Mon Information Service 19.6.-96

[ojasti@xxxxxxxxxx]

MON INFORMATION SERVICE JUNE 1996


**************************************

1. MNRC MAY 1996 REPORT
   A. RICE, LAND DISPUTES AND NEW REFUGEES
   B. LACK OF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION.....

2. COMPASSION AND COLLUSION...

3. RECOMENDATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY


**************************************




1. MNRC MAY 1996 REPORT


"But the manners of Thai authorities in
driving out the suffering farmers and
confiscating land are inhumane and
maltreatment of a weak community." 


A. RICE PLANTATION, LAND DISPUTE AND NEW ARRIVALS 

Since January, the MNRC and the Mon Resettlement  Committee which was
formed with mostly New Mon State Party (NMSP) members from concerned 
District Administrative Body, have encouraged the refugees to prepare 
for rice plantation in this rainy season. To facilitate for smooth 
plantation process, that NMSP's committee has arranged sharing land 
to the refugees who planned for growing rice, and the MNRC and the 
donor organization, Burmese Border Consortium, provided available tools 
such as machete, grass scythe, hoe, axe, saw, file and whet stone for 
them. The method of rice plantation in the mountainous area is
normally slash and burnt. 

According to registers received by MNRC from respective sites, 
there were 259 families from Halockhani, 143 families from Bee Ree 
and only 91 families from Tavoy Area registered to grow rice and
then, when MNRC distribute rice seeds to those farmers, it was noted 
that 29 families from Halockhani and 5 families from Bee Ree have 
failed to grow. They explained that because of land soil they changed 
for other crops instead of rice, such as chilly and vegetables,
and some said they failed to grow because they have been delayed for
preparation time. Even when the MNRC and Mon Resettlement Committee have 
encouraged the refugees to grow rice, the rebuilding of houses and 
other needed structures in the camps  has taken time and only few
percent of the population has been able to grow rice. 

Furthermore, the number of farmer families has been reduced for 
several reasons; a land dispute on the borderline area, by the Halo-
ckhani camp ocurred between Mon refugee farmers and Thai autorities.
For decades the land by the borderline at the Three Pagoda Pass has
remained an area of complicated ownership for Thai and Burmeses people.
Since 1991 the Mon refugees have been constantly forced to relocate
due to the land disputes in this area. The current land dispute area
is the so called " Baleh Hanook" where  a few hundred Mon refugees were
located at Loh Loe in 1991. The Thai autorities were afraid that if
the Mon remained for a longer time the Burmeses autorities would
reclaim the land as part of Burma. For that reason the Mon refugees
have been forced to move from place to place.

Following the land dispute the Thai autorities, including army and
border police, drove about 50 Mon refugee farmers from that area and
also confiscated their tools given to them by donor organizations.
Fears of Thai autorities have produced the forced relocations of the
Mon refugees since 1991. After the refugees were attacked by Burmeses
troops in July 1994 Thai autorities did not allow the refugees to re-
turn to Thai soil. The refugees were forced by the Thai army to return
to the dangerous camp. Even temporary shelters for the refugees were
rejected by Thai autorities on Thai soil and on the borderline of
Three Pagoda Pass area. 

Mon refugee farmers and the NMSP local autorities claimed that the 
area under discussion belonged to Burma and that they so have right
to grow rice. Thai autorities did not agree and said  the Mon were
acting out orders of the Burmeses regime, after all NMSP had made
a cease-fire agreement with SLORC. Anyhow, that is not the case
the land dispute is an issue to be agreed between the two governments.
But the manners of Thai autorities, in diving out the suffering
farmers and confiscating land, are inhumane and a maltretment to a
weak community.

At the same time when the Mon farmers were forced to abandon their
rice plantations, not recieving protection from anybody, new arrivals
from several local Mon villages have arrived looking after a safe 
haven in Halockhani camp. After the confiscation of their mountai-
neous rice plantations they have no right to clear grass and reap
crops there. Because of the reduction of farmer numbers and land
confiscation the rice products in coming dry season must be re-
duced.


According to the reports sent by respective camp committees 45 
families have taken refuge at Halockhani camp in May while 40
families arrived to Tavoy area. They already registered to be camp
residents. Their reasons to abandon their native home and flee to
the refugee camps are very similar. The native places of origin
of the Halockhani new arrivals are in the villages of the Ye
township in the Mon State, Yebyu township of Tenasserim Division
and Kya Inn Seik Kyi of Karen State. The new arrivals of Tavoy
Area come mostly from their home villages of Yebyu township.

According to interviews conducted by MNRC, most of them escaped
the human rights abuses committed by SLORC local troops such as 
conscription to forced labour  and porters and collection of
various kinds of tax in their villages of origin.  

 Besides such kinds of abuses,the torturing of villagers is still
occurring in local areas, as the Burmese soldiers never abandoned
their previous bad behaviour towards the people. The most terrible 
area is Tenasserim Division where the military government is im- 
plementing several infrastructure projects such as Ye-Tavoy railway 
and gas pipe-line. 

For the moment, the MNRC already completed transportation process 
of all supplies to all of its  camps to stock-pile in rainy season.
Third week of May the rainy season started and at the present it 
might be difficult to transport rice to Halockhani and impossible 
to Tavoy Area because all the roads used for transportation have
collapsed. Therefore the MNRC can not transport more supplies for
those new arrivals and the stock-piling assistance in the camps
shall not cover the needs of the refugees to the end of the year.



B. LACK OF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION TO BURMA4S ETHNIC REFUGEES.


Compared with other refugees in the world, Cambodians, Kurds and
Afgans who had to leave their countries of origin due to human 
rights violations , the ethnic refugees of Burma have recieved no
international protection. The Burmese refugees, having the same
stories as other world refugees, forced by the civil war, perse-
cution, ethnic discrimination and other abuses have sought for
safe haven in Thailand as a country of asylum. Thailand, on the
other hand, has never welcome a well organized international
protection of Burmese refugees, contrarily of the principles
they have accepted on the Thai-Cambodia border.

Since the Burma4s ethnic refugees have been denied international
protection decisions to improve living conditions and security of
refugees must be made by the community itself together with the
political party holding arms and having fought for self determi-
nation. Such a protection, when facing government preassure is
however too fragile.  Community leaders and community organization
can not prevent the terrible consequences to the people. The 
refugees became pawns in political games and or economic struggle
of governments and profits. Terrible situations, forced relocation,
repatriation, threats for cutting supplies, blockage of roads for
transportation are means the autorities use putting the tolerance
of the refugees to a hard test.

In case of CROSS-BORDER RELOCATION of the Mon refugees there has
been some critic to the Mon community leaders, MNRC and NMSP as
making the relocation of the refugees without their consent and
so participating in "involuntary repatriation" or "forced repat-
riation". For MNRC the recent development was a "community orga-
nized relocation"  but we are not satisfied that such a relocation 
lacked the organization and presence of the international commu-
nity and the principles adopted by by United Nations were ignored.

Other Burmeses refugees living under similar conditions have also
suffered the preassure and felt the absence of the international
protection. The Kachin refugees, taking refuge along the Chinese 
border, neither recieved international protection nor assistance
for survival. For that reason the Kachin refugee community is the
most isolated one of all the refugees from Burma.

Mon,Karen,Karenni and Shan refugees of Thai-Burma border have re-
cieved available assistance for survival but their safety has
allways been in danger and  several times the supplies were blocked 
to transport due to the preassure of Thai autorities. The interna-
tional protection is reluctant and possible safety was never pro-
vided by the country of asylum. Particularly Mon and Karen refugees
have been attacked by Burmese troops and refugees were arrested,
detained, killed and kidnapped. Because of such experiences the
refugees always feel very unsafe everywere even in Thailand.

The first suffering of the refugees was under the inhumane military
dictatorship, the second suffering they experienced on the border
camps where they expected to have safety. The practical internatio-
nal protection is still reluctant and no organization is able to
relieve this suffering. The international attention was present 
only in "hard situations" , forcefull migrations, military attacks
and flagrant violations. After the situation the international 
attention disappears and the refugees continue suffering.

The situation of Burma4s ethnic refugees has no international
protection, Burma, the country of origin offers no productive
situation for the repatriation. UNTIL THE TIME IS REACHED FOR
REPATRIATION THE REFUGEES STILL NEED THE INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION
AS PROVIDED TO REFUGEES IN OTHER COUNTRIES OF ASYLUM ACCORDING
TO INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION LAW ON REFUGEES.

*******************************************

2. COMPASSION AND COLLUSION, THE MON REPATRIATION AND THE
   ILLUSION OF CHOICE. 


RECOMMENDED!

A well documented 31 page research paper on the Mon Refugee issue
has been published, February 1996, by the Jesuit Refugee Service-
Asia/Pacific. Copies are available for 2.00 US or Thai Bt.50 at
JRS-AP  24/1 Sol Aree 4 ( South ) Phoholyothin Road 7
        Bangkok 10400 Thailand
	e-mail  jrsap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
	Tel + 66 2 279 1817
	Fax + 66 2 271 3632

FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO KNOW THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY WE COPY
THE "RECOMMENDATIONS" FROM THE PAGE 28 AS POIN 3 OF THIS MIS NUMBER.



*****************************************


3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY.


( From Compassion and Collusion.... p.28 )




A. Governments, international organizations, NGO4s and humanitarian
   groups should press for a repatriation which meets accepted inter-
   national standards for protection and assistance, garanteed by the
   governments involved, and should provide adequate funding and
   assistance to implement it.

B. Mon refugees should be formally recognized as refugees by the
   Thai government, and their legal options should be a matter of 
   public record.

C. The Thai government should autorize and facilitate UNHCR4s exercise
   of its internationsl mandate for protection, assistance and 
   durable solutions for Mon refugees.

D. The Thai government should allow unencumbered access to the BBC
   delivering assistance to the Mon before their repatriation, and
   should allow access to these areas at least until the end of 1996.

E. The Thai government should enact legislation recognizing refugees
   and the right of asylum.

F. UNHCR should continue to request the Burmese government to show
   good will by allowing fulla and free monitoring of Mon returnees.

G. The Thai and Burmese governments should as a matter of humanitarian
   intrest, extend the timetable for repatriation until the viability
   of integration is ensured.

H. The Burmese government should publicly accept its obligation to
   protect Mon returnees as citizens of Burma, free of harassment or
   human rights violations.

I. UNHCR or other recognized international organization should be
   given frequent and full access to the returnees. This monitoring
   should be from the Thai side if that is the only logistical way
   to ensure quality monitoring.

J. The Burmese and the Thai governments should allow cross-border
   reintegration assistance from the Thai side of the border until 
   such assistance is available from inside Burma.

K. As a show of good will, the cease fires should be followed up 
   with full peace negotiations.

L. Since UNHCR has a recognized international mandate to protect
   refugees, it should encourage to publicly comment on the Mon
   repatriation, or be held accountable when its silence communi-
   cates support for the status quo.

M. Embassy4s and other organizations should participate in this
   attempt to protect Mon returnees.

N. International organizations and embassies should consider their
   role in the repatriation and ensure adequate guarantees of access
   and monitoring  before financing a repatriation program.



			----ooooOOOOoooo----


MIS-Europe, PL 305, Fin-01301 Vantaa, Finland
	    e-mail  ojasti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx