In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

c h a p t e r s i x Repatriation Nowhere to Return Unhcr’s difficulties with Vietnamese asylum seekers increased when UNHCR expanded beyond its role as protector to include the contradictory one of advocating the repatriation of many of these same people.1 Asylum seekers , feeling betrayed by the organization that was supposed to protect them, and disillusioned by what they considered to be inconsistent and unfair decisions on their refugee status, refused to be repatriated. Since at first Vietnam would not accept forcible repatriation, tens of thousands of screened-out adults, as well as children recommended for repatriation, remained in the camps, despite terrible living conditions. As the situation of unaccompanied minors in these camps became known, international criticism centered on UNHCR’s failure to provide them with adequate protection and the long delays in establishing Special Committees for their evaluation. Desperate to show positive results, UNHCR intensified its efforts to persuade unaccompanied minors to repatriate, reducing their food rations, curtailing their schooling, badgering them to repatriate, and offering them money if they did so. In Hong Kong, with UNHCR approval, children as well as adults were frequently relocated from one camp to another so that they would have no feeling of permanence. The consequence of these actions was to increase rather than reduce opposition in the camps. Internees, including children, became militantly hostile to UNHCR. However, some children did volunteer to return. Some of the children who repatriated simply gave in to the constant pressure , but others no doubt were influenced by extravagant promises of assistance • 107 • to returnees. Nordic Assistance to Repatriated Vietnamese (NARV) published a colorful brochure with bright assurances that all would be well if the unaccompanied minors returned. The brochure, written in Vietnamese, was titled, “Returning Home is Not the End of Everything But is Only the Beginning.” The brochure contained photographs of smiling repatriated minors and answered typical questions of returnees. The children were informed that NARV would help them with repatriation. “We will visit you at home, talk with you and your family, and help you if you run into any di‹culties.” NARV would help them go back to school. If they had any di‹culties, NARV would “meet school o‹cials to find the way to help you.” This included extra tutoring, if necessary. The European Community International Program (ECIP) would open free vocational training programs for them. NARV would help the returnees contact ECIP and would provide transportation or boarding costs for those who lived far from the training center. If possible, NARV would “make every effort to help you to get a job or apprenticeship near your home.” The returnees would receive a UNHCR repatriation allowance, and in special instances NARV could give a fixed amount of financial assistance. NARV assured unaccompanied minors worried about harassment by local authorities that nothing had happened to those who had already returned, except for occasional delays of a few weeks in the start of their repatriation allowances. Furthermore, UNHCR would “help to resolve all di‹culties concerning education, lodging, as well as other activities for you and your families.” The children worried that their families would not welcome them back; NARV assured them that very few parents would act like that, but if they had concerns, a NARV staff member would visit them and their families immediately after they had returned. For those who could not return to their families, had any health problems, or needed any kind of special assistance, NARV would prepare appropriate solutions. If a returnee could not stay with his or her family, NARV would work out a long-term plan for good treatment in a foster home, and arrange for education or vocational training.2 Supplementing this brochure were other publications, including those intended to reach the international community and elites in Vietnam. An example is the Science Information Review of the National Institute for Educational Sciences of Vietnam, which devoted a special issue to “Education and Returning Children.” Most of the articles were published both in English and Vietnamese. Nguyen Dinh Bin, Assistant to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, presented the Vietnamese government view that unaccompanied minors had no future in the Hong Kong and Southeast Asian detention camps. “Their fate is a humanitarian issue to which the Government of Vietnam has been doing its utmost 108 • V O I C E S F R O M T H E C A M P S to reach a good solution...

Share