News Bulletin

February 5, 2010 / KHRG #2010-B4

Refoulement Deferred: Still no durable solution for hosting

refugees in Tha Song Yang District
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

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.
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 organisations3, Burmese exile media, 4 overseas advocacy groups 5 and lawmakers from
the 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 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

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.

2
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 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

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 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.

3
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?

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.

4
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.

5
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.

6
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.

7
Appendix 2: Refugees forced to leave Tha Song Yang District face
substantial 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 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. 15
• 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.16
• 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.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 tend
to their paddy crops, which should have been harvest 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

15
For 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 risks,” 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.

8
 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.

For more information on refugees in Tha Song Yang District as well as the impact of the SPDC
and 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’an
districts (May 2009)

9
10
11