Hmong: Transparency Lost
Over the holiday season, the Thai government forceably repatriated some 4,000 ethnic Hmong back to Laos. At the time, the Thai government reported the smooth success of the operation; the Hmongs decision to leave voluntarily; and the notion that they would be embarking on a new and more prosperous life back in Laos. The Bangkok Post reports,
The Huay Nam Khao camp in Phetchabun has closed its doors after it was cleared Monday of nearly 4,000 ethnic Hmong.
Just over 100 Hmong were left Monday night awaiting deportation to Laos, said the Royal Thai Armed Force Headquarters' deputy chief of joint staff, Worapong Sanganetra.
Gen Worapong insisted all the Hmong had left for Laos voluntarily...
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said the deportations had gone smoothly and there had been no resistance from the Hmong.
He stressed the need to send them all back to Laos given the peaceful situation along the Thai-Laos border. The prime minister said that if the US wanted to offer the Hmong third-country resettlement, it could contact Laos directly.
Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said the government was confident Laos would keep its word to improve the Hmong's quality of life.
He rejected human rights groups' claims the deportation would do them more harm than good. Thailand had not sent the Hmong to jail but set them on a path to a better life before they can be resettled in a third country, Mr Kasit said.
Rights groups and some countries have voiced concern that the Hmong could be persecuted after their return to Laos. "Why not have trust in Laos?" Mr Kasit asked.
"Western countries do not trust in the cooperation between Thailand and Laos and between the peoples of the two countries." "Don't look down on us. "The Lao government has no intention whatsoever to kill its people." The minister said it had been proved the 3,000 Hmong who had previously been deported to Laos now had a better life. He said Thailand was ready to provide financial support to improve the lives of the Hmong.
Just over 100 Hmong were left Monday night awaiting deportation to Laos, said the Royal Thai Armed Force Headquarters' deputy chief of joint staff, Worapong Sanganetra.
Gen Worapong insisted all the Hmong had left for Laos voluntarily...
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said the deportations had gone smoothly and there had been no resistance from the Hmong.
He stressed the need to send them all back to Laos given the peaceful situation along the Thai-Laos border. The prime minister said that if the US wanted to offer the Hmong third-country resettlement, it could contact Laos directly.
Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya said the government was confident Laos would keep its word to improve the Hmong's quality of life.
He rejected human rights groups' claims the deportation would do them more harm than good. Thailand had not sent the Hmong to jail but set them on a path to a better life before they can be resettled in a third country, Mr Kasit said.
Rights groups and some countries have voiced concern that the Hmong could be persecuted after their return to Laos. "Why not have trust in Laos?" Mr Kasit asked.
"Western countries do not trust in the cooperation between Thailand and Laos and between the peoples of the two countries." "Don't look down on us. "The Lao government has no intention whatsoever to kill its people." The minister said it had been proved the 3,000 Hmong who had previously been deported to Laos now had a better life. He said Thailand was ready to provide financial support to improve the lives of the Hmong.
One establishment voice even went so far as to say, "In the new spirit of Asean cooperation, Malaysia repatriated 210 Thai Muslims back to the south, and Thailand repatriated 4,500 Hmongs back to Laos."
SR: Indeed. In the new spirit of ASEAN cooperation, which apparently means a lack of transparency, due process and observance of international protocol. SR has no problem with the Thai government repatriating people, but strongly disapproves of the process used to repatriate the Hmong. The image and credibility of the Thai government has once again taken a severe hit because of the Hmong operation. Prime Minister Abhisit routinely tells the international community that his government is transparent in all its dealings and that it can be trusted to comply with international codes of conduct. Yet, the Hmong operation proves that nothing can be further from the truth. Perhaps Abhisit preferred a different outcome, but couldn't do anything because the civilian government is too weak to place demands on the military. Abhisit may have also calculated that politically it is better to face criticism from the international community than from the military--after all military support was critical in Abhisit's rise to power and it has been an essential tool in keeping the red-shirts at bay. One has to wonder what is going on when the government's own screening process found people "of concern" but who were repatriated anyways. In challenging the Thai government's Hmong repatriation "process", US Ambassador to Thailand Eric John wrote a letter, published in today's Bangkok Post, saying,
SR: Indeed. In the new spirit of ASEAN cooperation, which apparently means a lack of transparency, due process and observance of international protocol. SR has no problem with the Thai government repatriating people, but strongly disapproves of the process used to repatriate the Hmong. The image and credibility of the Thai government has once again taken a severe hit because of the Hmong operation. Prime Minister Abhisit routinely tells the international community that his government is transparent in all its dealings and that it can be trusted to comply with international codes of conduct. Yet, the Hmong operation proves that nothing can be further from the truth. Perhaps Abhisit preferred a different outcome, but couldn't do anything because the civilian government is too weak to place demands on the military. Abhisit may have also calculated that politically it is better to face criticism from the international community than from the military--after all military support was critical in Abhisit's rise to power and it has been an essential tool in keeping the red-shirts at bay. One has to wonder what is going on when the government's own screening process found people "of concern" but who were repatriated anyways. In challenging the Thai government's Hmong repatriation "process", US Ambassador to Thailand Eric John wrote a letter, published in today's Bangkok Post, saying,
It is against this background of historical generosity and cooperation that the US was disappointed at the Thai decision to deport 4,689 Laotian Hmong asylum seekers back to Laos on Dec 28, 2009, despite clear indications that some in the group required protection. The asylum seekers were divided into two groups: 4,531 detained in an army-run camp in Huay Nam Khao, Phetchabun province, and 158 people in an Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) in Nong Khai province who were recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as Persons of Concern.
We consulted for many months with our Thai civilian and military partners regarding the best way to identify people who needed protection among the Phetchabun group. We agreed with our Thai friends not to begin a resettlement programme for the entire group, as was done in Wat Tham Krabok, due to the Thai concern that it would act as a magnet for more arrivals from Laos.
However, we remained concerned that some in the camp had legitimate protection concerns and should not be forced to return. We encouraged participation by UNHCR, the organisation with the international mandate for making such determinations, and informed the Royal Thai Government that we would consider for resettlement in the US any cases referred to us.
However, the Royal Thai Government denied the UNHCR access to the camp's population. Instead, in January 2008, the Royal Thai Government assured us that it had conducted its own screening process, during which about 800 people were identified as having protection concerns and should not be returned to Laos involuntarily.
Despite repeated requests, that list of 800 people was never provided to the UNHCR or to any potential resettlement country.
On Dec 28, 2009 this "screened in" group was returned to Laos, along with others that the Royal Thai Government had determined were economic migrants without protection concerns.
The lack of transparency during the repatriation process made it impossible to determine if the return was voluntary. At no point were those in need of protection identified to the UN, the United States, or any other resettlement country, even though the US and other resettlement countries were fully prepared to consider for resettlement appropriate cases in need of third-country resettlement.
The group detained in the Nong Khai immigration detention centre for over three years - which included 87 children - had been screened by UNHCR prior to their imprisonment and determined to have refugee status.
Under international law, UNHCR-recognised refugees should not be forcibly returned to their country of origin.
In 2007, UNHCR referred the 158 people to the US (and several other countries) for resettlement. We requested access numerous times to the refugees to begin the resettlement process. However, until the actual day of deportation, that access was denied. By then, it was too late: within several hours of our initial interviews, and with several steps still remaining in the resettlement process, the entire group had been returned to Laos.
All the refugees we interviewed in Nong Khai told us on Dec 28 that they did not wish to return to Laos, clearly indicating that the return was involuntary.
The US Refugee Admissions Programme was available to consider referrals of individuals from this community who were deemed to merit refugee status, as it does elsewhere in the world. This message was clearly articulated repeatedly by US officials, including by US Assistant Secretary of State Eric P Schwartz in December 2009, following on the same offer made many times earlier by other US officials.
As noted above, both the UNHCR and the Royal Thai Government had, indeed, determined that many among this population were in need of protection. And the United States, along with many other countries, stood ready to provide third-country resettlement as an option, but this course was not allowed.
We understand that hosting vulnerable populations can be a burden. That is why the US continues to help. In Phetchabun, we funded all the food, water, sanitation services and medical care needed for over three years.
In Nong Khai, we supported the construction of a temporary shelter on the IDC grounds to relieve the overcrowding in the two cells, and to have adequate space for the provision of medical care and educational activities for the many children.
Despite the regrettable events of Dec 28, I believe that Thailand can return to its historical tradition of providing protection and assistance to vulnerable populations. Doing so should not be considered an unfriendly act by neighbouring countries, but rather adherence to widely respected international principles and norms.
As we have done in the past, the US is committed to assisting Thailand in this continuing effort.
We consulted for many months with our Thai civilian and military partners regarding the best way to identify people who needed protection among the Phetchabun group. We agreed with our Thai friends not to begin a resettlement programme for the entire group, as was done in Wat Tham Krabok, due to the Thai concern that it would act as a magnet for more arrivals from Laos.
However, we remained concerned that some in the camp had legitimate protection concerns and should not be forced to return. We encouraged participation by UNHCR, the organisation with the international mandate for making such determinations, and informed the Royal Thai Government that we would consider for resettlement in the US any cases referred to us.
However, the Royal Thai Government denied the UNHCR access to the camp's population. Instead, in January 2008, the Royal Thai Government assured us that it had conducted its own screening process, during which about 800 people were identified as having protection concerns and should not be returned to Laos involuntarily.
Despite repeated requests, that list of 800 people was never provided to the UNHCR or to any potential resettlement country.
On Dec 28, 2009 this "screened in" group was returned to Laos, along with others that the Royal Thai Government had determined were economic migrants without protection concerns.
The lack of transparency during the repatriation process made it impossible to determine if the return was voluntary. At no point were those in need of protection identified to the UN, the United States, or any other resettlement country, even though the US and other resettlement countries were fully prepared to consider for resettlement appropriate cases in need of third-country resettlement.
The group detained in the Nong Khai immigration detention centre for over three years - which included 87 children - had been screened by UNHCR prior to their imprisonment and determined to have refugee status.
Under international law, UNHCR-recognised refugees should not be forcibly returned to their country of origin.
In 2007, UNHCR referred the 158 people to the US (and several other countries) for resettlement. We requested access numerous times to the refugees to begin the resettlement process. However, until the actual day of deportation, that access was denied. By then, it was too late: within several hours of our initial interviews, and with several steps still remaining in the resettlement process, the entire group had been returned to Laos.
All the refugees we interviewed in Nong Khai told us on Dec 28 that they did not wish to return to Laos, clearly indicating that the return was involuntary.
The US Refugee Admissions Programme was available to consider referrals of individuals from this community who were deemed to merit refugee status, as it does elsewhere in the world. This message was clearly articulated repeatedly by US officials, including by US Assistant Secretary of State Eric P Schwartz in December 2009, following on the same offer made many times earlier by other US officials.
As noted above, both the UNHCR and the Royal Thai Government had, indeed, determined that many among this population were in need of protection. And the United States, along with many other countries, stood ready to provide third-country resettlement as an option, but this course was not allowed.
We understand that hosting vulnerable populations can be a burden. That is why the US continues to help. In Phetchabun, we funded all the food, water, sanitation services and medical care needed for over three years.
In Nong Khai, we supported the construction of a temporary shelter on the IDC grounds to relieve the overcrowding in the two cells, and to have adequate space for the provision of medical care and educational activities for the many children.
Despite the regrettable events of Dec 28, I believe that Thailand can return to its historical tradition of providing protection and assistance to vulnerable populations. Doing so should not be considered an unfriendly act by neighbouring countries, but rather adherence to widely respected international principles and norms.
As we have done in the past, the US is committed to assisting Thailand in this continuing effort.
No comments:
Post a Comment