TNAG-1427-FCO40-1910-Vietnamese-refugees-in-Hong-Kong-general-1986 — Page 188

3

To d

repatriation has not really been tried. There are only a few officers concerned with repatriation in Bangkok, while scores of others are busy facilitating third country resettlement.

CHINA

BURMA

VIETNAM

HỒNG KÔNG

LADS

THAILAND

CAMBODIA

MALAYSIA

SINGAPORE

the former government.

INDONESIA

PHILIPPINES

Nonetheless, a northern Vietnamese fisherman, who has lived all his life under the communist government and who has no ties outside of his fishing village near Haiphong, has no claim on the international community just because he left his country by boat. But he and his family have been sitting in Hong Kong for the past five

years.

Similarly, a young man from southern Vietnam has no claim to be a refugee simply because he does not want to serve in the military, especially when neither he nor his family have been singled out for any special treatment by the government. Yet he now sits in Song Khla, Thailand, and, if things continue as they are, he will be on his way to third country resettlement-most likely to the United States within three years, even though he has no ties to the United States and is completely non-political. The cases go on and on.

Yet, to acknowledge this fact in the context of Southeast Asia today is to raise some difficult prob- lems-which perhaps explains why so many have tried to avoid them over the past four years.

It seems clear that the Vietnamese boat migrants cannot stay forever in the countries of first asylum. Yet, if we are to be fair to bona fide refugees, we should not resettle these migrants in third countries.

But an attitude has developed among many refugee officials that as long as there are offers of third country resettlement, why not let new arrivals claim them. There is little incentive for all parties involved-the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), UNHCR, U.S. embassies, voluntary agencies to do otherwise as long as numbers are available. The machinery to fill quotas is in place and well-oiled.

This efficiency in accomplishing third country reset-

tlement was commendable when nearly all the persons coming forward were refugees who had strong claims on the "humanitarian concern" of the United States.

The Repatriation Option

With the options of local settlement eliminated and third country resettlement reduced, the only other alter- native left is repatriation. This, obviously, will be extremely difficult to arrange. But, to date, it has not really been tried, despite repeated assurances by the UNHCR and others that we are pursuing repatriation.

Certainly, the results to date are singularly disap- pointing. Except for a few thousand Laotians, there have been virtually no repatriations to Laos, Vietnam or Cambodia. In Bangkok, there are only a few officers concerned with repatriation, while scores of others are busy facilitating third country resettlement and provid- ing assistance and protection to new arrivals.

This is not to blame the UNHCR for not achieving something they cannot do alone-negotiate satisfactory repatriation agreements without strong diplomatic sup- port from all concerned governments. But, again, there is little evidence that the United States has given any greater priority to repatriation than has the UNHCR- and neither will as long as massive third country resettlement opportunities exist.

This obviously must change, not only because third country resettlement numbers are destined to be reduced, but also in fairness to bona fide refugees who are, in effect, being penalized because they are arriving with a migrant flow. In Hong Kong, an arriving refugee will be forced to go to a prison-like “closed camp,” and, in Thailand, to wait for years before being processed, simply because he is mixed in with Indochinese migrants.

The time has come for the UNHCR to begin the difficult task of interviewing all new Indochinese arrivals to determine who are refugees under the United Nations Convention and Protocol, and sorting out those who are migrants. By beginning to screen out migrants, the UNHCR and the countries of first asylum, as well as resettlement countries, can deal more fairly with both groups.

But the UNHCR cannot begin such a case-by-case determination without diplomatic support, without some progress in opening up solutions other than third country resettlement, and without some assurance that it will not be left holding the bag. The UNHCR understandably cannot accept responsibility for refugees who cannot stay in countries of first asylum, without some guarantee that other options, such as repatriation or third country. resettlement, will be available.