Analysis of Royal Thai Government policy towards Displaced Persons from Myanmar Premjai Vungsiriphisal, Graham Bennet, Chanarat Poomkacha, Waranya Jitpong, Kamonwan Reungsamran Presentation at the conference On the Move: : Critical MigrationTheme in ASEAN December 17, 2012, at Prachadhipok Rampai Barni Bldg, Chulalongkorn University
Responsible Authorities No single policy body, responsibilities are spread across several governmental institutions The National Security Council - sub-committee, comprised of various government sectors, to oversee the policies Ministry of Foreign Affairs - coordinate with Myanmar Gov. and facilitate International Orgs. Ministry of Defence, Department of Border Affairs - coordinate with border police, guard the border Ministry of Interior - main policy implementation, oversee camp administration
The policy formulation and implementation Royal Thai Government Cabinet National Security Council UN, Inter.Org. Ministry of Interior Sub committee MOF Depart. of Gov.Adm. Off. of Permanent Sec. (MOI, MOF, MOD, MOE, Ph,etc.) Provincial Off. Foreign Aff. Department District off. Operation Centre for DP Camp commander Humanitarian NGOs Territory Voluntary Guard OCDP Ad hoc Committee (NSC, MOF, MOD, OPB, Imm., MOE, etc.)
Characteristics of policy towards DPs Ad hoc policy = appear in National Security Strategy, Cabinet resolutions, Ministry s regulations, no formal asylum policy Displacement is prioritized as a security issue, = Conventional security paradigm Non-member of 1951 UN Convention (related to refugee status), = No refugee status provided, the term Displaced Person(DP) is applied Policy principles : = camp confinement, reduce Thailand burden, address the root cause
Characteristics of policy towards DPs Situation has been treated with temporary approach Tackle the issue in bilateral consultation Accept international role in certain areas Flexibility is allowed at practical level
Development of RTG Policy Prior to 1984, DPs from Myanmar crossed border into Thailand to small settlements and informally integrated with local communities No strict regulations, considered the situation were temporary and seasonal assistance were permitted Attacks from DKBA and more DPs arrived, small settlements were combined to 9 existed formal shelters in 1990s, regulation was not strictly applied only when the situation became public agenda : political protest, seize of embassy, hospital (involved with some DPs) Some aspects of 1951 UN convention has been applied -basic services : food, clothes, shelter, healthcare, education provided by NGOs - protection no forced repatriation
Development of RTG Policy Registration - Set up Pre-screening Board at provincial level, PAB (Dis-function from time to time, according to situation and provinces) Cooperate with UN for formal registration Family registration to individual registration, personal ID Birth registration to birth certificate Legal protection Applied Thai juridical system, allowed setting Legal Center
Shifted of some policy from 1990s to 2000s Education (basic education) Primary education was expand to secondary education and post secondary, Vocational trainings have been permitted Permit Thai language teaching (Non Formal Department, MOE) Long term solution Development of RTG Policy Resettlement, individual basis to groups consideration Local settlement remains unchanged Voluntaray Repatriation, consultation with MM Gov. has started
Shelters administration Limited territory volunteer to guard the shelters Allowed DP for self administration for daily matter and security PAB screen and register eligible DPs (Not functioned from time to time, varied according to provinces) Confinement Implement of RTG Policy Allow DPs out of the camp, only for healthcare basis, camp administration Allow some training exercises in surrounding areas
Implement of RTG Policy Allow employment inside the shelters and sub-contract work Proposal of setting up small factory was considered, no follow up concrete plan and implementation Permission to small trade with local, sports exercise with local community No formal permission for employment outside shelters No strictly enforcement to repatriate non-eligible populations
Impact of the policy Confinement: against human nature, difficult to practice, lead to DPs breaking the regulations corruption Decrease human capacity Increase dependency Contradict to decreasing of fundings
Impact of the policy Situation became protracted, temporary policy is not appropriated Closed policy are risk to criticism and mis-interpretation Poor recognition of Thailand s contribution (staffs budget, land, resources) Loss of potential DPs to resettlement Long term confinement lead to risk of increasing domestic violence, sexual harassment, and local conflict
Accept, need some changes - Small number of DPs participate in vocational trainings - Positive and negative attitude to resettlement program Little chance to local integration, positive attitude to local community 44% prefer to resettle in third countries 40 % states preference to local settlement (some of this group await for safe repatriation 12.7% prefer to repatriate DPs attitude to policy
Influence factors to RTG policies Internal factors Conventional security paradigm DP is considered as a country threat Conflict to local interest Not prioritized in National agenda Negative public attitude Not considered as emergency matter External factors Relationship with Myanmar (National benefit: energy, boder trade, neighbouring country, etc.) Relationship with UN, Inter agencies Pressure from international platform Commitment to international laws & convention (Human rights, CRC)
To RTG Recommendation Promote human security principle to balance with conventional security paradigm, allow more self-reliance activities for DPs and some form of integration to reduce conflict with local Regulating timely screening process and status determination apply broader term of fleeing from persecution Enforce the measures to deport non-eligible cases Set up long term plan, include in irregular displacement strategy Set up strategy to support solution to the root cause of the problems
To RTG (cont.) Recommendation Initiate dialogue platform with UN to work for collaboration include all possible solutions Collaboration with Asian countries suffered from the same problems (China, Malaysia, etc.) to dialogue with Myanmar to solve the root cause Reconsider the collaboration with Myanmar on projects that lead to relocation or affect ethnic areas Collaboration with other investment countries to support reconciliation with ethnic groups and improvement of MM people s well-being
To Donors and UN Agencies Recommendation Collaborate and dialogue with RTG with equal consideration to all possible solutions Initiate supporting strategy, technical assistance to encourage shifting of policy instead of funding policy Collaborate with more countries to increase opportunity for resettlement Provide more support to improve condition of affected surrounding areas Initiate long term dialogue with Myanmar Gov. to improve condition in ethnic areas Collaborate and support organizations for sustainable development in ethnic areas Start planning for possible voluntary repatriation
To humanitarian NGOs Collaborate with RTG and camp committee not to provide assistance to non-eligible populations Recommendation Promote reducing expense approach, using sufficiency economic program, increasing employment opportunity and vocational trainings Initiate more program to secure food producing, using appropriate technologies
Recommendation To DPs Engage in more vocational trainings to prepare for all possible solutions Avoid breaking the regulations and laws to reduce the risk Avoid taking local community resources to reduce negative attitude Construct good relationship with local community to reduce tension and conflict