TAGO (2)
Why is monitoring needed?
3. The United States remains opposed to involuntary repatriation of
boat people and has lobbied other countries who participated in the
Geneva conference, and more particularly with UNHCR, against becoming involved in an involuntary repatriation programme, including monitoring. Yet NGOS directly involved with the problem
of Vietnamese boat people have come
people have come to accept the inevitable logic
of repatriation, providing it is coupled with adequate monitoring. In a paper produced in June 1989, Oxfam said:
• ·
"Western Nations must reconcile themselves to the thought of
repatriating people to Vietnam.
Existing monitoring
arrangements with UNHCR could be extended to ensure their reasonable
treatment after repatriation".
And in a letter to the Times, Nicholas Hinton, Director General of
Save the Children said:
"For many boat people repatriation is the only long-term solution.
In such cases repatriation should not be delayed, but it must be
supervised to ensure adequate protection and accompanied by the urgent resumption of development aid to Vietnam".
The July 1989 newsletter of the British Refugee Council took up the
same theme:
"Screening, once that path has been taken, is inescapable. With it,
logically, goes repatriation of some kind...... Repatriation looks as if it will, at least, bring an acknowledgement by the West of
Vietnam's desperate need for aid. It may well serve as the
framework for the monitoring of human rights in the country. Both
these provisions are an absolute requirement if forced repatriation
cannot be avoided, together with guarantees of personal protection
of returning refugees (sic)".
4. The question of aid is a complex one. Our repatriation agreement with the Vietnamese provides for a modest degree of
reintegration assistance, but resumption of aid proper hinges not