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

Download report as PDF [ 488 kb]

[ 512 kb]

The Thai military appears to have temporarily scaled down plans to repatriate thirty households from one of 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 to remain in Thailand beyond the immediate future. Until a durable solution is found for hosting these refugees, 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 were returned today, and any others repatriated to Burma, potentially face significant threats to their human rights 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 face should they be forced to return to Pa'an District.

On February 2nd, Karen organisations and humanitarian workers began reporting that on February 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 was confirmed by refugees, who told KHRG that on February 1st Thai soldiers had begun harassing and threatening them up to three times a day, pressuring them to leave. Based upon these reports, KHRG and other organisations expressed concern that the initial group of 30 families represented 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: Noh Boe, 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 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 be voluntary, Thai soldiers at the refugees sites in Tha Song Yang District continued their third day of harassment. Refugees interviewed by KHRG described soldiers rounding them up and forcing them to stand in the sun while they re-counted everyone in the camp. "They cooked us in 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 Tha Song 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 feed slightly 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 be the last time for you getting food from us. You have to return to your village, and we will never provide you rations again.'"

Karen organisations[3], Burmese exile media[4], overseas advocacy groups[5] and lawmakers from the United States responded[6], 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 they would be safe. The Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), for instance, quoted one member of the group 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 are given 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 Nations Refugee 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 said they wished to return.

By the evening of February 5th, however, aid workers and observers at the Noe Boh site reported that only three families were confirmed to have left the site, first taken by trucks to the Moei 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 the IDP 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 Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) soldiers on nearby camps belonging to the Karen National Liberation Army (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 also assured aid workers and observers that no forced repatriation would occur, stating that any future 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 three families that left Noe Boh for Ler Per Her today did likely did so involuntarily. Refugees interviewed by 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, and are 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 an affirmative answer to a Thai soldier inquiring if he or she would like to leave does not do so under duress. While it is not clear if threats and harassment documented by KHRG will continue, 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 Appendix 1 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 currently wish to return to Pa'an District, or only want to return if their concerns regarding human rights and 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. They remain 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 durable solution 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 UN Agencies, international humanitarian agencies and interested foreign governments should continue 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 this time.

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 refugees themselves[11]: when asked what they will do if they are forced to leave right now, almost every single refugee interviewed by KHRG has said that they will attempt to hide in Thailand, or return to 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 and security situations, and they are best able to assess the feasibility and safety of potential repatriation or relocation[14]. No refugees should be repatriated against their will, and international actors should carefully monitor any repatriation to ensure that it is genuinely voluntary.

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 primarily because 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 so because of attacks by the SPDC and DKBA on KNLA 7th Brigade camps near Ler Per Her. However, very few refugees interviewed by KHRG have said they fled only because they feared becoming 'collateral damage,' incidental casualties to active conflict between armed groups exchanging fire. Rather, refugees have said that they fled to avoid human rights abuses related to an ongoing conflict, including conscription of soldiers and the use of forced labour to build military 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 the threats that initially caused them to flee remain present. Returning refugees will also remain vulnerable 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 security threats faced by returning refugees, see Appendix 2. As with negotiations regarding potential repatriation and relocation, refugees should be consulted directly when assessments are made regarding 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?

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 happy to 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 laid in enemy areas including our village. I don't know who planted the landmines. Therefore, I dare not return to my village.

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

Since February 1st 2010 Thai military soldiers have come to stay around our camp. They don't allow 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 4th 2010 because of the Thai soldiers disturbing us. They told us we have to obey them. If we do as we want they will send us back to our village. But now they haven't sent us to our village yet. We don't know when they will send us back to our village.

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've decided that I will find another place to live.

Interview | Saw T--- (male, 36), 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?

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

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

Recently, Thai soldiers said that if we return to our village, TBBC will provide us food for six months. 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 also afraid of landmines. It won't be easy for us to find food if we are returned [to our villages].

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

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 getting food from us. You have to return to your village, and we will never provide you rations again."

4. Do you want to go back?

We've decided that we won't return. If we can't go out from the camp secretly, we'll have to follow other people to the other side of the river. If I arrive in my village, I will stay in my village for 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)

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

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.

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

How can I dare to go back to my village? Landmines often explode [there]. Sometimes, the villagers 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.

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

On February 3rd 2010, Thai soldiers called us to meet with them. They cooked us [made us stand] in the sun. They checked each person and each group for an hour. It took a long time. It didn't finish until 2pm.

4. Do you want to go back?

I don't want to go back to the village I abandoned. However, during the rainy season if I have to live 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 any food to eat.

Interview | Naw T--- (female, 55), K---, --- 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?

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.

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

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

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

Thai soldiers have come to stay around our camp and tell us different things every day and night. 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.

4. Do you want to go back?

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 is cultivating fields. If we are really forced to go back, I won't go back. If they send me back to the other side of the river, I will find a way by myself and come back to stay in a Karen village in Thailand.

Appendix 2: Refugees forced to leave Tha Song Yang District face substantial threats to 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 the Ler 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.

• Some returning refugees face credible threats of violent reprisals as alleged supporters of the KNLA. The DKBA has a history of violently punishing villagers suspected of supporting the KNLA, and has explicitly warned some refugees in Tha Song 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 this history, assurances from DKBA officers that no reprisals will be carried out are not credible or sufficient.

• It is highly likely the villagers returning to the Ler Per Her area will be forced to work as unpaid labourers for the DKBA and SPDC.Refugees that fled in June and afterwards have repeatedly told KHRG that they fled not only because of fighting, but because 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 repairing military camps and roads.

• Returning refugees will face food shortages. The majority of refugees in Tha Song Yang left early in the 2009 rainy season and were not able to tend to their paddy crops, which should have been harvested in October. They are primarily subsistence 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 large amounts of food or other supplies during flight. Given that it has been seven months since 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 to civilians. The DKBA has presented no evidence indicating that it has the capabilities to remove large numbers of landmines, that removal is feasible or that it has actually begun. Moreover, landmines have also been laid by the SPDC and KNLA. A promise for landmine removal from one group is not sufficient. No safe return will be possible until removal of landmines laid by all three groups has been verified.

• Conflict between the DKBA and KNLA is ongoing. Apparent cordial interpersonal relations between individual KNLA and DKBA officers should not be misinterpreted as an indicator of rapprochement between the two groups. Many individual KNLA and DKBA officers have relationships, which stem from shared operational areas, economic interests and connections formed prior to the DKBA's split from the KNLA in 1994. Elsewhere in Karen areas, armed conflict between joint SPDC and 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 to take 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 100 soldiers from DKBA Brigade #999 left Shwe Gko Gkoh, just north of Myawaddy, to engage KNLA 5th Brigade in Papun District.

Footnotes

[1]KHRG 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 to Thailand. 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]"Thai plan to return Karen to Myanmar draws protest," AP, February 4th 2010.

[3]"KNU position on Refugees," Karen National Union, February 4th 2010.

[4]"Landmines and food crisis await Karen refugees," Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), February 3rd 2010; "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 3rd 2010.

[8]AP, February 4th 2010.

[9]This contradicts an article released by the Bangkok Post at 2pm on February 5th, 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 much of 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 quickly to 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.

[12]See 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.

[14]For 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.

Related Resources