<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

V. Flawed International Monitoring and Protection in the Central Highlands

I feel quite confident, based on what I’ve seen and heard, that the situation is such that people’s needs are being addressed and that their protection concerns are being addressed.
—Erika Feller, UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, after a visit to the Central Highlands in April 2006¹⁰³

The Vietnamese government has created the impression of greater openness by allowing UNHCR to have more access to the Central Highlands yet that access continues to be monitored and often takes place in a climate of fear. Moreover, UNHCR’s apparent strategy of trying to gain greater access by making laudatory statements about the situation in the Central Highlands undermines its fundamental mandate: to ensure the safety of those who are repatriated and obtain reliable and objective information needed for other potential returnees to make informed decisions about repatriation.

In other attempts to restrict information coming out of the Central Highlands, the Vietnamese government has punished highlanders suspected of reporting rights abuses to international organizations, and has tightly controlled visits by foreign journalists and diplomats.¹⁰⁴

UNHCR Monitoring Missions

UNHCR has conducted twelve monitoring missions to the Central Highlands since March 2005, when Central Highlanders first began to return to Vietnam under the provisions of the 2005 MoU. More than half of the visits have included international staff from UNHCR. Police and government officials, including provincial and district Peoples’ Committee chiefs, have accompanied UNHCR on all the monitoring missions, sitting in on most of the meetings with returnees. According to UNHCR, some of the visits have been heavily monitored by officials, some lightly monitored, and some not monitored at all.¹⁰⁶

UNHCR was unable to conduct private meetings with returnees until its ninth monitoring mission to the Central Highlands in February 2006. During that trip, authorities allowed UNHCR to meet privately with returnees in Dak Lak, but not in Gia Lai, where the majority of the returnees live. Diplomatic personnel from the U.S. and the European Union have also visited returnees, managing to meet privately with some of them.

Rosy Picture

During the first UNHCR monitoring trip on March 18-21, 2005, UNHCR staff member Vu Anh Son, a Vietnamese national, visited eighteen out of thirty-five returnees who had been repatriated since March. A press release issued by UNHCR described the visit:

Son said all of the returnees he met said they had stopped over in Pleiku, the provincial capital of Gia Lai, for a period of two to five days immediately after their return to Viet Nam. They said they were questioned by the local authorities about the reasons for their departure and were told about the government policies towards minorities and Montagnard returnees. They also underwent certain administrative formalities.

“No one I met amongst the returnees claimed they were beaten or harassed during their stay in Pleiku or upon their return home,” said Son, who visited the returnees in their homes. ‘They all seemed in good shape.”…

The stories of the Montagnards’ return are all quite similar, Son reported. They mentioned their stay in Pleiku, then the return to their villages and normal life where most are involved in the cultivation of crops such as peppers, manioc, cashews and rice.¹⁰⁷

During UNHCR’s second monitoring mission, conducted from June 22-24, 2005, Vu Anh Son was quoted as saying:

I have met thirty-two out of the forty returnees in these two provinces. They were glad to see me. I noticed that they had stable lives and were being treated the same as other local people. They were neither beaten nor mistreated upon returning to their native villages. Some told me they were given rice, salt and kerosene in aid by the local authorities and that they have benefited from a local poverty reduction programme such as being provided with a cow for raising. All their stories reflected a fact that the local authorities have shown consideration to all people in general and the returnees in particular. Comparing this fact with the contents of the tripartite MoU for solving issues of Tay Nguyen (Central Highlands) ethnic minority people who illegally cross the border to Cambodia, which also includes voluntary repatriation option, we noted that the Vietnamese Government has been doing [sic] its commitments, which are to welcome back the returnees and facilitate their reintegration. The local authorities in the two provinces that we visited have also been fully observing the agreement reached by the three parties. In our meetings with the returnees, they themselves told us that they had been treated fairly, and had not been subjected to any mistreatment or discrimination after their repatriation.¹⁰⁸

Unfortunately, these comments cannot be taken at face value. It was unfair of UNHCR to put a national staff member in the position of publicly commenting on the situation in his own country. Vietnam remains a one-party state that strongly represses criticism of the government. As a Vietnamese national, if the staff person had said anything negative, he would likely have been subject to some form of retaliation.

International UNHCR staff members were allowed to participate in the fourth monitoring mission, conducted from August 2-4, 2005. UNHCR released a press statement quoting UNHCR Regional Representative Hasim Utkan, the head of the monitoring mission, while he was still in the Central Highlands:

“This was a very encouraging and enlightening visit. It’s a process well worth continuing,” [Utkan] said by telephone from Pleiku in the Vietnamese central highlands.

“The overall impression of the mission was that the visited Montagnards, an ethnic minority in Viet Nam, seemed well, in good physical condition and under no particular threat or duress.”

UNHCR was accompanied by three Vietnamese officials during the interviews, some of which were conducted on a group basis. The interviewees generally appeared relaxed. Some Montagnards were interviewed in a school, others in their villages and another group at a vocational training centre where they were attending a job training course. …

 “We could visit whoever we wanted. We asked the Vietnamese authorities to see specific cases, and this was arranged without problems. We also asked to see a mixture of returnees and deportees, which was also arranged,” said Utkan.¹⁰⁹

In another interview about the same trip, Utkan lauded the local authorities:

…If I had to refer to my most vivid impression, this will be for the excellent work done by the local authorities in Chu Se [Cu Se] district. They have an impressive Chairman and are devoting a lot of attention to the returnees. They have the right approach and they know that it is important that the returnees feel welcome. I was impressed by the determination with which they have been offering jobs to the returnees. They want them to focus on the future and they definitely provide the right incentive for that. ¹¹⁰

These are astonishing statements given the long record of abuse against Central Highlanders by local officials, particularly in Cu Se district. (See box on page 20 summarizing ongoing abuses in Cu Se, including forced renunciation ceremonies, beatings, intimidation, and arrests by local authorities).

UNHCR’s Public Information office published a glowing account of Utkan’s second monitoring mission to the Central Highlands, and quoted him commenting on the refugee claims of Montagnards in Cambodia:

“From what I understand after talking to the returnees, many of these people believed that they would get more land if they were to reach UNHCR in Cambodia. This is very sad. There is something ethically wrong in starting these kind of unfounded rumors which place people at risk,” said Utkan. He said he was also told by some Montagnards that they went to Cambodia because they thought they would have a better life. “One returnee told us that when he realized that he had been misled, he immediately asked UNHCR to facilitate his return,” he added.¹¹¹

The UNHCR Representative’s characterization of Central Highland asylum seekers as having been “misled” with false promises of land in Cambodia is the same accusation made by the Vietnamese authorities in numerous press articles about Montagnard refugees and asylum seekers. There is little doubt that the Vietnamese government highly welcomes this statement. But such a statement has other repercussions. It is highly prejudicial to the refugee status determination interview process for UNHCR’s Regional Representative to publicly cast doubt on the validity of Montagnard refugee claims, by saying that asylum seekers had been misled. UNHCR officers charged with determining Montagnard refugee claims in Cambodia would likely be influenced by the highest-ranking UNHCR official in the region saying that these asylum seekers had been duped and were motivated to go to Cambodia for economic reasons.

Returnees’ Experiences and UNHCR Responses

In contrast to UNHCR’s assessments of its monitoring missions, highlanders interviewed by Human Rights Watch gave precise accounts of serious threats and intimidation prior to UNHCR monitoring missions to the Central Highlands, and stressed the fear and unease they felt about the heavy presence of government officials, police, and people known to be undercover police accompanying the delegations. Their testimony demonstrates that UNHCR’s superficial contact with them has done little to deter Vietnamese authorities from persecuting highlanders, while reducing returnees’ confidence in UNHCR’s ability to help them.

P, one of the returnees interviewed by Human Rights Watch, said that the day before the UNHCR monitoring mission was set to arrive in his village in June 2005, he was visited by the police in his home:

They went to every house in the village to make sure everybody was afraid [to speak to the U.N.]. The Vietnamese authorities were very worried that somebody would talk to the U.N. People were told beforehand only to say good things, such as “Vietnam is fine, we are allowed to follow Christianity, and there is no mistreatment.”

The day before the U.N. came to the village there were ten secret police carrying wooden and rubber sticks. They hid the sticks when the U.N. arrived and took them out again when the U.N. left. They threatened to beat anybody who said negative things to the U.N. The police guarded the road so nobody could go out.

When the U.N. came to the village, many people, including the village chief, soldiers, and police in civilian clothing surrounded the U.N. staff. I was in my house with my wife. Three policemen in civilian clothing were stationed in front of my house. The U.N. came to my house. They talked to me briefly and took pictures of me and my house. The U.N. team included two people who could speak Vietnamese.¹¹²

P, who had been tortured in police custody since his return to Vietnam, said:

The foreigners asked me why I had returned to Vietnam. I told them I missed my family. The U.N. also asked about any mistreatment but I was too afraid to answer. I told them I had not been hit or threatened. I didn’t dare tell them I’d been sent to prison; if I told, they would have beaten me. I was also asked whether I had a farm. I said that the Vietnamese took all my land. The U.N. did not really respond to that; they did not say much. They made some notes and then left. They were only a few minutes in my house.

The Vietnamese state media published the following about UNHCR’s visit to P’s village:

[The UNHCR Representative] said that this time his delegation had met four returnees…. They all told him that they had been incited by bad elements and vowed they would never illegally leave their homeland again. According to [the UNHCR Representative], the four people and their families are leading a stable life and they all have land for farming, farming machines like tractors, and expensive home amenities such as motorbikes and television sets.¹¹³

P, whose face was bruised and swollen when he first returned to his village in early June from beatings he received in police detention, is mentioned in the news report:

[The UNHCR Representative] cited the case of P… who returned to the village on June 1 this year in poor health and was immediately taken to hospital for treatment. He has now recovered and his family has also received rice aid from the local authorities during the off-season period.¹¹⁴

Afraid to Speak

Another returnee, C, described the visit to his village by UNHCR in July 2005.¹¹⁵ UNHCR officials did not enter his house; instead the village’s ten returnees from Cambodia were called to the commune office to meet the UNHCR delegation. One of the returnees who spoke some English was held in the same building, but upstairs, away from the delegation. “He was not allowed to meet UNHCR because he can understand and speak English a bit,” said C.

About twenty people, including the district chief and many plain clothed police, were present during the meeting. In addition, police in civilian clothing guarded the roads, C said, because “they were afraid somebody would talk to the foreigners.” 

UNHCR Representative Hasim Utkan, who sat in front at a desk, spoke in English but C believed the translation in Vietnamese was not correct.¹¹⁶ It was translated that the foreigner stated that they should not worry and that things were easy here in Vietnam.

The UNHCR representative asked who had been in Cambodia and the ten returnees stood up. UNHCR asked how they were doing (someone replied fine) and took some pictures. After the pictures they could sit down.

The UNHCR representative asked a lot of questions but C could not understand very well; his Vietnamese language comprehension is low.

Beforehand the police had told us not to speak, to be quiet—they would talk to the foreigners. I did not say a word. We wanted to speak. The Vietnamese would not let us speak. Those who knew English were taken away.

It was translated that the foreigners had come to the village to see the situation; they were worried that the returnees had been mistreated. “None of us spoke about problems—we were all too afraid,” said C, who had been detained and beaten at the provincial prison in Pleiku for seven days upon his return to Vietnam in March 2005.

UNHCR: No Signs of Fear

UNHCR remained convinced that all was well. After a monitoring mission from August 22-24, 2005, UNHCR issued a press release quoting Utkan while he was still in Vietnam.¹¹⁷ “It’s very reassuring to see the returnees are treated as victims, not culprits, by the local authorities,” he said. “We also noticed the positive interaction between the returnees and the local authorities,” he said, adding, “There were no signs of fear.” In an interview with the Vietnamese state media before leaving Vietnam, Utkan mentioned a “candid discussion” between returnees and authorities in Krong Pa district, which he highlighted in post-mission briefings with diplomats and nongovernmental organizations as well:

In Krong Pa, I witnessed a very open exchange between a group of three returnees and the Chairman of the People’s Committee. The returnees had already received some assistance, but they wanted more. They were clearly not afraid to ask for more, and this produced a very candid discussion. Another returnee asked the Chairman to assist him to get a new identity card, as he had apparently lost the original. He was reassured that this could be easily done. It was really interesting to watch the interaction between the returnees and the local authorities. There was no sign of tension. Returnees asked practical questions and were keen to go on with their lives.¹¹⁸

In April 2006, Erika Feller, the Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, the second highest ranking official in UNHCR and the person who negotiated the MoU, visited the Central Highlands. In a press briefing in Hanoi on April 28, Feller stated:

I feel quite confident, based on what I’ve seen and heard, that the situation is such that people’s needs are being addressed and that their protection concerns are being addressed.¹¹⁹

Feller said that the returnees she spoke with had left Vietnam mostly for economic reasons, although others could have had “broader ambitions to land ownership, practice of religion and a range of things.”¹²⁰ She said she hoped that over time, certain issues would be addressed, including “the concerns people have expressed to us about their capacity to practice their religion in the way they want to.”¹²¹

As for the MoU, Feller said, “We’ve put in place a good framework ... to enable people to reintegrate into community and society….I came away with the feeling that the situation is working well.”¹²² UNHCR issued a press statement coinciding with Feller’s mission saying that the refugee agency “has no serious concerns” about conditions for the 200 Central Highlanders who have returned to Vietnam.¹²³

Human Rights Watch extensively briefed the UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner for Protection on the findings of this report well in advance of her April 2006 mission to Vietnam, and made available to UNHCR the testimonies of returnees who had been forced during previous UNHCR missions to tell UNHCR monitors that all was well.¹²⁴

Ongoing Rationalizations

UNHCR continues to rationalize its participation in a flawed MoU that provides for forced returns of recognized refugees to their country of origin. UNHCR officials now say that “country of origin” information obtained from their monitoring missions demonstrates considerable improvement in the situation in the Central Highlands.¹²⁵ UNHCR officials have said that they do not consider the cases raised by Human Rights Watch as providing sufficient grounds for UNHCR to change its approach toward Montagnard refugees.¹²⁶ They say that they do not believe there is a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations in Vietnam, nor a consistent pattern of abuses of returnees, but rather some “problematic individual cases.”¹²⁷

Their policy will be to continue to not oppose the forced returns of those found not to be refugees, and to provide repatriation counseling to and facilitate the return of those refuges who do not want resettlement.