From: "Canh Le" <@media-lab.mit.edu:Canh_Le.EMERYVILLE@qmuucp>
Subject: NGO delegation report re. V
Originator: daemon@media-lab.media.mit.edu
Reply-To: rmail@tribe.tribe.com
Organization: SCV Relay
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:51:15 GMT

                       Subject:                               Time:10:59 AM
  OFFICE MEMO          NGO delegation report re. Vietnamese_  Date:11/16/92
The following report was published in the Spring 1992 issue of The Bridge, a
newsletter of the Indochina Resource Action Center (IRAC). For information on
The Bridge and IRAC please contact

     Indochina Resource Action Center
     16281 16th St., N.W. 3rd Floor
     Washington D.C. 20009
     Tel:(202)667-4690
     Fax:(202)667-6449

This report is posted by Canh Viet Le, Secretary/Treasurer of the IRAC Board of
Directors. I appreciate your interest and look forward to reading your views.
Please address your e-mail comments to canh@tribe.com

Because my e-mail system is new, the auto-addressing reply feature is not
working well. Please make sure you override the default address and make sure to
type canh@tribe.com in the TO: field.

I apologize for this incovenience.

<<<<<< Attached TEXT file follows >>>>>>
Spring 1992                       The Bridge

SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
>From the December 1991 NGO Delegation to Vietnam and Hong Kong

Invited by the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in
Geneva and coordinated by IRAC, a delegation composed of five representatives
from Non-Governmental Organizations in the United States, Switzerland, and Hong
Kong, visited Vietnam from 7 to 14 December 1991 to look into the general
situation of the returnees, the monitoring program currently administered by
the UNHCR, and various assistance programs available to returnees. Individual
delegation members extended their visits to Thailand and other Southeast Asian
countries; three returned via Hong Kong (18-20 December) to look into
screening. Following are excerpts from the delegation 's report.

VIETNAM

Due to limited time and logistical problems, the delegation was able to
interview only a small number of returnees. Some of these were chosen by the
delegation from lists that were shared with us; others were chosen by the UNHCR
and the SRV government.

There is no uniform policy regarding the prosecutions of boat owners or illegal
trip organizers. While the central government and various local authorities
maintain that repatriated boat owners and trip organizers are still punishable
by law in Vietnam, the provincial authorities in Quang Ninh Province claim that
they will not prosecute the boat owners and trip organizers should these people
decide to return home voluntarily. Some families are being split because one of
the family members may be deterred from returning voluntarily to Vietnam for
fear of prosecution, thereby creating tension for this particular group in
first asylum countries and in Vietnam.

Some returnees interviewed at the transit center in Ha Noi alleged that they
have experienced misuse of power and intimidation on the part of the transit
center's staff. The center is currently run by the SRV's Ministry of Interior
only.

No special attention is given to nor arrangements made for vulnerable groups of
returnees, including unaccompanied minors, women who suffered violence in first
asylum countries, and handicapped people. The UNHCR Branch Office in Hanoi does
not keep a list of vulnerable persons nor does it compile any statistics on
them. The SRV government admittedly promulgates no special policy for these
vulnerable groups.

In addition to the difficult general reintegration adjustments, minors suffer
from two peculiar, interwoven problems arising from their stay in first asylum
countries: their mental health condition and their schooling situation.

o Most children, especially the unaccompanied minors, suffer some kind of
mental crisis as a result of their stay in detention centers, during the
formative years of their psycho-social development.

o Upon return, most children find themselves two or more years behind their
age-mates. The embarrassment of being in the same grade as younger siblings or
friends usually forces the children to change school or

go to the night school, and eventually discourages them from continuing their
formal education altogether.

Asylum-seekers must return to Vietnam before they can join their family file
with the Orderly Departure Program (ODP). Families who have just been
interviewed or are about to be interviewed for ODP will be held back for 90
days to wait for their family members who have decided to return to Vietnam
voluntarily.

Some returnees do not have basic information, e.g. names, addresses, and
telephone numbers of contact persons from the UNHCR and EC Programs. It is
still not a common practice among monitoring officers to leave their business
cards with returnees at the time of their interviews, though we noted that this
was the practice in Ho Chi Minh City.

The EC loan program provides three categories of loans to returnees: (l) loans
under US$200 which require no collateral other than a signature by someone
known to the bank; (2) loans from US$200 to US$2,000 with collateral required;
and (3) the largest loans of $2,000 and up to businesses, with significant
collateral required. The program is progressing slowly in the North and faster
in Ho Chi Minh City, where participation by EC officers in the determination of
eligibility and approval of loans makes the programs much more effective.

EC requirements for the different loan categories are not well publicized among
returnees and local residents. The fact that collateral is NOT required for the
category of the lowest loans, e.g $200 or less, is not widely known to
returnees and other citizens. Some officials of the Vietnam Bank of Agriculture
are requesting collateral for this category; apparently, the understanding on
this requirement was not uniform, even between the bank officials and the EC or
UNHCR officers.

Needs for the EC loan program in different regions are also different. It was
found that there were much larger numbers in the $200 loan category both for
returnees and others in Ho Chi Minh City, whereas people in the North appear to
need more capital to make the initial investment for fishing boats and/or
fishing equipment. (Five loans in this category in the North compared to 200 in
the South.)

Returnees as well as local residents in Ho Chi Minh City benefit greatly from
the City's EC Information Center. There are fewer complaints about the EC
programs and better knowledge and understanding of the opportunities.  


Conditions in the two EC training centers we visited call for improvement,
including more technically advanced equipment. Compared to the number of
participating local residents, the number of returnees in the EC training
programs is quite low; the ratio falls far below the 50/50 goal set out by the
EC authorities.

NGOs' good will and enthusiasm is being tested by long waiting periods and
bureaucratic red tape. The processing of requests for office space and housing
for the UNHCR and NGO staff takes forever; meanwhile workers stay in temporary
housing and work out of make-do offices.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Boat Owners and/or Illegal Trip Organizers

o A more innovative approach should be pursued in granting amnesty to the boat
owners and/or illegal trip organizers. A deadline should be set so that boat
owners or illegal trip organizers who arrived in first asylum countries before
the cut-off date will be granted amnesty from prosecution for arranging the
departure trips from Vietnam. This would remove one of the major worries for
people in this category should they decide to volunteer to go back to Vietnam.

Transit Centers

o More UNHCR presence at the transit centers, especially the one in Ha Noi, is
required in order to ensure the maximum protection possible for the returnees.
It is recommended that the length of stay at transit centers be no more than
two days, and that the transit centers be operated by more than one agency,
preferably jointly operated by the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Labor,
War Invalids, and Social Welfare of the SRV government, and the UNHCR-
especially because the latter two agencies are directly responsible for the
returnees' reintegration programs.

o The UNHCR should prepare an information brochure outlining in detail the
returnees' rights, contact names and addresses in various foreign aid agencies,
and information on the EC assistance programs. It is recommended that the UNHCR
go over this information with the returnees upon their arrival.

Vulnerable Groups

o Vulnerable groups including women who suffered violence in first asylum
countries, unaccompanied minors, and handicapped people should be identified
and given special attention.

Women who have suffered violence in the first asylum countries, such as rape
victims, should be given the right and special assistance to be relocated to
places other than their home towns should they so choose.

Parents' and elder siblings' ability to care for minors should be thoroughly
investigated before any child is sent back to Vietnam.

Returning children in general, and unaccompanied minors in particular, should
be given special assistance to catch up with their age-mates in Vietnam. This
assistance should be tailored from the point of view of the children
themselves.

o Handicapped people will require special funding for transportation so they
can participate in local rehabilitation programs.

EC Assistance/Credit Programs

o EC personnel should be directly involved in considering loan applications and
monitoring the financed projects.

o People should have direct access to the EC offices for information,
inquiries, and complaints.

o Information on the EC programs should be systematically disseminated to
asylum-seekers in first asylum countries.

o On the Vocational Training Centers:
-The quality of training programs and equipment has to be substantially
improved.
-The EC should consider giving extra living stipends to particularly needy
returnees, who cannot attend the training courses otherwise.

GENERAL

o IN PRINCIPLE, THE DELEGATION BELIEVES THAT FORCED REPATRIATION SHOULD NOT AND
NEED NOT BE CARRIED OUT. In practice, the SRV government's capacity for
receiving returnees is limited by the number of jobs generated in the economy.
Training programs need to be improved. Job and housing issues must be addressed
and resolved before the SRV government can receive larger numbers of returnees.
Given the increasing success of the voluntary repatriation program, there is no
pressing rationale for forced repatriation.

Moreover, the current UNHCR-administered monitoring system is inadequate,
especially in light of the increasing number of returnees and the size and
location of the UNHCR staff. It is dangerous to force people back without a
more effective, larger, and well-established monitoring presence.

NGOs' presence in Vietnam is essential to enhance a monitoring system that
protects the safety and welfare of the returnees. More efforts should be made
on the part of the UNHCR to encourage and facilitate future NGO visits and
additional NGO assistance programs in Vietnam. The SRV government should speed
up the process of granting NGOs permission to set up programs in Vietnam.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE NEXT DELEGATION

o Duration of the visit should be no less than ten working days.

o At least half the delegation members should be able to communicate to the
returnees directly in Vietnamese. All future delegations should include an
individual of sufficient stature, with the requisite cultural and linguistic
expertise, and the will to take charge whenever the UNHCR staff cannot fulfill
the delegation's legitimate fact-finding inquiry needs.

o The next delegation should try to go to Central Vietnam and other more remote
areas which have not been covered by the two past delegations.

o Visits to the transit centers in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, where groups of
returnees are available for interview, are strongly recommended.

The list of returnees in particular regions, along with maps of the region,
should be provided to the delegation members long in advance so that the
members can better plan their interview lists and detailed itinerary for their
visits.

o Biographical and contact information on each delegation member is needed
ahead of time, so that each individual's expertise and connections are known.
The proposed itinerary and meeting schedules (and informational brochures to
include statistics) should be provided to the delegation members far enough in
advance that modification of the trip's agenda can be done in time to best make
use of each member's specific skills and contribution to the team.

o Attempts should be made to provide statistics on female heads of families and
unaccompanied minors.

o Special arrangements regarding the random selection of and free access to
returnees should be made explicit in writing to the UNHCR officers and the SRV
government personnel accompanying the delegation.

o Diversified interests should be maintained among the delegation members so
that different areas of concern can be explored during the visit.

The delegation appreciates the difficulties that the UNHCR Branch Office in Ha
Noi has to overcome in order to implement the monitoring program. We believe
NGO visits should be encouraged in order to enhance the cooperation of the NGOs
with the UNHCR in protecting the safety and welfare of the returnees in
Vietnam.

HONG KONG

The delegation met with HK Refugee Coordinator Clinton Leeks; Refugee Status
Review Board Chairman Francis Blackwell; UNHCR officials, HK Immigration
officials, and some Vietnamese asylum-seekers in the detention centers. To
obtain their views, we also talked with a few private lawyers and NGOs involved
in the screening process. The purpose was not to examine individual cases of
asylum claims, but to look into the modus operandi of the screening system,
with a view to making recommendations to improve its operation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Pre-Screening Stage

o Each adult asylum-seeker should be provided a written guide (in Vietnamese)
on the screening process, setting out his/her rights and duties, and basics of
the refugee status determination process. (The UNHCR "Blue Booklet" may have
been intended for this purpose, but is inadequate.)

During Screening

o One major recommendation from the delegation is the exercise of the READ-BACK
procedure at the end of the screening interview. This procedure was recommended
in the well-known judicial review of Do Giau and Others last year. The
government is not yet implementing read-backs for every case because of the
shortage of staff and resources. The delegation believes that the read-back
procedure is a useful tool to clarify any discrepancy that may have arisen
during the interview with the Immigration Officer. As these records form the
basis for any future appeal, it is vital that records be made clear and certain
at the initial stage.

o Justices of the Peace should be allowed to sit in at random on screening
interviews. (At present, the UNHCR is the only one with this right, and appears
to be too short-staffed to exercise it fully.)

o The interview form and a copy of the reasons for the Immigration Officer's
decision should be given to screened-out asylum-seekers, so they can properly
prepare their cases for review by the Refugee Status Review Board. (Currently
these are automatically made available only to the AVS appeals counselors. The
delegation was informed that such information is provided to asylum-seekers
upon request; however, many asylum-seekers may not be aware of this right.)

o Asylum-seekers should be informed of their right to engage a private lawyer
if they want. A list of available lawyers should be put on a notice board.
(Currently, asylum-seekers seem unaware of this basic right, and the UNHCR
apparently has an outdated, short list which is given out only on special
request.)

o The 28-day limit for lodging an appeal should run from the time when the AVS
lawyer notifies the asylum seeker that he/she decides NOT to accept the case.
Currently, AVS rejected cases (representing 70% of all cases) are left with
insufficient time to obtain private legal representation-and often are left to
prepare their own cases, without having the reasons for rejection or the
interview form (see above).

o AVS counselors should make it clear at the beginning of the interview that
they may (or may not) represent the asylum-seekers, so the asylum-seekers can
listen to the analysis of their rejection and more effectively prepare their
own submission should they so choose.

At the Refugee Status Review Board ("Board")

o The asylum-seekers should be allowed to be present with their legal
representatives, if they have such, at the Board hearings. (Currently, the
Board sometimes exercises its discretion to interview asylum-seekers, mainly
when facts contained in the evidence need clarification.)

o Justices of the Peace should be allowed to monitor the Board hearings.

Major Changes Called For

An independent review of the decisions of Immigration Officers and the Refugee
Status Review Board, by refugee/legal experts, to assess the level of
understanding of refugee law and commitment to the proper application of the
Convention displayed in those decisions.

An independent review of the cases screened-out in 1988 and 1989 should be
conducted. (It was revealed during the trip that the number of individuals who
fall into this category is a small and manageable number.)

Members of the Delegation were: Huu Dinh Nguyen, Aid to Refugee Children
Without Parents, CA; Andre Nguyen Van Chau, ICMC, Geneva; David Liu Chi Ping,
Refugee Concern HK; Mary Anne Schwalbe, Women's Commission/IRC, NY; Quyen Ngoc
Vuong, Project Ngoc, CA. Director Lionel Rosenblatt joined up with Delegation
members Liu, Schwalbe, and Vuong in Hon4g Kong.  

Newsgroups: soc.culture.vietnamese