The refugees have exchanged the confines of a war-zone for what is, for all intents and purposes, a prison. They are firmly kept within the parameters of the camp by barb-wire and guards. In the camps there are limited educational opportunities, especially beyond elementary level, and the refugees are prohibited from working. This situation makes the camps’ residents solely dependent on international organizations for the provision of humanitarian aid. However, a small number of camp residents do work illegally outside the camps, but ever looming is the threat of deportation if the refugees are caught more than 300 metres outside the camp1.

Currently there is a generation of refugees from Burma who have never seen their homeland. Born in the camps, they know no other life. These children are not classed as Thai citizens nor are they officially Burmese, because both governments volley this political issue between themselves. As these children are reaching adulthood, questions are being increasingly raised with regards to the long-term future for the refugees along the Thai-Burma border.

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has three universal long-term solutions to the refugee situation. These include: integration into the local community of the asylum country, voluntary repatriation and resettlement to a third country2. In the case of the refugees in the camps along the Thai-Burma border, Burma is their first country, Thailand is the second and the resettlement country is the third.

For the people in the camps their options are limited. Voluntary repatriation is not possible due to the horrendous conditions in Burma. So the refugees either remain in the camps in Thailand, a country where the government and society barely tolerates their existence, or seek resettlement.

Like any bureaucratic process, resettlement takes time and is complicated. There are two ways to be resettled, either through the UNHCR referral system or independently by the resettlement country. Under the UNHCR system potential resettlement cases are identified, by the UNHCR staff or a partner organization and are passed on to representatives of the resettlement country. It is then up to the representatives whether they accept the refugee. Under the second option, refugees approach the resettlement country’s representatives independently and present their case3.

Following identification of possible resettlement cases, refugees undergo a number of intensive interview processes and medical screenings before a decision is made. If a refugee is accepted the resettlement process begins. Once they arrive in their resettlement country the host government and private agencies will provide support and assistance to them.

Whilst it is the most vulnerable that are suppose to be prioritized for resettlement, this is not always the case. Each country has their own agendas when it comes to hand picking refugees for resettlement. Generally the selected refugees are the people with easily transferable skills, such as teachers, medics, community leaders and refugees with linguistic abilities. Unfortunately, for those not selected or excluded for a specific reason there is no avenue to over-turn the decision. All they can do is re-submit their application to another country and hope for the best.

Currently 11 countries have resettlement programs or global resettlement quotas, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the UK and the US. Additional countries have started to implement resettlement programs in co-operation with the UNHCR4.

Each year thousands of refugees around the world are resettled. In 2004 almost 30,000 people left their asylum countries for a new host country5. Most resettlement cases come from Africa and in 2003 57 per cent of all refugees resettled were from this continent. The next largest group of resettled refugees was from the Middle East, with 35 per cent, then Asia/Oceania with 4 per cent and the rest from other geographical areas6.

The reality of resettlement does not always live up to the refugees high expectations. Despite efforts taken to prepare the refugees before departure, there will inevitably be culture shock and a long period of adjustment. While some refugees will be settled within immigrant hubs or reunited with their families, others will have to begin a new life without a pre-established support network. Those resettled will have a very different lifestyle from that of their home countries and the camps.

There are of course advantages. They will receive residency, and in some cases eventually citizenship from the third country. With these documents comes access to education, including at the tertiary level, health care and employment opportunities. For many there is a sense of freedom that they had never previously experienced. In resettlement countries there are less human rights abuses and police and military harassment and extortion than in Burma. Those that resettle will be able to freely discuss politics and to believe that there is an alternative future for them, besides that forced upon them by the junta.

Moreover, according to the UNHCR refugee resettlement web pages, the benefits of resettlement do not just apply to those being resettled. So as the skilled depart the camps for a better future, what advantages are there for those left behind? As the overcrowded camps empty out an obvious benefit is people will have more space. The pressure on the already over-stretched infrastructure in the camp will be reduced. The financial burden of feeding and providing housing, education and health care to the remaining refugees will decrease.

However, as it is expected that the teachers, the medics and the camp leaders that will have been resettled, there are concerns that the subsequent “brain drain” will cause the camps to fall into chaos, as the inexperienced and untrained try to take over. Efforts are being undertaken to try and prevent this situation. But a unified approach from the UNHCR, non-government organizations working in the camps and the Royal Thai Government is needed if these good intentions are going to be turned into a reality.

The Royal Thai Government is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. The people from neighbouring countries that cross the border into Thailand seeking asylum are here at the discretion of the current government. Until recently the attitude of the Thai government has been that they were providing temporary shelter. However, as some of the refugee population has been in the camps for over 20 years, hopefully the government is re-evaluating this stance.

To address the root causes of the problems in Burma is a long-term struggle. Changes and progress will come, but it will take time. For those most oppressed by the regime, time is a luxury they do not have. When people choose to continue their lives in a third country, they are dispersed to opposite corners of the earth. As more people seek out this option, there are concerns about what will happen to these fragile cultures that the junta has been trying to exterminate for more than half a century.

Furthermore, the prospect of resettlement could influence people’s decision to seek asylum in Thailand. Through resettlement, people will have access to opportunities and resources that they would not have in camps or in Burma. Most people want a better life for themselves and their children and so they will pursue avenuesthat enable them to make that dream a reality.

Worldwide there are 9.2 million refugees7. Of these people, only a tiny minority will ever get the chance of resettlement. Perhaps if the refugees in the camps along the Thai-Burma border had been given more freedom, access to higher education and employment opportunities, there would not be this “need” for resettlement. Every refugee is currently making a decision that will not only affect their lives, but that of their current and future family members. As they ponder this dilemma: apply for resettlement or stay indefinitely in the camps, activists around the world should embrace this opportunity. The resettlement of refugees from Burma could be used to draw attention to the situation inside the country and the need for democratic reforms. It is also an opportunity, for resettlement countries to re-evaluate their policies towards refugees to ensure that their transition into a new culture and community is as smooth as possible.

However, the 150,000 refugees in the camps on the Thai-Burma border are only a small portion of Burma’s population (estimated to be 50 million). The plight of those inside the country’s borders should not be forgotten or overlooked. Efforts should be undertaken to ensure that all the people of Burma, not just the resettled refugees, can enjoy life in a peaceful country.

Endnotes:

1. Refugee International Website, November 2005
2. UNHCR Website, November 2005
3. Ibid
4. Ibid
5. “2004 Global Refugee Trends”, UNHCR, June 17, 2005
6. Ibid
7. Ibid

Slipping Through the Net

Between December 2004 and October 2005 the Royal Thai Government and the UNHCR undertook comprehensive registration of those living in the nine refugee camps along the Thai-Burma Border. The process aimed to enable the UNHCR to provide greater protection to the refugees and also assist in finding a durable solution. Resettling refugees to third countries has since become a major part of such a solution. Yet a significant number of people who have been forced to flee human rights abuses and continued fighting in their homeland remain outside this process. Only a small percentage of the Burmese population in Thailand have any legal status, as refugees or migrant workers. Many of those outside the system work in low paying jobs, have no access to medical care, adequate schooling for their children and are at risk of sudden, forced repatriation. Such problems are particularly acute for the Shan people. Since the mid 1990’s they have been fleeing conflict between ethnic Shan fighters and the Burmese army (Tatmadaw), aided in recent years by the United WA State Army (UWSA). They have also fled from substantial human rights violations by the Tatmadaw. In 2004 there were an estimated 200,000 Shan asylum seekers in Thailand2. In May 2005 Human Rights Watch estimated that 200-500 people were fleeing into the Chiang Mai Province in NorthernThailand on a daily basis. Despite this, the Shan have been offered no protection from the Royal Thai Government who have prevented the UNHCR from accessing the Shan population in Thailand3. Huge numbers of Shan people who enter Thailand after fleeing abuse and harassment by Burmese forces have no access to a formal support structure or any legal protection and often take badly paid exploitative employment to survive. Many women, often having been previously victims of sexual violence, are trafficked into prostitution. Others live in informal camps along the border with no real security. For those living outside the safety-net the reality is constant fear of exploitation, arrest and forced repatriation. Endnotes: UNHCR, Country Operations Plan, Thailand 2005 The Shan in Thailand, A case of protection and assistance failure, Refugee International 2004 Ibid

To go to the other articles published in the November 2005 BI Newsletter click on the links below:

Going Through the Process: An Insiders View
The Dilemma of Humanitarian Aid in Burma