Many of the refugees in the Mae La camp have been there 21 years. Those who were children at the time they fled violence and persecution in their native Burma with their parents are grown now with their own children — all living confined to the “Temporary Shelter,” as it is called by Thai authorities, in the northwest of that country, situated only 5 miles from the Burmese border. Given the persistence of gross human rights abuses against civilians (particularly ethnic minorities) by the military regime in Burma, the concept of “temporary” is likely to be stretched much further before the refugees are able to return home.
As a guest of Church World Service and the Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC), I visited Mae La (the largest camp in Thailand, with 49,000 inhabitants — primarily ethnic Karen and Muslim Burmese), as well as Umpiem Mai, a smaller camp (pop. 19,000) which is grafted at improbable angles onto a mountainside south of Mae Sot.
One of the first things that struck me when I arrived at the camps was the lack of placards displaying the logo of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which are ubiquitous in refugee camps in Africa and elsewhere. This reveals a stark difference in Thailand’s stance towards the refugees it hosts. Thailand is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention1 and has chosen to limit the involvement of the UN and international aid agencies in its refugee affairs. As the plight of Burmese refugees is very much tied up in the political and economic relations between Burma and Thailand, the latter prefers to keep the situation low profile on its northwest border. Access to the camps is thus carefully controlled, particularly for journalists, but also for humanitarian workers or advocates who might draw too much attention to the situation.
I was prepared for this by the good counsel of the Rev. Katharine (Kitty) Babson, an Episcopal priest and mission volunteer in Burma, who has been working on these issues for decades, mostly on the more-neglected Burmese side of the border. On the Thai side, Christ Church Bangkok helps support three Anglican churches in the Mae La camp, each with its own nursery school, and an orphanage.
One interesting side-effect of the absence of international aid workers in the border camps is that the refugees themselves have developed highly organized structures for managing their own affairs. Typically in camps elsewhere there is little more than token refugee representation in decision-making bodies. In the camps in Thailand, by contrast, little happens without the consent and involvement of the refugee-run committees and ethnic organizations. The refugees manage the distribution of food and supplies provided by TBBC, and administer a wide range of social and vocational activities. These include running orphanages, safe houses for women, providing training on sexual and gender-based violence, and offering sewing and weaving workshops.
Of course, the biggest decisions and the ones that really count still reside with the Thai authorities, and these involve the status of the refugees in the country and their legal rights to residence, work, education, and most importantly, the right not to be deported back to Burma. According to the government, there are no refugees in Thailand. The term “refugee” invokes a set of legal obligations that they have not signed on for. Therefore, those whom we would call “refugees,” in Thai terms are variously “persons of concern,” “displaced persons,” or simply “migrants.” The gradations of rights or lack thereof that go along with these various appellations are in constant flux, leaving the Burmese in a state of perpetual instability and fear. At the time of my visit, the Thai government had just announced a policy that all Burmese refugees must relocate to the border camps by March 31, 2005 or risk deportation. This policy especially affects several thousand Burmese living in Bangkok and is suspected of targeting their political dissonance efforts against the Burmese regime.
While the majority of Burmese refugees are understandably intent on returning home, regardless of how protracted the wait may be, many have also accepted the opportunity to resettle to a third country, such as the U.S. Back in Bangkok, I visited a Cultural Orientation (CO) class for those destined for the U.S., run by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). It has taken years of trial and error for the U.S. resettlement program to hone its message in orienting refugees for what awaits them upon resettlement. The adjustment process is often more difficult than refugees anticipate and they are too rarely prepared for the speed at which they are expected to become self-sufficient after arrival. As was shared with me by Peter Salnikowski, the CO Coordinator for IOM Bangkok, more than in any other resettlement country, in the U.S. refugees are expected to “hit the ground running, and get on their feet very quickly.” Quite true.
Judging from the class session I witnessed, I think we are finally getting the message right. It was the last day of a 5-day training, and the adept and amusing instructor, Daryl Morrissey, quizzed the students on what they had learned: “Who will be your number 1 resource in the U.S.?” All in unison answer, “Myself!” And who will be your number 2 resource? Again in unison: “The resettlement agency!” Jokes ensued among students regarding who was number 3: George Bush? 911? Could you reach the president directly by dialing 911? I left the class feeling confident that this group was well-prepared for what lay ahead and hopeful that they would retain the same delightful sense of humor after arrival in the U.S. in facing the challenges—and successes—that await them.
I also left Thailand hoping (against hope perhaps) that the peace and democracy that the Burmese envision for their country will come to pass quickly and that they will soon be able to return home. At the same time I know that those who seek their futures in the U.S. through the resettlement program will enjoy the warm welcome they deserve from our affiliate offices, churches and broader communities.
