Economic and Social Council

Distr.General

E/CN.4/2005/NGO/180

10 March 2005

English only

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Sixty-first session Items 9, 10 and 14 (d) of the provisional agenda

QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS SPECIFIC GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS: OTHER VULNERABLE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS

Written statement* submitted by the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status

The Secretary-General has received the following written statement which is circulated in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31. [10 February 2005]

* This written statement is issued, unedited, in the language(s) received from the submitting non-governmental organization(s).

Situation in Burma / Thailand: The Shan People

1. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), a nongovernmental organisation in special consultative status, in cooperation with the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), wish to draw the attention of the Commission on Human Rights on the issue of Shan Peoples in Burma and in Thailand.

2. For almost 10 years now, the people of the Shan State have been particularly targeted for persecution by the military junta in order to stop their resistance and to secure control over the territory's rich natural resources. As a result over 300,000 Shan and other ethnic people have been forcibly evicted from their homes in central Shan State, including from lands needed to build a large-scale hydropower dam on the Salween River.

3. In this regard, the 60th session of the Commission on Human Rights (2004) paid strong attention to such persistent problem in its resolution 2004/24 stating “Strongly urges Governments to undertake immediately measures, at all levels, aimed at eliminating the practice of forced eviction by, inter alia, repealing existing plans involving forced evictions as well as any legislation allowing for forced evictions, and by adopting and implementing legislation ensuring the right to security of tenure for all residents” ( Commission on Human Rights resolution 2004/28).

4. Thailand has been providing refugee camps since 1984 and has allowed international NGOs to provide support to the refugees. Since 1998, Thailand also allowed the UNHCR to have a limited protection role in the refugee camps. However, the people of the Shan State of Burma are not recognised as asylum seekers in Thailand and are not provided with refuge and humanitarian assistance. Thus, the Shan people are forced to either live in hiding, illegally, on the Thai-Burma border, or seek work in low-paid, low-skilled jobs such as construction workers, factory workers or domestic workers. The denial of refuge status has immense impact on the vulnerable Shan asylum seekers such as pregnant women, children, elderly and disabled persons. As such the Shan asylum seekers live in constant fear of being arrested and deported to Burma. This fear has increased after the implementation of an agreement between Thailand and Burma on the repatriation of migrant workers since August 2003.

5. Today, there are common misperceptions and myths about the Shan people who hope that by increasing the awareness of the real situation of Shan asylum seekers, the Thai public, the Thai government, international NGOs and the UNHCR will amend their current policies and finally give refuge and humanitarian assistance to the people of Shan State.

6. Myth # 1: Shans entering Thailand are all migrant workers: The Shan have historically been coming to Thailand, as migrant workers, for many decades. Prior to 1996, young men aged between 20-40 years, from all parts of Shan State came alone to work during the dry season. However the consistently high flows of Shan asylum seekers arriving in Fang district of northern Thailand between 1997 and 2002, ranging between 8,000 and 15,000 each year, are much higher. Almost all the new arrivals post-1996 are from the twelve townships in Shan State where the SPDC has conducted its mass forced relocation programme and associated systematic human rights abuses. The monthly totals of incoming Shan people show that there is no seasonal pattern that would correlate to work opportunities in Thailand. 47% of the arrivals were under 18 years old or 45 years and older. Unlike migrant workers, these are entire families moving, many of whose members are not of working ages (Shan Human Rights Foundation, Charting the Exodus from Shan State: Patterns of refugee flows into Northern Chiang Mai Province of Thailand, 1997-2002, 2003, Thailand). These are not migrant workers, but asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and systematic violations of human rights under the Burmese military regime.

7. Myth # 2: Shans are "relatives" of Thais and therefore Shan refugees/migrants can integrate easily into Thai society and therefore don’t need refuge and support: While in the past Shan people might have been accepted into Thailand, this has not been the experience of those who have fled to Thailand since 1996. The need for scapegoating for the increased unemployment rate in Thailand during and after the 1997 economic crisis, led to a change of the Thai government’s policy towards migrant workers and there have been increasing crackdowns on them. This created a hostile environment for people from Shan State coming to Thailand, who were associated with migrant workers. The negative attitudes were fuelled by campaigns against migrant workers in the media.

In this climate, Shan asylum seekers have found it very hard to integrate. They are unable to move freely but forced to remain in hiding. To ensure that they are not noticed by Thai officials who will deport them back to Burma, they have to immediately make efforts to give up their cultural identity. They struggle to learn the Thai language, dress like Thais, and most women and girls cut their long hair as soon as they arrive.

The 1997 Thai Constitution guarantees that all people living in Thailand have the right to live in dignity – but this is not a reality for the Shan refugees in Thailand. Unfortunately, Thailand constitution has yet to recognize the rights of the noncitizens. 8. Myth # 3: Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and therefore has no obligation to protect Shan refugees: However, under international law, Thailand has an obligation not to deport Shan people back to Burma when they have left Burma due to a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political opinion” and are unable to access government protection in Burma.

Importantly, under the universal human rights principle of non-discrimination, Thailand should not discriminate against particular groups, but provide equal opportunities for all asylum seekers and refugees. The people from Shan State suffer the same persecution as other groups from Burma and so should be given equal access to refugee camps and support services.

9. Myth # 4: Shan refugees bring drugs, crime and disease into Thailand: The drug problem is inextricably linked to the lack of political settlement to the ethnic issue in Burma. Instead of entering into political negotiations with ethnic resistance forces, the regime has simply made ceasefire agreements with some groups, giving them free rein to do business, including drug production. Drug output has therefore soared since 1988, and the regime itself has profited directly from the drug trade. Villagers in some areas of Shan State have fled to Thailand to avoid being forced to grow opium by the Burmese military. Equally importantly, the Thai army and anti-narcotic agency admit publicly that the production and trafficking of methamphetamine, which is regarded as the most serious threat to Thailand, on the Thai-Burmese border, are controlled and operated by SPDC troops and their allies including the United Wa State Army. 10. Myth # 5: The camps will be used by non-State groups to perpetuate the armed conflict in Burma: Civil war has been continuing in Shan State for over four decades. Even without Shan refugee camps in Thailand, the conflict has been continuing and human rights violations against civilians have worsened. Therefore the presence of refugee camps is not a determinant of the conflict continuing. On the contrary, the lack of refuge and assistance in Thailand simply drives Shan asylum seekers back into the conflict zones, where they re-enter the cycle of violence, and once more become targets of the regime's scorched earth tactics. Thus, denying refuge to the Shan asylum seekers is in itself perpetuating the conflict and perpetuating the suffering of the Shan people.

11. In conclusion, our organizations urge the Commission on Human Rights to consider concrete action on Burma’s rights record by adopting another resolution on the human rights situation in the country. Such resolution should:

a) Call upon the SPDC to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law, including Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, to halt the use of weapons against the civilian population, to protect all civilians, including persons belonging to ethnic or religious minorities from violations of humanitarian law;

b) Call upon the SPDC to begin tri-partite dialogue with representatives of non- Burmese ethnic nationalities and the Burmese opposition groups to re-establish democracy in Burma,

c) Call upon the SPDC to immediately stop the forced evictions of Shan and other ethnic people from their homes in central Shan State, including from lands needed to build a large-scale hydropower dam on the Salween River,

d) Express concern on the situation of Shan asylum seekers in Thailand,

e) Urge the Special Rapporteur on Burma to intervene on the situation of Shan asylum seekers in Thailand.

Source: UNCHR