crises (245). Now, the UN Refugee Agency could engage with countries of origin preemptively—perhaps expanding work into international development and capacity building.This topic within UNHCR and refugee regime literature essentially opened Pandora’s box. What, then, was the UNHCR’s mandate given the changing international landscape? Betts (2013a) puts forth an explanation pertaining to “regime complexity.” He indicates that the network of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governments, and other actors within the refugee regime possess competing, overlapping interests. This, in turn, makes it difficult for the UNHCR to realize and fulfill its mandate, as well as prompts the agency to take on responsibilities that are probably better suited for other organizations (i.e. the United Nations Development Programme) (71-74). In sum, the partnerships the UNHCR has with others involved in refugee protection and assistance complicate the agency’s work, causing criticism and questioning of its leadership.Another factor that could impact the UNHCR’s operations is related to security. Loescher (1994) observed trends in conflicts that generated refugee crises and noticed that the number of internal conflicts was steadily increasing (365). The nature of warfare and violence was shifting inward, meaning that mass displacements could be attributed to civil war, ethnic-related violence, and state-sponsored persecution (365). Loescher’s work at most alludes to the potential relationship between the types of refugee-generating conflicts and the UNHCR’s capacity to provide refugees of those conflicts with solutions and assistance—the subject of this thesis. And at the very least, his work highlights that the changing nature of conflicts has political implications for a supposedly non-political organization, along with a need for reform to the UNHCR’s mandate to adapt to the new security realities we are witnessing (internally-displaced persons, a growing responsibility for the agency, are a concrete example of this complexity). Much of the refugee scholarship has covered the many confounding variables in the context of the UNHCR’s operations, but this theme within the literature misses an opportunity to connect the persecution or the conditions that created a refugee crisis, to the network of factors that influence the UNHCR’s work. The final section addresses this gap by returning the literature review to persecution. I choose to examine different groupings and categorizations of persecution within refugee studies, with some serving as a framework for the research methods of this thesis. Categorizing PersecutionWeiner (1996) is one of few calling for classification of persecution types in the hopes that this categorization will inform national governments and institutions as they devise policies. I find Weiner’s methodology significant; it serves as a framework for my development of the Persecution-Source Theory. Weiner describes persecution actors in refugee crises as “internalists” and “externalists,” but also notes that complexity within these labels should be taken into account (1996, 35). Werkner (2010) examines internality and externality regarding security and the causes of refugee crises, or “the origin of the threat [emphasis in the original]” (68). She links the many constraints and power relations that come with humanitarian missions and the use of armed forces to the theoretical works of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke (68). Werkner details the contention experienced among states and IGOs in terms of protection and intervention (especially relevant in the contexts under which the UNHCR operates) (68). This does not consider how this same contention can cause harm or conflict which forcibly displaces people. In her piece What’s So Special About Persecution? Kuosmanen (2014) looks at different conceptions of persecution, identifying the core components of systematic threats. She mentions the role of “state-like organizations involved in [prima facie] persecution points,” an acknowledgment of extremist groups causing mass displacements (133). Still, Weiner uses the most systematic approach to categorizing persecution. His groupings of refugee-generating conflicts are designated as four types: 1) inter-state wars (including anti-colonial wars), 2) ethnic conflicts, 3) non-ethnic civil conflicts, and 4) flights from repressive authoritarian and revolutionary regimes (Weiner 1996, 9). He focuses on “mass refugee flows,” (as do I throughout this thesis) in which more than 10,000 individuals crossed an international border due to consequences of their country of origin and were classified by the UNHCR and/or governments as refugees (9-10). However, there are caveats to persecution categorizing. Weiner acknowledges that it is difficult to classify a conflict or persecution source as ethnic or non-ethnic (18). Using the Afghan conflict as an example, Weiner explains the transitions between civil war and inter-state war in Afghanistan but ultimately categorizes the refugee crisis as a “war-related case,” deeming the principal factor or original persecution source that led to the mass exodus as the framework for categorizing conflict in refugee crises (18). This chapter reviewed the existing literature on persecution and UNHCR operations, as well as identified notable research gaps. Although the refugee literature has expanded to consider the various causes of refugee crises, it seldom considers categorizing the causal factors to analyze and discern any trends to inform policymakers, humanitarian workers, governments, and NGOs. Investigating the relationship between different types of persecution in refugee crises and what effects they can have on UNHCR responses to refugee crises can lead to proactive reforms to the agency. Chapter two draws from the three themes discussed to describe my research design, theory, and data collection methods. Chapters three and four then apply the research methods to case studies on the Rohingya and Afghan refugee crises. I conclude in chapter five, summarizing my findings and how the Persecution-Source Theory fared in the analyses. Chapter 2TheoryThe UNHCR continues to use different strategies to respond to different crises, but it is difficult to discern why the agency does this in refugee crises where solutions seem scarce. It is important to investigate the greater processes that the UNHCR dictates or is dictated by in order to best assist refugees and better inform all actors within the refugee regime. To that end, this thesis examines large protracted refugee crises in Asia, analyzing its causes, effects, and implications for the UNHCR. In the first part of this chapter, my research question is introduced, and the chosen theoretical framework is justified. Specifically, I define the dependent and independent variables, present my hypothesis based on an original Persecution-Source Theory, and provide alternative explanations. The second part of Chapter 2 explains my research design by identifying the research methods utilized to test the hypothesis. This thesis uses a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data. Quantitatively, an analysis of funding earmarks to the UNHCR is conducted to determine trends. Qualitatively, research focuses on the Afghan and Rohingya refugee crises as two case studies. Interviews of UNHCR staff, IOM staff, and individuals associated with UNHCR operations within the context of the case studies are evaluated using thematic analysis techniques. Research QuestionWhy does the UNHCR differ in their response strategies to similar refugee crises? More specifically, why does the UNHCR sometimes select repatriation as its main crisis response strategy and at other times choose humanitarian assistance for refugee host countries as a primary crisis response tactic instead? The aim of these research questions is to examine the various UNHCR crisis responses and plans through two case studies (the Afghan refugee crisis and the Rohingya refugee crisis), if/why one method was preferred over the other in these particular cases, and what implications that has for preventing future refugee crises. Throughout this thesis, the refugee crises being studied are those of mass displacement—one million or more externally displaced people. Nomenclature and ApplicationA refugee, as defined by the UNHCR, is a person forced to flee his or her country due to persecution, conflict, or violence (1951 Refugee Convention). A refugee is only identified as such if there is reasonable evidence that the individual is experiencing a “well-founded fear” of persecution pertaining to race, religion, nationality, politics, or membership in a specific social group. In accordance with the 1951 Geneva Convention, the refugee must be outside the country of origin and be unable to return to or fear returning to the country of origin given a “well-founded fear” of persecution. A refugee differs from a voluntary migrant, who willingly leaves a country of origin for economic advancement, and an internally displaced person (IDP), who too flees but does not cross an international border. I use the terms humanitarian aid and assistance interchangeably to mean food, water, shelter, and health-related and other services typically provided to refugees by the UNHCR. Country of origin and home country all refer to the state that a refugee was originally from or the country of a refugee’s nationality. Likewise, the host country and receiving country describe the state (being examined) that is accepting refugees. Dependent Variable The dependent variable of this thesis is the UNHCR’s primary response to a refugee crisis. Responses are examined on two, three-point scales, one regarding humanitarian aid, relief, and assistance given to arrival countries and the other on repatriation. A value of “0” on either scale signals that the response is not used by the UNHCR, whereas a value of “3” represents a 100% response, meaning that the UNHCR uses that response and that response only as its way of addressing a refugee crisis. Any values in-between equate to a mix of responses by the UNHCR, a value greater than 1.5 out of 3 is needed to be considered a primary majority response to a refugee crisis. Any value besides the sum of both the UNHCR’s use of humanitarian aid as a response and repatriation as a response represents other refugee crisis alleviating tactics such as resettlement or economic integration. Figure 1 illustrates these scales.Figure 1. UNHCR Response to Refugee Crisis Scalescenter5080Repatriation in its simplest terms is defined by the UNHCR as the act of?returning?to the country of origin (1951 Convention). Repatriation can be voluntary and involuntary. In the context of refugee crises, voluntary repatriation is the return of refugees to their countries of origin, given that these states are safe to return to. Furthermore, voluntary repatriation occurs only when refugees repatriate willingly. The UNHCR facilitates?voluntary repatriation through various means, including in-person interaction with refugees,?monitoring the conditions of countries of origin, and assisting refugees’ return administratively and legally, among others. Conversely, involuntary repatriation implies that refugees return to their countries of origin against their will. Involuntary repatriation is often associated with non-refoulement, which means, as stated in Article 33 (1) of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: “No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refoule’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” (1951 Refugee Convention).Humanitarianism is characterized by three guiding principles of humanitarian action: a ‘humanitarian’ element, impartiality, and neutrality. As a result, humanitarian aid signals the actions relief agencies use to uphold international humanitarian law to prevent and end human suffering via these principles (International Committee of the Red Cross 2020). Relief, assistance, and aid can take on many forms. The most basic and common forms include food, shelter materials, health services, protection, and education (International Committee of the Red Cross 2020). Some less obvious forms are site planning initiatives and the use of cash-based interventions (Use of Unearmarked Funding). Numerous UN organizations and funds such as the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization, and the World Food Programme collaborate with NGOs and the UNHCR to administer humanitarian aid to specific populations. According to Heather Rysaback-Smith, humanitarian aid was “once almost exclusively related to military conflict” (2016). After WWII ended, aid took on a global focus and shifted from strictly Europe to parts of Asia and Africa (Rysaback-Smith 2016). Persecution-Source TheoryTo explain the variation in the UNHCR’s responses to refugee crises, I use an original theory based on the source of the persecution causing refugee crises in relation to funding—a Persecution-Source Theory. Acknowledging that the UNHCR relies on voluntary funding, the UNHCR will be more likely to use humanitarian aid as its primary refugee crisis response tactic if the origin country of the crisis’s government is directly persecuting its people internally. Conversely, the UNHCR will be more likely to use repatriation as its primary strategy if the source of the persecution is not derived from the state internally, but rather externally vis-à-vis other states or actors as explained below. Funding would be delegated to repatriation efforts as a result. If the persecution has elements that are internal and external, the UNHCR will follow a standard process beginning with humanitarian aid steps and then will gradually repatriate refugees. Thus, funding will vary based on the progression of a crisis but will be primarily focused on humanitarian aid efforts.All things equal, if one examines the source of the persecution one can assert that the UNHCR would respond differently with respect to sovereignty and international norms. If a state is persecuting its own people (resulting in mass forced displacement), the UNHCR would take a pseudo-state approach to provide these refugees with basic needs without disparaging the origin state’s sovereignty. Refugees fleeing this type of persecution would be less likely to voluntarily return because they would not want to repatriate to a state that targets them and denies them their basic human rights.However, if the government of a state is not outright persecuting its people, the refugees fleeing their country of origin would be more inclined to return. Typically, these refugees still have citizenship in their country of origin and are recognized as legitimate citizens of that state. Thus, the UNHCR, the host countries, and the refugees themselves would favor repatriation if it is possible.For the purposes of this theory, large-scale examples of conflict and violence leading to large refugee crises/mass displacements are examined. Internal PersecutionThe first part of the theory concerns itself with persecution toward refugees of a particular country perpetrated by that country’s central government. This internal category of persecution can take on multiple forms, but large-scale events including those of civil war, ethnic cleansing, and genocide are the forms of internal persecution I focus on as they are associated with larger refugee crises. An example of forced displacement as a result of civil war is the Yemeni Refugee Crisis. The Yemeni Civil War caused 3 million Yemenis to seek refuge in neighboring countries and 22 million in need of humanitarian assistance. The source of the persecution against many Yemeni refugees effectively originated from the central government itself due to this civil war (Yemen Refugee Crisis). Many definitions of ethnic cleansing exist throughout global security studies literature, but the UN officially defines it as: “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group” (Office on Genocide Prevention). There is no international treaty that details ethnic cleansing as a specific crime. However, ethnic cleansing is defined as “a crime against humanity under the statutes of both the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)” (Office on Genocide Prevention). It is frequently hard to distinguish between acts of genocide and those of ethnic cleansing, as ethnic cleansing crimes can violate specific parts of the UN Genocide Convention. However, the refugee crises resulting from the Yugoslav Wars are frequently used as examples of ethnic cleansing and ethnic conflict. Genocide, as defined by the UN Genocide Convention (1948), consists of “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”. The legal definition is in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and further expands upon the acts of genocide: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (Office on Genocide Prevention). The Great Lakes refugee crisis is an example of genocide present in refugee crises. It began with two million Rwandans fleeing to the surrounding Great Lakes region of Africa after the Rwandan genocide. Hutus were escaping persecution from the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front, which had taken over Rwanda at that point (BBC News Rwanda Genocide 2019).Yet another example of internal persecution present in refugee crises is the repressive regime. Although repression of governments can vary, by in large security forces either supporting or not supporting the current head of state commit violence against civilians. The crisis in Venezuela highlights such a dynamic. An estimated 1.4 million refugees have fled to neighboring Colombia, escaping violence from the Maduro administration (Wilkinson 2019). External PersecutionExternal sources of persecution would by default be any forms of persecution not directly coming from the refugee crisis origin state’s central government. Instead, refugees are persecuted by other state and/or non-state actors. Violence as a result of terrorist activity and war between one or more states is the best example of external persecution. One case of external persecution is Boko Haram and its exodus of Nigerian refugees. Although the Nigerian military executed the terrorist group’s leader in 2009, a resurgence of Boko Haram attacks led to 250,000 Nigerian refugees fleeing to Cameroon, Chad, and Niger along with attacks on the UN and government buildings (Nichols 2015). Afghanistan, as we will later see, is another state that has dealt with (and still deals with) terrorism and refugee crises.A war between two or more states can also lead to refugee crises. During the Vietnam War in 1975, roughly three million people attempted to escape to other countries via boat. These Indochinese “boat people” were escaping Communist-rule and the ongoing conflict between the United States and Vietnam (Thompson 2010). The Iraq War between the U.S. and Iraq is another instance where a war between states creates refugee movements. Mixed PersecutionIt is important to note that the above examples are fluid and not always entirely boxed into either external persecution or internal persecution. Often, civil war leaves power vacuums for terrorist organizations to fill, suggesting a transfer in persecution from an internal source to an external source. Furthermore, other categories of persecution exist. Some examples include smaller-scale events and more “mixed” sources of persecution (slavery). Whether more internal, external, or maybe a combination of both, persecution varies in practice and intent. An example of terrorist groups contributing to the forced displacement of people is the crisis in Syria. Al-Nusra, ISIS, and other groups are involved in the power shifts of the Syrian Civil War, causing 5.6 million people to flee Syria from 2011 onward according to most recent UNHCR figures (Syrian Refugee Crisis). However, the Assad regime has also greatly persecuted Syrians. Both internal and external sources of persecution are present in the Syrian Civil War and crisis, they highlight the differing interests of major stakeholders.As I have mentioned in the last chapter, Weiner (1996) throughout his categorization of the root causes of refugee crises found it difficult to assign one label to a multi-faceted refugee crisis. However, he chooses to attribute a refugee crisis classification to the initial origin of the crisis. His example of Afghanistan as a war-related case demonstrates the complexity between civil war and inter-state war in distinguishing a crisis from others. To address any ambiguity that comes with the Persecution-Source Theory, I too label Afghanistan as a war-related case and focus on contrasting internal persecution with external persecution, rather than choosing to look at the joint impact of mixed persecution cases.Hypotheses and Observable Implications My hypothesis derives from the Persecution-Source Theory. When comparing states experiencing refugee crises, I expect the UNHCR to administer humanitarian aid/relief efforts as its primary strategy of aiding refugees fleeing from internal, state-sponsored persecution. I also expect the UNHCR to use repatriation as its primary strategy in alleviating refugee crises where the main source of persecution originates from different state or non-state actors. If correct, multiple observations exist when employing this theory. When the source of persecution causing a refugee crisis is internal, deriving from the country of origin’s government, the UNHCR will have a majority percentage of its funds directed toward alleviating the crisis through humanitarian aid tactics. Furthermore, within quotes, interviews, and media analyses, the UNHCR will press for humanitarian aid-related donations to the crisis and/or explain its priorities for assisting the refugees affected by state-led persecution. Conversely, if the source of persecution causing a refugee crisis is external, from other state or non-state actors, the UNHCR will focus a majority percentage of its funds toward alleviating the crisis through repatriation efforts. Quotes, interviews, and media analyses should point to increased movements of voluntary repatriation. In cases where persecution is both internal and external, the UNHCR will focus its funds mostly toward humanitarian aid relief efforts.Alternative Explanations Although there is a compelling case that can be made for the source of refugee persecution and the preference of either repatriation or assistance/aid directed toward the host country by the UNHCR, there are factors other than the source of the persecution that could influence the relationship between UNHCR crisis response tactics and refugee crises. The allocating of funds toward certain refugee crisis alleviating strategies, media coverage of crises, and a standard process based on timing are three alternative explanations for UNHCR preferences toward certain strategies over others. Funding AllocationThe UNHCR receives its funding through voluntary donations. There exist two avenues for allocating funds: 1) Earmarked Funds (General Programs) and 2) Special Projects. Donors can decide what kind of donation they would like to make. In other words, donors are in control of whether their donations go toward General Programs and/or Special Projects. However, more emphasis has been placed on Special Projects funding since states and donors can use this category as a means of supporting specific refugee crises and responses to them in certain ways. Donors do this for a variety of reasons, but often for political motivations (Harrell-Bond 1989). General Programs funding has taken a hit as a result, and general humanitarian aid/relief, although still in great demand, is less likely to be funded compared to specific initiatives (Forced Displacement in 2017). Controlling for all other variables and given this information, in a comparison of refugee crises, the UNHCR may choose to administer humanitarian aid/relief efforts as its primary strategy of aiding refugees when top donors’ (namely state governments) voluntary funds are delegated specifically to humanitarian-based projects. Furthermore, the UNHCR could choose to use repatriation as its primary strategy in alleviating refugee crises if voluntary funds are delegated specifically to repatriation efforts. It is dependent on the donors’ intent for the money. This explanation, as we have seen previously, is frequently mentioned throughout the literature, but it may not be sufficient enough to stand on its own. Although top donors are state governments, other top non-state donors may not have a specific political objective in mind when donating. The UNHCR would still allocate voluntary funds as expressed by the non-state government donors, but that would not directly influence the agency to favor repatriation over humanitarian aid or vice versa when using the funds to alleviate refugee crises. Alternately, the UNHCR could choose to administer humanitarian aid/relief efforts as its primary strategy of aiding refugees when a refugee crisis experiences more press coverage and media attention compared to other crises. Conversely, the UNHCR could prioritize repatriation as its primary strategy in alleviating refugee crises when a refugee crisis receives a lower amount of news coverage relative to other crises. Media CoverageSome refugee crises receive more media coverage than others. Given that voluntary donations can be allocated to General Programs or Special Projects, donors may choose to have their funds be used for a particular crisis (via Special Projects) if they are more aware of the crisis and are more informed on the state of the refugees in that particular emergency. Increasing media attention of a refugee crisis may compel donors to contribute to humanitarian aid efforts to help alleviate that crisis through a donation to Special Projects. Consequently, the UNHCR would delegate those funds to that crisis. An opposite situation may also occur. The less often the media covers a crisis, the more likely it is to be overlooked by donors and thus the UNHCR may feel the need to put a swift end to the crisis via repatriation as its primary tactic so as to prioritize other more “popular” refugee crises to appeal to donors. If this explanation is true, the UNHCR should collaborate with other NGOs to ensure that refugee crises that are more “forgotten” than others still receive sufficient media coverage to ensure that refugees receive the care that they need. Standard Crisis TimelineAnother explanation could be attributed to a standard timeline or process of the UNHCR’s crisis response. The key driver behind the UNHCR’s decision-making, in this case, is timing. The evolution of refugee crises can be separated into three loosely defined phases: 1) The Emergency Response Phase; 2) The Response Plan Phase; and 3) The Exit or “Hand Over” Phase. The logic then, is as follows: the newer the refugee crisis, the more likely the UNHCR is to administer humanitarian aid as its primary crisis response method. The longer a refugee crisis lasts or the more protracted it is, the more likely the UNHCR will employ repatriation efforts as its primary crisis response method. Figure 2 briefly illustrates this process with the Indochinese Refugee Crisis. 58102517716500Figure 2. UNHCR Phases in Responding to the Indochinese Refugee CrisisWhen a crisis hits, the UNHCR will respond immediately by providing humanitarian aid to the refugees fleeing. This Emergency Response Phase will not involve any repatriation efforts and will focus solely on addressing the immediate needs present through Quick Impact Projects or other strategies. After some time has passed and the initial shock of the refugee crisis has subsided, the UNHCR will then determine its next steps in the form of an action plan, such as the “Joint Response Plan (JRP) for the Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis.” The Response Plan Phase identifies long term needs, logistics, sector objectives, indicators and targets, and organization and funding requirements. Aid will be administered more systematically with intentions to meet goals aligned with UNHCR durable solutions. Lastly, when a significant amount of time has passed and it has been deemed safe for refugees to return to their country of origin, the UNHCR will begin repatriation procedures and “hand over” the refugees back to their home country. This last phase often contains many unknowns and researchers like Sarah Deardorff?Miller criticize the UNHCR for being unclear in their exit strategies (2019). This explanation, although likely to hold true to some degree, does not account for all other factors such as donor influence, media coverage, persecution type, and many others. The timing itself cannot be the sole variable determining UNHCR responses. Research Design and DataPart one of the chapter focused on theoretical groundwork. This next part of the chapter explains my research design and data collection methods. The research design used a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitatively, investigating two case studies on the Afghan and Rohingya refugee crises can give detailed insights into the UNHCR’s differing responses to seemingly very similar cases. By the same logic, performing thematic analyses on interviews of UNHCR staff, think tank experts, and other refugee officials within the context of the case studies is an effective way of categorizing responses and identifying patterns. By analyzing sets of funding earmarks to the UNHCR for the Afghan and Rohingya refugee crises one can identify any larger, noteworthy trends in the allocation of voluntary donor funds over time and to what arena (General Programming or Special Projects or both). Using a triangulation approach through qualitative and quantitative research together helps to more accurately test the hypothesis and ensure validity. It can more accurately highlight both a causal relationship between the sources of the persecution in refugee crises and UNHCR’s decision-making processes, as well as UNHCR donation patterns that are more generalizable. In terms of deriving patterns and themes, thematic analysis is a commonly used qualitative approach to analyzing interview data. To that end, thematic analyses are helpful in further determining what the UNHCR aims to do with its funding and what it has done, for numbers alone cannot demonstrate the level of help that has been provided to the refugees as a result of donations. In the next section, my case study selection is specified. Then, the operationalization of the dependent and independent variables is quantitatively expressed alongside the operationalization of variables for the qualitative portion of the research.Case SelectionThe first section of the qualitative analysis investigates two case studies of refugee crises in Afghanistan and Myanmar over a six-year period (2014-2019) consistent with UNHCR Global Reports funding data. The second section consists of thematic analyses of interviews with public officials from the UNHCR, think tank experts, and other officials on topics related to the Afghan and Rohingya refugee crises and the UNHCR’s decision-making processes. When examining each refugee crisis, Afghan refugees’ country of origin is Afghanistan, and Rohingya refugees’ country of origin is Myanmar. Pakistan hosts the largest number of Afghan refugees and Bangladesh hosts the largest number of Rohingya refugees (Forced Displacement in 2017). Through detailed case studies on UNHCR behavior toward Afghan and Rohingya refugees in Pakistan and Bangladesh, numerous implications reveal themselves later in the thesis. Cases were chosen based on specific criteria: length of refugee crises, geographic location, number of refugees for both cases, and UNHCR attempts to alleviate the crises. Both the Afghan and Rohingya crises have taken place for roughly the same amount of time, from the late 1970s onward. The UNHCR defines protracted crises as “one[s] in which 25,000 or more refugees from the same nationality have been in exile for five or more years in a given asylum country” (Forced Displacement in 2017). Both cases fit this description. According to the UNHCR 2017 Global Report, both crises have been identified as “major situations” in the Asia-Pacific region. Conflict displaced more than 470,000 people in Afghanistan in 2017, affecting 31 out of 34 provinces. In 2017, Bangladesh hosted 655,000 Rohingya refugees and Bangladesh hosted 1.4 million Afghan refugees (Forced Displacement in 2017). In Afghanistan, 470,000 were displaced due to conflict (Forced Displacement in 2017). Although similar in relative geographic location, scale and length of the emergencies, and prioritization by the UNHCR, initial quantitative trends suggest UNHCR-led solutions toward these crises differ. Afghanistan and Myanmar also differ in respect to majority religion and demographics, but both have similar GDP per capita calculations and religiosity plays an important role in societal and governmental relations (IMF Report for Countries). 2571751028700Source: United Nations. “UNHCR's Regional Plan – Building Resilience and Solutions for Afghan Refugees in South-West Asia – 1 July 2016 – 31 December 2017 (June 2016).” UNHCR. Accessed April 16, 2020. 3. Resilience and Solutions Measures for Inside Afghanistan—Budget00Source: United Nations. “UNHCR's Regional Plan – Building Resilience and Solutions for Afghan Refugees in South-West Asia – 1 July 2016 – 31 December 2017 (June 2016).” UNHCR. Accessed April 16, 2020. 3. Resilience and Solutions Measures for Inside Afghanistan—BudgetThe UNHCR’s Regional Plan: Building Resilience and Solutions for Afghan Refugees in South-West Asia (2017) highlights funding choices in regard to assisting Afghan refugees amidst Afghanistan’s declining security situation from 2015 onward (see Figure 3). This contrasts with the UNHCR’s Myanmar Refugee Emergency Response in Bangladesh (2018) which shows funding needs for the Rohingya crisis are centered more on basic needs and essential services (see Figure 4). left8890Figure 4. UNHCR's Supplementary Appeal - Myanmar Refugee Emergency—BudgetSource: UNHCR. “UNHCR's Supplementary Appeal - Myanmar Refugee Emergency Response in Bangladesh.” Operational Portal. 4. UNHCR's Supplementary Appeal - Myanmar Refugee Emergency—BudgetSource: UNHCR. “UNHCR's Supplementary Appeal - Myanmar Refugee Emergency Response in Bangladesh.” Operational Portal. can be asserted based on these initial figures that repatriation strategies are more readily applied to Afghan refugees than Rohingya refugees, whereas humanitarian aid/relief efforts are the more primary tactic in helping Rohingya refugees rather than Afghan refugees. Chapters 3 and 4 delve into more quantitative detail on funding changes for the crises.Quantitative Analysis The quantitative analysis concentrates on UNHCR funding from the period of 2014-2019 since that is the data that the UNHCR has made available via annual Global Reports. Through quantitative methods, I look at funding changes for the Rohingya and Afghan refugee crises from 2014-2019 to determine if the UNHCR prioritizes repatriation-related efforts over humanitarian aid as a primary solution or vice versa. This is accomplished by locating what parts of the budget and donations are allocated to whom and where. Furthermore, refugee population numbers and flows are analyzed over the same period to indicate signs of repatriation or aid-based policy implementation. Allocation of FundsThe allocation of funds is determined by numerous divisions. The UNHCR describes the process of determining a budget via its Emergency Handbook. Furthermore, the annual UNHCR Global Reports provide budget and expenditure breakdowns in terms of earmarked and unearmarked funds. Geographically, categories separate budget and expenditure data on regional and individual country bases. Also, four pillars distinguish which types of forcibly displaced people will receive funding. For the purposes of this thesis, Pillar 1: “Global refugee programme” is the only pillar used in quantitative funding analysis since all other pillars pertain to statelessness, reintegration, or IDP operations rather than the UNHCR’s typical refugee mandate. Figure 5 shows the UNHCR Planning Framework in this regard. center29845Source: UNHCR. “Emergency Handbook.” Accessed March 27, 2019. 5. UNHCR Planning Framework00Source: UNHCR. “Emergency Handbook.” Accessed March 27, 2019. 5. UNHCR Planning FrameworkWhen observing changes in UNHCR funding to determine the UNHCR’s strategies in alleviating refugee crises, it is important to note whether the funding is earmarked or not, where the donated funds originated from if unearmarked, and if there is a positive or negative correlation between the amount of time a crisis has persisted and categorized funding. Funding is reallocated on a quarterly basis along lines of earmarked, softly earmarked, or unearmarked designations (Use of Unearmarked Funding 2017).With specific regard to funding, several outcomes could result. Beginning with General Programs, if there is a steady increase in this type of funding from 2014-2019, more services and aid are being administered based on need as determined by the UNHCR and vice versa. Of these funds, a breakdown of which countries are receiving more funds from General Programs, what the funding will go towards, and changes in these funds over time can highlight the UNHCR’s crisis alleviating priorities. The next step is to look to the persecution source of the refugee crisis being investigated—either internal, external, or a combination of both. This same process is repeated for Special Projects funds, except the funding is decided upon by the donor. Of the funds donated to specific countries, a breakdown of what the funding is going toward (repatriation efforts or more aid-based efforts) will signal the priorities of the donors which, therefore, are the UNHCR’s crisis alleviating priorities since they have no decision in the matter. The next step is to once again examine the persecution source.Refugee MovementsThe numbers of refugees moving to and from Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to and from Bangladesh and Myanmar make up the second part of the quantitative analysis. The UNHCR’s Global Reports for each refugee crisis break down the refugees into groupings based on those in camps, those who voluntarily return to their host countries, and other categories. For consistency’s sake, I analyze the movements of Afghan and Rohingya refugees during the same donor period: 2014-2019, as available.Qualitative Analysis The qualitative analysis covers different components and contexts of the Rohingya and Afghan refugee crises through primary and secondary research. I use interview responses on the UNHCR as an institution and its decision-making in the Rohingya and Afghan refugee crises to determine under what circumstances repatriation-related efforts are prioritized over humanitarian aid as a primary crisis solution or vice versa. The role of persecution type and the source is questioned within the crises and in general to test the Persecution-Source Theory. Data Collection and MeasurementTo measure the role of persecution sources in the Rohingya and Afghan case studies, I conducted fifteen interviews. I spoke with individuals working at UNHCR and IOM Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland in person. Questions were asked on a semi-structured basis to identify the primary causes behind the UNHCR’s decisions to focus on either repatriation-centered or humanitarian aid-centered efforts in refugee crises. They were also asked about the Rohingya and Afghan Refugee Crises and the reasoning behind the UNHCR’s differing responses to both. I also interviewed think tank scholars in person from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Woodrow Wilson Center, and the Atlantic Council in Washington DC. In terms of staff positions, I conducted interviews with the highest-ranking available scholars who were willing to participate. Questions were asked on a semi-structured basis with the purpose of obtaining alternate perspectives on the UNHCR’s decision-making processes toward Rohingya and Afghan refugees. Furthermore, I interviewed a U.S. State Department staffer, a former IOM official, and numerous refugee consultants. In addition to the traditional semi-structured questions asked, interviewees were asked to identify the reasons behind donation allocation and the motivations that compel state governments to donate to some crises over others. Responses were then evaluated based on key themes pertaining to repatriation, humanitarian aid, the UNHCR, and the refugee crises discussed. If interviewees used language expressing that the UNHCR’s primary response to a refugee crisis is repatriation, its value on the first scale (Figure 1) will be greater than 1.5. Similarly, if interviewees used language indicating that the UNHCR’s primary crisis response is humanitarian aid, the value on the second scale will be greater than 1.5. Usage of secondary sources directly from the UNHCR, UN System, NGOs, and media coverage supplement the interview responses for a value on the scales. Thematic AnalysisTo measure and interpret interview responses, I used thematic analysis. Specifically, I manually pulled elements or “chunks” from interview notes and identified, analyzed, and reported themes, drawing from Braun and Clarke’s methodology from Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology to test the persecution-source theory and hypothesis (2006). To determine what counted as a theme, I read and reread the interview notes and transcripts, labeling the ideas behind the data relevant to my research question by coding. Next, these codes were systematically sorted into patterns or subcategories, and eventually main themes. Lastly, the themes were interpreted. Figure 6 provides a visual of this process in more detail. With each interview, based on the themes and codes, responses were assigned a numeric value on the scales center538480Figure 6. Phases of Thematic AnalysisSource: Mcleod, Saul. 2019. “Qualitative vs Quantitative Research” Simply Psychology. Accessed April 17, 2020. 6. Phases of Thematic AnalysisSource: Mcleod, Saul. 2019. “Qualitative vs Quantitative Research” Simply Psychology. Accessed April 17, 2020. Figure 1. Employing thematic analysis techniques allowed me to have flexibility in my project while engaging in thorough and consistent methods to evaluate the interviews. I have incorporated both inductive and deductive coding measures, as used by Dr. John Schulz in evaluating interview data (Schulz 2012). This chapter detailed the various aspects of the project’s research design. In the Theory portion, my research question and chosen theoretical framework are specified. The Research Design and Data part of this chapter illustrated the research methods, both qualitative and quantitative, utilized to test my hypothesis. Chapters 3 and 4 applies the Persecution-Source Theory and my research methods through two case studies—the Rohingya and Afghan refugee crises. Chapter 3Case Study: Internal Persecution of the Rohingya “We used to live in a big house beside a lake where my husband would go fishing. I was very happy there. I have two children and another one on the way. Two weeks before the crisis, a bomb exploded near our village. We knew the military would come to the village to find the culprits, so the men went to the lake to hide. I have not seen my husband since.”Stories like this are not uncommon among the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. A history of ethnic violence and persecution by the Myanmar government has stripped hundreds of thousands of people of their homes, leaving them injured, traumatized, and separated from family members. Now, into 2020, the Rohingya refugees face an uncertain future as the UNHCR continues to work with Bangladesh, Myanmar, and others to bring an end to the crisis. This uncertainty reminds us of the critical need to engage in research and analysis so families and individuals can cease putting their lives on hold. In the previous chapter, my research methods and theory were explained. This chapter applies these methods and the Persecution-Source Theory to a case study analyzing the Rohingya refugee crisis, with Myanmar as the country of origin and Bangladesh as the major host country examined. The first section details the historical background of the crisis, Myanmar politics, and the Rohingya refugee population in Bangladesh. Then, an overview of UNHCR actions taken to address the crisis describes changes in funding, response strategies, and goals for providing solutions to Rohingya refugees. The chapter concludes with an analysis portion, evaluating UNHCR responses to the Rohingya refugee crisis and their consistency with the Persecution-Source Theory.Background10953753123565Source: Al Jazeera. 2017.“Rohingya Crisis Explained in Maps.” Al Jazeera. 7. Myanmar and Bangladesh Map0Source: Al Jazeera. 2017.“Rohingya Crisis Explained in Maps.” Al Jazeera. 7. Myanmar and Bangladesh MapThe Rohingya refugee crisis is the result of systematic persecution by the Myanmar government and its security forces against the Rohingya people, a Muslim minority group in a predominantly Buddhist country. The Myanmar government refuses to recognize the Rohingya and denies their citizenship, viewing them as illegal immigrants originally from Bangladesh. Although anti-Muslim sentiment, civic unrest, and citizenship questions have characterized modern Myanmar politics from the 1970s onward in multiple forced migration flows, the most recent wave of Rohingya persecution can be broken up into two parts, displacing hundreds of thousands of refugees within days. The first part started in October 2016 and ended in January 2017, and the second part began in August 2017 and is still ongoing. The crisis has displaced over 700,000 Rohingya, according to UNHCR data (Refugee Emergency Response Bangladesh). Upwards of 600,000 Rohingya have been fleeing primarily to Bangladesh, with many more still going to India, Thailand, Malaysia, and other parts of South and Southeast Asia. The majority of the Rohingya have fled Myanmar’s Rakhine State to seek refuge in Cox’s Bazar, home to the Kutupalong refugee camp, which currently hosts over 600,000 refugees (the world’s largest refugee camp) (Refugee Emergency Response Bangladesh).Before the International Court of Justice in early December 2019, Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s State Counsellor (and Nobel Peace Prize laureate) claimed that war crimes “may have been committed against Rohingya Muslims,” but she continues to deny any acts of genocide by security forces (Mcpherson 2020). Furthermore, she believes that refugees are exaggerating the abuses they faced; she suggested that UN investigators and human rights groups continue to victimize Myanmar with “unsubstantiated narratives” (Mcpherson 2020).Historical ContextEthnic groups besides the Buddhist majority, the Bamar, have faced extensive sectarian divisions and ethnic conflict within Myanmar. The Myanmar government recognizes 135 ethnic groups, however, the Rohingya remain unrecognized which has resulted in statelessness and legality issues. The Rohingya believe they are indigenous to western Myanmar and have an ethnic affinity with Arabs, Mughals, and Portuguese. They attribute their descent to Arakan people before and during British colonialism. The Arakan region (now known as the Rakhine State) was classified as an “independent kingdom” between India and the Burmese Kingdoms of Myanmar (Ghosh 2016).Known as Burma at the time, Burmese were the rulers in power in Myanmar during the 1700s. It was at this time that the British East India Company took interest in land neighboring or near India. The British fought against the Burmese in three Anglo-Burmese Wars. Ultimately, Britain took over Burma in 1886 and reformed virtually all aspects of Burmese society, economics, and politics (Majalla 2011). On January 4th, 1948 Burma declared independence from Britain consistent with the Independence Act of 1947. The 1940s were an especially turbulent time and a coup d’état led to General Ne Win’s takeover. Since this coup, the Burmese military has played a “direct or indirect” role in controlling state functions. The Rohingya suffered from persecution as early as the 1940s. Known as the Tatmadaw, Myanmar’s military began explicitly targeting the Rohingya in 1978. The Tatmadaw carried out Operation Dragon King in the Rakhine State, in which they claimed to be targeting illegal immigrants (Majalla 2011). Moe describes the nature of the Tatmadaw’s campaign against the Rohingya: “[The Tatmadaw] carried out with impunity a ‘Four Cuts’ campaign against other ethnic populations, cutting off food, funds, and information. The goal is to prevent recruits from joining ethnic armed groups and quell aspirations of greater self-determination” (2017). A shift in policy contributed to the persecution of the Rohingya, creating a legal space for more discrimination and denial of Rohingya legitimacy (Ghosh 2016). The 1982 Citizenship Law enacted by the Tatmadaw excluded the Rohingya as one of Myanmar’s 135 “national races.” Through the law, citizenship is granted to those belonging to one of the national races (Associated Press 2018). Associate and naturalized citizenship are the remaining standings a person can have in Myanmar. Naturalized citizenship can only be given to those with one or more parents with a type of Burmese citizenship and/or can provide “conclusive evidence” that their parents moved to and lived in Burma prior to its colonial independence in 1948 (Ghosh 2016). Despite the Rohingya residing in the Rakhine State for multiple generations, the Myanmar government refused and continues to refuse Rohingya citizenship, regarding them as Bengali Muslims who are in the country illegally due to British partitioning. Although originating from the 1982 law, this remains the government’s position to date.More military violence took place in the 1990s, causing the Rohingya to flee on multiple occasions en masse to Bangladesh and other South or Southeast Asian countries. After Aung San Suu Kyi’s 1990 electoral victory, the military began persecuting the political opposition and especially targeted Muslims in the Arakan region for their religion and support of the pro-democracy movements. An estimated 250,000 refugees fled to Bangladesh, and their eventual return was facilitated by the UNHCR in the early 2000s. This repatriation did not seem to last, and the Rohingya were consistently uprooted by the Myanmar army (Majalla 2011). In 2006, 150,000 refugees from Myanmar were documented in camps in Thailand (Moe 2017). A new constitution was drawn up by military forces in 2008. Now, Myanmar is governed as a?parliamentary system; 25% of the legislators are appointed by the military and the other 75% are elected in general elections. The establishment of the?National Human Rights Commission, new labor laws, less press censorship, and movement toward a mixed economy convey the beginning of Myanmar’s transition to democracy (Associated Press 2018). Occurring from 2011-2015, the reforms also allowed for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from arrest. Many are skeptical of the reforms, and Myanmar’s intent to democratize, especially given the ill-treatment of the Rohingya and other ethnic minority groups like the Karen. The assertion is that the Burmese military can strengthen institutions more conducive to democracy as well as the conditions that keep the Tatmadaw in control. Suu Kyi remains unable to control Myanmar military forces, serving as a de facto leader. In light of the governmental restructuring, violence toward the Rohingya remained commonplace. 2012 was also no stranger to systematic violence perpetrated by the state against the Rohingya. The 2012 Rakhine riots between Rakhine Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims led to the displacement of nearly 100,000 Rohingya and caused the government to declare a state of emergency. Additionally, the government continued to not recognize the Rohingya as one of the country’s 130 national ethnic groups in 2012. Known as a civil war, the conflict between the Rohingya and governmental/non-governmental groups worsened. Government crackdowns targeting the Rohingya carried on into 2015. However, 2017 witnessed the largest influx of Rohingya into Bangladesh, with 625,000 people fleeing by December 2017. Described by members of the international community, the UN, and NGOs as ethnic cleansing, the Tatmadaw used (and in previous insurrections have used) gang rape, forced labor, indiscriminate killings, violence against civilians, and the burning/bulldozing of Rohingya villages in the Rakhine State as methods of “replacing” the Rohingya and wiping any trace of them from Myanmar. Despite witness accounts and Human Rights Watch mapping of the burned and bulldozed Rohingya villages, the government denies any wrongdoing. In 2017, Myanmar and Bangladesh signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to spur voluntary repatriation of the Rohingya and cooperation on the situation, but critics pose that until there is a legal path to citizenship created for the Rohingya people, they will remain in camps like Kutupalong in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh (Darusman 2018).Rohingya Refugees in BangladeshApproximately?671,000?Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh are documented to have fled targeted violence in Myanmar since August 2017. These refugees joined some?213,000?Rohingya who were already in Bangladesh due to previous waves of displacement. Figure 8 shows how the Rohingya refugee arrival rate in Bangladesh changed from 2017-2018. Figure 8. Rohingya Refugee Arrival Trends Since Aug. 20173619503307715Source: UNHCR. 2018. “UNHCR Global Trends - Forced Displacement in 2017.”?UNHCR Global Trends - Forced Displacement in 2017. Source: UNHCR. 2018. “UNHCR Global Trends - Forced Displacement in 2017.”?UNHCR Global Trends - Forced Displacement in 2017. 3619502540In late August into early September alone, more than 80,000 Rohingya fled crossing the border into Bangladesh. Numbers hovered near the 20-35,000 mark until later into September, when entry into Bangladesh began to subside (besides some flare-ups). By the end of 2018, the total Rohingya population in Cox’s Bazar District was close to 906,600 (UNHCR 2019). Refugees have spontaneously settled in and around existing refugee communities in two main settlements, Kutupalong and Nayapara, overstretching already-limited services and scarce resources. According to the UNHCR, 75%?of the Rohingya refugees who fled during the latest crisis arrived in September 2017. Although the arrival rate significantly decreased into 2018, the refugee influx created “the world’s most densely populated refugee settlement” (Rohingya Refugee Crisis Explained). Type of PersecutionThe persecution Rohingya refugees have experienced and continue to experience for the purposes of this thesis, using categories from the Persecution-Source Theory, is taken to be internal persecution. Evidence from the 2019 UN Independent Factfinding Missions, NGO reports, and personal accounts indicate that the Tatmadaw systematically drove out the Rohingya. Although there is contestation as to whether the Tatmadaw’s raping, pillaging, murdering, and burning of villages in the Rakhine state constitute genocide or ethnic cleansing, it is clear that they instituted campaigns to kill thousands of Rohingya people and cover up the deaths. In other words, the Rohingya are facing state-sponsored or induced persecution that targets them for their ethnicity and hinders them from being legally recognized within Myanmar’s borders. Given the Tatmadaw’s mass human rights violations and the Myanmar government’s exclusion of the Rohingya within its Citizenship Law, we can expect the UNHCR to use humanitarian assistance as a primary crisis response for the Rohingya case. The UNHCR will also devote a majority percentage of its General Projects and eligible Special Projects funds to alleviating the crisis through humanitarian aid tactics from 2014-2019. Furthermore, an analysis of quotes, interviews, and media coverage should point to the UNHCR focusing on humanitarian aid-related donations to and aspects of the crisis. News stories would illustrate the urgency of the situation through increased frequency and coverage on humanitarian aid. If the Persecution-Source Theory holds, interviewees would indicate the UNHCR’s primary response to the Rohingya crisis as humanitarian assistance, meaning a value on the first scale (Figure 1) will be less than 1.5 and the value on the second scale will be greater than 1.5. UNHCR ResponsesFor the purposes of this section, I focus on UNHCR responses beginning in 2017 onward since the largest and most recent Rohingya exodus that took place heightened at that time. In the initial weeks of the Rohingya refugee crisis’s 2017 emergency phase, the UNHCR airlifted more than 1,500 metric tons of humanitarian aid?to Bangladesh (Rohingya Refugee Crisis Timeline). This aid consisted of blankets, plastic sheets, sleeping materials and tents, kitchen items, jerry cans, and more (100 Days of Horror). Over 50,000 bamboo, rope, and tarpaulin shelters were constructed to house the new refugees in Bangladesh. Humanitarian aid six months into the crisis was expanded to include and call for natural disaster supplies to combat cyclones and monsoons, such as poles, ropes, shelter-grade tarpaulins, sandbags, and tools (100 Days of Horror). Interviews with former and current IOM officials highlighted “the Sphere Standards,” which are baseline standards of humanitarian responses and a mechanism to hold humanitarian actors accountable. The UNHCR uses these to standardize their responses by ensuring that “human dignity and human rights at the basis of refugee protection are duly reflected in the standards of care. Rather than focusing on available resources, the indicators will contribute to move towards a Rights-Based Approach (RBA).” RBA provides the loose framework that takes international human rights norms, standards, and principles and uses these to standardize processes of humanitarian and development agencies. The UNHCR integrates human rights into its operations through gender mainstreaming, capacity building, etc. in its protection planning objectives and implementation of program activities to assist refugees. In terms of the UNHCR Media Centre’s coverage of the crisis, there are numerous observable trends. Firstly, leading up to the crisis, UNHCR articles about the Rohingya were published at a frequency of about once per year from 2005 to 2016. In 2017, the number of news stories increased exponentially; from January to August there was one story per month released. September 2017 proved to be a turning point and peak: for that month alone, the UNHCR Media Centre released ten Rohingya news stories with some published back-to-back (UNHCR Stories). Now, about one story per month or two months focuses on the Rohingya, and the content has generally deviated from needs and the situation in Bangladesh to include refugee stories, progress on legal proceedings, and other topics (UNHCR Stories). Rohingya repatriation stories have not been covered by UNHCR, many are humanitarian aid related or share refugees’ stories and resilience.Toward the end of 2017 and beginning of 2018, amid the UNHCR providing Rohingya refugees with aid and services—consistent with the agency’s protection mandate—two fact-finding missions sought to investigate the nature of the human rights abuses the Rohingya were fleeing from in Myanmar. A coalition of 69?human rights NGOs appointed an Independent Fact-Finding Mission team, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, urging for the UN Security Council to respond to the humanitarian crisis and consider legal repercussions. The second Independent Fact-Finding Mission 2018 Report from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) suggested the UN Security Council establish an ad hoc international criminal tribunal or have proceedings go through the International Criminal Court. Further recommendations reiterated support for repatriation without violating non-refoulement, increased monitoring and reporting, and other measures (OHCHR, n.d.). The OHCHR’s Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar submitted its report to the United Nations Human Rights Council on September 12, 2018 and concluded that the Tatmadaw did violate international law and principles of international humanitarian law (OHCHR, n.d.). This report also described the nature of the Tatmadaw’s actions toward the Rohingya as “crimes against humanity, genocide, and ethnic cleansing” (OHCHR, n.d.).In March 2018, the UNHCR launched a?Joint Response Plan (JRP) for the Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis. The three sections of the plan include the nature of the crisis and its needs; the agency’s response strategy along with its partners; and, within their response strategy, each?sector’s needs in addition to their own set strategies. The Response Strategy section explains the UNHCR’s goals and initiatives (in order of priority/precedence) they plan to undertake to address the crisis with respect to those most in need. Here, the UNHCR introduces its Protection Framework (see Figure 9), guided by four strategic objectives: 1) Provide timely life-saving assistance and protection, as well as improve the living conditions of Rohingya refugees and affected host communities; 2) Ensure well-being and dignity of Rohingya refugees and affected host communities; 3) Support environmentally sustainable solutions; and 4) Confidence building and resilience of Rohingya refugees and affected host communities (2018 JRP for Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis). Since the first JRP in 2018, a 2019 iteration has been published. Currently, a draft of the 2020 JRP is also available in the works (Dhaka Tribune 2019).Figure 9. UNHCR 2018 Rohingya JRP Protection Framework’s Four Pillarsright14605Source: ReliefWeb. 2018. “JRP for Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis: March - December 2018 - Bangladesh.” ReliefWeb. reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/jrp-rohingya-humanitarian-crisis-march-december-2018-0.0Source: ReliefWeb. 2018. “JRP for Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis: March - December 2018 - Bangladesh.” ReliefWeb. reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/jrp-rohingya-humanitarian-crisis-march-december-2018-0.When comparing and contrasting the 2018 and 2019 JRPs, we can observe some notable differences. In 2019, the UNHCR expresses shifting its focus toward increasing service qualityand the diversity of services (i.e. mental health services); scaling up protection-monitoring programs; and increasing direct participation of refugee men, women, and youth through committees. Additionally, there were three strategic objectives listed for 2019: 1) Collectively deliver protection to refugee women, men, girls and boys; 2) Provide life-saving assistance to affected populations; and 3) Foster social cohesion (2019 JRP for Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis). According to the Dhaka Tribune, within the draft of the 2020 JRP readers will notice that as the emergency period has slowed, aid sectors like the shelter component will require less funding, signaling a potential reprioritization toward solutions, protection, and legal processes (HumanitarianResponse 2017).CoordinationJacob Kurtzer explains that the UNHCR is often constrained politically by the refugee-sending and refugee-receiving governments they work with. Furthermore, in an interview with UNHCR Deputy Director of Resilience and Solutions, Mamadou Dian-Balde, reminds critics of the UNHCR’s work that the agency was created by states. Thus, an important aspect of the UNHCR’s response strategy and its ability to respond lies within coordination efforts between major stakeholders, especially national governments. Beginning in 2017, the Government of Bangladesh and other humanitarian organizations coordinated to provide aid to the Rohingya refugees. Initially, Bangladesh showed solidarity with the Rohingya, but as the crisis evolved views toward hosting more refugees shifted. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi and Bangladeshi Foreign Secretary Md. Shahidul Haque signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in Geneva known as the Arrangement on Return of Displaced Persons from Rakhine State. Regarding Myanmar, a similar agreement was set up in early 2018. The tripartite MoU between the UNHCR, the United Nations Development Programme and the Government of Myanmar that sought to create appropriate conditions for safe, voluntary, and orderly repatriation of Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh was extended for one year. However, numerous sources from the UN, NGOs, and other governments agree that Myanmar has not done what is necessary to foster conditions conducive for the return of the refugees (UN News 2018). Refugee returns at this time remain stagnant and low, the UNHCR reports 95 refugees have voluntarily returned to Myanmar (UN News 2018).Besides coordination at the state level, the UNHCR has undergone restructuring in an attempt to better service refugees. A most recent example is the agency’s decentralization of regional offices and bureaus. For Asia and the Pacific, the new regional bureau and its offices are located in Bangkok. Additionally, the UNHCR convened the first Global Refugee Forum in late December 2019 to share overall best practices, encourage governments and other stakeholders to make pledges, and provide a platform for refugees to share their stories among academics, policymakers, and NGO workers.UNHCR Funding for the Rohingya Refugee CrisisBelow are two tables, documenting changes in UNHCR funding toward initiatives in Myanmar and Bangladesh respectfully. Table 1 illustrates Myanmar’s financials from 2014-2019 and Table 2 displays Bangladesh’s financials for the same period. Table 1. UNHCR—Myanmar FinancialsUNHCR Budget (in USD)UNHCR Expenditure (in USD)YearBasic Needs Durable Solutions (repatriation)Budget TotalBasic Needs Durable Solutions(repatriation)Expenditure Total201439,865,4823,708,20368,108,7036,056,284630,44621,525,219201528,710,4214,745,30572,772,7205,848,9611,071,03817,615,690201617,796,11812,039,87956,212,5795,562,733697,80717,128,649201719,058,0067,833,24549,162,2005,817,050913,13817,537,167201814,875,4912,399,53046,116,5604,869,882465,54716,688,276201913,497,3853,120,04938,724,000The data for Myanmar is representative of overall funding totals from the Pillar 1 (refugees) category. Upon examining UNHCR funding for Myanmar for the period, there exist some trends. The total budget determined overall has decreased essentially each year, and total expenditure has seemingly plateaued around $17 million. Although the UNHCR has allocated various amounts ranging from about $3 million to upwards of $12 million toward repatriation, the reality is small fractions of total expenditure actually end up funding it. The basic needs portion of the budget has also been mostly decreasing since 2014, but in expenditure, it is only slightly decreasing in small increments. Efforts to use repatriation as a primary solution do not seem to illustrate the funding story, most of the money (planned in a budget and the reality of expenditure) tends to be used for humanitarian aid or other needs/capacity-building not included under basic needs.Table 2. UNHCR—Bangladesh FinancialsUNHCR Budget (in USD)UNHCR Expenditure (in USD)YearBasic Needs Durable Solutions (repatriation)Budget TotalBasic Needs Durable Solutions(repatriation)Expenditure Total201412,306,0184,240,2437,534,73020155,859,10115,184,3057,576,783201613,667,9477,284,022201767,596,21649,606,7752018220,442,812159,895,1652019223,467,757845,567307,553,397Now turning to UNHCR funding for Bangladesh, patterns are more difficult to discern. The data for Bangladesh is representative of overall funding totals from the Pillar 1 (refugees) category. Firstly, the total budget determined overall has greatly increased from $12,306,018 in 2014 to $307,553,397 in 2019. This is reflected in expenditure too, with $7,534,730 in 2014 to an expenditure of $159,895,165 in 2018 (2019 expenditure data is not yet available). Unfortunately, the UNHCR has not made all of its data publicly accessible, so funding toward repatriation and basic needs for Bangladesh cannot be determined. However, given the large increase in overall budget and expenditure, one could assert that these areas would also increase in funding.AnalysisMy analysis revealed that all interview participants shared aspects of six themes. Table 3 highlights these themes, providing definitions and examples. The data suggests that the UNHCR will respond similarly to refugee crises during its “Emergency Phase,” regardless of whether what generated the refugee crisis was internal persecution, external persecution, or mixed (see Figure 2). However, once crises are more protracted, the root causes of the refugee flow or the types of persecution matter and greatly impact the agency’s abilities to find solutions for those refugees. Regarding the Rohingya, the UNHCR is unable to select repatriation as a primary long-term crisis response tactic or feasible durable solution. This is the case for a multitude of reasons.Taking the theme Constraints, the UNHCR faces obstacles assisting the Rohingya through humanitarian aid measures. Although the Bangladesh government has taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing from Myanmar, they are also a refugee-sending country and they have their own domestic challenges that make the government more difficult to work with. Another constraint that hinders the UNHCR’s ability to provide the Rohingya refugees with solutions is that of the country’s economics and a need for aid for its people alongside the Rohingya. Arguably the most impactful constraints deliberately cited by respondents were the Myanmar government’s lack of political will to address the Tatmadaw’s crimes against humanity. Without finding a way to reform relations toward the Rohingya legally (such as through citizenship) and socially with the end of these grave human rights violations/the destroying of Rohingya villages in Rakhine, repatriation as a solution is seemingly impossible.Table 3. Thematic Analysis of Interviews Themes, Descriptions, and Examples; Rohingya Case.ThemeDescriptionExampleReturnLikelihood; conditions needed; and popularity of safe, dignified, orderly, and voluntary returns among refugees and actorsAccording to an IOM Official, internal conflict or inter-ethnic conflict makes it “incredibly more difficult to return refugees” (2020).ConstraintsObstacles in refugee assistance and partnerships between stakeholders“It is complicated to forsee any durable solutions for the Rohingya. Bangladesh has limited resources and a huge population, making it hard to integrate; international support not to the scale that is needed for integration to occur… None of the solutions are there.” PoliticsHow national policies affect the UN Refugee Agency“UNCHR hates being involved in political stuff. Humanitarians don’t want to admit they’re involved in political work… but then they have to make political calculations all the time.”Root CausesWhat generated a refugee flowEthnic conflict makes things complicated; causes are more linked to solution responses rather than immediate responses.BudgetMonetary contributions and their impact on UNHCR operations “The donors listen to the UN… it’s very different in the humanitarian world, in the political world, in the development world. It’s really where the UN system works best.”SolutionsDurable solutions (repatriation, reintegration, and resettlement) and their likelihood“Response determinations are impacted by other factors, but for durable solutions the nature of the displacement matters more.”The Politics theme can thus be thought of as a subset for this case study—either as a type of constraint, on finding solutions budgetarily and otherwise, an innate part of the return process, or the dynamics of the UNHCR’s work with Myanmar and Bangladesh no matter how neutral they try to appear. Essentially, the UNHCR is: a) unable to assist Bangladesh in returning Rohingya refugees to Myanmar because of the nature of the displacement and its politics; b) unable to resettle the Rohingya in other countries due to their ethnicity and a lack of willingness by the international community; and c) cannot reintegrate the Rohingya in Bangladesh since they are viewed as “temporary refugees.” This leaves little to no room for durable solutions, making humanitarian aid continuation the agency’s only option, at least for the time being. Additionally, the U.S. “typically doesn’t earmark funds for the [UNHCR] budget,” which highlights that the hypothesis in which the UNHCR is a “pawn” of large state donors is not true for each crisis, if any. If state influence from top donors readily impacted the UNHCR’s work for this crisis, perhaps the U.S. would be earmarking its funds to exert influence.The novel combination of responses by all interviewees, UNHCR funding data of the Rohingya crisis, and steps taken by the UNHCR suggest that the UNHCR uses humanitarian aid as a majority response rather than repatriation or other solutions. In this case, the Persecution-Source Theory held against alternative explanations in the Rohingya case: to a significant extent, the internal persecution faced by the Rohingya is now an obstacle in coming up with a solution to alleviate the crisis. As interviewees have described, when the root causes of a crisis are inherently political and require major policy reform by the country of origin, ways of alleviating or working on solutions to a crisis are minimized. Figure 10 displays where the Rohingya crisis falls on the UNHCR Response scales. When averaging the values assigned to each interviewee along with budget/expenditure considerations and UNHCR actions to date, the UNHCR’s use of humanitarian aid as a response has a value of 2.3. For use of repatriation as a response toward the Rohingya crisis, the value is 0.7, indicating that the UNHCR has not been able to begin successful, orderly return operations of Rohingya refugees nor does it plan to in the immediate term.center285115Figure 10. UNHCR Response to Rohingya Refugee Crisis ScaleThe Rohingya case study illustrates some consistency with the Persecution-Source Theory. Since constraints are placed on the UNHCR’s work as a result of the root causes of the Rohingya crisis—which is classified as internal persecution—the UNHCR is unable to repatriate Rohingya refugees back to Myanmar. We can conclude that the ethnic cleansing and internal, state-led persecution which generated the Rohingya refugee crisis now influences the UNHCR’s responses and abilities to assist the Rohingya in Bangladesh. However, many interviewees stressed the importance of timing as another important factor. Had this analysis focused solely on the agency’s responses in 2017 alone, the results may be different since the most recent influx of Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh required extensive UNHCR emergency response and humanitarian aid to assist the hundreds of thousands of new refugees in Cox’s Bazaar. Many interviewees discussed the UNHCR’s operations under constraints by voluntary donations. In varying levels of enthusiasm, responses conveyed that strong donors and earmarked funding alone cannot make up the majority of pressures exerted onto the agency. Some found the UNHCR to be less constrained by its budget and expenditure as opposed to other UN agencies or organizations, like the IOM. Others described the agency’s expertise and mission to be respected by donors, claiming that they listen to the UNHCR rather than command it. UNHCR officials also expressed that the funding model does not impede their ability to assist refugees, although some “may be biased.” Dian-Balde explains that he does not think he is “at the mercy of the governments,” when conducting his work. “It isn’t just money that is influential, smaller governments that host larger percentages of refugees per capita are important too.”News coverage and attention directed toward crises are important, but those interviewed whom themselves do not work for the UNHCR merely hypothesize how influential this is. According to Kugelman and Aplon, the UNHCR does an effective job of addressing refugee needs, even in places like Chad which remains virtually absent within media coverage. Aplon and Grundy also point out that, when looking at the duration of a protracted crisis and the potential for media fatigue it really depends on the political situation. “If there are gross human rights violations… the crisis often becomes weighted. This is a different media character, [the crisis] will get a lot of attention. However, with protracted crises, there is a precipitous drop-off.” In terms of timing, the longer a refugee crisis lasts or the more protracted it is, there is uncertainty if the UNHCR will employ repatriation efforts as its primary crisis response method. UNHCR officials strongly contended that this was not the case and that it is dependent on the will of the refugees. In the case of the Rohingya, there is almost no desire to return to Myanmar. Sultan-Khan explains that the parameters for the UN Refugee Agency were clear against the backdrop of the Cold War, “later on, of course, it got more complicated. That was when we started to get involved with internally displaced people.” His response signals back to the idea that the nature of conflicts led to more complex displacements and political situations for the UNHCR to respond to, durable solutions will look different in these cases if they are an option at all. Jerome Elie responded similarly, first detailing the difference between normal refugee status determination (RSD) processes versus large group RSD (which happens in the Rohingya case, they are considered prima facie) and then reviews each of the durable solutions for the Rohingya in Bangladesh. He finds that “none of the solutions are there,” and in regard to repatriation this cannot take place since “there is no accountability for what has been done.”Sultan-Khan provides a beacon of hope. He says that despite the constraints placed on the agency to work toward durable solutions, the High Commissioner for Refugees has many strong partnerships: “…for example, Gabon or Cape Verde took the lead on the Organization of Islamic Countries’ response toward Rohingya refugees. This response is critical when the UNHCR can’t speak or advocate for refugees. It makes the work difficult, but UNHCR can still practice advocacy and be a voice for the ‘voiceless.’”This chapter examined the Rohingya refugee crisis as a case study of internal persecution, charting the forced displacement’s background and UNHCR responses to it. Chapter 4 investigates the Afghan refugee crisis and external persecution using a similar framework.Chapter 4Case Study: Afghan Refugees and External Persecution“I am sick, in eyes and body, so I want to go home to Afghanistan.”The Afghan refugee crisis just experienced its 40th anniversary of the Soviet invasion. The protracted nature of the crisis, along with the numerous actors involved in conflicts within and against Afghanistan has made it a complex case. The UNHCR faces many obstacles in assisting the Afghan refugees in finding long-term solutions, and the Pakistan government is pushing for more repatriation initiatives despite a deteriorating and unstable security situation within Afghan borders. Politics aside, it is vital that all actors in the refugee regime do not forget the suffering and hardship the Afghan refugees have endured for multiple generations.The last chapter used a case study to investigate the Rohingya refugee crisis and its implications under the Persecution-Source Theory. Similarly, this chapter examines the Afghan refugee crisis, with Afghanistan as the country of origin and Pakistan as the host country of focus. The first section delves into the historical background of the crisis, Afghan politics and contributing factors to the crisis, and the Afghan refugee population in Pakistan. The next section establishes a brief snapshot of UNHCR actions taken to address the crisis, particularly those regarding funding, response strategies, and potential solutions for Afghan refugees. Lastly, this chapter concludes by analyzing the UNHCR’s responses to the Afghan refugee crisis and their significance under the Persecution-Source Theory.Backgroundcenter2715895Source: ReliefWeb. Afghanistan Multi-Year Protection and Solutions Strategy (2019-2021) – Afghanistan. ReliefWeb. reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/afghanistan-multi-year-protection-and-solutions-strategy-2019-2021).)Figure 11. Map of Afghanistan and Refugee MovementsSource: ReliefWeb. Afghanistan Multi-Year Protection and Solutions Strategy (2019-2021) – Afghanistan. ReliefWeb. reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/afghanistan-multi-year-protection-and-solutions-strategy-2019-2021).)Figure 11. Map of Afghanistan and Refugee MovementsThe Afghan refugee crisis began due to the Soviet-Afghan War from 1979-1989. Four main “waves” of forced displacement or exoduses of Afghan refugees have contributed to the crisis as we know it today. The first wave occurred during the war when the Soviets initially invaded (1979–1989), the second was due to the Afghan Civil War (1992–96), immediately following was displacement as a result of Taliban Rule (1996–2001), and lastly the ongoing War in Afghanistan (2001–present) has continued to cause Afghan refugees to flee. According to the UNHCR’s 2018 Global Report, there are 2.5 million registered refugees?from Afghanistan, with most having fled to Pakistan and Iran (UNHCR 2019). The UNHCR’s most recent data indicates there are currently 1.4 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan (UNHCR 2019). Afghan refugees make up the?largest protracted refugee population in Asia and?the second-largest refugee population following the Syrian refugees (UNHCR 2019). Afghanistan remains unstable, with some Afghan states being more dangerous than others. This, combined with tensioned relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, has made finding solutions to the Afghan crisis especially difficult. Figure 11 highlights this complexity through a map of Afghanistan and the movements of refugees from across the Durand line (the Afghanistan and Pakistan border).Historical ContextAfghan migration to Pakistan dates back to the 10th century (Ghufran 2008). After the Second Anglo-Afghan War, the Pakistan-Afghanistan border (the Durand Line) was lineated under British India’s Mortimer Durand influence. In 1947, political interference from British India in Afghanistan ended. With Pakistan now in the picture, the Pashtun and Baloch tribes found themselves divided (Ghufran 2008). However, outside influence and interference by European countries did not end with Britain. Soon, the Soviet Union became more closely involved with Afghan affairs. The Soviet Union supported the Afghan Communist government against anti-Communist Muslim guerillas throughout the Soviet-Afghan War. Afghanistan’s government in 1978 with Mohammad Daud Khan as president was overthrown, leading to Nur Mohammad Taraki’s rule. Relations with the USSR at this time grew stronger, despite a lack of popularity by the greater Afghan public. The USSR initiated land and social reforms, to the dismay of opposition groups. Any dissent against these reforms resulted in intense persecution from the Soviets (Sultana 2011). The Mujahideen (a collective of Islamic groups) retaliated and led insurgencies against the Soviets, leading to an invasion by Soviet forces on December 24, 1979. The invasion removed then President of the People’s faction, Hafizullah Amin. The U.S. supported Mujahideen, which helped to spread civic unrest across Afghanistan (Tober 2007). The Soviets’ influence, although still present, gradually declined in the 1980s. Much of the persecution was left for the Afghan army to commit against dissenting civilians. The Soviets sought to target the Mujahideen by “depopulating” rural areas and killing larger numbers of civilians. These initiatives forcibly displaced millions of Afghans. In 1981, there were 1.5 million Afghan refugees, by 1982 roughly 2.8 million Afghans fled to neighboring Pakistan (Ghufran 2008). 1986 noticed a peak, the number of Afghan refugees had risen to nearly five million, with the majority of the refugees based in Pakistan (Khan 2017, 11). Most of the Afghan refugees that came to Pakistan were ethnic Pashtuns, but Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras were ethnic groups also represented. It is estimated that during the invasion, there were more than six million Afghan refugees (Khan, 8). The conflict further evolved into three periods of Afghan civil war, followed by the ongoing war in Afghanistan. The first of which was a continuation of the Soviet-Afghan War, excluding the Soviets from 1989-1992. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union supported opposing sides of the civil war as before, but the Afghan army was able to fight off the Mujahideen during this time (Safri 2011). This was short-lived though; the Afghan government fell in 1992 when President Mohammad Najibullah stepped down and Mujahideen groups took over Kabul. The second civil war (1992-1996) took place between opposing Mujahideen rebel groups. Human Rights Watch claims that there were five different Mujahideen armies or groups contributing to the extensive damage of Kabul from 1992-1995 (Human Rights Watch 2001). The city’s population subsequently decreased from 2 million to roughly 500,000 (Human Rights Watch 2001). During this period in the 1990s, international funding for Afghan humanitarian aid began decreasing. Consequently, the UNCHR launched an “encashment” program to encourage voluntary repatriation from Pakistan to Afghanistan in tandem with Pakistani calls for increased voluntary return (Khan 2017, 11). However, in 1994 the Taliban (an extremist Islamic group originating from and believed to be backed by Pakistan) began taking over Afghan cities and provinces. By 1995, the Taliban controlled twelve Afghan provinces. Despite the merging of groups and the formation of new alliances from various Mujahideen groups, the Taliban secured control over southern, eastern, and western Afghanistan. They sealed their official takeover of the country by toppling over Kabul in September 1996, establishing the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, marking the third period of Afghan civil war creating mass displacement. Tens of thousands died from the wartime atrocities and bombings (Human Rights Watch 2001). As a result, Afghanistan accepted refugee returns and witnessed more displacement. After the Taliban came to power, humanitarian aid declined again, forcing more Afghans to cross into Pakistan (Khan 2017, 3). A Human Rights Watch report describes the series of Taliban massacres against civilians from 1996-2001. According to the report, the Taliban especially targeted Shia or Hazara Muslims (2001). After the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, repatriation initiatives began again. From 2002 to 2015, over 3.8 million Afghans returned to Afghanistan with assistance from the UNHCR (Ahmadi and Lakhani 2016, 1). It is worth mentioning that estimates of Afghan refugees as they have moved between Afghanistan and Pakistan may be largely inaccurate due to numbers of unregistered Afghan refugees resulting from an “unregulated and unmonitored system” in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border (Ahmadi and Lakhani, 1). This system has subjected Pakistan to large-scale movements, trafficking of drugs and arms, and militant entry originating from Afghanistan—which made the Afghan refugee situation a protracted political, security, and economic issue.There was a spike in returns from Pakistan in early 2015 following the attack on a military school in Peshawar in December 2014. Actions by Pakistani security forces and local authorities continue to push refugees to return. During the first ten months of 2015, Pakistan deported 20,000 undocumented Afghan refugees and reported nearly 96,000 spontaneous returns of undocumented refugees (Ahmadi and Lakhani 2016, 3). Afghan Refugees in PakistanHistorically, the Afghan refugees in Pakistan were not restricted to the refugee camps and could experience more mobility compared to refugees in other host countries (Khan 2017, 15). They moved around freely throughout the country where they were allowed to work, acquire education, rent houses, and travel freely within Pakistan like other Pakistani citizens. As the crisis grew more protracted, some Afghan refugees moved from camps to residential neighborhoods, integrating into urban life in Pakistan. However, despite successful cases of integration, Pakistan is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, meaning Afghan refugees cannot access formal education opportunities, to open a bank account, formally work, or buy property. Moreover, the longevity of the instability in Afghanistan has exacerbated worsened relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan; family units have formed in Pakistan over multiple generations making it difficult to repatriate Afghan refugees. In sum, “the longer it takes, the more difficult it [assisting Afghan refugees] becomes.” center2947035Source: Chaudhry, Hufsa. 2017. “HRW Report Accuses UNHCR of Inaction over 'Forced Repatriation' of Afghans.” , Feb. 13, 2017, news/1314348.SFigure 12. Afghan Repatriation Trends Since 2009Source: Chaudhry, Hufsa. 2017. “HRW Report Accuses UNHCR of Inaction over 'Forced Repatriation' of Afghans.” , Feb. 13, 2017, news/1314348.SFigure 12. Afghan Repatriation Trends Since 2009Approximately?1,420,673 million?Afghan refugees have fled to Pakistan as of 2019 data. In total, the different displacements of Afghan refugees have resulted in 2,371,815 registered according to 2019 statistics (UNHCR Global Focus: Populations 2019). Despite Pakistan being adamant about repatriation, the number of refugees fleeing to Pakistan is increasing. UNHCR data indicates that in Pakistan, 1,352,560 refugees were registered in 2016. In 2017, refugee numbers increased to 1,393,143, and in 2018 those registered reached 1,404,019 (UNHCR Global Focus: Populations 2019). On the other end, rates of repatriation have been markedly high prior to 2016. Figure 12 shows how the Afghan refugee repatriation rate changed from 2009-2016. The graph indicates minimal changes from 2009-2015. However, 2016 witnessed high fatalities as a result of security operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban. 383,951 registered refugees voluntarily repatriated to Afghanistan in 2016. In 2017, this decreased to 60,545, and in 2018 smaller still: 16,220 (UNHCR Global Focus: Populations 2019).These numbers can be attributed to a response to security deterioration in Afghanistan. In 2018, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan recorded the highest amount of civilian deaths, which also includes the highest ever recorded statistic of children killed in the conflict (Amnesty International 2019). 11,000 casualties were reported, including 3,804 deaths and 7,189 injured (Amnesty International 2019). The “Analysing Peace and Quantifying Its Economic Value” report by the Institute for Peace and Economics claimed Afghanistan is the world’s “least peaceful” country, replacing Syria (2019). Unsurprisingly, the numbers of those successfully repatriated has decreased. Type of PersecutionUsing classifications from the Persecution-Source Theory, the persecution Afghan refugees have experienced and continue to experience for the purposes of this thesis is taken to be external persecution. In other words, the Afghan refugees have fallen victim to violence as a result of an inter-state conflict (the Afghan-Soviet War) and/or persecution from non-state actors (the Taliban). Given increasing negotiations with the Taliban, greater calls for repatriation by Pakistan and Iran, the inconsistency of the violence stemming from military operations, we can expect the UNHCR to use repatriation as a primary crisis response for the Afghan case. The UNHCR will also devote large percentages of its General Projects and eligible Special Projects funds to alleviating the crisis through voluntary return funding from 2014-2019. Furthermore, an analysis of quotes, interviews, and media coverage should point to the UNHCR focusing on return-related donations to and aspects of the crisis. News stories would illustrate coverage on repatriation initiatives, and there would be fewer articles published (since media coverage tends to focus on the beginning of a crisis). If the Persecution-Source Theory holds, interviewees would indicate the UNHCR’s primary response to the Afghan crisis as repatriation, meaning a value on the first scale (Figure 1) will be greater than 1.5 and the value on the second scale will be less than 1.5. UNHCR ResponsesConsistent with the methodology used in the Rohingya case, I focus primarily on UNHCR responses beginning in 2016 onward since that is when the agency released its most recent regional plan: Building Resilience and Solutions for Afghan Refugees in South-West Asia. Additionally, the 2016 Repatriation of Afghan Refugees from Pakistan Supplementary Appeal asking for increased funds to meet financial requirements for the Regional Plan to adjust for projected returns of Afghan refugees of up to 221,000. The Appeal details a continued focus on voluntary and dignified returns of Afghan refugees, their monitoring and advocacy, and payment of repatriation grants as financial support of integration/reintegration. Additionally, I examine coordination between the UNHCR, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other relevant actors from 2014 onward (consistent with funding data provided for the 2014-2019 period). In terms of the UNHCR Media Centre’s coverage of Afghan refugees and their safety, there are numerous observable trends. UNHCR articles about the Afghan refugees were published quite frequently in 2002 and 2003, with a dip around 2013 (stories were published once per year or less). They maintained this plateau until 2015. Here, the number of news stories began to steadily increase; five stories were released in 2015 with some focus on repatriation of 51,000+ Afghan refugees from Pakistan and the “future of Afghan refugees” (UNHCR Stories). This trend did not carry on into 2016, however. The only story of that year focused on the UNHCR and its funding set aside for 60,000 returnees (UNHCR Stories). 2017 and 2018 saw three and four stories respectively, whereas 2019 only had one story published. Although articles and news stories have varied across years, consistent topics discussed include the status of the UNHCR assisting with voluntary returns of Afghan refugees, Afghan refugees expressing their desire to return to Afghanistan, the future of Afghan refugees, and other solutions-based stories. Humanitarian aid has not been discussed at length, rather conditions of camps and the Afghan refugees’ experiences are more touched upon (UNHCR Stories).Although the attention placed on the voluntary return of Afghan refugees has ebbed and flowed depending on the year and UNHCR initiatives, NGOs and governments point out the lack of safety and stability among government forces and the Taliban within Afghanistan. In December 2018, a UNICEF report found that from January to September of 2018, five thousand children were killed or injured in Afghanistan (Radio Liberty 2018). Human Rights Watch claims more than 10,000 civilians were killed or wounded during 2018, with one third being children. Most recently, on March 5th, 2020, ICC judges authorized an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed by the Afghan government, the Taliban, American troops, and U.S. foreign intelligence operatives. This builds upon reports of attacks in urban areas by insurgents, airstrikes and night raids by the U.S. and Afghan forces causing many civilian casualties, and the consideration of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission calling the Taliban’s “terrorism against the Afghan civilian population” a war crime (Afghanistan Analysts Network 2020). These war crimes by the Taliban include killing teachers, abducting aid workers, and burning school buildings (Afghanistan Analysts Network 2020). There was a spike in returns from Pakistan in early 2015 following the attack on a military school in Peshawar in December 2014, and actions by Pakistani security forces and local authorities continue to push refugees to return. During the first ten months of 2015, Pakistan deported 20,000 undocumented Afghan refugees and reported nearly 96,000 spontaneous returns of undocumented refugees. As a result, under the 20-point National Action Plan, the government devised a policy to deal with the issue of Afghan refugees. The goal was to register Afghan nationals by the end of 2015 (Khan 2017, 55-56). Border clashes took place in June 2016 which further influenced Pakistan’s refugee policy. Pakistan then enforced new border rules, requiring and checking for valid and legal travel documents for all Afghans entering Pakistan, even for those who commute to Pakistan daily for work or schooling. CoordinationCoordination between the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the UNHCR (namely in the form of a Tripartite Agreement on Voluntary Repatriation) has led to a variety of agreements, strategies, and frameworks that have shaped responses to the protracted crisis. Beginning with Pakistan, the government adopted the Afghan Management and Repatriation Strategy to identify and implement durable solutions for Afghan refugees. Since the situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, extensions on the dates Pakistan agreed to host Afghan refugees until were repeated as interim measures. A new policy toward the Afghan refugees (approved in 2013) extended Proof of Registration (PoR) cards initiatives and the Tripartite Agreement on Voluntary Repatriation until the end of 2015. Additionally, new priorities manifested in the “National Policy on Afghan Refugees,” which formed in relation to the Solutions Strategy for Afghan Refugees (SSAR). Now in its 8th year, the SSAR aims to facilitate dialogue, coordinate responses, and increase consensus-building and partnerships for the Afghan refugee situation. It tasks the Government of Afghanistan incorporating SSAR’s objectives into national policy (UNHCR International Conference 2020). It also aims to provide guidance on safe and dignified voluntary repatriation, “sustainable reintegration” inside Afghanistan, and host community aid. In collaboration with NGOs and other UN actors, the UNHCR is working to provide refugees with solutions and humanitarian aid as described in Afghanistan: 2017 Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) and its 2018 iteration (ReliefWeb, n.d.). The HRP houses an overall Country Strategy (involving work between Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and other actors) and Operational Response Plans, which are broken down into different humanitarian clusters (ex. emergency shelter & non-food items, health, and food security & agriculture). One specific Operational Response Plan—the “Refugee & returnee response plan”—is led by the UNHCR (Humanitarian Response Annual Review 2017). The SSAR continues to serve as the key framework for the Afghan refugee crisis. According to Pakistan Radio, the UNHCR anticipates returning 60,000 refugees to Afghanistan. Repatriation efforts are to resume, despite the security challenges Afghanistan still faces. It is too early to tell how peace talks with the Taliban and will affect the UNHCR as they continue to assist the Afghan refugees.UNHCR Funding for the Afghan Refugee CrisisBelow are two tables, documenting changes in UNHCR funding toward initiatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan respectfully. Table 4 illustrates Afghanistan’s financials from 2014-2019 and Table 5 displays Pakistan’s financials for the same period. The data for Afghanistan is representative of overall funding totals from the Pillar 1 (refugees) category.The UNHCR funding for Afghanistan, despite a large fluctuation in 2016 for all categories, has some mild trends. The total budget determined overall has decreased each year (except 2016), and total expenditure has varied slightly above or below $70,000,000. Money in the budget allocated toward basic needs has varied year by year, but not as much in expenditure, which has remained around $20,000,000.Table 4. UNHCR—Afghanistan FinancialsUNHCR Budget (in USD)UNHCR Expenditure (in USD)YearBasic Needs Durable Solutions (repatriation)Budget TotalBasic Needs Durable Solutions(repatriation)Expenditure Total201458,102,48842,171,904151,970,85620,954,57610,300,45864,259,462201540,487,98946,714,886150,643,88618,419,25429,772,82770,354,771201654,586,82430,402,789259,233,865N/AN/A198,000,000*201721,465,46159,832,802137,626,88919,120,41728,729,55070,006,698201824,514,62522,971,511125,834,13423,497,9188,690,15662,059,853201929,350,17020,539,709121,705,680Regarding voluntary returns in the budget and in expenditure, funding has also varied year to year. However, quite a large portion goes toward repatriation within the budget and through expenditure. Curiously, some years in the budget and expenditure, more funding goes toward repatriation than to total basic needs. In 2015 this is the case, as with 2017. 2019 data displays the smallest budget determined for Afghanistan over the period, but with an increase in funding for basic needs. The UNHCR’s funding for Pakistan, like Afghanistan’s, does not have many clear generalized trends. The data for Pakistan is representative of overall funding totals from the Pillar 2 (refugees) category. The total budget has decreased and plateaued gradually from 2014-2019, from $162,483,588 to $99,201,69. Decreases in expenditure also seem to mimic that of the decreasing budget.Interestingly, expenditure for voluntary repatriation has remained in the 3-4 million USD range but within the budget, funding set aside for repatriation has largely varied. This means that despite values as high as $16,130,356 in 2014 for repatriation, only around $3 million of that money will be used for that purpose.Table 5. UNHCR—Pakistan FinancialsUNHCR Budget (in USD)UNHCR Expenditure (in USD)YearBasic Needs Durable Solutions (repatriation)Budget TotalBasic Needs Durable Solutions(repatriation)Expenditure Total201467,776,16316,130,356162,483,58826,473,1853,308,68564,498,186201571,931,06914,820,441136,702,63032,912,4294,415,53364,264,381201672,592,8383,160,080137,352,35628,476,4154,144,15454,725,760201770,253,0103,993,861127,073,20226,805,7113,153,61053,215,991201852,948,7976,581,53899,201,66917,658,4613,113,53736,682,893201935,418,89310,735,02499,201,669Basic needs expenditure has continuously decreased along with the basic needs budget. After a sharp drop in funds budgeted for repatriation in 2016, the part of the budget for voluntary returns/repatriation has increased, with 2019 almost reaching levels dating back to 2014 and 2015 despite a decreasing overall budget.AnalysisMy analysis revealed that all interview participants shared aspects of six themes. Table 6 looks at these themes with definitions and examples. The data suggests that the UNHCR will respond similarly to refugee crises during its “Emergency Phase,” regardless of whether what generated the refugee crisis was internal persecution, external persecution, or mixed (see Figure 2). However, once crises are more protracted, the root causes of the refugee flow or the types of persecution matter and greatly impact the agency’s abilities to find solutions for those refugees. Regarding the Afghan refugees, the UNHCR is continuing to select repatriation as a primary long-term crisis response tactic or durable solution, despite growing insecurity in Afghanistan. Table 6. Thematic Analysis of Interviews Themes, Descriptions, and Examples; Afghan Case.ThemeDescriptionExampleComplexityInconsistency, lack of clarity, uncertainty; challenges make it difficult for assisting refugees“The humanitarian space is shrinking, there is confusion due to political complexities. No one knows who is fighting who.” SecurityObjective and perceived safety within the host country and country of originPakistanis often misattribute Afghans as Taliban members and the Pakistani government—sick of being a host country—threatens to repatriate Afghan refugees. Protracted How the long duration of a crisis impacts UNHCR coordination and assistance“Sometimes it [finding solutions] takes too long, as is the case for the Afghan crisis. The longer it takes, the more difficult it becomes.” Political WillWillingness of different actors to work together and/or to bring an end to a refugee crisis“Depending on the situation sometimes we have different capabilities… is the government ready to support [the refugees]?” RepatriationReturns, voluntary or involuntary, to a defined country of origin “It’s never clear when it’s the right time is to repatriate… there’s always an imperfect environment for return.” FundingMonetary contributions or constraints and their effect on returning refugeesThe UN was not neglecting the Afghan refugee crisis, but donor fatigue placed pressure on Pakistan and the UNHCR. Considering responses by all interviewees, UNHCR funding data of the Afghan crisis, and measures taken by the UNHCR suggest that the UNHCR varies in their response strategy year to year, but ultimately directs efforts toward repatriation as a primary long-term solution. In this case, the Persecution-Source Theory had a correlation in the Afghan case: to an extent, the external persecution faced by the Afghans is now hindering the UNHCR from coming up with a solution to alleviate the crisis. As Kurtzer, Dian-Balde, and others have described, when the root causes of a crisis are inherently political and require major policy reform by the country of origin, ways of alleviating or working on solutions to a crisis are minimized.When averaging the values assigned to each interviewee along with budget/expenditure considerations and UNHCR actions to date, the UNHCR’s use of humanitarian aid as a response has a value of 1.34. Figure 13. UNHCR Response to Afghan Refugee Crisis Scalecenter10795For use of repatriation as a response toward the Afghan crisis, the value is 1.59, indicating that the UNHCR has facilitated some instances of successful, orderly return operations of Afghan refugees, and plans to continue repatriation efforts in the immediate term despite the lack of safety and ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. Figure 13 applies these values to the two UNHCR Response Scales. The Afghan case study illustrates some consistency with the Persecution-Source Theory. Since we can assert that the constraints placed on the UNHCR’s work are a result of the root causes of the Afghan crisis—which is external persecution—the UNHCR seeks to (but is sometimes unable to depending on the conflict) repatriate Afghan refugees back to Pakistan. We can conclude that the inter-state war and Soviet-led (and ongoing American-led) operations which generated the Afghan refugee crisis in waves now influence the UNHCR’s responses and abilities to assist the Afghan refugees in Pakistan. However, many interviewees stressed the importance of coordination between Afghanistan and Pakistan as another important factor. Interviewees primarily discussed the UNHCR’s operations under constraints by politics and the ongoing conflict. Responses show that pressure from Pakistani policy and officials along with inconsistency in Afghan security make up the majority of pressures exerted onto the agency. When it comes to the Afghan crisis, respondents described the agency’s expertise and mission to be respected by major stakeholders. UNHCR officials expressed that the willingness of refugees to repatriate or make related decisions often “depends upon the information they receive from the UNHCR…as a reliable information source.” According to Kugelman and Aplon, the UNHCR does an effective job of addressing refugee needs, but is in a tricky situation of “risking non-refoulement.” In terms of timing, the longer a refugee crisis lasts or the more protracted it is, it remains to be seen if the UNHCR will employ repatriation efforts as its primary crisis response method. In the case of the Afghan refugees, there is a limited desire to return to Afghanistan due to the high levels of integration Afghan refugees have experienced in Pakistan. An IOM official stressed how the forty-year anniversary of the initial displacement has led to “generations of Afghan refugee families living in Pakistan, with some refugee children never having been to Afghanistan.” This reality, combined with the government of Pakistan exerting more pressure onto Afghan refugees to leave, regardless of whether the UNHCR is conducting repatriation operations places the agency in an especially difficult set of circumstances.This chapter examined the Afghan refugee crisis as a case study of external persecution, charting the background of the crisis, and UNHCR responses to it. Chapter 5 concludes with a summary of my findings and opportunities for future research.Chapter 5ConclusionThis project investigates the research questions: Why does the UNHCR sometimes select repatriation (voluntary return) and other times choose humanitarian assistance as a primary refugee crisis alleviation method? How does the UNHCR determine a crisis response strategy for each refugee situation? What impacts the UNHCR’s ability to assist refugees in finding solutions? It is evident that the root causes of the crisis play an important role in constraining or impacting the UN Refugee Agency’s ability to help refugees.I argue that the UNHCR would be more likely to repatriate if the refugee generating source in the crisis is external. On the other end, the UNHCR would be more likely to select humanitarian aid and assistance as a crisis response strategy if the persecution source is internal. These two main groupings of persecution comprise the Persecution-Source Theory. In the last two chapters, I tested the Persecution-Source Theory through a mixed-methods research plan, combining qualitative and quantitative data. Quantitatively, an analysis of funding earmarks to the UNHCR is conducted to determine trends. Qualitatively, research focuses on the Afghan and Rohingya Refugee Crises as two case studies. Interviews of UNHCR staff, think tank experts, and individuals associated with substantial donations to the UNHCR within the context of the case studies are evaluated using thematic analysis.These chapters tested the Persecution-Source Theory, taking into account funding allocation toward certain refugee crisis alleviating strategies, media coverage of crises, and a standard process based on timing. The UNHCR’s ability to select certain crisis response strategies may be dependent on the donors’ intent for the money. The UNHCR could also prioritize repatriation as its primary strategy in alleviating refugee crises when a refugee crisis receives a lower amount of news coverage relative to other crises, and humanitarian aid with a higher amount. In terms of timing, the longer a refugee crisis lasts or the more protracted it is, the more likely the UNHCR will employ repatriation efforts as its primary crisis response method.The next section summarizes results from chapters 3 and 4, comparing them. Then, I discuss observations of the Persecution-Source Theory within the chapter, acknowledging areas of improvement. I end by looking at the implications of the project and opportunities for future research.Findings OverviewThis thesis contributes to the growing body of research on the UNHCR and its abilities to provide solutions for refugees. In Chapter 3, a case study of the Rohingya refugee crisis including funding changes from 2014-2019 and personal interviews showed that internal persecution is correlated with the UNHCR selecting humanitarian aid as a primary crisis response. I looked at recent historical changes that have impacted Rohingya refugees and their experiences in Bangladesh as the host country. I then investigated the UNHCR’s responses to the crisis qualitatively through guiding documents and partnerships among countries and parties involved, and quantitatively by analyzing funding trends. The results do support the Persecution-Source theory, even against alternative explanations. Chapter 4 involved a case study of the Afghan refugee crisis, also including funding changes from 2014-2019. Personal interviews showed that external persecution is correlated with the UNHCR choosing repatriation as a primary crisis response. This chapter also included a recent history of Afghan refugees and their experiences in Pakistan as the host country. The analysis investigated the UNHCR’s responses to the crisis qualitatively through guiding documents and partnerships among countries and parties involved, and quantitatively through funding trends. The results do lend some support to the Persecution-Source theory, but some intervening variables illustrate a more complex causal story. Comparing the Rohingya and Afghan CrisesIt appears as if for the Rohingya, the UNHCR solutions strategy is still heavily reliant on humanitarian assistance due to numerous constraints. The first constraint is the political situation in Myanmar; the government lacks the legal architecture needed to provide the Rohingya with citizenship status or a path to obtaining citizenship, therefore, repatriation is not an option. Furthermore, many refugees do not want to return because it is not safe for them to do so. The political will by countries to assist Bangladesh and/or to speak out against Myanmar is minimal. For example, many countries are not helping in terms of resettlement, they are simply contributing monetarily. Additionally, reintegration or integration is difficult in Bangladesh due to their fair share of challenges (some of which include the generating refugee mass-movements, a lack of money, citizens having similar needs as refugees leading to discontent, and climate change). The result is a need to use humanitarian assistance to maintain the status quo until different solutions can be implemented.This contrasts with the Afghan refugees, for the UNHCR uses the SSAR which was created out of a concern that humanitarian assistance alone, particularly as it has diminished over the years, is entirely insufficient to address the complex needs of the refugee population and provide a basis for successful returns and reintegration. Although there may be a desire to repatriate Rohingya refugees to Myanmar, there is common recognition among scholars and refugee officials that the means to promote safe, orderly, and voluntary return to Myanmar do not exist for now. Between Afghanistan and Pakistan, however, the legal mechanisms are much more developed and are stronger (as is the pressure being placed on Afghan refugees to repatriate from the Pakistan government). Even though this is the case, this same set of RSD policies that enables the Pakistan government and the UNHCR to help Afghan refugees is also contributing to, through arbitrary deadlines, their lack of documentation and safety as they are deported or are unaccounted for. Moreover, the UNHCR often lacks the capacity to process Afghan refugees via RSD since so many are approaching the agency as asylum-seekers. This has given more power to the Pakistan government to only provide resources and care to those documented, leading to the deportation of undocumented Afghan refugees and/or more instances of forced repatriation to Afghanistan (potentially non-refoulement). Additionally, a focus on repatriation through larger concentrations of funding and in terms of policy preferences reveal a push to continue repatriation initiatives more so in the Afghan case than in other cases. Both the Rohingya and Afghan crises have unstable situations within Myanmar and Afghanistan, yet the thesis shows how the preference to repatriate Afghan refugees is much greater than that to repatriate Rohingya refugees.Testing the Persecution-Source TheoryTherefore, the Afghan and Rohingya case studies show how “policy impedes practice.” The type of persecution, external for the Afghan refugees and internal for the Rohingya refugees, did impact the UNHCR’s ability to assist both refugee groups since the nature of the persecution caused the constraints that the agency now faces. Furthermore, the Persecution-Source Theory points to the differences in solutions strategies that the UNHCR has taken in these crises, the UN Refugee Agency seeks to repatriate Afghan refugees whenever possible but not for the Rohingya refugees since the opportunity to repatriate (or to pursue the other durable solutions) does not yet exist. In other words, crises generated by internal persecution confine the UNHCR to humanitarian assistance-based response strategies since genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other forms of internal persecution prevent safe conditions and policies for the return of those displaced. It will take a dramatic shift in circumstances and ideology by the country of origin responsible for the persecution to alter its behavior and manufacture the political will necessary to effectively work with and assist the UNHCR. For external persecution, one can assert that the elimination of the external threat provides the space the UNHCR needs to facilitate voluntary returns—given that the country of origin is safe. My investigation of Afghan refugees in Pakistan highlights this does not always hold when the country of origin is unsafe. The instability in Afghanistan constrains the UNHCR’s capacity to repatriate Afghan refugees despite the steps already taken and desired to be taken within the SSAR and legal frameworks. The intent and political will among Pakistan and Afghanistan tend to be present, the safety necessary for Afghan refugees to repatriate often is not. In addition to the importance of political will and safety in the UNHCR response strategy calculus, it is wise to acknowledge the clarity to which the persecution experienced by the refugees in the Rohingya and Afghan cases was internal and external. The Rohingya situation is often linked to the phrase “textbook definition of ethnic cleansing” (100 Days of Horror). It is evident from a variety of sources that the persecution the Rohingya face is internal, deriving from the country of origin. For the Afghan case study, however, numerous external actors became involved in the external persecution of Afghan refugees after the initial invasion by the Soviets. More specifically, the traditional responses and coordination among the UNHCR with relevant actors upon the elimination of the external persecution’s source was not seen in Afghanistan. In fact, insecurity remained and increased as a result of continued violence despite the removal of the preliminary threat. The implications of this observation yield more importance to the Persecution-Source Theory and others like it. The Rohingya case exemplifies a clear-cut, concrete scenario of internal persecution. Inherent to the persecution’s internality are the aforementioned constraints, namely a lack of political will and safety in the country of origin. Essentially, refugee crises generated from internal persecution can be expected to come with these constraints. When controlling for refugees’ desire to return, it makes sense that alleviating the internal threat through robust policies and social cohesion would increase the likelihood of refugees returning to their country of origin. Unfortunately, this type of situation is rarely, if ever, seen. It is unlikely that this outcome will occur soon for the Rohingya refugees, if at all. However, for external persecution, several different outcomes can take place. The safety of the country of origin, when controlling for refugees’ desire to return and the implementation of strong policies and transformative justice, is not necessarily contingent on the elimination of the external persecution source. Just because the conflict between the USSR and Afghanistan ended does not mean that Afghanistan is now (or ever was) safe for voluntary returns. This caveat points to a need for expansion of the Persecution-Source Theory, particularly within the external and mixed categories of persecution. Opportunities for Further ResearchThis research demonstrates that the Persecution-Source Theory can help to make sense of the complexities of the UNHCR’s work in refugee crises. The thesis shows how consideration of the root causes of crises can help to better inform policymakers and refugee officials or to predict the constraints the UNHCR will face throughout the duration of a refugee crisis. Moreover, it signals a greater need for investigation of countries of origin and the causes of refugee crises. Further research could expand this investigation into other regions to see if the Persecution-Source Theory and others like it hold within Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East and North Africa. It would be worth engaging in more comparative case studies in this regard, considering different ethnic conflicts, state-sponsored persecution, and ongoing war. Additional research could contribute empirically to the refugee literature, testing the significance of the associations I explored using world data sets. It is also important to continue studies of the Rohingya and Afghan refugee crises as they evolve. This paper examined a gap in the literature, where the UNHCR’s response strategies and the types of persecution refugees experienced are an unacknowledged association. However, this work also sheds light on the plight of refugees as they seek to find safety for themselves and their families. In my belief, it is our (shared) responsibility as researchers to continue to inform policymaking groups and local communities on the dynamics of our world. Although my work touches upon one unknown within the refugee regime, many others need to be addressed, whether that is through the plausibility of the Persecution-Source Theory or other means. Regardless of how we seek to minimize the suffering of our fellow humans, we must persist, for no one deserves to be forcibly uprooted from the places they call home. ReferencesAdelman, Howard. 2001. “From Refugees to Forced Migration: The UNHCR and Human Security.”?International Migration Review?35 (1): 7–32. Analysts Network. 2020. “Still Caught in Regional Tensions? The Uncertain Destiny of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan.” Afghanistan Analysts Network – English. Mar. 9, 2020. en/reports/migration/still-caught-in-regional-tensions-the-uncertain-destiny-of-afghan-refugees-in-pakistan/.Ahmadi, Belquis, and Sadaf Lakhani.?2016. The Forced Return of Afghan Refugees and Implications for Stability. US Institute of Peace. Accessed March 24, 2020. stable/resrep20160. Al Jazeera. 2017.“Rohingya Crisis Explained in Maps.” Al Jazeera. International. 2019. “Afghanistan's Refugees: Forty Years of Dispossession.” Amnesty International, en/latest/news/2019/06/afghanistan-refugees-forty-years/.Associated Press. 2018. “U.N. Genocide Advisor: Myanmar Waged 'Scorched-Earth Campaign' against the Rohingya.” , March 14, 2018, web.web/20180411174500/world/la-fg-myanmar-rohingyas-20180313-story.html.Barnett, Michael. 2001. “Humanitarianism with a Sovereign Face: UNHCR in the Global Undertow.”?The International Migration Review 35 (1): 244–277.?JSTOR. HYPERLINK "" stable/2676060.BBC News. 2019. “Rwanda Genocide: 100 Days of Slaughter.” BBC News. BBC, April 4, 2019. , Alexander. 2013a. “Regime Complexity and International Organizations: UNHCR as a Challenged Institution.” Global Governance 19 (1): 69-81. JSTOR. stable/24526241.Betts, Alexander. 2013b. “Yemen: Contrasting Responses to Somalis and Ethiopians.” In “Survival Migration: Failed Governance and the Crisis of Displacement” 160-172. Ithaca, NY; London: Cornell University Press. Accessed April 5, 2020. stable/10.7591/j.ctt32b5cd.13.Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Taylor & Francis Online. doi/abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.Center on International Cooperation. 2017. “Reading between the Lines of the Bangladesh-Myanmar MOU.” Center on International Cooperation. November 30, 2017. , Hufsa. 2017. “HRW Report Accuses UNHCR of Inaction over 'Forced Repatriation' of Afghans.” , Feb. 13, 2017, news/1314348.Crisp, Jeffrey. 1984. “The Politics of Repatriation: Ethiopian Refugees in Djibouti, 1977-83.” Review of African Political Economy 30: 73-82. JSTOR. stable/4005688.Crisp, Jeffrey. 2001. “Mind the Gap! UNHCR, Humanitarian Assistance and the Development Process.”?The International Migration Review, 35 (1): 168–191.?JSTOR. stable/2676057.Darusman, Marzuki. 2018. “Myanmar: UN Fact-Finding Mission Releases Its Full Account of Massive Violations by Military in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States.” OHCHR, September 18, 2018, EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23575.Dhaka Tribune. 2019. “Rohingya Crisis: Draft of 2020 Joint Response Plan Seeking $877m Prepared.” Dhaka Tribune. Dec. 5, 2019. bangladesh/rohingya-crisis/2019/12/06/rohingya-crisis-draft-of-2020-joint-response-plan-seeking-877m-prepared.Ghosh, Partha. 2016. Migrants, Refugees and the Stateless in South Asia. SAGE Publications. 2016.Ghufran, Nasreen. 2008. “Afghans in Pakistan: A ‘Protracted Refugee Situation’.”?Policy Perspectives 5 (2): 117–129.?JSTOR. stable/42909537. Accessed Feb. 4, 2020.Goodwin-Gill, Guy. 2001. “Refugees: Challenges to Protection.” The International Migration Review 35 (1): 130-142. Accessed April 5, 2020. stable/2676055.Harrell-Bond, Barbara. 1989. “Repatriation: Under What Conditions Is It the Most Desirable Solution for Refugees? An Agenda for Research.”?African Studies Review 32 (1): 41–69.?JSTOR, JSTOR, stable/524493.Hindstrom, Hanna. 2012. “The Freedom to Hate.” Foreign Policy. June 14, 2012. 2012/06/14/the-freedom-to-hate/.Human Rights Watch. 2001.?“Afghanistan: Massacres of Hazaras in Afghanistan” February 1, 2001. . Accessed Feb. 4, 2020.Human Rights Watch. 2017. “Pakistan: Mass Forced Returns of Afghan Refugees.” Human Rights Watch. Feb. 14, 2017. news/2017/02/13/pakistan-mass-forced-returns-afghan-refugees.HumanitarianResponse. 2017. “Afghanistan: 2017 Humanitarian Response Plan - Annual Review (January - December 2017).” HumanitarianResponse, en/operations/afghanistan/document/afghanistan-2017-humanitarian-response-plan-third-quarter-review.Institute for Economics and Peace. “Analysing Peace and Quantifying Its Economic Value.” Institute for Economics and Peace. .International Committee of the Red Cross. 2020. “Customary International Humanitarian Law.” January 10, 2020. Monetary Fund. 2018. “Report for Selected Countries and Subjects.” International Monetary Fund. Jenkins, J.C. and Susanne Schmeidl. 1995. “Flight from Violence: The Origins and Implications of the World Refugee Crisis.”?Sociological Focus?28 (1): 63. , Amina. 2017. “Protracted Afghan Refugee Situation: Policy Options for Pakistan.”?Strategic Studies 37 (1). ProQuest. , Jaakko. 2014. “What’s So Special About Persecution?” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (1): 129-140. Accessed April 5, 2020. stable/24478705.Loescher, Gil, and James Milner. 2003. “The Missing Link: The Need for Comprehensive Engagement in Regions of Refugee Origin.” International Affairs 79 (3): 595-617. Accessed April 5, 2020. stable/3569365.Loescher, Gil. 1994. “The International Refugee Regime: Stretched to the Limit?” Journal of International Affairs 47 (2): 351-377. JSTOR. Accessed April 5, 2020. stable/24357286.Loescher, Gil. 2001. “The UNHCR and World Politics: State Interests vs. Institutional Autonomy.” The International Migration Review 35 (1): 33–56. JSTOR. stable/2676050.Majalla. 2001. “The Myanmar Military's Legacy of Impunity.” Majalla. July 19, 2011. eng.2017/12/article55255071/the-myanmar-militarys-legacy-of-impunity.Mcleod, Saul. 2019. “Qualitative vs Quantitative Research” Simply Psychology. Accessed April 17, 2020. , Poppy. 2020. “Myanmar Leader Suu Kyi Says Rohingya ‘Exaggerated’ Abuses - FT.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters. January 23, 2020. article/us-myanmar-rohingya-idUSKBN1ZM154.Miller, Sarah Deardorff. 2019. “Phasing Down and Out: The Murky Art of Leaving Protracted Refugee Crises.” Refugees, News Deeply. March 22, 2019. refugees/community/2019/03/21/phasing-down-and-out-the-murky-art-of-leaving-protracted-refugee-crises.Moe, Wai. 2017. “Naypyidaw Orders New ‘Four Cuts’ Campaign.” Irrawady. www2.article.php?art_id=20880.Moore, Will H. and Stephen M. Shellman. 2006. “Refugee Or Internally Displaced Person?: To Where should One Flee?”?Comparative Political Studies?39 (5): 599-622. doi:. Nair, Ravi. 1997. “Refugee Protection in South Asia.” Journal of International Affairs 51 (1): 201-220. Accessed April 5, 2020. stable/24357479.Nichols, Michelle. 2015. “U.N. Appeals for Help for Boko Haram Displaced; Nigeria a No-Show.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters. September 25, 2015. article/us-un-assembly-boko-haram-aid/u-n-appeals-for-help-for-boko-haram-displaced-nigeria-a-no-show-idUSKCN0RP2IF20150925.Ogata, Sadako. 1999. “The Limits of UNHCR’s Intervention in Post–Cold War Conflicts: An Analysis of the Kosovo Crisis.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs 6 (1): 201-213. Accessed April 5, 2020. stable/24590232.OHCHR. “Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar.” OHCHR. EN/HRBodies/HRC/MyanmarFFM/Pages/Index.aspx.Pitterman, Shelly. 1984. “A Comparative Survey of Two Decades of International Assistance to Refugees in Africa.”?Africa Today?31 (1): 25-54. Accessed April 5, 2020. stable/4186208.Radio Liberty. 2018. “UN: Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan Hit Record High.” Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, July 17, 2018. a/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-record-high/29365804.html.Radio Pakistan. 2020. “UNHCR Reiterates Support to Pakistan for Afghan Refugees' Voluntary Repatriation.” Radio Pakistan. .pk/05-03-2020/unhcr-resumes-voluntary-repatriation-of-afghan-refugees.ReliefWeb. “Afghanistan Multi-Year Protection and Solutions Strategy (2019-2021) - Afghanistan.” ReliefWeb. reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/afghanistan-multi-year-protection-and-solutions-strategy-2019-2021.ReliefWeb. “Afghanistan: Humanitarian Response Plan (January 2018 - December 2021) [EN/Dari/PS] - Afghanistan.” ReliefWeb, reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/afghanistan-humanitarian-response-plan-january-2018-december-2021-endarips.ReliefWeb. “Conclusions of the 30th Tripartite Commissions Meeting between the Government of the Islamic Republics of Afghanistan and Pakistan and UNHCR - Pakistan.” ReliefWeb, reliefweb.int/report/pakistan/conclusions-30th-tripartite-commissions-meeting-between-government-islamic-republics.ReliefWeb. 2018. “JRP for Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis: March - December 2018 - Bangladesh.” ReliefWeb. reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/jrp-rohingya-humanitarian-crisis-march-december-2018-0.Rizvi, Hasan-Askari. 1984. “Afghan Refugees in Pakistan: Influx, Humanitarian Assistance and Implications.”?Pakistan Horizon 37 (1): 40–61.?JSTOR. Accessed 4 Feb. 2020. stable/41403907. Roper, Steven D., and Lilian A. Barria. 2010. “Burden Sharing in the Funding of the UNHCR: Refugee Protection as an Impure Public Good.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 54 (4): 616-637. Accessed April 5, 2020. stable/20773710.Rysaback-Smith, Heather. 2016. “History and Principles of Humanitarian Action.” Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, Elsevier. March 9, 2016. ncbi.nlm.pmc/articles/PMC4910138/.Safri, Maliha. 2011. “The Transformation of the Afghan Refugee: 1979-2009.”?Middle East Journal, 65 (4): 587–601.?JSTOR. Accessed Feb. 4, 2020. stable/41342742. Schulz, John.?2012.?“Analysing your interviews” Research Methods Series. Siddiqui, Zuha. 2019. “For Afghan Refugees, Pakistan Is a Nightmare-but Also Home.” Foreign Policy. May 9, 2019, 2019/05/09/for-afghan-refugees-pakistan-is-a-nightmare-but-also-home/.Stein, Barry N. 1986a. “Durable Solutions for Developing Country Refugees.” The International Migration Review 20 (2): 264–282. JSTOR. stable/2546035.Stein, Barry N. 1986b. “The Experience of Being a Refugee: Insights from the Research Literature.” In Refugee Resettlement Countries, edited by Williams, C. and J. Westermeyer, 5. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing.Suhrke, Astri, and Kathleen Newland. 2001. “UNHCR: Uphill into the Future.”?The International Migration Review 35 (1): 284–302.?JSTOR. stable/2676062.Sultana, Razia. 2011. “Pakistan-Afghan Economic Relations: Issues and Prospects.”?Pakistan Horizon 64 (1): 21–37.?Accessed 4 Feb. 4, 2020. stable/24711140.Thompson, Larry Clinton.?2010. Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, 1975-1982. Jefferson, NC: MacFarland Publishing Company.Tober, Diane. 2007. “Introduction: Afghan Refugees and Returnees.”?Iranian Studies 40 (2): 133–135.?JSTOR. stable/4311886. Accessed 4 Feb. 2020.UNAMA. “Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.” United Nations. . “100 Days of Horror and Hope: A Timeline of the Rohingya Crisis.” UNHCR. news/stories/2017/12/5a1c313a4/100-days-horror-hope-timeline-rohingya-crisis.html.UNHCR. “Afghan Refugees Share Hopes and Fears with UN Refugee and Relief Chiefs.” UNHCR. Accessed April 16, 2020. . “Emergency Handbook.” Accessed March 27, 2019. . 2020. “International Conference on 40 Years of Hosting Afghan Refugees in Pakistan: A New Partnership for Solidarity.” UNHCR. admin/hcspeeches/5e4a29ed0/international-conference-40-years-hosting-afghan-refugees-pakistan-new.html.UNHCR. “Operational Portal.” Document - Solutions Strategy for Afghan Refugees, to Support Voluntary Repatriation, Sustainable Integration and Assistance to Host Countries, data2.en/documents/details/61024.UNHCR. “Stories.” UNHCR. en-us/search?page=search&skip=54&docid=49c3646c24e&scid=567aa8034or49aea93a4c&comid=56ec23bb4&querysi=rohingya&searchin=title&sort=date.UNHCR. “The 1951 Refugee Convention.” UNHCR. 1951-refugee-convention.html.UNHCR. 2019. “UNHCR Global Report 2018.” UNHCR. . “UNHCR Global Trends - Forced Displacement in 2017.” UNHCR Global Trends. . “UNHCR's Supplementary Appeal - Myanmar Refugee Emergency Response in Bangladesh.” Operational Portal. . “Use of Unearmarked Funding in 2017.” UNHCR Global Focus | Financials. . “What We Do.” UNHCR. en-us/what-we-do.html.UNHCR. 2020. “World Must Act and Deliver for Afghan Refugees, Says UN Chief.” UNHCR. news/stories/2020/2/5e4b57e14/world-must-act-deliver-afghan-refugees-says-un-chief.html.UNHCR. “Yemen Refugee Crisis: Aid, Statistics and News.” How to Help Refugees - Aid, Relief and Donations. . 2018. “UNHCR Global Trends - Forced Displacement in 2017.”?UNHCR Global Trends - Forced Displacement in 2017. globaltrends2017/.United Nations. “Rohingya Refugee Crisis Explained.” How to Help Refugees - Aid, Relief and Donations. news/rohingya-refugee-crisis-explained/#RohingyainBangladesh.United Nations. “Rohingya Refugee Crisis Timeline.” How to Help Refugees - Aid, Relief and Donations. news/rohingya-refugee-crisis-timeline/.United Nations. “UNHCR's Regional Plan – Building Resilience and Solutions for Afghan Refugees in South-West Asia – 1 July 2016 – 31 December 2017 (June 2016).” UNHCR. Accessed April 16, 2020. Nations. “United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect.” United Nations. Nations. 2018. “UN Agencies and Myanmar Ink Agreement, Setting Stage for Rohingya Return.” 2018. UN News. June 10, 2018. for UNHCR. “Syrian Refugee Crisis: Aid, Statistics and News.” How to Help Refugees - Aid, Relief and Donations. Accessed Feb. 8, 2019. , Raimo. 2001. “Funding Dilemmas in Refugee Assistance: Political Interests and Institutional Reforms in UNHCR.” The International Migration Review 35 (1): 143–167. JSTOR. stable/2676056.Wani, M. Afzal. 1999. “Refugee Crisis and the Universal Human Rights Instruments: An Overview of Fifty Years Developments.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 41 (2): 201-21. Accessed April 5, 2020. stable/43951714.Weiner, Myron. 1992. “Security, Stability, and International Migration.” International Security 17 (3): 91-126. Accessed April 5, 2020. doi:10.2307/2539131.Weiner, Myron. 1996. “Bad Neighbors, Bad Neighborhoods: An Inquiry into the Causes of Refugee Flows.” International Security 21 (1): 5-42. Accessed April 5, 2020. doi:10.2307/2539107.Werkner, Ines-Jacqueline. 2010. “The Institutional Interweaving of Internal and External Security in Europe.” Sicherheit Und Frieden (S F) / Security and Peace 28 (2): 67-73. Accessed April 5, 2020. stable/24232737.Whitaker, Beth Elise. 2008. “Funding the International Refugee Regime: Implications for Protection.” Global Governance 14 (2): 241-58. Accessed April 5, 2020. stable/27800704.White, Maureen. 2017. “Forced Migration is our Future.”?The SAIS Review of International Affairs?37 (2) (Summer): 75. doi:. , Tracy. 2019. “Guerrillas' Return to Arms in Colombia Complicates U.S. Policy in Latin America.” Los Angeles Times. Sept. 5, 2019. world-nation/story/2019-09-04/guerrillas-return-to-arms-in-colombia-complicates-u-s-policy-in-latin-america.Zeager, Lester A., and Johnathan B. Bascom. 1996. “Strategic Behavior in Refugee Repatriation: A Game-Theoretic Analysis.”?The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40 (3) 460–485.?JSTOR. stable/174315.Zieck, Marjoleine. 2015. “Guidelines on International Protection No. 11: Prima Facie Recognition of Refugee Status (UNHCR).” International Legal Materials 54 (6): 1115-1129. Accessed April 5, 2020. doi:10.5305/intelegamate.54.6.1115.Zolberg, Aristide R., Suhrke Astri, Aguayo Sergio. 1989. Escape from Violence: Conflict and the Refugee Crisis in the Developing World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.AppendixIntervieweeInterviewee’s PositionDate of InterviewLocation of InterviewCommunication MethodJacob KurtzerCSIS Deputy Director and Senior Fellow—Humanitarian AgendaDec. 4th, 2019Washington DCIn personRudabeh ShahidAtlantic Council—Nonresident Senior FellowDec. 7th, 2019Washington DCSkype Michael KugelmanWilson Center—Deputy Director of Asia Program, Senior Associate for South AsiaDec. 11th, 2019Washington DCIn personFormer IOM WorkerPrevious Head of IOM Community Stabilization UnitDec. 14th, 2019Washington DCPhoneU.S. State Department OfficialManager and Program AnalystDec. 28th, 2019N/APhoneOCHA ConsultantHumanitarian Affairs ConsultantJan. 6th, 2020Geneva, SwitzerlandIn personUNHCR Legal ConsultantAssociate Legal OfficerJan. 6th, 2020Geneva, SwitzerlandIn personIndependent Refugee ConsultantIndependent Senior Consultant; former UNHCR Country Director for AfghanistanJan. 6th, 2020Geneva, SwitzerlandIn personUNHCR ConsultantUNHCR Consultant—Emergency ServicesJan. 6th, 2020Geneva, SwitzerlandIn personMamadou Dian-BaldeUNHCR Deputy Director, Division of Resilience and SolutionsJan. 7th, 2020UNHCR Headquarters; Geneva, SwitzerlandIn personJason AplonIOM Transition and Recovery Division, Department of Operations and Emergencies Post Conflict/DDR Advisor Jan. 7th, 2020IOM Headquarters; Geneva, SwitzerlandIn personSam GrundyIOM Program Advisor, Transition and Recovery Division Jan. 7th, 2020IOM Headquarters; Geneva, SwitzerlandIn personIndependent Refugee ConsultantIndependent Humanitarian ConsultantJan. 8th, 2020Geneva, SwitzerlandIn personAthar Sultan-KhanUNHCR Special Advisor to the UN High Commissioner for RefugeesJan. 8th, 2020Geneva School of Diplomacy & International Relations;Geneva, SwitzerlandIn personDaniela Raiman UNHCR Senior Policy Officer and Global CCCM Cluster CoordinatorJan. 9th, 2020UNHCR Headquarters; Geneva, SwitzerlandIn personJerome ElieInternational Council of Voluntary Agencies Senior Policy Officer for Forced DisplacementJan. 9th, 2020Geneva, SwitzerlandIn personPersecution-Source Theory Scale ValuesNumerical Values for Scales (Figure 1)IntervieweeRohingya CrisisAfghan CrisisJacob KurtzerHumanitarian=2Humanitarian=1.5Repatriation=1Repatriation=1.5Rudabeh ShahidHumanitarian=2.5Humanitarian=2Repatriation=0.5Repatriation=1Michael KugelmanHumanitarian=2Humanitarian=1.5Repatriation=1Repatriation=1.5Former IOM WorkerHumanitarian=2.5Humanitarian=2Repatriation=0.5Repatriation=1U.S. State Department OfficialHumanitarian=2Humanitarian=1Repatriation=1Repatriation=2OCHA ConsultantHumanitarian=2.5Humanitarian=1Repatriation=0.5Repatriation=2UNHCR ConsultantHumanitarian=2Humanitarian=1Repatriation=1Repatriation=2Independent Refugee ConsultantHumanitarian=2Humanitarian=1Repatriation=1Repatriation=2UNHCR ConsultantHumanitarian=2Humanitarian=1Repatriation=1Repatriation=2Mamadou Dian-BaldeHumanitarian=2.5Humanitarian=1.5Repatriation=0.5Repatriation=1.5Jason AplonHumanitarian=2.75Humanitarian=1.5Repatriation=0.25Repatriation=1.5Sam GrundyHumanitarian=2.75Humanitarian=1.5Repatriation=0.25Repatriation=1.5Independent Refugee ConsultantHumanitarian=2Humanitarian=1Repatriation=1Repatriation=2Athar Sultan-KhanHumanitarian=2.5Humanitarian=1.25Repatriation=0.5Repatriation=0.75Daniela RaimanHumanitarian=2Humanitarian=1.5Repatriation=1Repatriation=1.5Jerome ElieHumanitarian=2.75Humanitarian=1.25Repatriation=0.25Repatriation=1.75Average:Humanitarian Avg.=2.3Humanitarian Avg.=1.34Repatriation Avg.=0.7Repatriation Avg.=1.59Sample Questions AskedFor the UNHCR: What is your understanding of how the UNHCR determines what strategies to use to alleviate a large refugee crisis? Are some refugee crises given more attention than others? If so, why? When (in the duration of a refugee crisis) does the UNHCR begin to use repatriation as its main strategy if it is used at all? Do you think the type of persecution that is experienced by refugees influences the UNHCR’s responses in helping them? For example, if a state engages in genocide against people residing in its borders would the UNHCR react differently than if refugees were fleeing persecution from a civil war? How does the UNHCR handle crises where the state is persecuting its people via genocide or ethnic cleansing (ex. Myanmar)? Is there a pattern? How does the UNHCR handle crises where terrorist groups or outside forces are persecuting people? Is there a pattern? How does the UNHCR determine when it is safe for refugees to return to their countries of origin? Describe the UNHCR’s work with Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. How influential are the UNHCR’s largest donors in determining what happens on the ground on a 1-10 scale (with 1 being not influential at all and 10 being making key decisions for the UNHCR)? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download