Newsgroups: bit.listserv.seasia-l
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:11:08 -0500
From:         Max Becherer <becherer@SUNA0.CS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject:      Refugees
X-To:         SEASIA-L@MSU.EDU

1>

	  C O M P A S S I O N   F A T I G U E :
   The plight of Vietnamese Boat People in the 1990's


   Shortly after the communist victory in 1975, the world saw a mass exodus of
refugees totally unprecidented in Vietnam's long and painful history.  It has
been sixteen years since the fall of Saigon, and still the tragic flight of
the boat people continues unabated.  At first, the nations of the free world
responded generously, opening their doors to the refugees.  Unfortunately,
chronic compassion fatigue has set in on the part of the world community,
especially the "first asylum" nations.  Most notable of these is the British
colony of Hong Kong.

   Hong Kong today has about 60,000 Vietnamese housed in so-called "internment
camps".  These camps are prisons, pure and simple, and not very good ones at
that.  As the number of refugees arriving in Hong Kong continued to climb,
British authorities in the colony built these camps to house them; they were
deliberately designed to be unpleasant in the hopes that it would deter future
arrivals.  These camps are overcrowded, food is sometimes scarce, and
sanitation and medical services are well below those found in even the worst
of American and British prisons.  Life in these camps is boring, oppressive
and there is little hope offered for the future, as most refugees are not
given permission to emigrate.  The idea behind this treatment of the boat
people is that those in the camps will see that there is no hope here and
will voluntarily return to Vietnam.  This cruel policy is known by the
euphemism "humane deterrance".
 "Humane deterrance" has failed miserably: the refugees continue to pour in at
record numbers, and only a tiny fraction of those in the camps have returned
to Vietnam willingly.  Therefore, Hong Kong is resorting to something even
worse: forced repatriation.  Of course, they prefer to call it by names like
"manditory repatriation" or "involuntary repatriation", as the word "forced"
brings up many unpleasant (but very plausible) possibilities.  What do you do
about people who refuse to go back ?  The British are vague on the topic when
asked; the pictures of Vietnamese being dragged kicking and screaming onto
airplanes under armed guard are more telling than the any of the Hong Kong
authorities' remarks.
 The centerpiece of this inhumane deterrance is the refugee screening process.
Under this system, refugees who can prove that they have a well-founded fear
of persecution are granted asylum and sent to special holding camps to wait
for a country willing to have them.  Those unable to prove their case are
deemed "economic migrants" and will be sent back.  On the surface, this seems
like a reasonable policy, but a closer look shows it to be fatally flawed.

   First of all, the screening process is unfair.  The refugee is assumed to
have fled for economic reasons unless he can prove otherwise.  How do you
prove you fled for fear of persecution ?  If you were associated with the old
South Vietnamese government and have papers to prove it, it is relatively
easy.  What if you don't have these papers anymore ?  After the communist
victory, such documents became extremely dangerous to their holders, and many
people destroyed them.  Furthermore, South Vietnamese officials and their
families are not the only ones being persecuted.  Anyone who holds views
different from those of the government is at risk.  Under this system, how do
they make their case ?  Are they expected to bring copies of their Interior
Ministry files to back up their claims ?   On top of this, refugees are given
inadequate counseling by case workers who are hostile to them; this is a
classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.  In short, the policy is
designed to exclude as many people as possible, and consequently, huge
numbers of genuine refugees face the prospect of deportation.

    There is another question that needs to be asked: who are the "economic
migrants" ?  It is my opinion that the "Vietnamese economic migrant" is a
mythical creature, a sort of modern-day unicorn.  That may be a bit extreme,
as out of the million or so refugees, there are probably some who fled for
purely economic reasons, but they are a tiny minority.  "Economic migrants"
MIGHT account for five percent of the boat people, and this is probably a
very generous figure.
    On what evidence is this rather drastic claim based ?  The very detention
centers the refugees are languishing in!  These people live in dreadful
conditions with NO HOPE of being allowed to emigrate to another country.
The camps are a dead end, and this fact is made abundantly clear to those
living in them.  If these prople were economic refugees, they would be much
more willing to return. "Humane deterrance" would have been a success,
especially since the deal is sweetened with hundreds of dollars in cash to
anyone who returns.
    The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the people in these
camps prefer prison to life in Vietnam.  That is a powerful message in and of
itself.  Furthermore, the refugees have threatened violence and suicide if
they are forced back.  I think these threats should be taken seriously.  If
this policy continues, the situation could become very nasty in a hurry.
The behavior of these refugees simply does not fit the pattern one would
expect from an economic migrant.  An economic migrant would gladly pocket
the money and try his luck again, perhaps this time with Malaysia or Thailand.
If you assume that the people in the Hong Kong camps are indeed political
refugees, fleeing from a brutal and oppressive regime that they find hateful,
then their actions make sense.

    Indignant Hong Kong authorities complain about the criticism, pointing out
that the United States deports thousands of Mexican illegal aliens every
month, and there is hardly a wimper from the world community.  This arguement
is ridiculous.  The Hanoi government is one of the most oppressive
totalitarian regimes in the world today, and it considers anyone who would
dare leave Vietnam to be a traitor.  As bad as the Mexican government may be,
it is nothing like Hanoi.  Consequently, anyone who escapes, even if his
motives were purely economical, has good reason to fear for his safety upon
being returned to Vietnam.  This is especially true for those forced to
return, as they have publicly demonstrated their hostility to the Hanoi
regime.  Furthermore, the fact that so many people prefer life in a Hong Kong
prison to living under Hanoi's rule must be a source of great embarassment
for the communists.  This only compounds the risks that deportees face upon
returning to Vietnam.

 Britain and Hong Kong will quickly counter that they have signed an agreement
with Hanoi "guaranteeing" that deportees will not be discriminated against.
Unfortunately, the free nations of the world have a long history of putting
too much faith in treaties and international agreements.  Two prominent
examples of what happens when you trust tyrannies to abide by treaties come
to mind.
    In the late 1930's, the world was becomming concerned about the growing
military strength of Nazi Germany.  Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime
Minister at the time, signed a peace treaty with Germany to prevent war
between the two nations and limit German territorial expansion.  He returned
to Britain waving a piece of paper with Adolf Hitler's signature on it and
declared "peace in our time".  World War II started a few months later.
Perhaps "Naive Chamberlain" would have been a better name for the esteemed
Prime Minister.
    The infamous Yalta accords are another bloody example of this sort of
diplomatic naivety.  After World War II, the agreements at Yalta were signed
between the Western powers and the now-defunct Soviet Union.  Under the
agreements, Soviet refugees would be repatriated without fear of persecution
upon their return (sound familiar ?), and the occupied lands of Eastern
Europe would be democratized.  Stalin had the refugees shot or sent to the
Gulag and reneiged on his promises on East European democracy.
    Britain is asking the refugees to entrust their lives to a piece of paper
with Hanoi's signature on it; apparently the British government has not
learned much from it's past mistakes, or perhaps it just doesn't care.  The
Vietnamese people know better than most that the communists cannot be trusted,
and are understandably skeptical of any promise made by the communists, as
they have seen so many made and  broken in the past.  The flagrant violations
of the Paris peace accords are a case in point.  If the Hanoi regime doesn't
keep promises made to it's own people, how can one expect the communists to
honor the letter and spirit of an agreement made with foreigners ?
   British officials are quick to defend the "guarentee" by pointing out it's
enforcement mechanisms.  In theory, the agencies overseeing the deportations
would periodically check up on the returnees to make sure they are not being
mistreated.  That's the idea, at least.  Doing this properly will cost money
and require considerable effort.  It is quite likely that after a few months,
these agencies will tire of it and the inspection program will quietly die.
It wouldn't be the first time this sort of thing has happened.  And what will
Britain do if it finds a violation ?  Remember, the refugees are seen as a
problem.  Will the deportations be halted ?  Will sanctions be imposed ?
Unlikely.  The case will probably be quietly swept under the rug with an
equally quiet complaint made to Hanoi.
    Even if the inspection program is well executed (doubtful), it is only
likely to detect gross violations.  There are much more subtle forms of
discrimination, such as reducing (partially or completely) medical care, job
opportunities and access to other social services (what few there are in
Vietnam).  A truely effective enforcement mechanism would be far more
expensive to impliment than the camps in Hong Kong.  Furthermore, Hanoi is
unlikely to agree to such an invasive program.  In short, the agreement's
enforcement mechanism, and the few hundred dollars each refugee is given upon
returning (most of which Hanoi confiscates) are an attempt to add a veneer of
respectability to a barbaric policy.  It is all a bluff; the the leaders in
Hanoi know it.  All they have to do is wait until the world no longer cares
(which shouldn't be too long) and the deported refugees will be at their
mercy.  Mercy, unfortunately, is one commodity that is in short supply in
Vietnam today.

    We cannot ignore the fact that the refugees ARE a burden on the host
countries.  Deportation, however, is not an answer.  The real source of the
refugee problem is the Hanoi regime itself.  It's brutal rule is what is
driving the Vietnamese people into the sea, and the tide of refugees will not
recede until there is a change of government in Vietnam.  Unfortunately,
until this happens, we can expect the exodus to continue.
    In Hong Kong, there is strong public sentement for deporting all the
Vietnamese now.  This is clearly hypocritical, as many of the same people who
support deporting the Vietnamese ask the world for compassion toward Hong
Kong residents wishing to flee the island before it returns to China in 1997.
If the comminist regime in China is still in power in 1997 (uncertain at
best), would the people of Hong Kong want to be treated the same way as the
Vietnamese have been ?  The shoe feels different on the other foot, doesn't
it ?
    Pointing out double standards will not solve the problem, however.  Until
Vietnam is free, more countries should be willing to accept the Vietnamese.
These are hard-working people who are more than willing to make an effort to
better their lives and their host country as well.  Some nations, like
Australia, actually have a population shortage, and could certainly benefit
from an influx of Vietnamese.
    Communism in Vietnam is clearly doomed; the regime in Hanoi has, at most,
a few years left; it could fall much sooner than that, however.  The free
nations of the world should be a bit more patient; the refugee problem will
solve itself when the communists fall. To these nations please don't resort to
ill-conceived and drastic measures for which history may judge you harshly.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU