On the wrong track
THE arguments for and against Britain taking responsibility for the 21,000 Vietnamese boat people left in Hong Kong have overlooked the men and women in the middle, the living, breathing human beings.
In a bid to solve the Vietnamese problem, legislators this week attempted to grill an apparently poorly briefed Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind on Britain's plans for dealing with the controversial issue. Mr Rifkind's comment that this was a 'Hong Kong problem' coming within the concept of autonomy was one he no doubt regrets.
The next day he was forced to acknowledge (without managing to admit the previous day's mistake) that Britain indeed acted on behalf of the territory in any representations pertaining to Vietnam. What he should then have said was that even if Britain wanted to bear responsibility for the boat people left in Hong Kong after 1997, it couldn't.
To do so would send a clear message to those languishing in the camps that someone would be looking out for them. Until now, Hong Kong has relied on June 30, 1997, to provide the ultimate deadline - fostering a feeling in the camps that a return to Vietnam would be better than detention under Chinese rule.
Britain also has the problem of facing China's demands that all Vietnamese be repatriated before the handover. If Britain were to publicly accept responsibility for the boat people after 1997 it would be a tacit acknowledgement that the problem could not be resolved before then.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Chen Jian says otherwise. 'It [Britain] has the unshirkable responsibility to solve the problem in an appropriate way before 1997,' he said.
Mr Chen's statement is nothing new and Mr Rifkind should have been well aware of China's stance. But sections of the region's diplomatic community believe he was not in fact abandoning the Vietnamese issue. 'Maybe he was flying a kite, and waiting for the reaction, testing the waters,' said a senior Western diplomat.
If that is true, Mr Rifkind was also picking an opportune time to look for a new approach. On Sunday, diplomats from around the world will gather in Bangkok at the invitation of the United Nations for two days of talks aimed at designing a blueprint to complete the stalled repatriation process.
Known as the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA), the agreement is stalled. Major announcements and clarifications of positions are expected at the Bangkok talks.
Secretary for Security Peter Lai Hing-ling and Refugees Co-ordinator Brian Bresnihan will represent Hong Kong and seem certain to be pushing for answers. The relationship between Hong Kong and Vietnam is said to be much warmer than it has been for some time, but that does not mean 21,000 people will be repatriated easily.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) representatives will also be pushing for answers. As a new member of ASEAN, Vietnam will be asked to play its part by agreeing to take back the remaining 18,000 being held in camps elsewhere in the region. It is expected that Vietnam will agree.
Unfortunately, Hong Kong is not a member and will have to push all the harder for an alternative to putting people, often violently opposed to returning, on to deportation flights.
Much of their opposition has been attributed to a plan proposed by US congressman Chris Smith which would see the resettlement in America of up to half the 39,000 boat people in the region.
The plan, backed by the US State Department, was introduced in the middle of last year, and since then boat people have been slow to volunteer for repatriation. Instead the boat people are hoping Hanoi and Washington will agree to the proposal, known as Track Two, and a future in the US will become possible.
However, talks between the two nations have failed to lead to anything solid in terms of a plan which could be enacted in a reasonable time scale. Privately, Hanoi officials have voiced dissatisfaction with the progress on Track Two, while the US has been quick to deny a lack of movement.
Under Track Two, the US is seeking to have boat people returned to Vietnam, where they would be screened by State Department and Immigration and Naturalisation Service officers charged with determining whether the returnees were likely to face persecution.
Vietnam challenges this proposal on a number of levels, leading with the issue of having its sovereignty challenged. 'What government in the world would consider allowing a foreign power in to set up shop and determine the future of its own nationals, it is an amazingly arrogant notion,' said a Geneva-based UN official.
Through all this, Vietnam says it is adamant it will stick to its agreement to take back 3,600 people a month. At present only a few hundred are repatriated from within the region each month.
Under increasing pressure to do something, diplomats and UN representatives will be seeking a full statement of position from the US on its plans to kickstart a repatriation process that began in 1989.
Nothing happens without money, and the cash-strapped United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will launch a funding appeal in Bangkok to carry the CPA through the next six months. A total of US$30 million to US$35 million (about HK$231 million to $269 million) will be asked for.
The appeal comes despite statements last year from significant donor countries that they would not continue to contribute. 'Of course everyone will look at what the appeal is for and how it can be employed, but we are not going to throw good money after bad,' said one government representative.
'The funding appeal has to offer prospects of doing something positive, otherwise tens of millions of dollars are not going to change the difficult position we are now in and countries will be reluctant to give any more.' Whatever happens, Hong Kong, and by default Britain, must stand by the rights of Vietnamese in the camps. If they do not, Hong Kong residents after 1997 can hardly expect the international community to worry about their treatment.
