SCHNECHTADY, New York — It is no secret that life in a refugee camp is far from easy and often marred by insecurity, lack of adequate resources and limited opportunities for refugees to forge a livelihood. Comparing and contrasting two refugee camps from different parts of the world helps bring clarity to the common issues, challenges as well as the good that can be found across the world. Stephanie Sobek, a Harvard M.A. in Middle Eastern studies and Thomas R. Pickering Fellow recently spent time in both the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan and the Mae La Oon, Tham Hin and Mae Ra La Luang refugee camps in Thailand and shared her experiences and perspective on both.
Speaking about time spent in the camps Sobek said, “I think people are fairly similar in that they don’t want to be in the camps. They would much rather be home or in another country, but they are thankful to have a safe place to stay.”
In the first part of a two-part series, the main differences between the camps will be laid out, providing a unique perspective on the situation of refugees and the way camps are run in two very different situations.
Differences: Refugee Camps in Thailand and Jordan
1. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees does not run all camps
UNHCR is the main actor running the camps and registering all refugees entering camps in Jordan. UNCHR oversees the distribution of aid, even if it comes from another agency, making sure all areas are accounted for including: food, wash, shelter, and protection.
In Thailand, the UNHCR was not the first responder to the Burmese refugee crisis. Therefore, while they do provide significant assistance, other NGOs, namely The Border Consortium, take the lead in overseeing the camps.
2. Camp organization varies
The Zaatari camp in Jordan first opened on July 28, 2012 and therefore is still relatively new when compared to camps in Thailand. Most of the Syrian refugees live in UNHCR tents, although larger families have been moved into trailers. Toilet facilities are all shared. While general organization in the Zaatari camp is impressive, it is not nearly as structured or developed as the Thai refugee camps, which have been around since the 1980s and 1990s.
Refugees in Thailand live in bamboo houses, with individual latrines. They are simple, but a step more permanent than the housing found in Jordan. In these camps, recreational and civil society type groups have emerged over time, like the Karen Women’s Organization in the Mae La Oon and Mae Ra Ma camps. The KWO takes responsibility for women’s protection initiatives in the camps including running day care centers and assisting with schools.
3. Education
Refugees in the Zaatari camp are on average more educated than refugees in Thailand. Many of the Syrian refugees came from villages and cities where they had a higher standard of living and more opportunity, which the conflict only recently interrupted. In Thailand, the prolonged nature of the conflict means that traditional education was interrupted for those who fled their villages at young ages many years ago. Since then, they have had limited chances for continuing their education and therefore they often do not have the same level of skills that can be found in Jordan.
4. Technology
One thing that stood out to Sobek in the Zaatari camp was how technologically savvy everyone was. “They are all so plugged-in” she stated, “everywhere you looked there were cell phones, people with satellite dishes, TV’s and iPods.”
In Thailand, however, the story was a bit different. There is limited electricity and Internet, with the only reliable place for those at the camp command center and site hospitals. Fewer refugees had cell phones than in Jordan due to the remoteness of their camp locations and the lack of secure phone coverage.
‘Refugee Camps in Thailand and Jordan, Part II’ will evaluate more similarities and differences between the two camps.
– Andrea Blinkhorn
Sources: UNHCR, New York Times, Harvard, LinkedIn, The Border Consortium
Photo: Issuu