VZCZCXRO4224
PP RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM RUEHNH
DE RUEHBK #1103/01 1211025
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 011025Z MAY 09
FM AMEMBASSY BANGKOK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6919
INFO RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 2128

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BANGKOK 001103 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR PRM/ENA, PRM/A, EAP/MLS 
GENEVA FOR RMA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/01/2019 
TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL PGOV TH
SUBJECT: THAILAND: ASSISTANCE NGO TO LEAVE LAO HMONG 
DETENTION CENTER IN PETCHABUN. 
 
Classified By: DCM James F. Entwistle, reasons 1.5 (b,d) 
 
 ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: On April 24, the NGO Doctors Without Borders 
(MSF) informed us of its plans to leave the detention center 
in Petchabun within the next two to four weeks.  MSF cited 
Royal Thai Armed Forces (RTARF) interference with its work 
providing medical care, food and water/sanitation.  The 
Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration provides most of 
MSF's  funding in the Petchabun camp.  The Thai MFA and 
Ministry of the Interior are trying to convince MSF to stay, 
but will work to find a replacement if unsuccessful. MSF will 
postpone an announcement on its withdrawal until a 
MFA-arranged meeting with security agencies takes place next 
week.  Any easing of army pressure on the NGO will, however, 
likely only buy a few weeks time ) MSF insists it has 
decided to cease operations. The planned withdrawal of MSF, 
the only NGO in the camp, has increased stress among the 
5,000 remaining Lao Hmong residents, and several 
hunger-striking protesters have injured themselves. 
 
¶2. (C) COMMENT: MSF has been long ambivalent about its U.S. 
) funded role in Petchabun, which is a departure from the 
traditional profile of an MSF mission. MSF sees its mandate 
as medical assistance in the emergency phase of a 
humanitarian crisis. Humanitarian assistance in protracted, 
&static8 situations (such as the one in Petchabun) is 
generally assumed by UN agencies or other NGOs, particularly 
if logistical operations such as food distribution are 
involved. MSF country director Gilles Isaard has often told 
us the absence of other options, and the poor psychological 
state of Lao Hmong internees, have been the reasons for its 
continued presence.  A deterioration in relations with local 
military commanders in the camp, who have interfered with MSF 
daily operations on several occasions over the past two 
months, has offered MSF the immediate reason to depart. MSF 
is also nervous about being present on the scene when 
threatened forced returns begin in the next weeks/months. 
END SUMMARY AND COMMENT. 
 
MSF SIGNALS PLAN TO PULL OUT 
============================ 
 
¶3. (SBU) The Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and 
Migration has  funded MSF (through UNICEF) since September 
2007 to provide food and water/sanitation to the 
approximately 5000 remaining Lao Hmong detained in the 
RTARF-managed camp at Petchabun. (A medical clinic is 
supported by MSF private funds.) On April 24, MSF informed us 
of its plans to cease operations in the camp as soon as 
practicable, citing RTARF interference.  The NGO has not yet 
set a concrete withdrawal date, but has told us it will leave 
in as little as two weeks, or may stay as long as a month or 
more, depending on the level of "cooperation" it receives 
from the RTARF.  MSF plans to distribute a one-month supply 
of food in advance of its departure to ease a possible 
transition period. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The Ministry of Interior (MOI) and Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs (MFA) met with MSF on April 29 in an attempt 
to convince it to stay, but MSF has told us a firm decision 
has been made to leave. MSF agreed, however, to delay its 
public announcement of its withdrawal until after a 
hastily-called internal RTG meeting occurs the week of May 4. 
 The MFA is anxious to have another international 
organization take MSF,s place in order to illustrate the 
camp's &openness8, and will attempt to convince skeptical 
army and other security agencies. (Note: Charge, weighed in 
with MFA Permsec Virasakdi on the MSF situation on April 27. 
Our understanding is that control of the camp, located inside 
a 3rd Army facility, remains in the RTARF's hands, subject to 
overall policy direction from the National Security Council. 
The MOI, responsible for 150,000 Burmese in nine refugee 
camps, has little or no say in the Petchabun facility. End 
Note). 
 
¶5. (C) In withdrawing, MSF cites a series of RTARF actions 
which they say violate two pre-conditions agreed opon when 
they arrived in Petchabun camp: no pressure on MSF staff, and 
free access to the camp population. The latest incident which 
precipitated MSF,s withdrawal decision was a new RTARF 
requirement that patients at the clinic pass through an army 
checkpoint. Access to the clinic was not denied by the army, 
but many Lao Hmong are reluctant to pass the check point, 
fearing a recent army tactic of arrest and coerced return to 
Laos of key camp leaders and their extended family members. 
Some camp residents who are given small stipends to assist 
MSF operations have been questioned by the RTARF about their 
work and must pass through checkpoints before entering the 
 
BANGKOK 00001103  002 OF 002 
 
 
MSF compound, though there have been no incidents of staff 
being denied access. 
 
¶6. ( C ) In March, the RTARF demanded that MSF,s thirty 
long-employed Lao Hmong staff at the medical clinic be fired. 
 MSF was able to negotiate retention of half of the staff, 
but the reduction had an impact on clinic operations, and 
reduced their window into conditions in the large camp. In 
February, the RTARF briefly restricted food distribution to 
certain camp residents who refused to appear for mandatory 
head counts. The head counts have been used by the army to 
search empty tents for contraband such as moonshine liquor 
and lottery tickets. Again, MSF was able to negotiate a 
resumption of food distribution, but was unhappy at the 
pattern of army interference. 
 
HUNGER STRIKE AND THREATENED SUICIDE 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Word of MSF,s departure has reached camp 
residents, causing some psychological distress. Since April 
26, five Lao Hmong men (along with their extended families) 
have displayed banners and begun a hunger strike protesting 
the move. Several have superficial self-inflicted wounds on 
their wrists, and one man has stabbed himself in the leg, 
causing a serious injury. As of May 1, MSF staff was still 
attempting to persuade them to stop the protest. RTARF 
personnel are observing, but as of COB had  not intervened. 
 
THE WAY AHEAD 
------------- 
 
¶8. (C) We will work with UNICEF to determine how long MSF 
will remain, encourage MSF to provide assistance for a 
transition period, and advocate RTG acceptance of another 
assistance provider. Assuming a positive response to the 
latter, we will attempt to identify a suitable partner. The 
International Organization for Migration (IOM) has a 
long-standing proposal (for which PRM has funding) with the 
RTG to provide return and reintegration assistance to the Lao 
Hmong in Petchabun, and it is possible they may be able to 
add food distribution and medical care. In 2004/2005, IOM ran 
a clinic for Lao Hmong in Wat Tham Krabok. IOM told us they 
would be willing to consider an RTG request to provide 
services in place of MSF. 
JOHN