TNAG-1066-FCO40-1316-Human-rights-in-Hong-Kong-1981 — Page 64

E/CN.4/1503 page 56

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. It 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 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 fulfil and

cannot concern themselves with controversial matters, usually

of a political nature.

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 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 a

common border.

1

1