In
December
2016 I was shown a photo of my niece and her
husband on holiday in
Vietnam. That ocean and those islands brought
memories swirling back from 30
years earlier when I had swum in that ocean when
part of a small international
team. I
told my niece. She suggested I
might write about such things. So I did. Here it
is.
At
first
I wrote what I remembered which accounts for
most of what follows. Then I
found my memory was a year out. It was in fact
1991. Then I found the actual report
that I had brought back. It was published
verbatim in “Refuge”, a journal at
the York University Centre for Refugee Studies.
That added the name of the town
of Hong Gai. So here is the story of a small NGO
delegation hosted by the United
Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)
that went in May 1991 to check out
how the UN Comprehensive Plan of Action for
Indo-Chinese Refugees (adopted
1989) was working.
The
UN
Comprehensive Plan of Action was an
international accord to address a continuing
flow of refugees out of Vietnam after the end of
war in 1975 and some time
after the withdrawal of the US from Vietnam
(1973). The international agreement
was new in scope. It came out of a 1988 UN
conference led by the UN High Commissioner
for Refugees, and it happened in the
international context of the last days of
the long peace process that was to end the Cold
War in 1990. The gathering involved
former protagonists of the war, the US and
Vietnam, as well as affected neighbouring
countries that had received refugees, like
Thailand and Hong Kong as well as
other members of the UN.
The
Comprehensive
Plan was supported by the Canadian churches
following discussion by
representatives on the Inter-Church Committee
for Refugees that I staffed. Immediately
after the war in Vietnam, the US and allies –
notably France – felt obliged to
take care of those in Vietnam who had helped
them and might now be viewed as
enemies of the new regime. This is normal
diplomatic practice. There may also
have been punitive thinking. Drawing people away
as refugees slowed
normalization of the new regime. At any rate,
there was a large exodus of
refugees. However, after several years, local
allies of the US, including Thailand
and Hong Kong, did not appreciate continuing
numbers of refugee arrivals. There
was a moral dimension and a dilemma.
Refugees
now
in the US and Western countries naturally
worried about relatives and
encouraged them to try to join them in the West.
And Vietnam was a Socialist
country and it had economic problems. So people
tried to leave. But leaving was
not legal. People could escape with difficulty
overland or by boat. As usual
smugglers took money to ship refugees along the
coast. The boats were
overloaded – so there were deaths from sinking
boats. Then there were pirates along
a coast that is lined with small islands. Boats
of refugees were robbed and then
sometimes sunk. The Canadian churches took the
view that as Vietnam now appeared
to persecute fewer, the dangers of travelling
could outweigh the risk of remaining.
In general it would be wrong to encourage people
to flee in boats at this time.
And some of us thought helping the economy of
Vietnam might help reduce the
flow of people leaving.
The
idea
of the UN agreement of 1989 was to have Vietnam
take back refugees and pledge
safety for those returning. Also Vietnam would
agree to allow legal emigration
of some close family members of Vietnamese
refugee families already settled
overseas and would allow the US to interview
them in Vietnam for such a family emigration
program. Neighbouring countries like Thailand
would “screen” refugees that had arrived.
Those with close family in the West or those
facing a risk if they returned to
Vietnam had a promise from the US and its allies
that they would be resettled
in the West. Those screened out would be
encouraged to return to Vietnam. For
refugees in camps, there would be a
program of honest and credible information on
the situation in Vietnam to
assist decision-making about return. UN members
would finance packages to
encourage return to Vietnam and would fund
job-creating projects in Vietnam in
communities receiving returning refugees.
The
neighbouring
countries like Thailand where refugees first
arrived were to have
their own officials do the screening of the
refugees that were in refugee camps
there. In practice such officials varied among
the countries. They fell on a
spectrum between trained border guards and an
independent corps of
decision-makers. There was international
training of such officials, with some ongoing
supervision and oversight from UNHCR.
The
job
of the NGO team of which I was a part was to do
a rough check on how the
whole Comprehensive Plan was working out on the
ground – checking out refugee
camps in Thailand and camps in Hong Kong, and
visiting returned refugees in
communities in Vietnam – Hanoi, Hong Gai and Ho
Chi Minh City (formerly
Saigon).
The
team
of 6 had 4 from the US because the US church
agencies had done the legwork
for resettling by far the largest number of
refugees that came out of Vietnam. So
there was the joint protestant Church World
Service, Episcopal Refugee Services,
Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Service. There
was also a leader from the
Washington-based organization of resettled
Vietnamese refugee communities in the
US. That was important for conveying credible
information to Vietnamese in the
USA and thence to family members in refugee
camps or in Vietnam itself. In
addition to me, the Canadian protection policy
person, was the head of the
Australian Council for Overseas Aid who was
familiar with refugee funding
policy issues.
There
was
a bit of a story around why it was I who went.
True, I knew the group going
from US national church agencies, from policy
discussions with them held
formally on a regular basis. Yet I had not
personally been involved in the big Vietnamese
refugee resettlement work of Canadian churches
that had peaked in 1979 and 1980
- before I started work for the churches. My job
required me to defer to the
ICCR member church representative who had been
the most active. Somehow, he was
unable to go and I was sent. I think that was
the right result in this case.
I
should add a bit from behind the scenes! The US
agencies were well-endowed national
bodies offering refugee and immigrant programs
and services across the US and
overseas. I was staff of a small policy and
advocacy coordinating body for the larger
Canadian church bodies that delivered real
programs for real refugees. UNHCR had
taken the view that well-endowed Western
agencies could pay to get there and for
the hotel bills, with UNHCR providing for the
rest. That required a bit more funding
work for me to get my trip financed than it did
for the agencies with bigger
budgets.
The
plan
was to begin by gathering at a hotel in Bangkok.
First we would look at a
major refugee camp in Thailand to see what UNHCR
was doing to explain and
prepare refugees for the changed situation. We
would go to Hanoi in Vietnam to
meet with government officials at the national
level as well as some returned
refugee families. Then on to the port of Hai
Phong, on to Hong Gai and finally
to Ho Chi Min City to meet with officials at the
national level and with
Peoples’ Committees at local levels about
resettlement of returning refugees. We would
meet with returned refugees. Finally,
on our last day we would go to Hong Kong to meet
officials and NGOs and
refugees there. One of our team went on to Kuala
Lumpur and not Hong Kong.
I
flew to Bangkok via Hong Kong on Cathay Pacific
and had most of a day to spare.
I recall only a few irrelevant things but I will
pass them on. There were
temples everywhere in Bangkok, but the key ones
were closed on account of some public
holiday. I remember a wild rickshaw ride trying
to visit one that was open. I
also recall meeting with Canadian Mennonites
working for MCC (the Mennonite
Central Committee) in Bangkok who took me to a
shop to buy ruby earrings for my
wife Pat. Rubies are mined in Thailand. Prices
were too high for me until I enquired about
rubies set in silver rather than
gold. I knew Pat liked earrings in silver
settings from visits to England. The
rubies were big and the cost was much less for
settings in silver.
The
formal
team visit began with a splendid dinner hosted
by UNHCR in an open-air
boardwalk restaurant patio beside the broad
Mekong River. It was dark and the
river was magically lined by rows of boats
festooned with yellow lights. Now we
move to the work part of the story.
The
UNHCR
used a van to take the team of us to the big
refugee camp nearest Bangkok.
Typically, it seemed miles from anywhere, in the
wilderness, but a well-organized
and established settlement. There were library
huts for reading newspapers from
Vietnam and elsewhere as evidence for us. We
visited these common areas and the
camp areas near them in smaller groups with
interpreters so people could speak
with us. People were curious and my little group
gathered quite a crowd. I
think I, or we, felt we owed it to them to say
who we were. Anyhow, I recall
giving an impromptu introduction of ourselves,
the Comprehensive Plan
background, and our job – painfully, through
interpreters. People were told the
involved governments had all agreed on a UN
plan. Those in camps like this one
who had close family settled in the West or
those with a real risk in Vietnam would
go to a Western country. Arrangements were being
put in place so it would be OK
for others who chose to do so to return to
Vietnam. Our job was to check this plan
out. We needed to hear concerns and questions.
On a less grand scale people did
ask us about things through the interpreters. It
felt useful, a bit blunt but
honest. There had been riots in that refugee
camp against UNHCR, and presumably
against a Plan that encouraged return, just a
week or so before. I guess our
gifts were right for that occasion! The refugees
knew we were all linked to
agencies that had resettled and would resettle
refugees.
The
team
left the camp, drove to an airport whence we
were flown on to Vietnam and
Hanoi by a Vietnamese airline whose name sounds
like “hang on”!
The airline used old East German Fokker
aircraft with air conditioning that blew a smoke
of misty air out of registers
above the seats in the cabin. In Hanoi I was put
up in a government guesthouse.
I don’t recall seeing hotels in Hanoi. I do
recall Soviet style rather crude exposed
bathroom plumbing – old iron pipes etc. - in the
guesthouse. I liked the
European flavour that I sensed in Hanoi. I
recall the problem of trying to
cross the streets packed with the odd car or two
embedded in a solid flock of small
swirling motorcycles. One just sidled up to
locals and walked across the street
through it all sticking alongside them!
In
Hanoi
there was the work of meetings and I forget the
details and our questions.
The high level officials in Hanoi told us what
they were doing at the national
level. We were taken to visit one or two people
in their houses around Hanoi, to
talk with them and ask questions about their
returning. We were driven and
accompanied by UNHCR. Nonetheless, people seemed
frank and things seemed to be
working out on the ground. Over the trip we
picked up a few problems, such as
delays in getting the promised money to help
with starting up on return. I
remember I went to the Cathedral that was near
the guesthouse – but I can’t
remember details and I don’t know how I had
enough time to walk to the
Cathedral! There was clearly the familiar Mass
or Eucharist. I assume it was in
Vietnamese since it wasn’t English, French or
Latin.
We
drove
in the UNHCR van to the port city of Hai Phong.
The place still showed some
skeleton frames of warehouses from the heavy
bombing. I am pretty certain that it
was from here that UNHCR took us along the coast
to see where those over-filled
boats travelled in pirate-infested waters. I
also think it was a weekend,
perhaps Saturday afternoon, so we got time off.
A large car ferry ride is
memorable on the trip along the coast. The huge
ferry just pulled up and
lowered a long ramp onto the beach. Vans and
buses and trucks just drove from the
beach onto the big ferry to cross the wide
estuary. Also memorable was the
French style guest cabin where I spent the night
on that coast. It was like a small
bungalow complete with large French style wooden
shutters and with a central four-poster
bed that could be surrounded by pull down
mosquito netting. There were lizards
running over the walls to hide behind pictures.
I recall something about cork
trees and rubber trees in the area. What I
remember in particular and fondly is
that the UNHCR took us out for a boat trip on
those ocean waters. It made a
deep impression. Sheer volcanic spikes rising
high out of the ocean like huge
fingers – somehow showing rocky cliffs and
trees. There were a few large birds,
presumably hawks or vultures, circling above
these fingertips of rock and trees.
We were invited to swim. I swam around the boat
out there in the turquoise
waters under the blue sunny sky. It is an
amazing very special landscape and a
great place to swim on a hot sunny day!
The Vietnamese refugee flow went among those
high rocky spikes in small
overloaded boats along that coast heading to
Hong Kong where the British had
high fenced detention camps. Other possibilities
for fleeing refugees were
overland or by boat south to the tip of
Thailand. Thailand had isolated refugee
camps for those who managed to make contact with
UNHCR and were placed in them.
I
have memories of fascinating meetings with the
Peoples’ Committees, the local government
in Hong Gai and Saigon, that were trying to
implement what Hanoi said it was doing.
By and large, there was a remarkable
consistency. It felt like a two level
well-organised
country. There was a strong central government
and there were local Peoples’
Committees and the connection between them
worked.
The
Peoples’
Committee we met with in Hong Gai discussed how
they were working
together to try to resettle the refugees. The
talk was very down to earth and
practical and it all seemed very familiar. They
could have been a group of NGOs
and city council staff at a meeting in a small
town in Ontario dealing with
refugee arrivals. They tried to put the
returning refugees with family members
initially. They could help them move out later.
The social worker would check
up. They could link them to health care. They
could get them documentation. And
so on …
In
Saigon
we had one of a few special breakthroughs. A
social worker let us look
at the list of returned refugees and our US
Vietnamese community representative
chose someone on the list with an interesting
profile for us to visit -
unannounced. He had the language to negotiate
this. The next visit was no
longer UNHCR showing us returned people that it
knew of on account of its
oversight mandate. This was our team checking up
on someone out of the blue.
The UNHCR van took us but we did the visit. The
person was not at the address
from the government list, but we were told where
he had moved. We drove on. He
was surprised by our visit. It turned out he was
an army deserter and thus he would
not have been returned according to the
screening process guidelines. Yet he
obviously had not been arrested! He seemed
comfortable, relatively at ease with
us. He had moved from the first address by his
own choice and was struggling to
restart a viable life. But the safety aspect
seemed OK as far as we could tell.
The US Vietnamese community representative on
our team was very much on the
lookout for any sign. One of the findings was
that some refugees self-screened.
They did not wait to be formally screened. They
just returned with the modest
financial incentive.
It
was
near the end of the trip in the sweltering heat
of May in Saigon that I
mentioned to one of my colleagues that it would
be useful for me to have
something to present when I returned that was a
joint position. I thought that
we might stick to saying only what we did and
what we saw and what we were told
on the trip – just very primary data. The very
political head of Church World
Service announced to the others that I had made
a very useful suggestion and
with a bit of explaining and working over of
apprehensions the idea was
accepted and something was hammered out that was
a “Joint Statement” of what we
did and saw and heard. We must have done that
before the team flew on to Hong
Kong for the final day. I had to leave during a
lunch that next day to get my
flight back to Canada.
In
Hong
Kong I got to see one of the dreadful open-air
warehouses surrounded by
barbed wire that housed the refugees in a jail
situation. I was among those received
by the British government official who told us,
inter allia, as we sat in plush
arm chairs in a terribly British décor living
room that the refugees were free
to leave jail at any time if they wanted to go
home! The team was to do more
and meet with several non-governmental groups
and refugees in Hong Kong, but I hardly
got into that. We went to a lunch. For me there
was an early farewell from
lunch to get my plane back to Canada. I believed
I was taking the joint
statement, but there may have been some
adjustment later by others. I left with
it!
I
arrived in Victoria BC with diarrhoea for the
beginning of a major Conference
of Canadian agencies working with refugees,
organized by BC agencies. (I was later
diagnosed as having salmonella poisoning, which
must have come from a chicken
meal on Cathay Pacific! It made my meeting
participation difficult.) Among
the litany of early statements and
reports was the report from me. As usual, UNHCR
and government representatives
can participate in most of the sessions of the
conferences of the
non-governmental agencies. I reported and gave
the Joint Statement. Basically,
what we had seen and heard indicated that the
UNHCR and Vietnam were trying to
follow the CPA agreement. The Statement lamented
that some governments were
late in their pledged funding and it noted that
Vietnam seemed to be more open
and might benefit from development aid.
Unexpectedly,
in
the refugee conference audience was a Canadian
government official working
with the then Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA). Within months,
he had arranged a team visit of his own to
Vietnam. That, in turn, led to
development aid flowing to Vietnam from Canada.
It took the US a year or two
longer.
In
hindsight
the CPA agreement, despite its warts, is one of
the big international
cooperation success stories around refugees. It
is moving to have been somehow,
rather miraculously, a tiny part of its story.