Uniya Newsletter: Autumn 1995, p 9.

                           The CPA: the End Game
                                     
        Roque Raymundo outlines the last days of the Comprehensive
                              Plan of Action.
                                     
(Roque Raymundo is a human rights lawyer with the Jesuit Refugee Service,
Bangkok.)

LARGE NUMBERS of Vietnamese boat people will still be in camps by the end
of 1995, unless there is a dramatic increase in the current rates of
return from host countries, or draconian measures are imposed. The
governments concerned, as well as the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees [UNHCR] and non-government organisations [NGOs] have long since
agreed that "a clear message" must be sent.

  Generally they have succeeded. Most Vietnamese remaining in the camps
know that there is no other option than a return to Vietnam. The message
has certainly been received - but it has not produced the desired effect.
People still stay in the camps.

  Some still cling to a futile hope. Many have lost the capacity to make
rational decisions for themselves after years of living in a largely
dysfunctional social environment. Still others opt to stay, preferring not
to return and face the shame of failing to fulfil a personal dream, or
guilt of disappointing the hopes of those who invested in their journey
overseas. Some parents in Vietnam, as well as some caregivers in camps and
detention centres, still disallow their children/wards to return,
generally for their own ends and often to the children's detriment.

  Governments and UNHCR remain convinced of the logic of "humane
deterrence", believing that people will return home voluntarily if camp
conditions are made more severe. The last few months of 1994 and the start
of this year saw great reductions in the services available in first
asylum camps, with only "basic services" permitted to continue. In at
least three first asylum countries, official assistance for primary
education was withdrawn, though education is seen by many NGOs, as well as
UNHCR, as a necessary basic service for children. Restrictions on
movements were imposed and "unnecessary privileges" curtailed.

  Camp populations in Thailand and Malaysia were recently segregated
according to individuals' attitude to repatriation. In zones housing those
who refuse voluntary return, conditions are much more severe than for
intending returnees. The effect is not difficult to predict. In Malaysia,
an increase in voluntary repatriation applications was noted after the
announcement that primary education was about to be withdrawn.

  But will the trend continue? Experience shows that humane deterrence
policies initially force some to return, but in the long-term serve only
to cloud the minds and harden the hearts of many others, preventing their
making a rational decision.

  Withdrawal of services, along withthe departure of NGO
workers/volunteers (some of whom find leaving in such circumstances
stressful, even traumatic) and the largely unreported but continuing
abuses of human rights, combined with neglect on the part of UNHCR and
government officials, all result in increasing anxiety and stress among
camp populations. In Thailand, a week after mental health services were
discontinued, a neglected patient committed suicide. Domestic violence and
cases of severe depression are common in most camps and detention centres.
On occasion hunger strikes are staged, just one kind of desperate bid to
obtain refugee status.

  Women, children and other vulnerable persons suffer most. Unaccompanied
minors, including many who are technically "aged-out", remain in all
camps. The last CPA Steering Committee Technical Meeting set a deadline
for the return to Vietnam of all minors in whose "best interest"
repatriation had been determined. That deadline has passed long since.
Greater resources and greater cooperation between Vietnam, UNHCR and first
asylum governments are needed if the operational difficulties obstructing
the young people's speedy return are to be overcome.

  Another group deserving greater consideration are the screened-in cases
rejected for resettlement. Many have been rejected by two or more
resettlement countries. Many have waited for years, subjecting themselves
to the vagaries of the screening process, meanwhile suffering inhumane
conditions in the camps. A modicum of sensitivity indicates how vulnerable
they will be, if after all they have been through, these acknowledged
refugees are told they must return to Vietnam anyway. A good number have
been rejected for reasons that rendered them vulnerable in the first
place, such as physical or mental handicap or age. This difficult problem
warrants serious reconsideration on the part of resettlement countries of
their commitments.

  Refugee flows from Indo-China have stopped. To the extent that the
Comprehensive Plane of Action contributed, it can be called a success. But
the task of aiding the tens of thousands of people still to return
remains. UNHCR and first asylum governments, along with the other CPA
signatories, should seriously re-examine their roles and options in
completing this difficult task. NGOs, including overseas Vietnamese
communities, as well as human rights advocates and other concerned
individuals should all weigh the implications of their actions at this
critical stage.