E/CN.4/1503 page 56
It
122. Firstly, there is an obvious lack of contact in man-made
exodus situations between the authorities of the country of origin and those of the country (or countries) of asylum. would appear that those who leave are "written off" by their
government, more often than not being labelled as traitors,
criminals, undesirables, subversives or, at best, misguided elements, while the receiving government is left to handle
matters. To be sure, when political circumstances change
and negotiated settlements can be initiated, bilateral talks
are a prelude to any mass repatriation. Governments seldom
get together whilst the exodus is underway, however, and indeed they may not even
even be enjoying normal diplomatic re- lations at the time which would permit them to do so.
123. As a result, the receiving countries with the help of international agencies mount relief and resettlement operations which may develop and grow in a vacuum without any relation to, or detailed knowledge of, the origins or causes of the problem or its likely resolution. Relief agencies, whether they be intergovernmental or non-governmental, continue to refrain from going far into the background to mass movements on the grounds that they have a humanitarian mandate to
to fulfil
cannot concern themselves with controversial matters, usually of a political nature.
and
124. Thus the need for meaningful dialogue with those princi- pally responsible on how to contain the problem remains unmet. Even if the countries of origin should offer a version of the causes which trigger movement which
which some might qualify as slanted, their responsibility towards their own nationals needs to be upheld particularly if there is a danger of economic and social disruption in the receiving country and the under- mining of peaceful relations between States which share
common border.
125.
fin:
abo
"lat
anc
ecol
we
thr
rec
int
for
So,
use
126
whe
apr
of
san
hel
mer
ste
ot!
in
ve:
CO1
ta
12
up
te
by