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 2

, Karen organisations and humanitarian workers began reporting that onFebruary 5

Thai military authorities with control of three sites for refugees in Thailand’s Takprovince planned to repatriate 30 families that had “volunteered” to return to Burma. This wasconfirmed by refugees, who told KHRG that on February 1

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 becomplete by February 15

. 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 thenames Nong Bua, Mae Oo Hsu and Mae Salit, respectively.

By February 3

, media had picked up the story, eventually quoting Thai Army Colonel NoppadolWatcharajitbaworn as confirming that 30 families would be sent back, while at the same time

KHRG has previously reported the number of refugees in Tha Song Yang at more than 4,000. This figure is basedupon research done by KHRG during September 2009, which calculated the total number of refugees to have fled toThailand 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 the3,019 people officially in the sites, only approximately 1,000 of them should be considered “refugees,” while theremaining 2,000 are opportunists from Thailand and elsewhere. This directly contradicts interviews conducted byKHRG, in which villagers from an area much greater than just the immediate vicinity around Ler Per Her, in bothDta 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 sitesin Tha Song Yang will be endangered if they return to Pa’an District.

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

.”

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 organisations

, Burmese exile media,

overseas advocacy groups

and lawmakers fromthe United States

, meanwhile, insisted that the 30 families selected for repatriation, all from theNoe 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[

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

.”

The Karen Women’s Organisation (KWO), meanwhile, issued anopen letter to the Thai government, signed by 75 Burmese and Thai civil society groups,requesting that the Thai government halt the repatriation process.

According to a humanitarianaid worker tasked with providing support to the refugees, on February 4

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 5

, 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 theriver 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 followingattacks 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) 7

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

“Thai plan to return Karen to Myanmar draws protest,”

, February 4

2010.

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

2010.

“Landmines and food crisis await Karen refugees,”

Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB)

, February 3

2010;“Thailand Must Not Repatriate Karen Refugees,”

The Irrawaddy

, February 4

2010.

“Thailand Forced Deportation of Karen Refugees to Burma Starts 7am, Friday 5th February,” Burma CampaignUK, February 4

2010.

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

2010.

DVB

, February 3

2010.

, February 4

2010.

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

KHRG welcomes the decision by Thai authorities not to repatriate the 30 families originallyscheduled 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 Thaisoldiers 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 Thaimilitary. 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 theforeseeable future. Indeed, one refugee whose full interview with KHRG is included in Appendix1 below said on February 5

: “

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 herebecause 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 interviewsconducted today with refugees in Tha Song Yang are included below as Appendix 1.

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 notexpress 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 authoritieswill 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 donot 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 refugeesin 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:

when asked what they will do if they are forced to leave right now, almost every

This contradicts an article released by the

Bangkok Post

at 2pm on February 5

, which attributed statements to Col. Noppadol indicating that repatriation would go ahead as planned, in spite of protest from rights groups. BecauseCol. Noppadol was at the Noe Boh site and speaking with observers during the day on February 5

, it is likely thatthis

Bangkok Post

article was based upon information from the day prior. See, “Karens to be repatriated as planned,”

Bangkok Post

, February 5

2010.

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 5

2010 and “Unsafe return:Threats to human rights and security for refugees leaving Tha Song Yang District,” KHRG, January 27

2010.

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.