Human Rights Watch letter to RTG

[hrwatchuk@xxxxxxxxxx]

The following is an open letter released by Human Rights Watch/Asia to the Prime Minister
of the Royal Thai Government concerning the repatriation of Mon refugees on June 6, 1997.



June 30, 1997

Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh
Office of the Prime Minister
Government House
Nakhorn Pathom Road
Bangkok 10300
Thailand



Dear Prime Minister Chavalit,

I write on behalf of Human Rights Watch/Asia to express our grave concern about the
repatriation on June 6, 1997 of some 300 to400 Mon refugees . The Royal Thai government
sent them back to Burma from an area approximately nineteen kilometers south of Thap
Sakae directly to a local army commander of the State Law and Order Restoration Council
(SLORC).

The group had sought refuge in Thailand as a result of a fear of persecution by SLORC. You
may be aware that the Mon Army Mergui District, a splinter group from the New Mon State
Party and established in December 1996, was fighting with the Burmese Army in Tenasserim
Division in the area from which the refugees fled.  The Mon Army Mergui District
surrendered to the Burmese Army on May 25, 1997.  

While we at present do not have the details of the surrender agreement, previous experience
has shown that these Mon refugees may still have good reason to fear persecution from the
Burmese army. Such agreements are often not of a lasting nature and in any event, as has
been evident in the Karenni and Shan states, human rights abuses still continue even when a
ceasefire is in place.  Human Rights Watch/Asia has, over the past eight years, documented a
disturbing range of serious human rights violations which SLORC has perpetrated against its
own nationals including forced labor, forced relocations, torture and other serious forms of ill
treatment. Such abuses have been particularly severe in relation to Burma's ethnic minorities. 

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Burma recently confirmed this in his report on the
situation of human rights in Burma. He states that,  

     Detailed reports and photographs seen by the Special Rapporteur lead him to conclude
     that extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the practice of torture, portering
     and forced labor continue to occur in Myanmar, particularly in the context of
     development programmes and of counter-insurgency operations in minority-
     dominated regions.

Return of refugees to a territory where they face persecution constitutes refoulement and a
breach of customary international law. It is therefore imperative that any refugees who return
to the territory from which they fled do so on a voluntary basis. The principle of voluntariness
has been described as the cornerstone of international protection with respect to the return of
refugees.  In addition to the work of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on the question of voluntary repatriation and in
particular its Conclusion 18 (XXXI) , UNHCR has also published a handbook on voluntary
repatriation to ensure that the standards which should be applied during such a process are
met.

Human Rights Watch/Asia is concerned that a number of those standards were violated on
June 6, 1997. It is unclear in this case what steps, if any, were taken to effectively establish
that the return of the Mon was voluntary. We understand that an announcement was made
before the refugees were loaded onto trucks stating that anyone who did not want to return
should step aside. In our view, this is not the same as establishing that the return was
voluntary. Indeed we have information that at least thirty families expressed to one of the
nongovernmental organizations present that they did not want to return to Burma and it is not
apparent what steps were taken to follow up the concerns of these families.  It also unclear
what alternatives to repatriation were offered to the refugees. It therefore appears that this
repatriation is not one that can be said to have been conducted in "safety and dignity" as
stipulated by UNHCR in their voluntary repatriation handbook. Also of deep concern is the
absence of any monitoring mechanism inside Burma to follow up on the condition of the
returned refugees.  

We are aware that there was a representative of UNHCR present during the repatriation but 
UNHCR has stated that it had no formal role in the repatriation and has acknowledged that a
number of the standards which should apply in any voluntary repatriation were not met.

We ask that you clarify the circumstances surrounding this repatriation and in particular the
procedure established by the Royal Thai government to ensure that the refugees returned
voluntarily. We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,




Sidney Jones
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch/Asia