11. Two hard questions from the Netherlands to UNHCR brought fudged but acceptable answers from Hocké. Asked about press reports that UNHCR's Netherlands representative opposed any enforced returns he said that cases had to be looked at
individually but removal could not be ruled out if it was "the exception and not the rule" and in the context of efforts to
promote voluntary return. Asked if voluntariness of departure was a condition for UNHCR assistance post-return, he said that would have to be discussed with the Sri Lankan government.
12.
Introducing the second meeting Mr Arbenz summarised the conclusions of the project group so far:
the putative programme would only cover voluntary returns but individual governments were free to enforce departures whenever they felt it necessary
-
returns would be scheduled well ahead and comprise small groups, at least initially
it would be necessary to have Sri Lankan co-operation on immigration formalities and replacing identity papers
it would be helpful to link the programme of returns with reconstruction efforts already underway.
He added that timing must be dependent on developments in Sri Lanka and mentioned the referendum on the continued merger of the Northern and Eastern provinces scheduled for July.
13. A frustrating hour followed in which ICM gave a familiar account of their involvement in repatriating failed asylum seekers of all nationalities, particularly the specific programmes they operate with Belgium and Germany. There was much soothing emphasis on the need for further discussion of
respective roles and to see how things developed. The German
representative, Mr Scholl, was unhappy and emphasised that Germany would have to go it alone; they were currently
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.