5.02.still no durable solution for hosting refugees in tha song yang district

8/14/2019 5.02.Still no durable solution for hosting refugees in Tha Song Yang District

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/502still-no-durable-solution-for-hosting-refugees-in-tha-song-yang-district 1/11

News Bulletin

February 5, 2010 / KHRG #2010-B4

Refoulement Deferred: Still no durable solution for hostingrefugees in Tha Song Yang District

The Thai military appears to have temporarily scaled down plans to repatriate thirty households from oneof three sites for refugees in Thailand’s Tha Song Yang District, Tak Province after being notified that they did not wish to return to Burma. Three households were nevertheless returned to Burma today,

however, and Thai authorities have not indicated any willingness to allow the other 3,000 refugees toremain in Thailand beyond the immediate future. Until a durable solution is found for hosting theserefugees, it is highly likely that Thai authorities will again attempt to forcibly repatriate them. At this juncture, return should not be considered to be voluntary or spontaneous. The three families that werereturned today, and any others repatriated to Burma, potentially face significant threats to their humanrights and security. This bulletin details events between February 2nd and February 5th 2010. Appendix 1 then provides full transcripts of four interviews with refugees describing treatment by Thai soldiers. Appendix 2 then summarises significant threats to human rights and security that refugees could faceshould they be forced to return to Pa’an District.

On February 2nd, Karen organisations and humanitarian workers began reporting that onFebruary 5th Thai military authorities with control of three sites for refugees in Thailand’s Tak

province planned to repatriate 30 families that had “volunteered” to return to Burma. This wasconfirmed by refugees, who told KHRG that on February 1st Thai soldiers had begun harassingand threatening them up to three times a day, pressuring them to leave. Based upon thesereports, KHRG and other organisations expressed concern that the initial group of 30 familiesrepresented the first group of a much larger repatriation exercise, which refugees said would be

complete by February 15th. According to feeding figures from the Thai-Burma Border Consortium (TBBC), 3,019 refugees reside at three sites in Tak’s Tha Song Yang Disrict: NohBoe, Oo Thu Hta and Mae Salit. These are Karen names for sites commonly referred to by the

names Nong Bua, Mae Oo Hsu and Mae Salit, respectively.1

By February 3rd, media had picked up the story, eventually quoting Thai Army Colonel Noppadol

Watcharajitbaworn as confirming that 30 families would be sent back, while at the same time

1KHRG has previously reported the number of refugees in Tha Song Yang at more than 4,000. This figure is based

upon research done by KHRG during September 2009, which calculated the total number of refugees to have fled to

Thailand from Pa’an District to be 4,862. See, “Abuse in Pa'an District, Insecurity in Thailand: The dilemma for

new refugees in Tha Song Yang,” KHRG, September 2009. KHRG is also concerned by some assertions that of the

3,019 people officially in the sites, only approximately 1,000 of them should be considered “refugees,” while the

remaining 2,000 are opportunists from Thailand and elsewhere. This directly contradicts interviews conducted by

KHRG, in which villagers from an area much greater than just the immediate vicinity around Ler Per Her, in both

Dta Greh and Lu Pleh townships, have described legitimate human rights and security reasons for fleeing toThailand. It is also worth noting that, regardless of the reasons for fleeing to Thailand, all 3,019 people at the sites

in Tha Song Yang will be endangered if they return to Pa’an District.



2

telling media that, “There is no forced repatriation as it's not our policy… The commander of Thailand's Third Army has given assurances that these refugees are volunteering. We will not force them back if they don't volunteer to go.”2

On the same day Col. Noppadol assured international media that any repatriation would bevoluntary, Thai soldiers at the refugees sites in Tha Song Yang District continued their third dayof harassment. Refugees interviewed by KHRG described soldiers rounding them up andforcing them to stand in the sun while they re-counted everyone in the camp. “They cooked usin the sun,” Naw T--- told KHRG. “They checked each person and each group for an hour [each] .” At the time, a humanitarian worker tasked with providing support for refugees in ThaSong Yang told KHRG this potentially represented at least marginal progress for the short term;

following the re-registration, Thai authorities granted aid workers official permission to feedslightly more people. Refugees at the sites, however, had a different take on the re-registration:

“On February 3rd 2010 Thai soldiers… checked household registrations and the number of people for providing food. We had to stay under the sun till the evening. They said, ‘It will bethe last time for you getting food from us. You have to return to your village, and we will never

provide you rations again.’”

Karen organisations3, Burmese exile media,4 overseas advocacy groups5 and lawmakers fromthe United States6, meanwhile, insisted that the 30 families selected for repatriation, all from the

Noe Boh site, would be doing so involuntarily and would not be returning to an area where theywould be safe. The Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), for instance, quoted one member of thegroup of 30 families as saying, “Thirty families including mine are to go back on the 5[ th of]

February. By 15 February, all of us will be gone from this camp… This is not voluntary; we aregiven no choice but to leave.”7 The Karen Women’s Organisation (KWO), meanwhile, issued an

open letter to the Thai government, signed by 75 Burmese and Thai civil society groups,requesting that the Thai government halt the repatriation process.8 According to a humanitarian

aid worker tasked with providing support to the refugees, on February 4th the United NationsRefugee Agency (UNHCR) interviewed 22 of the 30 families scheduled to be repatriated.

According to this aid worker, not a single one of the 22 families interviewed by UNHCR saidthey wished to return.

By the evening of February 5th, however, aid workers and observers at the Noe Boh sitereported that only three families were confirmed to have left the site, first taken by trucks to theMoei River, which forms the border between Thailand and Burma, and then taken across the

river by boat to the Ler Per Her site for internally displaced persons (IDPs). Ler Per Her is theIDP site from which approximately one-third of the refugees in Tha Song Yang fled following

attacks by a joint force of State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and Democratic KarenBuddhist Army (DKBA) soldiers on nearby camps belonging to the Karen National LiberationArmy (KNLA) 7th Brigade. These sources said that Thai military authorities, including Col.Noppadol, interacted with them in a friendly manner and were in plain clothes. Col. Noppadol

2“Thai plan to return Karen to Myanmar draws protest,” AP , February 4

th2010.

3“KNU position on Refugees,” Karen National Union, February 4

th2010.

4“Landmines and food crisis await Karen refugees,” Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), February 3

rd2010;

“Thailand Must Not Repatriate Karen Refugees,” The Irrawaddy, February 4th

2010.5

“Thailand Forced Deportation of Karen Refugees to Burma Starts 7am, Friday 5th February,” Burma Campaign

UK, February 4th

2010.6

“US lawmakers appeal to Thailand on ethnic Karen villagers,” Channel News Asia, February 5th

2010.7 DVB, February 3

rd2010.

8 AP , February 4

th2010.



3

also assured aid workers and observers that no forced repatriation would occur, stating that anyfuture repatriation would be voluntary.9

KHRG welcomes the decision by Thai authorities not to repatriate the 30 families originally

scheduled to return today and not to begin to repatriate the whole group of 3,000 refugees.However, four important points need to be made:

1. It is highly likely that repatriation occurring in the near future will not be voluntary or spontaneous, regardless of whether the Thai military asserts otherwise. Similarly, the threefamilies that left Noe Boh for Ler Per Her today likely did so involuntarily. Refugees interviewedby KHRG at the sites in Tha Song Yang have described harassment and threats by Thai

soldiers pressuring them to return. Refugees are understandably worried about their future, andare making decisions about whether to stay or go based upon their experiences with the Thai

military. In these circumstances, it is not reasonable to conclude that a refugee providing anaffirmative answer to a Thai soldier inquiring if he or she would like to leave does not do sounder duress. While it is not clear if threats and harassment documented by KHRG willcontinue, this pressure will certainly continue to inform refugees’ decision-making for the

foreseeable future. Indeed, one refugee whose full interview with KHRG is included in Appendix1 below said on February 5th: “Now Thai soldiers have ordered me to return to my village…They treat us roughly and don’t allow us to go out from the camp. I’m not happy to stay here

because of their actions.” Refugees have clearly expressed to KHRG that they do not currentlywish to return to Pa’an District, or only want to return if their concerns regarding human rightsand security are first addressed. To provide further context for this statement, new interviews

conducted today with refugees in Tha Song Yang are included below as Appendix 1.10

2. At least 3,000 refugees are still at three temporary sites in Tha Song Yang District. Theyremain in a tenuous position: Thai authorities did not repatriate them today, but they also did not

express any willingness for these refugees to remain in Thailand. Until a more durablesolution is found for this group of refugees, it remains highly likely that Thai authorities

will again attempt to repatriate them, perhaps in the near future. Observers, particularly UNAgencies, international humanitarian agencies and interested foreign governments shouldcontinue to actively monitor the situation, and communicate to the Thai government that they do

not think safe return is currently possible, and will not view repatriation to be voluntary at thistime.

3. Refugees should be included in any discussions regarding repatriation or relocation to places outside the three current sites in Tha Song Yang District. Failure to include refugees

in discussions of repatriation not only risks serious violations of their human rights upon return,but also future displacement. This argument is supported by testimony from the refugeesthemselves:11 when asked what they will do if they are forced to leave right now, almost every

9This contradicts an article released by the Bangkok Post at 2pm on February 5

th, which attributed statements to Col.

Noppadol indicating that repatriation would go ahead as planned, in spite of protest from rights groups. Because

Col. Noppadol was at the Noe Boh site and speaking with observers during the day on February 5th

, it is likely that

this Bangkok Post article was based upon information from the day prior. See, “Karens to be repatriated as

planned,” Bangkok Post , February 5th

2010.10

Earlier interviews with refugees at the sites in Tha Song Yang can be read in “Threatening refoulement:

harassment and pressure on refugees in Tha Song Yang District,” KHRG, February 5th

2010 and “Unsafe return:

Threats to human rights and security for refugees leaving Tha Song Yang District,” KHRG, January 27th

2010.11

This argument is also supported by Donald Steinberg of the International Crisis Group, who argued in 2007: “the

premature return of displaced persons to their homes, in the absence of security and sustainability, can lead quicklyto new displacement, which simply adds new instability to the process.” See, “A Seat at the Table: The Role of

Displaced Persons in Peace Talks and Peacebuilding,” ICG Speeches, December 2007.



4

single refugee interviewed by KHRG has said that they will attempt to hide in Thailand, or returnto Burma only long enough to find a new place to live outside their original homes. 12 International actors, particularly those currently involved in negotiations with the Thai military,should actively and sincerely seek to involve refugees in any future discussions of repatriation

or relocation.13 Refugees in Tha Song Yang continue to monitor their own human rights andsecurity situations, and they are best able to assess the feasibility and safety of potentialrepatriation or relocation. 14 No refugees should be repatriated against their will, andinternational actors should carefully monitor any repatriation to ensure that it is genuinelyvoluntary.

4. Safe return to Pa’an District does not currently appear possible. Statements by the

Thai military, media and even advocacy groups indicating that the refugees fled primarilybecause of active conflict, or would only be in danger in the future because of renewed conflict,

are potentially misleading. Refugees that fled Dta Greh and Lu Pleh townships in June did sobecause of attacks by the SPDC and DKBA on KNLA 7 th Brigade camps near Ler Per Her.However, very few refugees interviewed by KHRG have said they fled only because they fearedbecoming ‘collateral damage,’ incidental casualties to active conflict between armed groups

exchanging fire. Rather, refugees have said that they fled to avoid human rights abuses relatedto an ongoing conflict, including conscription of soldiers and the use of forced labour to buildmilitary camps, forced porters to carry military supplies, and human minesweepers. Villagers

came from a much wider area than the immediate vicinity of the Ler Per Her IDP site, and thethreats that initially caused them to flee remain present. Returning refugees will also remainvulnerable to landmines placed by the SPDC, DKBA and KNLA, and will struggle to meet their

basic livelihood needs. For a previously published summary of human rights and securitythreats faced by returning refugees, see Appendix 2. As with negotiations regarding potential

repatriation and relocation, refugees should be consulted directly when assessments are maderegarding safe return: refugees themselves are the best placed to make decisions about human

rights and security in Pa’an District, and no refugees should be repatriated against their will.

Appendix 1: Interviews with refugees in Tha Song Yang

Interview | Maung T--- (Male, 40), M--- village, Dta Greh Township (Tha Song Yang new

arrival site, February 5th 2010)

1. Do you feel that you can stay here or do you have to leave?

12See Appendix 1 in this report, as well as, “Threatening refoulement: harassment and pressure on refugees in Tha

Song Yang District,” KHRG, February 5th

2010.13

This recommendation is based upon KHRG’s 2008 report Village Agency: Rural rights and resistance in a

militarized Karen State as well as Donald Steinberg of the International Crisis Group, who wrote in 2008: “IDPs

themselves are best positioned to know when it is wise and safe to return. They know what they need in terms of

assistance packages, training opportunities, transport and rebuilding of basic social services… As international

mediators press for IDP engagement, they must… reiterate that IDPs are not mere victims of conflict but an essential

piece of the puzzle in making and sustaining peace. Peace processes must benefit from their knowledge of local

conditions, their power to generate civil society support for agreements, their willingness to return and rebuild stable

societies, and their commitment to the future of their countries.” See, “A seat at the table for IDPs,” Forced

Migration Review, Issue 30, April 2008.14For more on the ways refugees in Tha Song Yang are monitoring the situation, see “Unsafe return: Threats to

human rights and security for refugees leaving Tha Song Yang District,” KHRG, January 27th

2010.



5

Now Thai soldiers have ordered me to return to my village. They’ve come to stay around our refugee camp. They treat us roughly and don’t allow us to go out from the camp. I’m not happyto stay here because of their actions.

2. If you feel that you have to leave, where do you have to go? Why do you think this?

If I have to return to my village, I won’t have any food to eat and also won’t have any security.And then it’s not easy to find food of areas with landmines. And now, landmines have been laidin enemy areas including our village. I don’t know who planted the landmines. Therefore, I darenot return to my village.

3. What have the Thai soldiers said to you about going back? Can you tell me exactlywhat they said, when and who said it?

Since February 1st 2010 Thai military soldiers have come to stay around our camp. They don’tallow us to go out. We should’ve got rations at the end of January but they did not provide us[with rations]. Usually, TBBC provides us rations at the end of the month. This month we got

our rations on February 4

th

2010 because of the Thai soldiers disturbing us. They told us wehave to obey them. If we do as we want they will send us back to our village. But now theyhaven’t sent us to our village yet. We don’t know when they will send us back to our village.



6

4. Do you want to go back?

I don’t really want to go back. If the Thai soldiers send me to my village, I will return, but I’vedecided that I will find another place to live.

Interview | Saw T--- (male, 36), M--- village, Dta Greh Township (Tha Song Yang newarrival site, February 5th 2010)


Currently, Thai Soldiers have come to stay around us. We can’t go out from the camp. Theydon’t allow us to go out and travel to other places. I have to deal with this situation, so I’m nothappy to stay here. But other people haven’t moved to another place yet so I have to try to stayhere. Even though I don’t want to stay here, I can’t do anything on my own.


Recently, Thai soldiers said that if we return to our village, TBBC will provide us food for sixmonths. But now we don’t hear the Thai soldiers saying anything [about TBBC support] to us.

We can’t return without getting food. There is no food or security in our village. We’re alsoafraid of landmines. It won’t be easy for us to find food if we are returned [to our villages].


On February 3rd 2010 Thai soldiers came to stay in our refugee camp. And around 10 o’clock

in the morning they gathered people in the camp. Men, women and children had to stay under

the sun. They checked household registrations and the number of people for providing food.We had to stay under the sun till the evening. They said, “It will be the last time for you gettingfood from us. You have to return to your village, and we will never provide you rations again.”


We’ve decided that we won’t return. If we can’t go out from the camp secretly, we’ll have tofollow other people to the other side of the river. If I arrive in my village, I will stay in my villagefor a few days. After that I’ll have to find a place to live and do new work.

Interview | Naw T--- (female, 50), W--- village, --- Township (Tha Song Yang new arrival

site, February 5th 2010)


I don’t want to go back now but the Thai soldiers don’t allow me to stay here. I don’t know what

I should do. I am hopeless. It depends on other whether they [the other refugees] go or stay.We will follow them.



7


How can I dare to go back to my village? Landmines often explode [there]. Sometimes, thevillagers are injured by landmines. Therefore, we have just heard this news [that the refugees

will be returned] and we are already afraid. There is no security and no food for us.


On February 3rd 2010, Thai soldiers called us to meet with them. They cooked us [made usstand] in the sun. They checked each person and each group for an hour. It took a long time.

It didn’t finish until 2pm.


I don’t want to go back to the village I abandoned. However, during the rainy season if I have tolive in a refugee camp I will cultivate the fields in my village. If we can raise some crops, it will

be good to go back and live in my village, in the summer. But if I go back now, I won’t have anyfood to eat.

Interview | Naw T--- (female, 55), K---, --- Township (Tha Song Yang new arrival site,February 5th 2010)


I now suffer the same as when I lived in my village, which was why I came to a refugee camp.

Even though it’s not a civil war, it’s as rough as a civil war. When we come and live in another

country, they can do anything to us. But if they had sympathy, they wouldn’t treat us like this.


I don’t have any food in my village. We have no land. We have no security. If I don’t go back, itwill be good for me.


Thai soldiers have come to stay around our camp and tell us different things every day andnight. They always pressure us to go back. But there is no exact information about sending us

back yet. We just have to wait and listen for the news.


For me, I don’t want to go back any more. If I go back, how can I work? I don’t dare travel.There is no field to cultivate. It’ll be very difficult for me. The work that we usually do iscultivating fields. If we are really forced to go back, I won’t go back. If they send me back to theother side of the river, I will find a way by myself and come back to stay in a Karen village in

Thailand.



8

Appendix 2: Refugees forced to leave Tha Song Yang District facesubstantial threats to their human rights and security

• Landmines laid by the DKBA, SPDC and KNLA pose a serious risk to returning

refugees. KHRG has documented five cases of villagers being killed or wounded in theLer Per Her area since June 2009, including a 13-year-old boy and a woman in her third

trimester of pregnancy. The most recent landmine injury occurred on January 18th 2010.15

• Some returning refugees face credible threats of violent reprisals as allegedsupporters of the KNLA. The DKBA has a history of violently punishing villagerssuspected of supporting the KNLA, and has explicitly warned some refugees in ThaSong Yang that they should not return to Thailand because they will be treated as if they are aligned with the KNLA. Since June, KHRG has documented the DKBA

executing one village head who it accused of cooperating with the KNLA. Given thishistory, assurances from DKBA officers that no reprisals will be carried out are notcredible or sufficient.16

• It is highly likely the villagers returning to the Ler Per Her area will be forced towork as unpaid labourers for the DKBA and SPDC. Refugees that fled in June andafterwards have repeatedly told KHRG that they fled not only because of fighting, butbecause of demands for forced labour inherent in SPDC and DKBA military operations.

These demands have continued, and KHRG continues to document the DKBA’s use of forced porters and human minesweepers, as well as labourers building and repairingmilitary camps and roads.17

• Returning refugees will face food shortages should they return. The majority of refugees in Tha Song Yang left early in the 2009 rainy season and were not able to tendto their paddy crops, which should have been harvest in October. They are primarilysubsistence farmers, and this means that they will not be able to produce another large

store of food until October 2010. Most refugees were also not able to carry largeamounts of food or other supplies during flight. Given that it has been seven monthssince they arrived in Tha Song Yang, it is not likely that food and other supplies

currently remain at their homes, should they be able to return.

• DKBA promises to remove landmines are not sufficient to reduce the threat tocivilians. The DKBA has presented no evidence indicating that it has the capabilities toremove large numbers of landmines, that removal is feasible or that it has actuallybegun. Moreover, landmines have also been laid by the SPDC and KNLA. A promisefor landmine removal from one group is not sufficient. No safe return will be possibleuntil removal of landmines laid by all three groups has been verified.

• Conflict between the DKBA and KNLA is ongoing. Apparent cordial interpersonalrelations between individual KNLA and DKBA officers should not be

misinterpreted as an indicator of rapprochement between the two groups. Manyindividual KNLA and DKBA officers have relationships, which stem from shared

15For details on these incidents, see “Unsafe return: Threats to human rights and security for refugees leaving Tha

Song Yang District,” KHRG, January 2010; “Security concerns for new refugees in Tha Song Yang: Update on

increased landmine r isks,” KHRG, September 2009.16

See, “Unsafe return: Threats to human rights and security for refugees leaving Tha Song Yang District,” KHRG,

January 2010; “Abuse in Pa'an District, Insecurity in Thailand: The dilemma for new refugees in Tha Song Yang,”

KHRG, September 2009.17

KHRG documented forced labour in the area from which refugees fled most recently in January 2010. See,“Unsafe return: Threats to human rights and security for refugees leaving Tha Song Yang District,” KHRG, January

2010.



9

operational areas, economic interests and connections formed prior to the DKBA’s splitfrom the KNLA in 1994. Elsewhere in Karen areas, armed conflict between joint SPDCand DKBA forces and the KNLA continues. While fighting in the immediate Ler Per Her area has decreased substantially since June, fighting has increased elsewhere. North

of Dta Greh Township in Papun District, for instance, the DKBA has been attempting totake control of Dweh Loh and Bu Tho townships since the end of the 2009 rainy season.Though a large-scale offensive predicted by some observers has not yet materialised,conflict continues; according to a KHRG source in the DKBA, on February 1st 2010 100soldiers from DKBA Brigade #999 left Shwe Gko Gkoh, just north of Myawaddy, toengage KNLA 5th Brigade in Papun District.

For more information on refugees in Tha Song Yang District as well as the impact of the SPDCand DKBA on villagers in Pa’an District, see the following previously published KHRG reports:

• Threatening refoulement: harassment and pressure on refugees in Tha Song Yang District

(February 2010)• Unsafe return: Threats to human rights and security for refugees leaving Tha Song Yang District (January 2010)• Security concerns for new refugees in Tha Song Yang: Update on increased landmine risks

(September 2009)• Abuse in Pa’an District, Insecurity in Thailand: The dilemma for new refugees in Tha Song Yang (August 2009)• Exploitation and recruitment under the DKBA in Pa'an District (June 2009)• Update on SPDC/DKBA attacks at Ler Per Her and new refugees in Thailand (June 2009)

• Joint SPDC/DKBA attacks, recruitment and the impact on villagers in Dooplaya and Pa’andistricts (May 2009)



10



11

5.02.still no durable solution for hosting refugees in tha song yang district

Documents