Shutting camps is morally wrong
The Nation (28-12-01) EDITORIAL :
The government's decision to close down the Maneeloy holding centre in Ratchaburi province, as well as to forcibly return to Burma some 130 people considered illegal immigrants who used to live in the centre, is a great cause for concern as it will put hundreds of lives in grave danger. Far from being the durable solution to the plight of hundreds of thousands of Burmese and other ethnic minorities who had fled persecution in Burma, the policy to close down the centre, as well as a dozen other refugee camps along the border, also shows a total shift away from a humanitarian basis in the government's policy towards refugees.
Particularly worrying is the fate of some 130 people who were not classified as people of concern according to the criteria of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Instead, they have been classified as "illegal immigrants", meaning they will be deported. This is despite the fact that the situation that made them flee Burma was no different from those others who are considered as legitimate asylum seekers.
Given the present policy of the military junta in Burma toward these refugees, it is not that difficult to imagine what will happen to them once they are repatriated. It's true that a country that shelters people seeking refugee status is not obliged to give them permanent accommodation, and that voluntarily repatriation is, in most cases, the preferred solution to the refugee problem. Yet, in the case of the Burmese refugees, it is obvious that the basis for their refugee status has not yet ceased to exist. Moreover, the political, as well as social and economic conditions in that country have not provided any guarantee at all for their safe return.
Insisting on a policy to repatriate refugees under these circumstances would be against the internationally recognised standard of non-refoulement, well-established as a rule of customary law.
Whether or not they are signatory states of the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees, countries are obliged to respect the rule of customary law. Thailand, which has not yet ratified the refugee convention, is no exception.
Another cause for concern is the warning by Interior Minister Purachai Piumsombun that Thailand may not accommodate any more displaced Burmese unless the recent decision to close camps be accepted and respected by those who reside in the centre and the refugee camps.
It's true that refugees are obliged to respect the policy and laws of the country in which they are given shelter, either permanent or temporary. However, in the case of the Thai government's shutting down of the refugee camps, the decision itself was problematic.
Authorities say the closing of Maneeloy is in line with government policy to shut down all Burmese shelters, including about a dozen refugee camps along the border where over 100,000 displaced people, mostly ethnic Karen, reside. They often cite as a reason for the closures crime or disturbances in neighbouring communities, allegedly caused by those living in the holding centre or in refugee camps. What they have never mentioned is how the communities have developed social and economic relationships with those residing in the camps.
There are children of those refugees who were born in Thailand and who are socially and culturally attached to the country. These children would find themselves alien in their parents' homes, if their parents were lucky enough to survive harsh treatment upon return.
For decades, Thailand has shown to the international community how countries can developed a positive policy towards refugees, even though not members to the refugee convention. This kind of policy has benefited millions of people. It should be continued instead of being revised. From a humanitarian point of view, can Thailand afford to implement policies and measures while ignoring their foreseeable adverse consequences?