A door of opportunity has finally opened to Karen and other refugees who have languished for years in the border camps.

Up to 12,000 refugees will be resettled in other countries this year, according to camp organisers. The bulk of those selected to go this year – about 9,000 – will be sent to the United States. About 3,000 more will go to other countries with resettlement programmes, such as Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Norway, New Zealand and the Netherlands.

Close to 150,000 refugees live in nine camps dotted along the Burma border, from areas several hours west of Bangkok right up to Mae Hong Son. The crowded conditions at Tham Hin camp in Kanchanaburi have been the subject of international criticism and many refugees there are set to go.

The Thai government has had a major rethink about the camps and conceded privately that the refugees are unlikely to be sent back in the near future. The new stance has been welcomed by the Thailand Burma Border Consortium, which provides food and shelter for the camps, plus the UN’s refugee agency UNHCR.

The ousting in October 2004 of Burmese Prime Minister Khin Nyunt – seen as one of the junta’s more liberal leaders – and the 20th anniversary of the first camp being set up in Tak province caused the government to reconsider its options, instead of simply waiting to move the refugees back across the border.

This prompted another key change late last year, when the Cabinet approved the extension of education for people in the camps, so they can learn basic Thai and vocational skills.

The decisions to allow resettlement and extend education were praised by two British experts in protracted refugee crises.

Oxford professors Gil Loescher and James Milner spoke in Bangkok recently about three weeks they spent in Thailand, touring the camps and speaking to national and provincial officials, plus groups supporting the refugees. They gave a valuable insight into the situation on the border – and moves likely to lead to a long-term solution.

“Of all the contemporary cases we have considered, Thailand is the most advanced in its thinking on solutions for long-term displaced populations,” Loescher said. “The leadership and initiative demonstrated by the Royal Thai Government in recent months is to be commended.

“Conceptually, there has been a shift in approach – from a care and maintenance approach to a new approach, focused on the long-term objective of finding solutions. There seems to be broad consensus on the need to allow refugees to lead more productive lives which would, in turn, better equip them for the challenges of either return to their home country or starting a new life in resettlement countries,” he said.

The professors gave a rundown on the world’s refugee dilemmas, which showed that the predicament on the Thai-Burma border is far more common that one might have imagined.

“At the end of 2003, there were 38 protracted refugee situations, with a total refugee population of 6.2 million,” Loescher said.

“About two-thirds of refugees in the world today are trapped in protracted refugee situations. Refugees are spending longer periods of time in exile – it is estimated that the average length of time of protracted refugee situations has increased from nine years in 1993 to an incredible 17 years at the end of 2003.

“In Asia, there exist five chronic situations, including 670,000 refugees. Clearly, Thailand is not alone in facing this challenge.”

Some of the biggest concerns about prolonged encampment of refugees are restrictions on employment and their freedom of movement, they said. This prevents long-staying refugees from leading normal lives and being productive members of their new societies. It traps the refugees in lives of poverty, frustration and unrealised potential.

It is important for “political logjams” to be broken, they said, “to create the necessary diplomatic opportunities”.

Loescher said boosting education and vocational training, plus projects to generate income and help refugees become self-sufficient, were all good. “In this sense, it is important to remember that most refugees along the Thai-Myanmar [Burma] border were largely self-reliant for the first 10 years of their stay in Thailand.”

Teachers in the camps have voiced fears that resettlement could destroy education systems they’ve spent years setting up – if refugees with the best English or education are lost overseas.

UNHCR and camp officials have stressed in recent meetings with representatives of nations set to take the Karen that the primary aim of resettlement should be protection of vulnerable refugees – not who will fit in best abroad.

Loescher and Milner said resettlement needed to be part of a comprehensive, well-managed plan. They believed a “brain drain” could be avoided, and that if the process was managed well, it would benefit both those resettled, and those who remain in Thailand.

They suggested several moves that have proved successful with refugees elsewhere:

l “Common markets”, such as those set up in Tanzania in the early 90s;

l Mobile courts, which the Kenyan government has allowed in its camps; and

l An initiative by Pakistani authorities called “Afghanistan Plus”, under which different solutions have been crafted for different categories of refugees.

Common markets were opened in Tanzania so refugees and local people could meet and trade in a designated area. They were outside the camps, but refugees with valid registration numbers and identity cards were allowed to conduct business there.

“Skills developed by the refugees through vocational training – such as bicycle repair and tailoring – were offered to the local population. In exchange, the refugees were able to buy fresh produce and non-food items traded by the local population. Such an approach may be considered in Thailand,” Milner said.

“The establishment of such economic centres would benefit the local population while providing refugees with the opportunity to work, apply the skills they learn in the camp, and develop additional skills, especially entrepreneurial skills. Offering such opportunities could reduce pressures on resettlement as refugees will be able to engage in meaningful and productive activities while awaiting a durable solution.”

Mobile courts could address a “gap in the area of protection”. The Kenyan government and UNHCR recognised the difficulties for refugees to gain access to the judicial system – so they took courts to the camps to hear cases under local laws. This helped to “dramatically improve the protection environment for all refugees”, Milner said.

The prolonged presence of refugees could cause burdens on the host state and local community, but it could also bring a number of benefits. Build on the benefits and try to reduce the burdens, the professors suggested.

Provincial governors and district officers would be key players in finding solutions, they said. But there is also “a need for education within the local population on the question of refugees and the reasons for their prolonged stay in Thailand”.

Donor and resettlement countries need to be proactive and dependable. Multi-year resettlement commitments would help planning. It was also important to recognise that the Burmese refugee situation is a regional crisis. “In addition to Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh and India all host significant Burmese refugee populations,” Milner said.

Including refugees into broader development plans would help. And multilateral development agencies should be engaged in proposed border economic development zones – “to provide support and ensure they are implemented in a way that balances development priorities and protection needs”.

Finally, they said, all players – Thai, regional and international – should keep engaged with Burma.

Time line

The first camps were set up in the mid 80s following a major offensive by the Burmese army, which swept about 10,000 people across the border into Tak province. Dry-season attacks against ethnic rebels over the next 10 years pushed the number of refugees in the camps up to about 80,000 by 1994.

The fall of the Karen National Union (KNU) headquarters at Manerplaw in January 1995, and the subsequent control of the border by the Burmese military, pushed the refugee numbers up to 115,000 over the next several years.

From 1996, a massive relocation plan was undertaken to consolidate the Burmese army’s control and eliminate local opposition. In subsequent years an estimated 2,700 ethnic villages in eastern Burma were destroyed and up to a million people displaced. About 540,000 remain internally displaced, with 340,000 in temporary settlements in ceasefire areas and 92,000 estimated to be

hiding from SPDC (Burmese) troops

in areas most affected by military

skirmishes. Another 108,000 followed SPDC eviction orders and moved to designated relocation sites. More than 200,000 fled to Thailand, although most Shan refugees have yet to be recognised as such.

Source: TBBC annual report (Dec 2005) 

Jim Pollard

The Nation