>From tnguyen Thu Jun 20 14:20:07 1991 remote from oasys.dt.navy.mil Received: from oasys.dt.navy.mil by rn31.smsc.sony.com with SMTP (SONY RISC V.4 smtpd); Thu, 20 Jun 91 14:20:07 PDT Received: by sonyusa.Sony.COM (4.0/SMI-4.0) id AA08158; Thu, 20 Jun 91 14:21:03 PDT Received: from Sun.COM by Sony.COM (5.65+/1.34) id AA11538; Thu, 20 Jun 91 14:20:17 -0700 Received: from EBay.Sun.COM (female.EBay.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04658; Thu, 20 Jun 91 14:18:41 PDT Received: from trib.EBay.Sun.COM by EBay.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA09512; Thu, 20 Jun 91 14:18:36 PDT Received: by trib.EBay.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12158; Thu, 20 Jun 91 14:24:14 PDT Return-Path: Message-Id: <9106201944.AA25837@oasys.dt.navy.mil> Date: 20 Jun 91 15:44 EDT From: tnguyen@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Thang Nguyen) Subject: [REFUGEE] Assessment of Situation To: viet-net@cs.bu.edu Content-Type: text Content-Length: 14889 Status: R Dear netters: I post the following memorandum that I prepared for the Geneva meeting last week on refugees, for your information. If you have any question please feel free to contact me through EMail. Cordially, Thang. ISSUES RELATED TO IMPLEMENTATION OF CPA Memorandum to: UNHCR/Geneva, from: Boat People S.O.S. date: June 1991 1. Screening: a. Examples of Glaring Flaws: Cases from the Philippines give undeniable evidence of how seriously flawed screening can be. The enclosed seven cases from the Philippines show that the screening officers have no knowledge of the conditions in Vietnam and of the basics of refugee law, and that their command of English is questionable. These cases also indicate that international monitoring of the screening procedure fails to protect asylum seekers from even the most blatant forms of injustice. These seven cases have been selected because the flaws they illustrate are self-evident. - In the case of Mr. Nguyen Thanh Liem, the reason for the denial of his refugee status is that the subject could not prove a well-founded fear of being killed, despite the fact that his father had been executed by the communists and despite the series of mistreatments, jail sentences, hard labor punishments that the subject had to endure in Vietnam. - In the second case, the screening officer considers that Mr. Nguyen Dang Quang's jail sentence for his anti-communist activities and subsequent persecutions against his family are justified because that is only normal practice by governments against violators of the law. - In the third case, the screening officer blames it on Mr. Tran Cong Minh for the persecutions that he received from the government: Mr. Minh has defied orders of the authorities when he escaped from NEZ and avoided forced labour. The 18 months in re- education camp where he was badly tortured are considered as only natural consequence of his acts of defiance. The officer then concludes that the subject deserves to live in fear and to be denied legal means to earn his living. (The father's subject was executed by the communists in 1975, his brothers and sister sent to re-education camp from several months to several years, and the subject himself sent to NEZ.) - In the case of Mr. Dang Anh Toan, the screening officer, based on the fact that the subject's father had fought with the French Army, concluded that the subject must have a communist family background. - In the case of Ms. Tieu Quyen, the screening officer considers that the subject's being denied education is immaterial because her family's possessions had been confiscated by the government and therefore her parents could not afford to send her to school anyway. - In the sixth case, the screening officer has negligently mistook the subject for another asylum seeker. Mr. Dung was born in 1970 and yet he was described by the screening officer that as being discharged from the army in 1971, at the age of one. - In the seventh case, no reason was given for denying Mr. Nguyen Phuoc Bao Quoc refugee status. There was no attempt whatsoever to address the many forms of persecution that the subject claimed to have befallen his family in Vietnam since 1975. Above are only a small portion of the cases brought to the attention of Boat People S.O.S. Other cases, which give equally strong evidence of the serious flaws in screening, will be made available as soon as they are translated and processed. In the Philippines there is one alarming regulation: if an asylum seeker fails to apply for appeals within 15 days after being screened out, he/she will be automatically considered as having chosen voluntary repatriation. b. Lack of Assistance during Appeals: Once screened out by a seriously flawed screening procedure, asylum seekers fare no better with appeals. For instance in Malaysia and the Philippines, the screened-out receives virtually no legal assistance from the UNHCR or voluntary agencies. Asylum seekers have to form their own appeals committees. Ironically, members of those committees, having not gone through screening themselves, know even less about screening than those they intend to help. c. Incompetent interpreters: Interpreters are recruited among asylum seekers whose English and/or Vietnamese are not good enough for the task. In the Philippines, some of the interpreters are Filipino citizens of Vietnamese origin who only speak an archaic form of Vietnamese. This lack of competent interpreters is common to almost all camps in Southeast Asia. The quality of interpreters in Hong Kong, although still wanting, is in general better than in other camps. d. Inadequate training for UNHCR and screening officials: The lack of adequate training for UNHCR and screening officials has no doubt contributed to the blatant flaws mentioned above. Without a good knowledge of real conditions in the country of origin, these officials, even with their best intention, can make serious mistakes affecting the life and future of many human beings. A memorandum, "Country of Origin Information", prepared in April 1990 by Mr. Sten Bronee, Senior Legal Officer in Malaysia, is a first step in addressing this problem. It remains the only effort in that direction and the document continues to be used by many legal officers in Southeast Asia as the "handbook" guiding their judgements of the validity of claims by asylum seekers. Although it is a commendable effort, the Memorandum shows the superficiality and the gross misconceptions in the aggregate knowledge of those officials about conditions in Vietnam. In Mr. Bronee's words, the UNHCR does not "have the time, and probably not the skills to work out such a project [to compile a comprehensive body of knowledge on conditions in Vietnam] which would need outside expertise." An example of that superficiality is the Memorandum's omission of the geographical factor in its description of conditions in Vietnam. One manifestation of this geographical factor is the big difference between policies in major cities and the ones in the countryside. For instance, a former colonel living in Saigon might not be as severely persecuted as a private or a sergeant in a remote village. In the section on religions, the memorandum forgets to mention a major one, the Hoa Hao sect, which is the most persecuted religious group in Vietnam (the founder of this sect has been executed by the communists, several of its religious leaders have died in detention.) The document also has many gross errors, errors that no one with some knowledge about Vietnam would commit. For instance, the memorandum mentions two types of re-education camps, one for ex-ARVN and one for ex-civil servants; there is no such distinction. (Each re-education camp might be divided into two sections, one for political prisoners and one for common criminals.) The memorandum also talked about hard labor camps as if they are different from re-education camps; they are the same. The memorandum also fails to differentiate between 3 types of NEZ, one as a form of Vietnamese Gulags, one as new colonies for Northerners moving South, and one as weekend workout camps for university students and children of communist cadres. One can go on and on. This paucity of knowledge and information about Vietnam is all the more surprising considering the wealth of information that is already available from well-known sources: the Indochina Institute at George Mason University and the one at Berkeley, Amnesty International, Aurora Foundation, Asia Watch, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, PEN International, US Department of State... e. Mandate: UNHCR's mandate power is designed as a safety net. The UNHCR in Hong Kong exercises this power only very sparingly despite the many flaws plaguing Hong Kong's screening procedure, especially in the first year of the implementation of screening. Out of 18,000 screened-outs, only 300 have been mandated. Many deserving cases have not been picked up by AVS lawyers. There are several contributing factors to this neglect: shortage in UNHCR personnel, inaccurate and incomplete records of the screening interviews, etc. Scores of cases have been brought to the attention of Boat People S.O.S. Boat People S.O.S. has processed and submitted, directly and indirectly, three cases to the UNHCR (Nguyen Thi Thien Loc, No. 584, LM 88/25; Nguyen Thi Tron, No. 26067, VRD 137/88; and Le Son Ha, No. 26242, VRD 161.) All three have been mandated by the UNHCR. Enclosed are three cases that are representatives of a large number of cases that Boat People S.O.S. has received and is processing. - NGUYEN VAN BANG, VRD 76/67/89, Section 7, Whitehead Detention Centre, Shatin, Hong Kong (Refugee Status rejected by the Review Board in December 1989). Mr. Bang's family are devout Catholics. In 1955, the communists cracked down on the Catholics, considering them anti-revolutionary. Mr. Bang's father had worked for the French government and was therefore considered enemy by the communists. His properties were all confiscated. Mr. Bang was discriminated at school. When he became actively involved with church activities, he was tightly monitored by the government and was told to abstain from performing religious activities. In 1982, Mr. Bang took part in protesting the government for ordering his church to evacuate a Catholic cemetery for home construction. He was jailed for his action. After his release, he was not allowed to practice his medical profession and was forced to do coolie's work. The government continued its retribution by confiscating his family's properties and land after demolishing their house, and by taking away his wife's business permit license as a seamstress. - PHAM NGOC BAU, No. 34237, VRD 107/89, Hut 20A, Section 8, Whitehead Detention Centre, Hong Kong (Refugee Status denied by the Review Board on 6/29/90). Mr. Bau's father was a member of the anti-communist DAI VIET group. In 1956 he was sent to prison for 6 years. In 1966, he was shot dead while attempting to escape to the South. Mr. Bau's mother was detained by the security police that same year and was allegedly beaten and tortured to death. Mr. Bau was barred from education because of his parents' background. In 1985, he was taken in by his uncle-in-law, the leader of the buddhist group named "THAT SON THAN QUYEN". The local authorities suspected that Mr. Bau's humanitarian activities were aimed at undermining the government. He was savagely tortured and accused of organizing an anti-communist group under the disguise of religious practice. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison with hard labor. He escaped prison and left Vietnam in 1989. - NGUYEN THANH BINH, M30, No. 51750, VRD 160/29/89, Section 5, Whitehead Detention Center, Shatin, Hong Kong (Refugee Status denied by the Refugee Status Review Board). Mr. Binh's father, a soldier in the French army, was captured by the communists in 1955. He suffered paralysis as a consequence of savage beatings. Mr. Binh's grandparents were shot by the communists in 1956, accused of being landowners. In 1961, his mother took the family to Hai Phong city and tried to change identity to avoid further mistreatments. In 1978, their true identity was uncovered and the family was expelled to a New Economic Zone. The authorities confiscated their household and food-ration card. Mr. Binh and his brothers and sisters were all dismissed from school and job. In 1980, Mr. Binh opposed the government's confiscation of his family's rice. He was arrested and charged with opposing the government's policy. In jail he was badly beaten and tortured. He escaped from the prison, went into hiding in Hai Phong city and changed his identity. In 1989, he was again arrested, probably because his true identity had been uncovered. He escaped from prison and then fled to Hong Kong with his wife and children. Considering the large number of deserving cases that might have escaped the attention of the UNHCR, it is suggested that a formal procedure be established following which those cases can be discovered, processed and presented to the UNHCR for mandate. 2. Special Procedure: There is a severe lack of legal protection for unaccompanied minors against unfair determination of their status. There is no formal procedure under which unaccompanied minors can appeal against unfair decisions. Enclosed is a case, again from the Philippines, which highlights the arbitrariness of the decisions affecting the life and future of unaccompanied minors. The Special Committee has decided that it is in the best interest of the subject, Ms. Dinh Thi Ngoc Nga, that she be reunited with her parents. The problem is that her father has been in re-education camp since 1988 for his anti-government activities. Her mother, deprived of a legal way to earn a living, cannot feed her father in the re-education camps and her younger siblings at home. The subject herself was evicted from school after her father's arrest. 3. Special Committee: victims of violence Under the CPA, victims of violence do not have to go through regular screening; they will be interviewed by a special committee. Currently, this is not the case, at least in Thailand. In a notorious case, an unaccompanied minor Ms. Vo Thi Diep, PST 696, who was the sole survivor after a piracy attack and who was abducted for three months by the pirates. She went through regular screening and was screened out. Only after extraodinary intervention by several members of the US Congress, were her case reviewed and granted refugee status. There are now about 60 other similar cases of victims of violence. As an example, we enclose herewith the case of Ms. To Viet Hong. Ms. Hong has been screened out irrespective of the history of persecutions against her family in Vietnam. Her husband was a 2nd lieutenant in the ARVN, spent two years in re-education and then two years in prison for a failed escape attempt. In her last escape attempt in 1989, her boat was attacked by pirates. Her husband and son were killed and thrown overboard. She was abducted and sexually abused many times. She was the only survivor of her boat. She has been screened out under regular screening. 4. Voluntary Repatriation 5. Resettlement: There are 1,200 land people in Dong Rek, Site II, who arrived in Thailand before the cut-off date. Some of them have been in Thailand since 1982. They are not considered for resettlement because in 1988 they refused to move to Ban Thad for fear of forcible repatriation. This fear was not unfounded because even the UNHCR had acknowledged at the time that Ban Thad would be a closed camp and residents of Ban Thad would not be eligible for resettlement. -------