CONSULTATION MEETING,
SUMMARY REPORT
On December 11-12 1978, thirty-eight countries gathered in Geneva to discuss the Indochinese Refugee crisis. The proceedings remained confidential in order to facilitate the discussion. Yet the UNHCR drafted a summary report which gives important insights on the on the states’ perception of the crisis. In the debate, states did not focus on the distress experienced by the displaced population. In fact, it was mainly a forum allowing Australia and Southeast Asian states that they were assuming an unfair burden.
Consultation Meeting with Interested Governments on Refugees and Displaced Persons in South East Asia (Geneva, 11-12 December 1978)
Draft Summary Report
INTRODUCTION
1. At its twenty-ninth session, in October 1978, the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme welcomed the High Commissioner’s intentions to call consultations with all interested governments on the problem of refugees in South East Asia (1: See Report A/AC.96/559, paragraph 38D). A consultative meeting was convened by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva on 11 and 12 December 1978.
2. The meeting was chaired by the Deputy High Commissioner, Mr. Dale S. de Haan.
3. The following governments were represented : Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Greece, Holy See, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Liberia, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela, Vietnam
4. The United Nations system was represented as follows: the United Nations, the World Food Programme (WFP), the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO). The following intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations were repsentated: the Inter-governmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the League of the Red Cross Societies (IRCS), the American Council of Voluntary Agencies (ACVA), and the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA).
5. Details of the problem and issues addressed at the meeting are contained in the Note by the High Commissioner, dated 29 November 1978, and the Addendum, dated 8 December 1978 (documents HCR/CSEA/2 and HCR/CSEA/2/Add.1). This report covers the introductory statement by the High Commissioner, a summary of statements by Representatives on the various items of the agenda, the summing-up by the Chairman, and the closing statement by the High Commissioner.
STATEMENT BY THE HIGH COMMISSIONER
6. In his opening statement (1: For full statement, see Annex I to this report.), the High Commissioner said he believed the aim of the consultations was clear: to identify the ways of alleviating and solving the problems of refugees and displaced persons in South East Asia, and to translate these ways into action and results. Despite considerable past achievements, the situation was becoming increasingly grave. Solutions were now required for over 130,000 land cases in Thailand and over 50,000 boat cases, the majority in Vietnam. By themselves, the efforts of the UNHCR could not substitute for the will and determination of governments to achieve durable solutions. This response must be determined by the nature and extent of the humanitarian needs, must match the challenge fully, plan for the future and have the stamina to stay the course.
SUMMARY STATEMENTS BY REPRESENTATIVES
Monday 11th, morning meeting
7. MR. MACKELLAR (AUSTRALIA) recalled that his Government had given its active support to the convening of the consultations in view of the crisis situation existing in SEA. It was, however, mindful of the problems of refugees on several continents and of the global demands on the resources of the High Commissioner’s Office. His Government recognized the compassionate response of many countries to emergent refugee crises over the past forty years. He emphasized that concern for all refugees should continue to be shown. The form and levels of those responses, however, could only be determined by individual countries in the light of their assessed capacity.
8. Countries in South East Asia had already been called upon to admit large numbers of persons leaving Kampuchea, Laos, and Vietnam; to those were now added a massive new influx which was placing an intolerable strain on the nearby countries of first refuge. The Australian Government wished to place on record its recognition and admiration for the humanitarian contribution of the ASEAN countries, particularly Malaysia and Thailand, in providing temporary refuge for the refugees and displaced persons. He welcomed the presence of Vietnam, which itself knew well the problem in coping with dramatic inflows.
9. Referring to suggestions that some of the present outflow was encouraged or at least facilitated officially, the representative stated that it was of great importance that there should be frank and constructive discussions with the representatives of the interested governments with a view to seeking firm assurances that these rumours and speculations had no foundation.
10. The representative pointed out that the countries of first asylum could not be expected to apply durable solutions alone or to take on the total burden themselves. All countries should be involved in the process of accepting their international obligations of assisting those in distress. The scope of the problem was such as to demand far wider response to the needs created.
11. In accordance with its traditional sympathy for refugee problems, the Australian Government had already admitted 15,000 refugees from South East Asia, and was prepared to increase in refugee intake for both 1978/79 and 1979/80 from 10,000 to 11,500, including in each year 10,500 Indochinese,1 bringing to about 32,000 the number of Indochinese accepted. Every effort was made to ensure that they received proper care upon arrival and assistance towards successful integration. There were, however, limits to the resettlement offers which could be made. Australia sought to maintain a balanced intake within the framework of its economic and social structure, which, if impaired, would have far-reaching, adverse consequences.
12. In seeking solutions, it was essential that governments be convinced of their involvement in a genuine refugee situation: those persons proved not to be genuine refugees should be accepted back by those countries whence they came. Practical measures must be taken to help countries of first asylum to cope with the influx and to facilitate speedy and orderly resettlement, based on a fair sharing of the burden. The flow of funds to maintain the camps must be increased so as to relieve the burdens on countries of first refuge. It was also essential that countries immediately involved should co-operate in seeking to eradicate the causes of departure.
13. In conclusion, the representative said that no nation, because of its geographical situation alone, could agree to be a passive recipient of very large numbers of refugees and displaced persons, potentially even a transfer of population, nor to being viewed by others as the inevitable recipient of such movements. Certainly Australia could not agree. He repeated that Australia would stand by, and do everything it could to enhance its long-standing humanitarian tradition of receiving people in distressed circumstances.
14. AIR MARSHAL SAVETSILA (THAILAND) said that his Government sincerely hoped that the meeting, to which his Government attached great importance, would focus the attention of the international community on the need for urgent solutions to the increasingly serious humanitarian problem in South East Asia. Well over 200,000 refugees and displaced persons had sought refuge in his country since the end of the conflict in Indochina, and some 140,000 were still receiving temporary relief in addition to over 3,400 “boat cases”. The Thai Government had responded in a humanitarian spirit, but it was imperative that the international community as a whole recognizes its responsibility and play a central role in achieving a rapid and equitable solution on the widest possible basis. The High Commissioner had already recognized this in the joint press statement which had been issued at the end of his visit to Thailand in September 1978.
15. Apart from the heavy financial and administrative burden which their numbers placed on his Government, said the representative, the refugees and displaced persons in Thailand also created security, socio-economic and political problems for a developing country, and the situation had been aggravated by recent disastrous floods. Thailand’s policy was to make friends with neighbouring countries. The granting of refuge to large numbers of political refugees had created suspicions and tensions and Thailand’s humanitarian efforts were causing it to lose credibility with its neighbour. He asked the meeting to understand therefore that, although his country had always responded to the plight of refugees and displaced persons in a humanitarian spirit, the conditions created must inevitably impact on the question of accepting further arrivals.
16. With particular reference to the land cases, he urged that they receive the same priority as the “boat cases”, upon whom the limelight tended to fall. He also took the opportunity to state his Government’s understanding that self-sufficiency projects for the land cases remained within the overall framework of efforts at eventual resettlement in third countries and should in no way be viewed as related to permanent settlement.
17. With respect to “boat cases”, the representative of Thailand said that he fully endorsed the position of Malaysia and that of other ASEAN countries. As regards rescue at sea, Thailand joined in urging that action always be taken in accordance with maritime law and tradition, and emphasized that, subject to the appropriate guarantees by flag states, his country had always co-operated fully in the process of temporary disembarkation pending resettlement within a reasonable period of time.
18. For the future he called for a wider sharing, geographically and numerically, in the resettlement of refugees and displaced persons, with a pooling arrangement to facilitate overall planning and accelerated movement with an agreed time limit placed on the temporary stay in countries of first refuge. He also urged that the High Commissioner explore the possibility of voluntary repatriation and indicated that his Government was ready to undertake any appropriate efforts in this direction.
19. In conclusion, the representative stressed the difficulties facing Thailand in catering adequately for such large and increasing numbers of displaced Indochinese. He hoped the meeting would enable participants to examine a coordinated response to the humanitarian challenge, in recognition of the need for a concerned and active response from the international community. Thailand again appealed to the international community to intensify its support and assistance, particularly for the “land” people. His country counted on the meeting to provide equitable solutions to the problems and would stand ready to do its share, within its capacity, in supplementing the international efforts. He added that Thailand was seeking election to the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme. He expressed his thanks for past and present assistance from the United Nations system and other intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations.
20. MR. NEWSOM (UNITED STATES) told the meeting that, however regrettable the underlying causes, the world had a humanitarian obligation to assist the ever-increasing number of people fleeing by boat and overland to seek a new life. He said that the plight of these people was of great concern to the American people, concern which had been expressed by the President in a speech on human rights on 6 December 1978. The participation in the United States delegation of members of Congress was a further testimony to this concern, and it was especially noteworthy that major elements of the organized labour and minority groups in the United States had come out in strong support of the country’s past policies towards Indochinese refugees and displaced persons. The representative of the United States stated that great sacrifices had been made by many nations and commended Thailand and Malaysia for their efforts in the face of great difficulties. He agreed that equal consideration should be given to boat and land cases.
21. He also commended those countries, particularly France, Australia and Canada, who had joined the United States in opening their doors to thousands of Indochinese refugees, and noted that other countries had recently opened their doors. He stressed, however, that the process must expand to provide a long-term international programme appropriate to the dimensions of the problem. His own country had commitments to refugees from other parts of the world, yet the United States had taken in over 175,000 Indochinese since April 1975 and was currently doubling its existing programme from 25,000 to 50,000 and increasing its contributions to UNHCR. The United States was prepared to do more, but before finalizing long-term plans for the period from 1 May 1979, his Government would be assessing the response of the rest of the international community. He stressed that the Indochinese admitted to the United States had proved themselves capable of leading productive and useful lives, and said that he believed this was also the experience of other countries.
22. He saw four objectives for the future. Firstly, UNHCR would need greatly increased contributions for the inevitably rising cost of assistance to the refugees and to lessen the burden on countries of first asylum. For its part, the United States would be providing an additional $5 million in 1978 to UNHCR for refugees from Indochina, and had requested an additional $15 million over and above the $7.5 million already provided to UNHCR for 1979. The United States was also prepared to give sympathetic consideration to additional needs.
23. Secondly, increased offers of resettlement opportunities were required from the whole of the international community. The United States was more than doubling its announced programme for 1 May 1978 to 30 April 1979, in which period the total acceptation of Indochinese refugees would be in excess of 50,000. His Government was currently working on legislation which would allow it to remain responsive in the long-term. He hoped other nations of permanent resettlement could also put their programmes on a more long-term permanent basis.
24. Thirdly, the representative of the United States urged other countries in the region of South East Asia to share more equitably the burden of first asylum shouldered by Thailand and Malaysia. His Government was prepared to study with other governments and UNHCR, the possibility of establishing additional temporary facilities and to consider approaches which would humanely regulate the flow of people. He urged all countries of the region to accept that refugee status was not depended upon the manner of exodus. The United States strongly believed that the test of a refugee is the condition from which he fled and to which he would be subject if he were returned.
25. And fourthly, renewed efforts must be made to ensure rescue at sea for all those in distress. Reports continued to be received of persons being ignored by passing vessels. The representative of the United States said that many major maritime nations provided guarantee necessary for the landing of persons picked up by its ships, but there remained the question of ships flying flags of convenience.
26. In concluding his remarks, the representative of the United States paid tribute to the work done by the voluntary agencies in the pursuit of the humanitarian objectives of such importance to the lives of the people with whom the consultations were concerned. The United States was looking forward to a useful exchange of views and stood ready to give serious consideration to proposals presented at the consultation.
27. TAN SRI GAZHALI SHAFIE (MALAYSIA) recalled that his country was among those bearing the main brunt of the increasing influx of refugee from Indochina, and therefore welcomed the opportunity afforded by the consultations to seek concrete solutions and sincerely hoped that something positive would emerge from the discussions. He observed that it was also important not to forget other and earlier groups of refugees in South East Asia, particularly in Thailand and Malaysia, such as the group of 90,000 refugees in Sabah who retained the hope of returning one day to their homeland, once conditions were favourable.
28. Calling attention to the growing numbers of the “boat people” reaching the shores of Malaysia and its ASEAN neighbours in perilous conditions, he appealed for a concerted effort by the international community to seek an early and a lasting solution before the problem reached uncontrollable dimensions. As a developing nation, whose limited resources were already fully engaged in the challenge to eradicate poverty and restructure its society, Malaysia could not cope alone with the problem, which threatened to jeopardize its harmonious development in the economic and social fields.
29. The Malaysian Government was grateful for the financial assistance provided to it through UNHCR and for the resettlement offers already made by a number of countries, particularly the United States. These, however, fell far short of needs. Almost 50,000 boat people were still awaiting resettlement while the numbers of new arrivals far exceeded the places offered. He emphasized that it was not the wish of the refugee to settle in Malaysia or Thailand; they sought a promised land elsewhere. Their number was likely to continue to grow so long as they maintained the hope of reaching that land.
30. New resettlement opportunities were urgently needed from more countries, especially those, such as in South America, which had not yet made a contribution to solving the problem. It was essential that no prior criteria or conditions should restrict entry, and that firm commitment should be given on the part of the United States and resettlement countries to accept all the boat people, leaving no residual caseload. The representative of Malaysia emphasized that on this understanding his country would be prepared to extend positive co-operation to an intensified international effort to speed up the resettlement of these persons.
31. The representative of Malaysia then proposed that a processing centre or centres be established at a suitable location, possibly on an island, to which the refugees could be moved from their countries of first asylum, which would thus act as staging posts. The implementation of this scheme would ensure that refugees were admitted rapidly to the countries in which they wished to resettle, and would benefit from the full co-operation of all countries of first asylum in the area.
32. He welcomed the participation of Vietnam in the consultations, and looked forward to Vietnam’s co-operation to alleviate this problem which will enhance efforts towards greater peace and stability in the region.
33. In conclusion the representative summarized what should be achieved at the meeting. First, the number of countries ready to accept refugees unconditionally should be increased and each country should expand its responsibility in terms of intake, funds and other contributions towards the relief of the boat people. Second, his proposal for a processing centre, to eliminate the problem of residue, should be seriously considered. This would give a feeling of security to countries bombarded by boat people and make them more inclined to provide meaningful and positive cooperation. Lastly, participants should be able to leave Geneva assured that Vietnam shared the concern of ASEAN countries regarding the problem and that some constructive contribution would be forthcoming from Hanoi towards ensuring the stability and wellbeing of the area.
34. MR. VO VAN SUNG (VIETNAM) said that his delegation had come to the consultations inspired with a desire to work alongside other delegations in a spirit of friendship and co-operation. He expressed appreciation for the assistance already provided by UNHCR to his country in resettling millions of Vietnamese displaced through the war and in assisting the hundreds of thousands of persons arriving from Kampuchea. He was also gratified to record the favourable development of relations with other countries in South East Asia on the basis of mutual respect, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, equality and the mutual respect of legitimate interests, in order to make the region peaceful, independent, free and neutral, a stable and prosperous region. This was part of his country’s fundamental and long-term policy.
35. He recalled the grave difficulties experienced by his country in meeting the gigantic challenge of reconstruction after thirty years of conflict. These had been compounded by the devastation caused by national disasters of past years, including the recent extensive floods.
36. The formidable tasks in hand demanded the active participation of the entire population, and many were responding to the challenge of transformation. A small minority, however, which had been accustomed to a life of ease, was not prepared for productive work or to accept the difficulties and has sought to flee. In addition, a number of Vietnamese, mostly of Chinese origin, were also leaving for other causes.
37. The Vietnamese Government felt compassion towards those who left and was convinced that when present difficulties were eliminated, and with an awakened sense of responsibility and patriotism, there would be no more reason for these departures.
38. As host to hundreds of thousands arriving from another countries, Vietnam understood fully the problems which faced the countries now admitting Vietnamese on their soil. The massive departure represented a loss of precious manpower to Vietnam, and should in no circumstances be encouraged.
39. He stated that requests to leave for family reunion or visits, medical treatment or other legitimate reasons were already given favourable consideration by the authorities.
40. With regards to Vietnam, he felt the solution to the problem lay in remedying the severe economic difficulties he had described, in order to improve living conditions. International assistance was already being provided for this purpose, but substantially more was required in accordance with the spirit of the resolution by the United Nations General Assembly in 1977.
41. MR. GIGNAC (CANADA) emphasized that the problems in South East Asia had reached such proportions as to require a truly international effort from all those countries subscribing to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which had been signed just thirty years earlier. He reviewed the figures of those who had left their countries in the region and drew particular attention to the dramatic rise in the outflow in recent months. The figures were most significant in terms of the human suffering and misery they represented. He paid tribute to the efforts of the High Commissioner and to those of the countries of first refuge in South East Asia, in particular Thailand and Malaysia. These countries faced a situation which was not of their making and which caused enormous political, economic and social problems. They had made, to the extent of their means, a contribution which should be underlined. He also commended countries of resettlement, notably the United States, France, and Australia, and those who had contributed financially to UNHCR.
42. Canada was traditionally concerned by humanitarian tragedies and was both a country of immigration and also a haven for refugees and displaced persons. Though far away and without historic links to the region, Canada had received 7,600 Indochinese refugees since 1975, and this year had begun a programme to accept 50 families of boat cases and 20 families of land cases a month. Additionally, Canada had taken a large share, over 600, of those on the Hai Hong. Under new immigration law, the actions of churches, nongovernment organizations and even groups of individuals were supplementing the Government programme.
43. Faced with the development of a massive exodus even in the two months since the decision to hold these consultations, it was clear that the means presently available to the High Commissioner were insufficient for the task. It was also clear that the burden of the principal countries of first refuge had become too heavy and must be lightened and shared more equitably. Furthermore, permanent resettlement possibilities must be considerably increased and diversified. The size and form of the present population movement made it essential that the problem was addressed by the whole international community on an equitable basis and in a concerted way. The solution must be planned for the future and not just sporadic and unco-ordinated reactions to certain symptoms of the problem.
44. The representative felt that the Note of the High Commissioner provided all the elements of the international plan of action that were needed. First, rescue at sea and first refuge must be assured. The number of potential countries of first asylum must be enlarged by providing them with essential financial aid and guaranteed resettlement in third countries. The High Commissioner must have more temporary camps in the region which could serve as reception or transit centres for new refugees, but the co-operation of the countries in the region in this regard depended directly on guarantees of permanent resettlement at the High Commissioner’s disposal. The representative believed that it was imperative to explore fully all possibilities for permanent resettlement in the region and in other parts of the world. A few countries could not solve the problem, but a coordinated effort of a larger number, which have the necessary means, could surely solve it.
45. He said that it was necessary to exploit present resettlement opportunities to the maximum and as quickly as possible. For its part, Canada had reinforced its dispositions and the 600 refugees from the Hai Hong had been moved to Canada in less than two weeks. He believed that the response of the international community to the problem should be a function of the particular potential of each country, whether this was for funding, temporary asylum, or permanent resettlement.
46. The representative said that these measures only concerned the symptoms of a phenomenon whose origin lay in the political and social evolution of the countries of the exodus. It was they who could find a true long-term solution. The international community held those countries responsible for the well-being of all their citizens. Canada would not hesitate to request these countries to take, for humanitarian reasons, the steps necessary to improve a situation which gave rise to so much deprivation and suffering. He was conscious of the great economic problems, compounded by disastrous floods, which existed in the countries of origin. To the extent that the deterioration in the economic situation had contributed to the exodus of refugees, multi-lateral and bilateral aid could help reduce their number. The international community, for purely humanitarian reasons, could make an effort in this direction. Canada had already provided substantial assistance to one of the countries of origin. However, its action in this regard would certainly be reinforced if the countries of origin undertook better to respect the fundamental rights and needs of all their citizens.
47. In concluding, the representative of Canada said he doubted that the short time at the meeting’s disposal would suffice for the completion of the task in hand, but he believed the first priority was to reach an understanding on a world-wide plan of action, following the outline proposed by the High Commissioner in his Note. Action must be co-ordinated on all the measures proposed by the High Commissioner, but above all on those directed to the immediate problems, namely temporary asylum for all refugees, the more equitable sharing of the burden of the states of first refuge, and permanent resettlement. He believed that if the consultations lead to agreement on this by a sufficiently large number of countries then they would have made important progress.
48. MR. NETTER (AUSTRIA) recalled that his country had experienced at different moments in its history an exodus for political reasons of its own population as well as the arrival of large numbers of persons seeking refuge. He observed that the problem before the Consultations was essentially a human rights problem which had reached such dimensions as to arouse world public opinion. People everywhere were responding spontaneously with offers of help to those in distress, as recently demonstrated in his own country.
49. In view of their humanitarian nature, it was essential that the problems under discussion be dealt with in a non-political spirit. Since little could be done at these Consultations to solve them at their source, attention must focus on practical measures. However, the basic principle, one that had always been followed by his Government and which must be observed in all circumstances, was that no refugee should be turned back at a frontier for any reason whatever.
50. The logical consequence of the observance of this principle was that the international community must provide increased assistance to countries of first asylum. In cases where refugees wished to be resettled, their movement should be facilitated and assistance provided to the countries of resettlement if their existing infrastructure was inadequate. It was also important to encourage other countries not so far concerned including those in the region to admit some of the refugees, and provide them with appropriate assistance for this purpose.
51. He suggested that one of the conclusions that might be reached during the discussions was that there should be some assurance, even guarantee, to countries of first asylum, of the necessary help by the international community.
Monday 11th, afternoon meeting
52. BARON DE GEER (SWEDEN) joined other speakers in stressing the urgent need for support for the efforts of the countries of the region and of the High Commissioner by the provision of resettlement opportunities and immediate assistance to the refugees and displaced persons in the area. He announced that his Government had decided to make a special contribution to UNHCR of SKr 3 million, of which SKr 1.5 million were for refugees from Democratic Kampuchea in Vietnam and SKr 1.5 million for refugees from Indochina elsewhere in the region. He also advocated aid towards resolving the economic difficulties of the countries in the region. Referring to paragraph 41 (ix) of the High Commissioner’s Note, he expressed the view that some part of the flow of refugees would simply not materialize in the future if substantial assistance were provided to the countries of origin to overcome acute material shortages. He referred to the devastating consequences of recent natural disasters and urged other countries to follow Sweden’s example of granting emergency assistance to Vietnam. He concluded by indicating that he had been instructed to take advantage of the meeting to gather up-to-date information on the requirements in South East Asia for further consideration by his Government of possible additional assistance measures.
53. MR. FEIN (NETHERLANDS) informed the meeting that, whilst his Government was prepared to provide all possible help in solving the problems of the refugee situation in South East Asia through UNHCR, the country’s possibilities were limited, notably its capacity to accept and integrate refugees from South East Asia. For that reason his Government favoured resettlement within the region, and was prepared to contribute financially to such eventual action.
54. He noted that the Netherlands had already absorbed 260 refugees from South East Asia. He also recalled that his country had made sizeable contributions to UNHCR’s programme for refugees and displaced persons from Indochina, and announced that in view of the prevailing situation an additional amount of DG 1 million would be contributed for South East Asian refugees. A regular contribution of DG 8 million was projected for 1979, subject to parliamentary approval, and his Government was prepared to give sympathetic consideration to requests for additional financial help in that year.
55. MR. HOEFFEL (FRANCE) said that by accrediting one of its members of the consultations, his Government was seeking to demonstrate its profound interest in the problems of refugees in South East Asia and its support for the High Commissioner in a humanitarian task to which none of the States making up the international community would remain indifferent. The increasing scope of the problem, the additional burden falling on the international community and in the first instance on countries of first asylum like Thailand and Malaysia, to whom he paid particular tribute, indeed all aspects of the problem merited the most careful consideration. The representative of France expressed the hope that the discussion would be frank, constructive, and would lead all interested parties to reflect and give tangible proof of solidarity.
56. The representative of France stated that for his Government the problem was strictly humanitarian, and as such must remain outside the bounds of politics, for only thus could UNHCR remain effective. He also wished to underline that in the view of his Government voluntary repatriation, where possible, remained the ideal solution for the persons with whom the meeting was concerned.
57. He went on to stress that his Government could not be held responsible for any aspect of the current situation, and that its contributions stemmed purely from the country’s humanitarian tradition as a country of asylum, its cultural and human connexions with the area, and the fact that it was a party to the 1951 Convention. Indeed, the cultural and human connexions formed the basis for its contributions to the resettlement process and the reasons for its criteria and selection policy, which aimed at ensuring family reunion and the greatests benefit for the persons accepted into France while matching arrivals to the absorption capacity. However, France’s capacity to take people was not limitless, and in addition he wondered at the consequences for the countries of origin of a massive loss of their population to resettlement in third countries.
58. The French Government had already indicated to the High Commissioner that it would continue its existing effort. Its contribution to UNHCR would rise by 28 per cent in 1979, and the number of resettlement opportunities would be increased by 10 per cent for a six-months period, principally in favour of Thailand and Malaysia, where the burden was greatest. A team, similar to that already based in Bangkok, would be established at Kuala Lumpur to facilitate and accelerate the selection procedure. He expressed the hope that other governments would make appropriate contributions in funds and offers of resettlement, and that the current discussions and other bilateral discussions which the High Commissioner might have would allow the elaboration of a new and essential impetus towards the resolution of these distressing human problems.
59. MR. SAWAKI (JAPAN) observed that the situation now created by the massive outflow of Indochinese refugees posed serious problems to neighbouring countries, and presented a major problem to the international community. It was urgent to deal with the plight of those already admitted to countries of first asylum, and of the increasing numbers of new arrivals. He stressed that it was also essential to consider the source of the problem in co-operation with the countries of origin, and welcomed the presence of Vietnam at the consultations and other contacts towards this aim. The Foreign Minister of Vietnam would be arriving in Tokyo shortly, and this would provide a useful opportunity for an exchange of views on the issue of the refugees, taking into account the results of the consultations.
60. He gave details of Japan’s special financial contributions to UNHCR, amounting to $10 million in 1978, for its assistance to the Indochinese refugees, and pledged continued support for that purpose. The Japanese Government was also considering providing bilateral aid to countries in the area affected by the enormous inflow.
61. Japan was also giving unconditional admission to persons rescued at sea by foreign-flag ships, and was offering resettlement, under certain conditions, to a number of Vietnamese refugees admitted temporary, if it was their desire to stay.
62. In conclusion, the representative of Japan noted that although the consultations might not provide final solutions, they would serve to accelerate international action to cope with the problems under review.
63. DR. VERBEEK (GERMANY) said that, in view of its own past experience of the distress of refugees, his country has followed the tragic developments in South East Asia with deep concern and sympathy. He paid tribute to Thailand and Malaysia, and gave assurance that the countries of first asylum and UNHCR could count on the solidarity and assistance of the Federal Republic, within available means, in the future. He expressed the hope that it would be possible to create conditions enabling the High Commissioner to draw up concrete proposals leading to appropriate special programmes. In 1979 his Government’s financial contribution to UNHCR programmes for Indochinese refugees would be appreciably greater than in 1978. As regards resettlement offers, after the dramatic developments of recent weeks and in response to an appeal by the Federal Government, one Land had recently offered to accept 1,021 boat people. It was expected that at least 700 places would be forthcoming from elsewhere. In addition, the Federal Government had agreed to accept people rescued by its ships and not accepted elsewhere. However, with other constitutional commitments and high population density, the number of Indochinese refugees who could be accepted was limited. The Government had therefore given consideration to what else it might do with particular reference to the topics raised in paragraph 41 of the High Commissioner’s Note. In 1978 the Federal Government would provide UNHCR with additional amounts of $640,000 for educational and vocational training in favour of refugees from the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Democratic Kampuchea, and Vietnam, and US $250,000 for food aid. Added to this, he was able to indicate that, in the context of its own development aid, his Government would give very favourable consideration to long-term projects aimed at providing solutions in the area, with the provision of amounts considerably in excess of those mentioned above. He also recalled the very significant contributions provided by non-governmental sources in the Federal Republic, the level of which he felt sure would be maintained. The Federal Republic was convinced that with everyone working together a humanitarian solution to the problems could be found.
64. DR. LUARD (UNITED KINGDOM), recalling the deep international concern felt at the situation that had arisen in South East Asia as a result of the flight of refugees from a number of countries in the area, observed that it was essential for the international community to ensure a series of specific measures in order to alleviate their tragic situation.
65. The first aspect of the problem required measures to ensure rescue at sea by means of guarantees offered by governments that all refugees picked up by ships under their flag would in the final resort be admitted for resettlement on their territory. The British Government, for its part, had given such an undertaking. A related immediate measure was to encourage the governments of countries where these ships next called to allow disembarkation, at least on a temporary basis, as in the case of Hong Kong which had provided temporary shelter to Indochinese refugees, and accepted 12,000 for permanent resettlement. International assistance must be provided to the countries of first asylum in performing this task.
66. A second and later problem concerned the long-term resettlement of refugees. The representative paid tribute to those countries, above all Thailand, but also Malaysia, the United States, France, Australia, and others, which had already accepted substantial numbers of these refugees. In the case of the United Kingdom – a country of large-scale immigration from all parts of the world – opportunities were limited, but consideration was being given, in view of the urgency of the situation, to the possibility of accepting more Indochinese refugees, in addition to the 1,400 already admitted. Adequate financial assistance must also be provided to the High Commissioner for his Indochina programme: The British government would provide a further US $1 million for this purpose, in addition to £1.5 million already provided in the current year.
67. In conclusion, the representative referred to a third and still more long-term aspect of the problem, the underlying situation which caused large numbers of people to undergo the terrible hazards involved in flight and the uncertainties of refugee life. The problem might be partly economic and the possibility of resettlement in some country of happier economic circumstances might result in a still greater flow of refugees. He recalled that the countries of origin had suffered long years of bitter and tragic conflict and still suffered from grievous economic difficulties, in some cases with large refugee populations of their own to look after. He felt that a major service which the United Nations system and member Governments could provide would be economic assistance to relieve the circumstances which contributed to creating a refugee problem. But poverty alone should not normally create refugees, and the representative was disturbed by reports that payment was demanded as the price of escaping, especially if such demands were made by government or local officials. He hoped that governments of the countries concerned could either deny that this occurred or at least give an assurance that it would not be allowed to continue. He said that the situation in which one country appeared to be deliberately exporting a part of its population and allowing it to become a burden on other countries elsewhere, would naturally be a cause of grave concern.
68. The representative hoped that the meeting would be concerned with both symptoms and cause, with what could be done both to assist refugees and to make it less likely that more would become refugees in the future. This was a task for the international community as a whole and a matter which he hoped the High Commissioner might be able to take up with the governments concerned in the region in the hope of diminishing the circumstances which created the terrible refugee problem with which those at the meeting were concerned.
69. MR. SCHURCH (SWITZERLAND) stated that his Government shared the High Commissioner’s concern with regard to the gravity of the situation, and considered that the international community must renew its efforts to find appropriate, lasting solutions. One such solution, alongside voluntary repatriation, was permanent installation of the largest possible number of refugees in countries of first asylum.
70. He paid tribute to the countries in South East Asia which were affording temporary asylum to the growing influx, noting that they could not shoulder the heavy burden alone. Financial assistance from the international community was essential to help them. He announced that the Swiss authorities had decided to make available to UNHCR an additional amount of Sw. F. 500,000 for its assistance to boat people, supplementing contributions of Sw.F. 860,000 already made for this purpose in the course of the years.
71. The countries of first asylum were not in a position, even with the support of the international community, to offer permanent homes to all the refugees arriving from Indochina. Therefore, resettlement in third countries must be sought, provided that appropriate measures were taken to ensure the successful integration of the refugees. The number of places so far offered by Switzerland, though relatively small, represented a considerable effort for a small country. Those already accepted included a substantial number of large families and elderly or handicapped persons, as a gesture of his Government’s sympathy for humanitarian needs. In light of the increasing gravity of the situation in South East Asia, the Swiss Government had just agreed, at the request of the two voluntary agencies, to accept 300 more Indochinese refugees, making a total of more than 1,350 given permanent asylum in Switzerland.
72. In conclusion, the representative of Switzerland hoped that the consultations, while bringing hope to those directly concerned, would also mark an increased world-wide awareness of the need to uphold human rights as the key to the ultimate solution of refugee problems.
73. MR. ALESSI (ITALY) pledged his Government’s support for the efforts undertaken jointly by the international community in seeking solutions to the problem under discussion. As a country of first asylum with a long tradition of assisting refugees, he fully appreciated the human, social and economic problems posed by a continuous influx of refugees.
74. With regard to the part of the High Commissioner’s Note dealing with rescue at sea, he said that his Government had reminded Italian ships’ masters of their duty. He noted that their task would be much easier if the decision adopted at the twenty-ninth session of the High Commissioner’s Programme concerning rescue at sea (1: HCR/CSEA/2, para. 33.) could be fully implemented by everybody with appropriate procedures and guarantees.
75. He urged that opportunities for permanent resettlement should be offered as rapidly as possible and pointed out that countries of first asylum, like Italy, although a long distance from the area, could do more to help in giving temporary asylum if they received assurances that the refugees admitted would be resettled permanently elsewhere within a reasonable period of time.
76. With regard to the appeal for additional financial contributions, he announced that his Government was currently giving the matter its favourable consideration.
77. MR. CAPPELEN (NORWAY) welcomed the Consultations as an opportunity to prepare a long-term strategy on the problem before the meeting and expressed support for the proposals for future action as contained in the High Commissioner’s Note.
78. The number of Indochinese refugees admitted for resettlement in Norway in 1978 was expected to be approximately 450. Since it seemed unlikely that adequate additional opportunities would be found even in countries which had not so far shared in the common effort to meet the increasing needs, it was essential to give more substantial assistance to programmes in countries of the region. The Norwegian Government would make an additional contribution of N. Kr. 10 million, subject to parliamentary approval, to UNHCR’s programme of assistance to Indochinese refugees, bringing this country’s total contribution for these persons to approximately $12 million, of which two thirds had been channeled through UNHCR.
79. In conclusion, the representative of Norway emphasized the humanitarian nature of the task before them.
80. MR. JONES (NEW ZEALAND) in a brief statement to the meeting announced that his Government had decided to admit in 1979 up to 600 refugees from camps in Malaysia and Thailand. Necessary arrangements would be made for their movement and reception in New Zealand. His Government would also admit sponsored refugees from other camps, and provide travel assistance.
81. MR. SEOW (SINGAPORE) drew attention to the efforts made by his country in accepting Indochinese refugees. From 1975 to August 1978 Singapore has received a total of nearly 2,400 refugees.
82. In view of Singapore’s high population density, his Government was obliged to limit to 1,000 the number of refugees it could accept at any one time. For the same reason, it required a written guarantee of resettlement in a third country within three months. Such restrictions were dictated by the limited resources of his country, and were in the interest of the refugees themselves.
83. In conclusion, he drew attention to the very high population density of Singapore, contrasting this to that of Australia.
84. MR. FOURDIN (BELGIUM) took the opportunity to recall the efforts of his Government and national agencies in favour of refugees from Indochina and elsewhere, to complement the information given in the High Commissioner’s Note. With reference to paragraph 41(ix) of the Note, he also recalled his Government’s development programme, under which assistance was provided to different countries in the area with a view of improving their economies and infrastructure. The Belgian Government had always striven to respond, within its means, to appeals in favour of refugees, whether these appeals came from UNHCR or ICEM. Its selection criteria with regard to resettlement were liberal, but here it had experienced difficulties in that many Vietnamese granted visas for the purpose of family reunion had not been authorized to leave Vietnam. He wondered whether the High Commissioner could take up the matter with the Vietnamese authorities.
85. His Government envisaged reminding the maritime authorities of the requirement with respect to rescue at sea, but pointed out that for such instructions to be effective, countries in the region should accept at least temporary disembarkation.
86. Supporting the views of the representative of Austria, he went on to say that he too did not believe that the possibility of permanent settlement in the countries of first refuge of resettlement in the area should be ignored, although this should not be taken as meaning that countries elsewhere in the world should not help share the burden.
87. As the High Commissioner recalled in paragraph 9 of his Note, in the final analysis, it was governments who had the power to resolve the problems under discussion. However, this should not detract from the High Commissioner’s role and his standing with governments which made him well placed to promote and affect appropriate solutions.
88. MR. SURYO (INDONESIA) welcomed the consultations as an opportunity for a constructive exchange of views between countries of resettlement and those directly affected by the influx. The problems of Vietnam must also be borne in mind.
89. As a country of first asylum, Indonesia was experiencing problems similar to those of Thailand and Malaysia, albeit to a lesser degree. He warned that the massive inflow, if allowed to continue, would jeopardize the economic and social development efforts of ASEAN countries, in addition to its political aspects.
90. Since the refugees clearly wished to settle elsewhere than in countries of South East Asia, it was essential to increase the number of opportunities available to them, to provide openings in other countries, and to simplify entry procedures. Support should also be given to other proposals listed in the High Commissioner’s Note.
91. Referring to the statement made by the representative of Malaysia, he expressed support for the proposal to establish one or more processing centres outside the region, to which refugees could be transferred with a view to their permanent resettlement elsewhere. Indonesia would be willing to co-operate in such a scheme as a staging post, on the understanding that the resettlement countries undertook to accept all applicants within a specific time limit.
92. The representative of Indonesia emphasized that its domestic problems as a developing country imposed limits on its participation in international action to alleviate the plight of refugees. The consultations had revealed that the efforts of the international community were as yet far from adequate. He therefore urged that immediate, effective support be given to UNHCR’s work, especially in the form of resettlement offers, in a concerted act of international solidarity aimed at attaining durable solutions.
93. MR. KASTOF (DENMARK) stated that the High Commissioner’s approach to the problems in South East Asia as outlined in his Note corresponded to that of his Government. He agreed that the problem was one of international scope for which there should be universal responsibility. Referring to the statement made by the representative of Vietnam, he said that he appreciated the economic difficulties facing that country following the long years of conflict. For that reason Denmark had provided Vietnam with a very favourable long-term loan. His Government also looked favourably on the pilot self-sufficiency project under discussion with the Thai Government and felt that this was a development which might be pursued elsewhere. Turning to his Government’s contributions to the efforts of the High Commissioner, he said that, subject to parliamentary approval, Denmark would shortly be providing an unearmarked contribution to the General Programme of an amount of D.Kr. 10 million. As for resettlement opportunities, his Government was prepared to accept at least 150 persons from Indochina within the global quota already announced. He expressed the hope that the commitments made at the meeting by his Government and others would serve as an inspiration to all and would assist the High Commissioner in dealing with the problems with which he was faced.
94. MR. BAROMI (ISRAEL) welcomed the decision of the High Commissioner to convene the meeting and lay before the world the urgency and poignancy of the problems in South East Asia. Israel shared the feelings of concern expressed by other representatives in face of the magnitude of the requirements and the limited solutions available. Being a country built by refugees, her people were naturally sensitive to the sufferings of those in search of a home. The representative went on to say that Israel had already contributed modestly to the effort in favour of refugees and displaced persons in Indochina by admitting people rescued at sea and by welcoming a small community of Vietnamese to the country the previous year. Israel was prepared to make available medical supplies for those who arrived in countries of first refuge, and believed that her experience in the resettlement of refugees and helping them to achieve a productive life could be useful for self-sufficiency projects. Israel hoped that it would be able to do more in the future.
95. MR. ESPINAS (PHILIPPINES) expressed satisfaction that the international community was focusing attention on the problem of refugees in South East Asia, and hoped that the consultations would lead the way to some solution. He recalled that the Philippines had been involved with refugees from the area, as a country of first refuge and resettlement, since 1975, and gave a brief account of the assistance provided to those awaiting resettlement elsewhere. He emphasized that, although accession to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol was still under study, the Philippine Government had always responded to refugee problems as if it were signatory to those instruments. Bilateral discussions between his country and Vietnam had resulted in the repatriation to the Philippines of Filipinos, together with their Vietnamese dependents. Over 550 such persons had already been repatriated and discussions were continuing. Bilateral assistance had also been provided to Vietnam following the recent devastating floods. His country’s immigration laws were very strict. He noted the large population and high level of unemployment of his country and the social risks involved in accepting new arrivals.
96. The representative of the Philippines gave an assurance that his country would co-operate fully with UNHCR to make the stay of refugees as comfortable as possible and would continue to accept boat people as long as they could be resettlement within a reasonable period of time. In this respect, he urged the countries of resettlement to grant the Philippines a fair share in their quotas, and to make their selection criteria as liberal as possible. In conclusion, he voiced his support for the proposal made by the representative of Malaysia concerning the establishment of a processing centre or centres. Agreement on this, he said, would represent a fruitful outcome of the consultations.
97. MR. THOMAS (ICEM) recalled his Organization’s long standing contribution to refugee problems as UNHCR’s operation partner in the field responsible for moving many thousands of refugees. He gave information on the activities of ICEM since its inception in moving refugees and displaced persons to countries of resettlement throughout the world, and on the experience gained with respect to technical problems involved. Large sums of money had already been spent for this purpose, but its challenge remained great.
98. The Director of ICEM suggested that consideration be given to the organization of accelerated language programmes, similar to those already made available in co-operation with UNHCR in Europe. Such courses served both to facilitate integration within the country of resettlement, and were beneficial to the morale of the refugees while waiting to leave.
99. In conclusion, he recalled that it was the responsibility of the international community, which had established the Declaration of Human Rights and not least the right of freedom of movement, to ensure that these people did not ask in vain. All should increase efforts, calling upon government to act in accordance with the principles they themselves had laid down. ICEM stood for these principles and pledged to the High Commissioner and all governments and agencies concerned its continuing and increased activities in this unprecedented humanitarian endeavour.
100. MR. McCARTHY (AMERICAN COUNCIL OF VOLUNTARY AGENCIES) recalled that this was not the first occasion on which the international community had been called upon to cope with a massive exodus of refugees and displaced persons. Governments needed support from their peoples and he said that the American Voluntary agencies had undertaken to provide homes and jobs for 7,000 refugees a month over the next six months, and was able to do more. He hoped that a meeting or consultation could be organized among world religious leaders to involve their congregations in solving the problem. Pointing out that the problem, which involved a few hundred thousands persons, was not insurmountable, he appealed for a wide-ranging response from the citizens international community.
101. MR. SEIDENMAN (AMERICAN COUNCIL OF VOLUNTARY AGENCIES) said that the Voluntary Agencies were not only closely involved with UNHCR in meeting the immediate needs of both land and boat cases in South East Asia, but were partners with the government in most countries of permanent settlement in a co-operative effort to provide sponsorships and other resettlement assistance for refugees. He called upon governments to give their support which was essential in dealing with the problems under discussion. The action of the international community must include measures to ensure rescue at sea, additional resettlement offers and the establishment of long-term programmes rather than ad hoc arrangements. The voluntary agencies for their part would do all within their power to assist, but required additional resources for this purpose.
102. MR. FRALEIGH (WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME) referred to WFP’s long-standing co-operation with UNHCR in shared efforts to alleviate suffering in many parts of the world. He gave details of the aid provided by WFP in meeting the requirements of refugees, both in terms of substantial emergency food supplies and of development projects for local settlement. In the case of Indochinese refugees, WFP has so far committed nearly 2.2 million dollars for emergency aid to refugees in Thailand and some 2.7 million dollars for similar aid to Kampuchean refugees in Vietnam. He pledged WFP’s continued support for this purpose, but drew attention to the limited resources available to the Programme to meet requests for assistance from many developing countries, which restricted the contribution it might make to the increasing needs in South East Asia. He gave details of procedural aspects entailed in the various forms of aid by WFP. In conclusion, he observed that the vital material assistance required by refugees and displaced persons to meet their immediate needs must be followed by suitable measures enabling them to achieve self-reliance within a suitable socio-economic environment.
Tuesday 12th, morning meeting
103. MR. MACKELLAR (AUSTRALIA) announced that his Government had decided to make available to UNHCR an additional amount of 3 million Australian dollars for assistance to Indochinese refugees.
104. MR. CAPPELEN (NORWAY) referring to item 2 of the agenda, emphasized that the granting of asylum was of fundamental importance with respect to the protection function of UNHCR, as had been recalled by the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme at its twenty-ninth session. A major task of the High Commissioner and of the Executive Committee was to further develop international law for that purpose, and ensure strict observance of existing legal instruments. In the situation currently under discussion, as in all similar circumstances, the granting of temporary asylum by neighbouring countries was essential. The international community should then help in alleviating the burden of assisting the refugees. He referred to the proposal for staging grounds to help the countries of influx. He understood this to cover reception centres which would enable these countries to continue to grant temporary asylum. Such an exceptional arrangement would in turn raise the question of processing grounds but, provided the suggestion was acceptable to the High Commissioner, his delegation was prepared to consider the idea.
105. MR. HOEFFEL (FRANCE) intervened with regard to item 3 of the Agenda concerning the caseload and related problems, to reiterate that the best way of providing help to countries of first asylum like Malaysia and Thailand, was for as many countries as possible to accept refugees for resettlement. In the experience of his country, these refugees were capable of integrating into a new environment very quickly, a fact which should serve to encourage other countries wishing to offer resettlement opportunities.
106. AIR MARSHAL SAVETILA (THAILAND) referring to the proposal by the Malaysian delegation concerning the establishment of suitable processing centres, asked that the arrangements should not be limited to boat cases, but should also include land cases. He reminded the meeting of his proposal for pooling resettlement offers as a means of relieving the countries of first asylum and stressed that Thailand’s capacity had reached its limits.
107. TAN SRI GAZHALI SHAFIE (MALAYSIA) emphasized that the land cases, who desired to be expatriated to third countries, should not be excluded from the proposed arrangement. Expressing regret at the absence of the People’s Republic of China, he said that the policy of China on nationality was that people of Chinese origin who have settled in a third country, but have not taken citizenship of that country retain Chinese nationality and enjoy the protection of China. He pointed out that many people who had left Vietnam came into this category and might be desirous of returning to their homeland. He asked whether the High Commissioner had made appropriate enquiries to the authorities of the People’s Republic concerning their attitude to such a possibility.
108. VO VAN SUNG (VIETNAM) referring to his earlier statement, said that the refugees from Kampuchea constituted a very serious problem for his country in view of the large numbers of persons involved. As of October 1978, they comprised 131,800 Kampucheas, 268,350 Vietnamese who had been living for many years in Kampuchea, and 26,309 persons who had not yet been accepted by their proper country, China, making a total of 426,459 persons, apart from the 1,235,000 displaced Vietnamese from the border regions. In view of the economic difficulties facing Vietnam, the burden represented by such large numbers was more than his country could shoulder alone. He said that his Government was particularly grateful for the assistance provided by the High Commissioner, and had co-operated with him to allow the resettlement of those for whom Vietnam was only a country of first asylum. For others, efforts towards self-sufficiency were under way, but much more was needed to meet the needs of the refugees and displaced persons, many of whom were women and children.
109. MR. NEWSOM (UNITED STATES) gave an assurance that the programme of his country would be balanced and equitably directed to assist both land and boat cases and would not treat persons of one origin more favourably than another group. He recalled that the consultations must devise ways of relieving Malaysia and Thailand from the burden they carried at the risks of their economies and social harmony. It was to be hoped that conditions in the countries of exodus might improve but as long as people wished to leave, it was the responsibility of all to seek to ensure that their departure took place in humane conditions. In view of the threat of war that hangs over the Indochinese peninsula, the prospect of continued outflow must be envisaged. Based on this assumption, it was evident that the offers so far made by the international community were inadequate.
110. He said that the message he would take home with him was that whilst much had been done, much remained to be done. Additional countries must be brought into the effort, and those countries already providing assistance would have to increase their own effort. He also suggested that approaches might be made to international financial institutions with respect to major projects. He put forward four proposals for possible further action. First, an inventory of the existing offers of funding for UNHCR’s efforts in the areas of asylum and resettlement to be drawn up on a multi-year basis for ease of planning. Secondly, consideration of regional quotas to be set by the High Commissioner for both funds and resettlement opportunities, taking account of the substantial costs incurred by countries of resettlement. Thirdly, the effective pursuit of more substantial pledges from existing and other countries of funding aid resettlement. And fourthly, the possible establishment of a working group of countries in the area by which there is a continuing dialogue with the countries of exodus, to deal with that part of the problem as well as the problem of those who have already left. The United States was ready to participate in further consultations which the High Commissioner might call for in a shared effort to solve a substantial human problem.
111. MRS. HOLTZMAN (MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES), in her capacity as Congressional Adviser to the United States delegation, recalled that her Government had so far agreed to accept 225,000 Indochinese refugees, spending over half a billion dollars for their resettlement. Consideration would shortly be given to developing a durable, long-term approach to the problem. Decisions in this context would depend largely on the extent to which resettlement and financial burdens were shared by the international community. It was essential that countries should agree to accept a larger share of refugees for resettlement and substantially enlarge their financial commitments. The continued willingness of countries of first asylum to accept refugees was also linked to these two factors.
112. She hoped that the consultation would represent the beginning of a plan to take bold and decisive action, and recommended that UNHCR consider the creation of an appropriate permanent consultative mechanism to continue review all aspects of the Indochinese refugee problem, thereby demonstrating to the refugees and to the countries of first asylum the world’s intention to come to their aid.
113. MR. FISH (MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES), in a statement to the meeting as Congressional Adviser to the United States delegation, emphasized the bipartisan approach to the dramatic problem under discussion. New and far-reaching solutions were needed, calling for a continuing long-term commitment on the part of traditional resettlement countries and a re-examination of policy by others. He recalled the substantial efforts made by his country in resettling many thousands of Indochinese refugees and warned that it would be increasingly difficult to do more unless there was a marked increase in resettlement commitments elsewhere. The international community had a moral responsibility in affording a collective response to humanitarian needs. He felt the presence of so many delegations at the consultations was an encouraging sign. Those countries that could not offer resettlement opportunities should make increased financial contributions, both in funds for UNHCR’s assistance to countries of first asylum, and in support of resettlement in developing nations.
114. The High Commissioner assured the representative of Malaysia that he was aware of this issue. When registered by UNHCR persons were asked where they wished to go. He would raise the matter with the People’s Republic if he received requests for voluntary repatriation. He recalled that the People’s Republic was a member of the Executive Committee of his Programme. He hoped to visit Peking at a time convenient to the Chinese authorities.
115. MR. VO VAN SUNG (VIETNAM) added that there were a number of Chinese who had left Kampuchea for Vietnam and wished to return home. The High Commissioner had been informed of this problem. Their wish had not yet been respected by China.
116. MR. EVANS (MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES), speaking as Congressional Adviser to the United States delegation, reminded delegates that the efforts of resettlement countries were small compared with the efforts of countries of first asylum, especially Thailand and Malaysia, countries whose dilemma he well understood. The proposals of resettlement opportunities and aid made during the consultations did not even match the additional anticipated needs, without regard to refugees already in Thailand and Malaysia. He emphasized that delegates should convince their governments of the need for a concerted international response to the problem, and he called for generosity and concrete action.
117. MR. OKAWA (JAPAN) informed the meeting that his Government had admitted a total 2,000 “boat people” for temporary stay, of whom some 600 were still in Japan. Private organizations were subsidized by the Government to house the refugees while public medical institutions cared for them when required. They were allowed to take temporary employment. Furthermore, disembarkation procedures had been liberalized. Resettlement in Japan, under certain conditions, had also been initiated, but no responses had so far been received to the 130 made by Japanese families and employers as the “boat people” had indicated a preference to proceed to North America or Europe.
118. TAN SRI GAZHALI SHAFIE (MALAYSIA) said that he supported the proposal made by the United States delegation for the establishment of a working group to study the problems under discussion on a continuing basis. He had been very encouraged by the understanding shown by the representatives of the United States Congress in their statements. He appealed for more constructive support from a wider range of countries, failing which he feared that the countries of first refuge would soon reach the limit of tolerance in face of an insurmountable problem. He added that this in no way indicated a lack of desire to help or commitment to humanity; it was simply a matter of physical incapacity.
119. AIR MARSHAL SAVETSILA (THAILAND) said that he fully endorsed the remarks of the representative of Malaysia. In the light of all that had been said at the meeting he would be pleased to report back positively to his Government.
120. The Chairman, referring to the question of rescue at sea (item 4 of the agenda), informed the meeting that the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) had renewed their earlier joint appeal that ships’ masters scrupulously observe maritime law and tradition with regard to persons in distress.
121. MR. FREEMAN (LIBERIA) assured the meeting of his Government’s concern for refugee problems in South East Asia. With regard to rescue at sea of refugees in distress, he confirmed that instructions had been given to masters of ships flying the Liberian flag to adhere strictly to international rules relating to rescue at sea, and that any vessel which deliberately and consciously refused to rescue refugees in distress at sea would be removed from Liberian registry. He pointed out that at that very time a Liberian vessel was held up in an East Asian port with refugees on board. He undertook to convey to his Government the views expressed concerning the ultimate responsibility of the flag States of vessels involved in rescue activities for resettlement arrangements for the refugees concerned.
122. DR. VERBEEK (FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY) welcomed the statement by the representative of Liberia. Recalling the decision adopted at the twenty-ninth session of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner’s Programme concerning rescue at sea, he said it was essential in that context, that masters and owners of ships receive assurances of support in finding durable solutions for the refugees they had taken on board, and that the flag States in turn should be prepared to grant them at least temporary asylum. He expressed the wish that a larger number of States accept such an engagement.
123. MR. NEWSOM (UNITED STATES) welcomed the statement by Liberia and expressed support for the points raised by the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany. The United States Government had instructed all masters of American flag vessels that it would assist in the resettlement of refugees rescued by them, and would also do whatever it could for those picked up by vessels of United States ownership, including those sailing under the Liberian flag.
124. MR. CAPPELEN (NORWAY) said that Norwegian ship masters had standing orders to rescue persons in distress at sea. Moreover, the Norwegian Government had declared that all refugees so rescued would be admitted for permanent settlement in Norway if they were not accepted by any other country. In 1978 Norway had thus received 380 Indochinese rescued at sea, while a further 100 refugees were awaiting resettlement against a Norwegian guarantee. He pointed out that Norway nevertheless experienced problems in receiving groups whose size exceeded the capacity of its reception system, and expressed appreciation of the flexible and co-operative attitude of the countries of temporary asylum in this regard, which he hoped would continue.
125. MR. ELMER (SWEDEN) informed the meeting that his Government had likewise informed all Swedish shipowners that it expected their ship masters to adhere to international rules for rescue at sea. His Government was also prepared to accept for permanent settlement in Sweden, refugees so rescued, if they were unable to find asylum in the region.
126. MR. GIGNAC CANADA) said that Canada had informed ship masters flying the Canadian flag of the importance it attached to the rescue of refugees in distress at sea. Canada was ready to accept its responsibilities in respect of the problems such rescue posed for masters and owners. A number of vessels flying the Canadian flag or Canadian owned had already rescued refugees who, when they so wished, and if no other country had accepted them, were admitted to Canada. He expressed the hope that other countries would accord the same importance to this question, and that no appeal from refugees in distress at sea should be ignored.
127. MR. HOEFFEL (FRANCE) said that masters of French ships had received standing instruction to respond to all appeals from refugees in distress at sea. In every case of rescue French embassies and consulates immediately informed the authorities of the country of temporary asylum that once landed the refugees would systematically be admitted to France. He stressed, however, that in accordance with the policy of UNHCR, full consideration should be given to the wishes of refugees.
128. MR. RUPP (HOLY SEE) said that he wished to convey the special interest of His Holiness Pope Jean Paul in the problem under discussion. He recalled that on 3 December the Holy Father had expressed publicly his deep distress at the tragic plight of so many refugees and had invited the Christian world to pray that the efforts of the United Nations should receive support so that all these refugees might be accepted by countries of the world.
129. MR. EXCHAQUET (SWITZERLAND) said that his Government accepted responsibility for refugees rescued by ships flying the Swiss flag, as well as moral responsibility for those rescued by ships of Swiss ownership but flying the flag of another country. Switzerland had thus admitted in 1977 forty refugees rescued on the high seas.
130. MR. PELL (MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE), Congressional Adviser to the United States delegation, said that although world sensitivities had been aroused by the plight of the boat people, the situation of the larger number of refugees who had come overland, and of the problems facing Malaysia and Thailand, should not be overlooked. His country was also aware of the positive contributions of these refugees when they have been settled. They had proved fine citizens.
131. He said that in his country there was a feeling that the United States was carrying too great a share of the burden in many multi-national activities. There was a certain discouragement about the work and achievements of the United Nations. It seemed that, in broad terms, the United States would be accepting some 52,000 Indochinese refugees while the rest of the world would accept only 36,000. He felt that this was too great a disparity and he hoped that the world as a whole could at least more than match his country’s contribution or willingness to receive refugees from this area.
Tuesday 12th, afternoon meeting
132. MR. KASTOF (DENMARK) referring to the question of rescue at sea, announced that his Government would, subject to parliamentary approval, grant permanent resettlement in Denmark to all refugees in distress rescued by ships flying the Danish flag, should they wish to be admitted to Denmark and not be accepted for resettlement elsewhere.
133. Referring to the High Commissioner’s Note, he made the following observations on the proposals for action contained in paragraph 41: on new resettlement offers, his Government had already indicated that its quota would include 150 Indochinese and further discussion would be held with UNHCR on the proposed arrangements which his Government supported; the Danis Government approved the proposal for more liberal and flexible criteria and would continue to apply a liberal attitude in cases with physical and mental handicaps; selection procedures were undertaken by the Danish Refugee Council and his Government agreed that such procedures must be flexible; Denmark was providing bilateral aid to Vietnam and supported self-sufficiency projects aimed at long-term objectives.
134. In conclusion, the representative of Denmark appealed for increased financial support from the international community. He wished, however, to express reservations with regard to the establishment of any new body to deal with specific refugee problems. His Government considered that UNHCR provided adequate permanent machinery for that purpose.
135. MR. VO VAN SUNG (VIETNAM) said that he had noted with appreciation the proposal contained in the High Commissioner’s Note, which had been endorsed by a number of delegations, regarding the need to solve the problem at its source by providing increased assistance to Vietnam in order to help redress the devastation caused by war and successive natural disasters. This was the principal cause of the departure of a number of people from his country.
136. He observed, in the spirit of friendly co-operation which had marked the Consultations, that due account must also be taken of the heavy burden borne by Vietnam in accepting on its territory nearly half a million persons from Kampuchea. It was important that UNHCR provide increased assistance to alleviate this burden.
137. Referring then to recent rumours that the Vietnamese Government was exporting its own problems and encouraging, or even organizing against payment, this flight, he recalled the explanations he had given in the course of the general debate. He had not then wished to analyse the reasons for the departure of certain Vietnamese. He now felt compelled to say that the flight of a certain number of Vietnamese of Chinese origin was connected to activities of a foreign power and part of its attempts to increase Vietnam’s difficulties and undermine its stability, shedding discredit upon his country. He trusted, however, that countries of the region would give no heed to such totally unfounded rumours. He repeated that Vietnam did not welcome the exodus at a time when the efforts and contribution of all were needed to share in the task of reconstruction. From a practical point of view, however, it was powerless to prevent it.
138. His Government pledged its continued, humanitarian co-operation with UNHCR in seeking appropriate solutions to the problem, on the basis of respect for the independence and sovereignty of countries in a humanitarian spirit and avoiding as far as possible, embarrassment to friendly neighbouring countries. Finally, he wondered whether it was necessary, in considering the problem in question, to make reference to the question of human rights. In so doing was there not a risk of committing, in the name of justice, a grave injustice towards a country that had done much for justice. In conclusion, he renewed his appeal to governments for increased financial support through UNHCR and for more substantial economic aid in order to overcome the main reason for departure.
139. MR. NETTEL (AUSTRIA) observed that the consultations and reports through the mass media had revealed the need for more knowledge of the special situation in Indochina. In the light of the discussions that had taken place, his Government believed that this should be gained from consultations involving more members of the family of nations, perhaps beginning on a bilateral basis which might develop on a multilateral basis. Many states of the family of nations were not present at the meeting. These wider consultations should be aimed at co-ordinating practical and technical measures of assistance as required in a given region, and at ensuring a wider spread of financial contributions and resettlement opportunities.
140. MR. GIGNAC (CANADA) commenting on the possible conclusions to be drawn from the consultation, which should be viewed as a first step in the right direction, felt that on the whole their outcomes had been positive. It was true that more needed to be done. The meeting would, however, enable the High Commissioner to draw up a plan of action along the lines laid down in his Note (HCR/CSEA/2) for which general support had been expressed. The proposed inventory suggested by some delegations should enable the High Commissioner to identity clearly the means needed to implement the plan, and to establish certain priorities. It would then be governments’ responsibility, on a world-wide basis, to provide him with such means. In accordance with its humanitarian tradition, Canada’s response would be positive. In the immediate future, it was essential to sustain the sympathy shown by world public opinion for the Indochinese refugees and the problems they posed, while keeping the situation under close review. Other consultations might be called for in due course in the light of subsequent developments.
141. MR. SEOW (SINGAPORE) said that it was clear from the exchange of views that had taken place that participants agreed that the problem of Indochinese refugees called for an international solution. He endorsed the appeal which had been made for a more concerted effort on the part of the international community for the expeditious resettlement of refugees in order to alleviate the burden imposed on ASEAN countries. Referring to the so-called temporary nature of asylum, he submitted that the word temporary needed to be better defined. He urged that the proposal to establish one or more processing centres, as a means of achieving a lasting solution to the problem, be accepted by the international community. The alternative was the horror of the continued spectacle of human beings being moved unwanted from place to place.
142. MR. GOUNARIS (GREECE) referring to the question of rescue at sea said that his Government had instructed the masters of the Greek commercial fleet, there being a considerable number of ships of Greek ownership sailing in the South China Sea, to rescue all refugees in distress. As a token of its humanitarian concern, the necessary guarantees had also been given by the Greek Government to ensure that these persons could disembark at the first port of call.
143. MR. CAPPELEN (NORWAY) referring to the call for further consultations made by a few speakers, considered that the convening of such consultations might indeed be useful, but should best be left to the High Commissioner’s discretion.
144. MR. FEIN (NETHERLANDS) endorsing the suggestion made by the representative of Norway, considered that the establishment of new permanent machinery to deal with the specific refugee situation was not called for, and that the question of calling further consultations should be left to the High Commissioner.
145. MR. MACKELLAR (AUSTRALIA) observed that the consultations had been held on an unprecedented scale and had served to focus world attention on problems which would endure unless there was a much greater world commitment both in terms of resettlement offers and financial contributions. He hoped that regional consultations would continue to take place. It was essential for both countries of resettlement and those from which the outflow stemmed to be fully aware of the problems involved.
146. MR. NEWSOM (UNITED STATES) associated his delegation with the remarks of the representative of Australia and emphasized the need for each Government to afford maximum support to UNHCR. Much more effort, rather than more machinery, was required to enable UNHCR to alleviate the situation in the area.
147. MR. HOEFFEL (FRANCE) agreed that the High Commissioner was best placed to continue the action undertaken. Consultation with all the countries concerned, particularly those of the region directly involved, might take place in the weeks and months ahead. More widespread participation was required, especially with respect to resettlement, and was clearly the immediate priority to come out of the work of the meeting.
148. MR. LUARD (UNITED KINGDOM) considered that the consultations had provided a worthwhile opportunity to demonstrate international concern for a problem requiring world-wide response. Specific problems had been identified as well as their growing magnitude.
149. As regards concrete action, he drew special attention to the need for UNHCR to canvas support from a larger number of governments in order to deal effectively with the formidable problems involved. He shared the reservations expressed by other speakers with respect to the institution of any new machinery. The appointment of a particular representative for the area might be useful to co-ordinate UNHCR’s activities, but the High Commissioner was the best judge of any such need. Though difficult to achieve, more intensive efforts were needed to ensure a more orderly flow of refugees from their countries of origin in order to reduce the hazards which faced so many in their flight. Such efforts might be made through more intensive discussions with the authorities concerned. More discussions might also be held on the possibilities of providing increased economic aid, as a step towards removing a cause of the departure of refugees.
150. Finally, renewed determination should be shown by all governments to translate the responsibility they shared into more determined and effective efforts to deal with the problem.
151. MR. OKAWA (JAPAN) considered that the Consultations had given rise to useful and informative discussion, which represented in itself a positive development. He agreed with other speakers that it was not necessary to institute any additional machinery, and pledged his Government’s support to UNHCR’s efforts to ensure effective follow-up action.
152. TAN SRI GAZHALI SHAFIE (MALAYSIA) said that he shared the positive assessment of the outcome of the Consultations, already made by other delegations. He expressed appreciation, which he felt was shared by the representatives of ASEAN countries, for the efforts which had been made to gain clearer understanding of the problems they had been able to describe. The patience and consideration shown by the United States delegation had been a source of particular encouragement.
153. AIR MARSHAL SAVETSILA (THAILAND) reiterated and reaffirmed his country’s gratitude for the Consultations and the opportunity they had afforded to set out Thailand’s concern at the problem.
Summing up by the Chairman
154. The Chairman said it was clear that the consultations had served a useful purpose. He appreciated the constructive spirit in which they had been conducted. He expressed gratitude for the announcements (Details of these announcements are given at Annexes II and III) made by delegations of future plans to help but noted that far more was required of the international community. With the practical aim of the consultations in mind, he summed up their outcome, as seen by UNHCR, thus:
“1. The consultation had underlined that the problem of refugees and displaced persons must be treated in a strictly humanitarian and non-political way in keeping with the nature of the UNHCR. The Office must advocate and implement policies that reflect this fundamental position.
2. These policies must receive governmental understanding and greatly increased support.
3. UNHCR must be enabled to help refugees and displaced persons wherever they are, in all parts of the region, not merely selectively. The inter-relationships in the region, as also their international dimensions, were fully elaborated.
4. The consultations recognized that no comprehensive solutions can be attained unless such is the will and determination of governments within and beyond the region. UNHCR cannot substitute for this. Governments must, therefore, take the appropriate decisions, for only through their actions can existing problems be solved and new problems avoided.
5. In resolving these problems, various urgent measures are closely related, or inter-dependent.
(i) The consultations noted that there can be no humane or durable solutions unless governments grant at least temporary asylum in accordance with internationally accepted humanitarian principles. The consultations also noted, as a corollary, that existing facilities in countries of first asylum in South East Asia were already over-loaded and that for such countries temporary asylum depended on commitments for resettlement in third countries and the avoidance of residual problems in the area.
(ii) The meeting considered a proposal whereby special centres would be established where refugees and displaced persons would be processed for resettlement in an orderly way, within a specific time scale, and against guarantees that there would be no residual problem. It was felt that this proposal should be further elaborated and studied by governments.
(iii) While greatly appreciating the offers of resettlement announced during the consultations, it was evident that a far wider range of countries must announce increased numbers of places for this purpose. These further offers, which are most urgently required, must be announced in advance, be available on a regular basis, and above all, match the need. This would permit the pooling of opportunities and the allocation of resettlement numbers to areas of greatest need.
(iv) Procedures must be further reviewed in order greatly to reduce the time between acceptance and departure; they must be humanitarian and flexible. The speed of movement must be greatly accelerated.
(v) In the particular case of rescue at sea, the decision adopted by the Executive Committed of the High Commissioner’s Programme at its twenty-ninth session must be scrupulously implemented if lives are not to be lost. The consultations took note of the appeals jointly made by the Secretary-General of the Inter-Government Maritime Consultation Organization (IMCO) and the High Commissioner to the States Members of IMCO and the International Chamber of Shipping and welcomed the positive actions already taken by certain countries.
(vi) Many statements, during the consultations underlined the need to promote other durable solutions in the region, including voluntary repatriations.
(vii) It was stressed that efforts must be intensified to promote self-sufficiency projects. Attention was drawn to the adverse social consequences of idleness and dependence on international relief.
(viii) It was also stressed that considerations relating to the stability of the region as a whole indicated a need for a continuing dialogue in the area on the humanitarian problems that were being faced. Multilateral and bilateral efforts directed towards the improvement of economic conditions in the Indochina peninsula could help redress the devastation caused by war and successive natural calamities and influence the decisions both of those who might wish to repatriate voluntarily and of those who might otherwise consider leaving for economic reasons.
(ix) The consultations felt that, where people left their countries in order to reunite with their families abroad, countries of origin and those where such reunion would take place should establish bilateral or multilateral procedures if this has not been done. More regular and orderly procedures could advantageously be considered in order to facilitate humanitarian solutions.
(x) In the course of the deliberations, substantial new financial contributions were announced. It was recognized, however, that further generous contributions will be needed from the widest possible range of countries in order to reduce the material burden on countries of first asylum, to help, if necessary, potential third countries of resettlement and to provide for other durable solutions.
(xi) Warm appreciation was expressed for the contribution of inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations and voluntary agencies. Their capacity and skills should be fully utilized.
(xii) All governments were urged to communicate to UNHCR, at the earliest possible opportunity, the necessary steps that they intended to take to further the measures outlined in this summing-up. This was absolutely essential in order to maintain the momentum of these consultations and to ensure that the international community gave the fullest and widest attention to the problems discussed. This would also enable the closest follow up of each of these matters.”
Closing Statement by the High Commissioner
155. In his closing statement, the High Commissioner said that, as had been clearly confirmed during the consultations, there were no short outs for those wishing to help refugees and displaced persons. Durable solutions would have to be achieved through the classical ways open to his Office and mentioned in the Note submitted to participants.
156. The outcome of the consultations, which in his opinion had been fruitful and promising, must therefore be a strong and urgent appeal to all delegations to take back to their capitals a two-fold message:
157. First, governments – on the widest basis – must agree to accept a greater number of refugees than hitherto. They must do so on a regular, yearly basis, so that the countries of first asylum can be assured that they will not be left with residual problems.
158. Second, governments – on the widest basis – should increase their contributions to UNHCR’s programmes, so that UNHCR can guarantee adequate help to the countries of first asylum.
159. The representative of Australia had referred to the consultation as an “historic meeting”. It was a unique event; and would be an historical, major step forward if it resulted in a firm will to provide the necessary solutions.
160. Thanking participants for the spirit in which the meetings had been conducted, the High Commissioner said that he wished to conclude the consultation by speaking – as was his duty – for the refugees and displaced persons themselves, and in particular the many thousands in limbo in over-crowded camps. Almost 200,000 persons now faced an uncertain future, dependent on the decisions of governments – which alone could solve their problems.
161. His Office had no illusions as to the difficulties, but believed the means of solution were at hand, if the measures and principles which had been outlined were translated into action. This belief was strengthened by the response of the international community to major refugee problems in the past, problems no less acute that had been solved by concerted international action and the will of governments for a humanitarian outcome. However, as he had said in his opening statement, the response of governments must have the stamina to stay the course, and its essential quality must be to match the humanitarian needs of the situation. When all the different national and regional perceptions had been taken into account, when the many and complex difficulties caused by the situation had been considered, there remained a human problem, of individual human beings and their families. The solutions must, therefore, be swift and, above all, must enhance not diminish human dignity.
You are free to use this document for educational or research purposes. Please do not cite this webpage, but its original citation, and respect the UNARMS citation rules.
Citations should identify the item, the file unit, the series, the subfonds (if any), the fonds, and the repository. Each of these citation elements contains unique information that describe the context and source of the record.
Read the full Citations guide here.
UNHCR/F11/2/39_391_39d. Draft Summary Report, Consultative Meeting with Interested Governments on Refugees and Displaced Persons in South East Asia, Geneva 11-12 December 1978.