resettlement.
If they remain in Thailand, however, it is an open
question as to how this will change things. Certainly, pressure
from humanitarian groups will mount for there to be limited
resettlement opportunities available for vulnerable groups, such
as orphans, and compelling individual cases--for example where an
individual is in imminent danger of persecution or where members
of an individual's family are in the U.S. or some other country
and he or she wants to be reunited with them.
The humanitarian merits for doing this on a limited basis
seem undeniable. If it is to occur, care needs to be taken not
to communicate a broader commitment to resettlement than there is
will on the part of the countries of resettlement to support.
Further, such actions should not be communicated or implemented
in a manner that would cause a linkage to be made between them
and Thailand's willingness to provide humanitarian asylum.
Finally, limited resettlement from the camps in Kampuchea or from
border camps in Thailand--if they remain there--should not weaken
commitments to complete processing in a fair and expeditious
manner of the Khmer who already are being considered for
resettlement.
Controversy continues to swirl around the current processing
of the remaining Khmer at the UNHCR-administered camp, Khao-i-
Dang, who are eligible for resettlement.
Rejection rates of
resettlement applications of this group reportedly are high.
Steps are being taken to improve the review procedures, but there
is still reason to be concerned. Just what will happen to those
who are rejected is unknown.
These people, however, do not cease
6