United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit and Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSIS UNIT AND REGIONAL BUREAU FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC Reintegration programmes for refugees in South-East Asia Lessons learned from UNHCR’s experience By Brett Ballard EPAU/2002/01 April 2002 Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit UNHCR’s Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit (EPAU) is committed to the systematic examination and assessment of UNHCR policies, programmes, projects and practices. EPAU also promotes rigorous research on issues related to the work of UNHCR and encourages an active exchange of ideas and information between humanitarian practitioners, policymakers and the research community. All of these activities are undertaken with the purpose of strengthening UNHCR’s operational effectiveness, thereby enhancing the organization’s capacity to fulfil its mandate on behalf of refugees and other displaced people. The work of the unit is guided by the principles of transparency, independence, consultation and relevance. Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Case Postale 2500 CH-1211 Geneva 2 Dépôt Switzerland Tel: (41 22) 739 8249 Fax: (41 22) 739 7344 e-mail: [email protected] internet: www.unhcr.org All EPAU evaluation reports are placed in the public domain. Electronic versions are posted on the UNHCR website and hard copies can be obtained by contacting EPAU. They may be quoted, cited and copied, provided that the source is acknowledged. The views expressed in EPAU publications are not necessarily those of UNHCR. The designations and maps used do not imply the expression of any opinion or recognition on the part of UNHCR concerning the legal status of a territory or of its authorities. Contents Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1 Conceptual framework .......................................................................................................... 5 Laos......................................................................................................................................... 13 Viet Nam................................................................................................................................ 31 Cambodia............................................................................................................................... 45 Lessons learned..................................................................................................................... 63 Introduction 1. In the late 1980s, major changes occurred in South-East Asia. First, economic reforms initiated by the governments of Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos suggested that these countries were interested in developing broader trade relationships within the region. Second, the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia and Laos helped to ease political and military tensions in the region. One important result of these events was the initiation of talks that brought warring parties in the Cambodian civil war to the negotiating table for the first time. Chatichai Choonhaven, then Prime Minister of Thailand, reflected prevailing sentiments when he talked about changing the region from a battlefield into a market place. 2. A key sticking point complicating relations between Cambodia, Laos, Viet Nam, their regional neighbours, and many Western countries, was the unresolved issue of the Indochinese refugees then residing in various camps and detention centres throughout the region. The earlier approach, in which several Western countries agreed to take refugees in exchange for guarantees of safe haven in regional countries of first asylum, seemed to encourage additional migration. Moreover, many of the resettlement countries were becoming increasingly cautious about taking more refugees, thus leaving regional countries with large numbers of displaced people residing within their borders. By the late 1980s, it was clear to all parties concerned that a new approach was needed. 3. As a result, the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) was formulated and adopted by the International Conference on Indo-Chinese Refugees in Geneva in June 1989. The CPA was adopted by countries of origin (Laos and Viet Nam), regional countries of first asylum, and third countries of resettlement. Article 12 of the CPA stated that "persons determined not to be refugees should return to their country of origin in accordance with international practices reflecting the responsibilities of states towards their own citizens. In the first instance, every effort will be made to encourage the voluntary return of such persons." 4. In short, the CPA changed the rules of the game. Displaced persons were to be interviewed by UNHCR to determine their status as refugees. Those people who were “screened in” on the basis of a well-founded fear of political persecution were thereupon eligible for third country resettlement. Those 'screened out' (primarily because they were considered economic migrants) were to voluntarily repatriate – with UNHCR assistance - to their respective counties of origin. The screening process and eventual resettlement or repatriation was to be completed within a specified time frame according to a series of supplemental sub-agreements. For example, the Tripartite Agreement between Laos, Thailand, and UNHCR governed the Laotian repatriation process. Agreements between Viet Nam, various regional countries of first asylum, and UNHCR governed the Vietnamese repatriation process. 5. In Cambodia, meanwhile, the so-called JIM talks eventually paved the way for the Paris Peace Agreement in 1991. This agreement was signed by several Western and regional governments, and the four predominant political parties involved in the conflict. The Paris Peace Agreement stipulated - inter alia - that the United Nations would 1 REINTEGRATION IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA organize and implement the voluntary repatriation of Cambodians then residing in the seven border camps in Thailand and from other countries of the region. The agreement also established the UN Transition Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC). Under UNTAC, UNHCR was designated as the lead agency to oversee and coordinate the repatriation and reintegration process. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Thailand, Cambodia, and UNHCR, signed in November 1992, governed the repatriation operation. Both the Paris Peace Agreement and the tri-partite MOU called for the voluntary return of all Cambodians in safety and dignity in time for them to participate in the national elections scheduled for May 1993. 6. The CPA and the Paris Peace Agreements, therefore, established the international, regional, and bilateral frameworks that reoriented regional migratory trends toward eventual repatriation to countries of origin. Over the next decade, the emphasis was on repatriating displaced people from camps throughout the region back to their countries of origin. The story is one of tremendous complexity and, generally speaking, remarkable success. In all, some 29,000 people repatriated safely to Laos, over 110,000 to Viet Nam, and over 360,000 to Cambodia in the 1992-93 operation. There was also a second operation in Cambodia in 1997-99 involving approximately 46,000 people who had fled to Thailand as a result of conflicts among various Khmer Rouge factions and different parties in the Cambodian government. Following repatriation, the focus of UNHCR’s work in all three countries was on promoting sustainable reintegration outcomes through protection monitoring and support for integrative services. 7. Today, the repatriation and reintegration process has either been completed (as in Viet Nam) or is nearing completion (in Laos and the second Cambodian operation). A recent inspection report (INS/99/12) recommended that a lessons-learned exercise should be conducted to analyze and document UNHCR’s repatriation and reintegration experience in each of three countries. The overall objective of the exercise is to enable UNHCR and its partners to design and implement future repatriation and reintegration operations that are more efficient, effective, and sustainable. The terms of reference for this project call for the identification and comparative analysis of (a) factors that promote sustainable reintegration and (b) cross-cutting themes emerging from the work in each country. The documents that report on these observations were designed to stimulate discussion at a workshop convened to identify lesson learned from the three countries. 8. To carry out this assignment, I visited each of the three countries for approximately one month. In Laos, I visited six of the 29 large group settlements. Even though somewhat less that half the repatriation cases involved large group settlement, such an approach seemed warranted as these areas received the bulk of attention in financial expenditures and staff time. In Viet Nam, I visited four areas of returnee concentration (Quang Ninh, Hai Phong, Hue, and Ho Chi Minh City). These cases involved either individuals or families that repatriated to both urban and rural areas. In Cambodia, I visited two former Khmer Rouge areas involved in the second repatriation operation (Samlot and Anlong Veng). In each country, I interviewed government officials at all administrative levels, various NGO partners, collaborating organizations (including sister UN agencies), and UNHCR international and local staff. I also reviewed UNHCR documents and reports from various collaborating